Which 3.5 class do you think is the weakest?

[Fiendish Dire Weasel]

I voted Sorcerer, I think they need to be more robust somehow. Just needs a little more too the class skill points, skill list, saves, hit die, somthing.

Rogue and Paladin would vie for a close second in my opinion. Rogues need a little boost in my opinion, I would say either more skill points (I don't think their 8 is enough to cover what they often need to cover in a ground) or maybe a d8 HD to give them a little more loiter time in melee. Paladins I think are weak because what they get doesn't compensate for the "MAD" (need for many good stats) or the restrictions they have. I'm just not convinced they are worth the penalties they have.

Keep in mind though, I don't think there is any crippled class, all are very playable, just some are inherently stronger than others. Some you have to work at more to get them going.

 

[wizardneedsfood]

I voted bard. And I like bards. They are really just jack of all trades, master of none type characters. Not that I would say they are 'weak' per se, just weaker than the other classes all things being equal.

About the Cleric, Cleric's are a very strong class. Solid BAB, good hit points, should have good AC, and they get some powerful buffs and offensive spells.

 

[The Souljourner]

I think people play bards incorrectly. They put really high stats in charisma and intelligence and neglect the combat stats, then whine when they suck in combat. Yes, bards are another multistat class, perhaps worse than any other, because of all their stats, only wisdom isn't inherently useful (not counting will saves).

Give a bard decent strength, half decent dex and con, and good charisma, and he'll be rockin'. Bards are just as good at combat as clerics, the most overpowered class. Sure, they can't wear full plate, but they can wear a chain shirt, cast cat's grace, and alter self (+6 natural armor? Yes please!). Inspire courage at lower levels is nice but not game breaking, but once it hits +2 at 8th, it's a real powerhouse. Add in inspire greatness, and someone's getting +4 to hit and +2 to damage, plus 2d10+2*con hitpoints. Hello! Don't forget haste!

Bards can fight if you build them like a melee cleric.

And don't forget, bards get good reflex saves! You talk about survivability, well, the bard only has one less hitpoint per level than the cleric, but has a way better reflex save... who's going to survive more fireballs?

I almost chose rogue, because they're really one trick ponies.... they have their sneak attack, and umm.... yeah. That's about it. Sure they have a lot of skillpoints, but they're also expected by the rest of the party to have several skills maxed out, if not more (search, disable device, hide, move silently, open locks).... They're a swiss army knife that can jab you in the kidneys, and that's about. Really sucks when the guy has no kidneys.

I chose sorcerers... I thought it was funny someone said they're good because they're versatile. They're the most unversatile of classes. Here's my spell. It's what I cast. When I'm out of that spell, I cast this slightly less good spell. Talk about lack of versatility. Sheesh. A Specialist wizard will know way more spells, and has almost as many spells per day, plus gets bonus feats. Going into the volcano of doom? Wizard stocks up on cold spells. Going into the antarctic? Wizard stocks up on fire spells. The sorcerer.... well, he just has to hope the DM is kind.

-The Souljourner

 

[Pants]

It's hard to directly contrast classes with divergant focuses. But there is a pair of classes in which one clearly comes out the loser.

And that loser is sorcerer.

I don't think it's as clear as you think. I play a pretty effective Sorcerer in one game, infact, I'd say that I've dominated play quite a bit and I am not a very good min/maxer. With the right application of feats, spells, and skills nearly any class can become truly effective and that's just as true for the Sorcerer.

For the weakest class... I've seen all of the classes be potentially weak as a lot of the weakness is in the way that the class is played. I've watched as a 3.0 Monk died 3 times in the course of a campaign. I watched as the same player tried to play his Bard as a front-line meleer and promptly get squashed. I watched as that same player got his Druid killed 3 times during the course of a campaign. That same character also got his Rogue killed... twice I think.
Another player that I DM plays a wizard. His wizard is very, very good at blowing up stuff, but he absolutely sucks when it comes to anything else. He should be dominating the game, but he doesn't thankfully. The only reason he hasn't bit the dust yet is because he's a big coward.

I've also seen instances where the Monk, Bard, Fighter, and the Sorcerer have truly shined. It's all in the way they are played

But, if I had to narrow it down to one or two classes, I'd have to say that the Monk and the Bard are slightly weaker than the others.

 

[Woas]

I voted Paladin and Fighter.

