Which 3.5 class do you think is the weakest?

[S'mon]

I voted Rogue - because they have the biggest imbalance between their expected role (front line scout) and their survivability.

Monks are very good at not dying; they may not add much to a party but IME are often 'last man standing'.

Bards are weak, but their role is much less dangerous than the Rogue's.

I run a mostly-human & humanoid game, certainly most foes are sneak-attackable. The party Rogue is a handy Spot/Search/Listen machine, but very very weak in combat; certainly overshadowed by the Fighters, Cleric, Druid, Wizard et al. It's ok for a non-warrior class to be overshadowed by the melee classes (Fighter Paladin Barbarian), but I'd think they ought to be comparable to the non-meleer spellcasters like Clerics.

 

[caclo]

I don't think that the monk is the weakest

Which 3.5 class do you think is the weakest? Also, how would YOU revise it to balance it?

I don't think that the monk is the weakest because I tried to improve a first level monk and I think that if you take the right feat you can have the best fighter of the team.
First try to have 18 in Dexterity and Wisdom then if you are human you can take the sacred vow and vow of poverty feats (described in Book of exalted deads of course you must to be Good). Then you have a AC of 22 one bonus exalted feat and at second level you can take a feat that permit you to use your Wisdom bonus instead of your Strenght bonus on attack roll. I think it can be POWERFULL so NO THE MONK IS NOT THE WEAKEST CHARACTHER OF THE 3.5...

Excuse me for my poor English but I am Frensh...
Caclo

 

[Darklone]

Souljourner& Thanee: I agree with SJ and disagree with Thanee about combat bards. A single level with a fighter class (especially barbarian), good strength and con and the bard shines. Friend of mine currently even plays a bard with con 10... and picked one barbarian level. Strength 18 and a reach weapon keeps him on par for melee with the paladin and the fighter.

 

[drothgery]

I voted Sorcerer, mostly because they're just not as good as an Evoker or a Kineticist at the role they're supposed to be designed for (the guy with a ton of blast spells).

 

[derelictjay]

So many of you said the bard is weak, have you ever played them? Yeah in combat they kinda suck, but nobodies a better buff master than the bard, with his spells and bardic music, he often takes a vital spot in many parties. If I absolutly had to say a class was weak, it would be the paladin. Can they really do anything other than smite evil and get themselves killed, they really belong as a Prestige class but I let players use them as a class. Anyways, I say for the most part they're all balanced and that's what I voted.

 

[Thanee]

A single level with a fighter class (especially barbarian), good strength and con and the bard shines. Friend of mine currently even plays a bard with con 10... and picked one barbarian level. Strength 18 and a reach weapon keeps him on par for melee with the paladin and the fighter.

That's a barbarian, not a bard.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

I voted Rogue - because they have the biggest imbalance between their expected role (front line scout) and their survivability.

Yeah, the rogue seems to be among the weaker classes, too.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Buzzardo]

I find the ranger and bard to be weak.

I find the Druid, to be, hands down, the most powerful class. Fantastic selection of defensive and offensive spells allowing near parity with wizards and sorcerers. Other spells make them very versatile.

The wild shape ability is amazingly versatile, when combined with the natural spell feat.

Add to that the druid's animal companion (beefed up with the animal growth spell when needed) and the array of summon nature's ally spells make the druid totally formidable in one-on-one gladitorial combat against any other class.

Anyone who thinks the druid is truly weak, needs to do some more playing of the druid class.

JMHO.

 

[Mista Collins]

I love the druid class. I have yet to actually play a druid, but it is next in line as an option. I mean seriously, the druid (at certain levels) can be anything it wants. And once you reach 17th level and can cast Shapechange, you can't be stopped.

Most everyone is basing their opinions on combat abilities. Of course the fighter is going to out shine the bard in combat. Of course the fighter will out shine the rogue in combat. The fighter is just that.. a fighter.

What about non combat situations? I don't see a fighter disarming traps. I don't see a barbarian using diplomacy.

 

[Kalendraf]

I voted Rogue - because they have the biggest imbalance between their expected role (front line scout) and their survivability.

I run a mostly-human & humanoid game, certainly most foes are sneak-attackable. The party Rogue is a handy Spot/Search/Listen machine, but very very weak in combat; certainly overshadowed by the Fighters, Cleric, Druid, Wizard et al. It's ok for a non-warrior class to be overshadowed by the melee classes (Fighter Paladin Barbarian), but I'd think they ought to be comparable to the non-meleer spellcasters like Clerics.

S'mon, that's been exactly my experience with them as well. Both campaigns feature quite a few sneak-attackable foes, as well as opportunities to shine outside of combat, yet the rogue's presumed "duty" of scouting and even infrequent frontline melee action tends to lead to a very short career.

Monks are very good at not dying; they may not add much to a party but IME are often 'last man standing'.

Deja Vu! I've seen that many times. I've seen the monk almost singlehandedly win many fights that may have otherwise been TPKs. Multiple times I've seen the other melee types and rogue all taken out via failed will saves, and the spellcasters were taken down with damage, and it was the monk who managed to survive and lead the party to victory.

Bards are weak, but their role is much less dangerous than the Rogue's.

Exactly! So many people rip on the bard, but I suggest they aren't playing them correctly. IMHO, bards shouldn't be wading into melee. To make optimal use of their class abilities, they should be standing back singing, spellcasting and/or using ranged weapons. Played that way, the bard should almost never take a scratch. Rogues on the other hand are forced to get up close to use their class ability of sneak attack. If they don't do this, they don't pull their weight in combat in terms of damage dealing.


How to fix? For starters, I think they have the hit dice mixed up between clerics and rogues. Clerics (often inactive, studious types) should only get d6's while rogues (street-tough) should get d8's. All the other classes (including druids and bards) seem about right, though I could see an argument for making sorcerers into d6's as well.