Which 3.5 class do you think is the weakest?

[dontpunkme]

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

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

I'm sure Psi Warrior would get some votes if that was an option too...

I voted Sorceror, but have NO campaign experience from either side of the screen with Bards...

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I chose Monk, because the only thing I've ever seen a Monk do well in any game is die. I really don't know how I'd fix it. I think it has more to do with the people I've seen play Monks than the Monk class, but that'd be my vote so far. They have mediocre defenses, mediocre HP, and sub par damage. Ok skill set, but most monks have crap for Int because they need 4 other stats just to be viable. Lots of cool special abilities, the bulk of which do very little to keep you alive.

To the people who voted the sorcerer as the weakest: you guys are just not playing D&D enough. Either that or you play with people that choose spells like "Hold Portal" and "Magic Mouth" for their first spells at each level.

I see the bard has the most votes. Versatility is power in D&D, it's a shame that more people don't see it. I'd also gather that's why the sorcerer ranks up as well.

 

[liquid]

I think the cleric gets this one hands down. All they are able to do is turn/rebuke undead. Yes, they can wear any armor and cast spells without any spell failure, but, they don't get any other special feats like the rogue or monk. They only get character level feats. That is one reason why I don't get alot of people playing clerics in my campaigns. I am going to change that in my campaign. Every four levels, the character gets another class feat.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I think the cleric gets this one hands down. All they are able to do is turn/rebuke undead. Yes, they can wear any armor and cast spells without any spell failure, but, they don't get any other special feats like the rogue or monk. They only get character level feats. That is one reason why I don't get alot of people playing clerics in my campaigns. I am going to change that in my campaign. Every four levels, the character gets another class feat.

In my experience, the Cleric is one of the most powerful classes in the game, if not THE most. I have seen some pretty massive carnage layed down by mid to high level clerics. I find the Monk to be the weakest, Ive had three players play one under me, and they never last long compared to some of the other classes. This could be as much because the players are trying to play them like front liners (this isnt true in every case) as inherant weakness.

 

[The Madhatter]

I think the cleric gets this one hands down. All they are able to do is turn/rebuke undead. Yes, they can wear any armor and cast spells without any spell failure, but, they don't get any other special feats like the rogue or monk. They only get character level feats. That is one reason why I don't get alot of people playing clerics in my campaigns. I am going to change that in my campaign. Every four levels, the character gets another class feat.

A lot of people would argue that the cleric is the most powerful base class. IMC we have two clerics and they can dish it as well as take. They have blanket access to all cleric spells and can pick two domains, potentially giving them wizard spells.
I voted for the bard because I despise them! I'm not the only one either!

 

[liquid]

In my experience, the Cleric is one of the most powerful classes in the game, if not THE most. I have seen some pretty massive carnage layed down by mid to high level clerics. I find the Monk to be the weakest, Ive had three players play one under me, and they never last long compared to some of the other classes. This could be as much because the players are trying to play them like front liners (this isnt true in every case) as inherant weakness.

Why is that honestly? Clerics are always just behind the fray/frey waiting to heal people. Most of the players get bored.

 

[jerichothebard]

I voted none. The fact of it is, no one class is good at everything. If you were playing in a heavily intrigue-style game, barbarian wouldn't do you much good...

I almost hit bard, but then I thought about what happens when you play a game set in the court of a king, and need someone to schmooze with the nobility...

 

[starkad]

Why is that honestly? Clerics are always just behind the fray/frey waiting to heal people. Most of the players get bored.

IMC, I have yet to see a cleric that does this in 3.0/3.5e. In 2e and 1e this was rampant, but no more. Spells like divine power make them a powerhouse up front, and the ability to spontaneously cast healing spells makes them a viable buffing class with some nukes.

Last campaign I had, the fighter whined constantly that the cleric was outdoing him in melee... So he took levels of cleric, and they became one badass duo. I loved watching the competition, because it really proved what a good battle cleric can do.

I think it might be the mindset of your players honestly. Throw a battle cleric at them sometime, and watch them wince.

 

[Kelleris]

I see you've never had a player really exploit the cleric, then. The cleric player in my game has a strict policy that nobody above one-quarter hp gets any healing from her...

Yeah, she's real popular.

Anyway, a cleric that doesn't restrict themselves to healing can be quite the powerhouse. Heavy armor plus some of the best buffs in the game (righteous might, divine power, divine favor) at a wizard's spell progression make for one mean melee guy at middle to high levels. And the elven cleric archer build is still one of the most munchy in the game.

A personal favorite is an NPC cleric using the death and destruction domains with the inflict wounds spells. Add in Improved Unarmed Strike (or better yet, a monk level, if it fits the character), Power Attack, and Extra Smiting and it gets unpleasant. Only a few hits like that a day, but they're pretty nasty, especially since they increased the bonus smites from Extra Smiting to two.

So, yeah. Clerics are powerful.