The reason I picked the Paladin is because they seem to always be a day late and a dolar short. "Pokemount"? Thats pretty cool, but once the party wizard is casting teleport, or the DM is telling the party "After 2 days of travel and some ruffing up of orcs on the way, you arrive at your destination" and the adventure locales are located everywhere except a jousting field, then the mount doesn't help much. The spell casting isn't that special and ends up being a wasted class ability cause its neglected all together with like a 12 in wisdom, or it ends up pulling your other stats down cause more emphisis is placed on it. Skills are a joke for the Paladin cause Intellegence is the dump stat (usually) so your barely getting any of those (2 per level) ...Smite evil is cool. Except when you are fighting neutral things that seem evil.

Fighters aren't really that bad. Those extra feats are pretty darn niffty and there have been several times where I'll admit I have been a wee-bit jelous of all those feats on the character sheet there. Every class has some unique thing about it. Something that gives it a little twist, even a small one. Sorceres cast spontaneously, bards have music, clerics turn, druids wildshape, monks... do 20 different things at once... fighters just have feats. Everyone gets feats. I dunno, it just seems like it would be cool if fighters had like tricks (like rogue special abilities or what not) that they could eventually recieve.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It really, really depends on the campaign. In some games bards are the weakest, never getting to use their social skills. In a game that I ran where magic was illegal sorcerer came off the worst. If there is a lot of socializing then fighters and rangers may come off worst.

I have generally found bards to be the best 5th character in the game, not one of the first 4, but able to help the others shine. Rangers are another good fift, great as a second rank fighter, along with the cleric.

I have never had a well played monk in the game, and suspect that it may have been the player, not the class, who was weak. Ditto for druid.

The Auld Grump

 

[Ancalagon]

monk, rangers and bards all make great "fifth characters". So do druids.

Personaly, I think that, while some classes may be weaker than others, that the difference isn't very great. I don't think there is a nead to balance them in 3.5... the cleric got knocked back a notch (due to changes in spells) and both the ranger and bard got a boost, and I'm satisfied

Ancalagon

 

[Goblyn]

Bard, Monk, Druid ... in that order.

I'm not saying that these classes suck, but what pushes them to the bottom of my wish list is that they, in particular, become a detriment to any party smaller than 5.
This is because DnD 3.x assumes certain capabilities of parties ... a druid cannot fill the shoes of an absent cleric; the monk can't fill the shoes of a fighter or a rogue; the bard can't fill the shoes of, well, anyone. One may tout the Bard's usefulness in social situations, but this is in no way far and above any other class's abilities to socially shine.
That being said however, in larger parties, I see that these three classes actually become more useful than simply another fighter/rogue/cleric/mage because of their support capabilities.
What I say of the druid should be taken with a grain of salt; I've little experience in playing them. Possibly the weakness of them, in my eyes, is the lack of interest they foster.

 

[Ogre Mage]

I am very shocked that anyone chose cleric and druid. My 9th level cleric with quicken spell can be at +20 to hit if she has the right buff spells in play. And she has power attack too.

As for the druid, natural spell singlehandedly turned the class into an uber powerhouse. What, with the parade of spontaneously summoned creatures laying the smackdown/running interference and a polar bear casting flame strike on you followed by a 27 STR bear claw to the face.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

I'll go with sorcerer, though with some notes.

I play a monk, and have played this character for some time. At one point, he was having incredible trouble reaching 4th level -- he died 3 times with just enough XP to reach 4th, but was raised back to the midpoint of 3rd level. However, once the character reached 4th level for good and we converted to 3.5e, things have been fine. However, I can see everyone's point. The 3.5e conversion let me drop the useless Stunning Miss (we never, ever saw enemy arcane spellcasters and my monk's Stunning Fist never, ever worked) for Improved Grapple, which gave some more versatility. Plus, after awhile, his movement was just ungodly ... never underestimate what that does.

Bards ... you know, I can see this choice too. The bard's ability to buff everyone else is limited by his buffs being, well, kinda lame. Still, he has a ton of options.

Sorcerers have never given me a reason to ever want to play a single-classed one. The loss of versatility versus the wizard is a big loss. Biggest loss? Scribe Scroll. It's useless for a sorcerer, but it enhances the wizard greatly, letting him have access to seldom-used spells in a fight.

However, sorcerers make great NPC spellcasters, guys who just show up and fling fireball a few times before dying. Basically they weaken the PCs enough for the melee combatants to take them out. And they work pretty good in multiclass combos -- if you need but a level or two of spellcaster, sorcerer is your best bet, since you probably only need a couple of spells anyways.