Which 3.5 class do you think is the weakest?

[Kabol]

I choose Bard. Man, bards have SOO much potential, But:
Their solngs are very very weak till higher level. They have Low Hps, only light armor, very cool spells, but SLOW progression and very few per day. Moderate Bab.

If they had more songs, maybe a differant song for every lvl or 2, some to boost will, or fort, some to make you stronger or faster. If they could use thier songs more effectivly, then they would be Aswome!. It just seems to me they where forgotten halfway through creation.

 

[Kalendraf]

I voted rogue. Why? Of all the classes in the campaigns I DM, that's the one class that has had the most deaths, injuries, and other various catastrophes occur.

A) Theoretically, the rogue's sneak attack damage should kick butt. However, unless they surprise their foe, trying to flank an opponent can lead to dangerous melee situations where the rogue's wimp d6 hit points and light armor just don't hold up very well.

B) Sneak attack is worthless against many fairly common enemies such as undead. Constructs and Elementals are also immune, but likely to be faced less often in a typical campaign

C) Weak fortitude and will saves make them susceptible to some of the worst types of spells or effects. Typically, those are all-or-nothing kinds of saves where you either save or die. Reflex saves can also function that way with enough damage, but the rogues typically high dex + improved evasion usually means they don't take much damage that way.

D) Their skills force them into dangerous situations. The rogue is one of the few classes that make good scouts, and the often the only option for disarming dangerous traps. Hence, they are usually nominated to go into dangerous areas and all it takes is one missed skill check to bring a gruesome death.

In some campaigns, I'm sure the rogue can be highly successful. The campaigns I run tend to be fairly normal, IMHO, and the rogues have had trouble due to the reasons listed above. A cautious rogue can survive, hanging back and using arrows, but that typically makes them less effective in dealing damage compared to other classes. Eventually, the rogue is going to have to wade into melee, probably getting crunched if he doesn't drop his target in 1-round. A rogue could also refuse to scout ahead or to disarm traps, but then the party is likely to ask themselves why they even bothered to bring him/her along.

 

[Capellan]

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

Well, there's your problem: 2nd Edition mindset.

Push your clerics into the front line, have them make more use of non-healing spells (buy a wand of cure light wounds), and see what they can really do.

In every 3E group I've been in, the clerics have been amongst the strongest characters. Good HP, armour, weapons and attack bonus, plus excellent buffing capability and protective spells = a heavy hitter.

For instance, with two rounds to buff, my 12th level cleric becomes a killing machine: +23/+18/+13 full attack, for 1d10+19 points of damage per hit (and that's before I two-handed power attack).

Even at 3rd, you get Shield of Faith, Bull's Strength, Protection from Evil ... these are all key buffs and wards that ought to be getting used in any important fight.

 

[Urbanmech]

Had to vote for the monk. Looks great on paper but it is a tricky class to make effective. You need really high stats to be really great as a damage dealer or a lot of magical support. A lot of the abilities are great for keeping the monk alive, but that doesn't really help the rest of your party out of the jam.

 

[Setanta]

I voted monk. I just don't see what they contribute to a typical group, unless the group is fighting a bunch of mooks and a spellcaster (with the monk taking the spellcaster).

I want to hear from the people who voted rogue, out of curiosity. I think the rogue is quite strong, unless the campaign is fighting a bunch of undead and/or constructs, but that would be more an issue with the campaign than the class.

 

[heimdall]

I love bards, but I feel they are the weakest class mainly because surviving lower levels can be a great challenge. Granted, once they start picking up levels they can end up being awesome support characters for the front-line fighters (inspire greatness, inspire heroics) and they can rule the social scene. But the lower levels...

 

[Mark]

I agree with heimdall.

Not that he is suggesting it, but I would make any adjustments to the class. I really don't see any problem with some fluctuation in the balance of the rules for a group as it rises through the levels and feel that a lot of the adjustments that DMs should make are related to particular campaigns and settings.

 

[atra2]

Paladin is the weakest

If you think rogues are weak, consider that depending on the campaign,
mounted combat might not be around much, so the bonded mount is either
very powerful (ride-by attack, spirited charge) or you never get to make
a charge.

Paladins are versatile, like rangers, but still only get 2 skill points a level.

Now, if you're fighting foes vulnerable to Smites, things start looking
better, but:

Consider being barbarian2/fighter8 w/ extra rage feat, so you can rage
3 battles a day.

Paladins are very attractive from an RP standpoint, but they have no
ability choices, just like 3e monks.

At minimum, a paladin is another plate armor guy w/ power attack, but has
too many stat demands compared to the fighter or bbn/fighter.

He does fill that plate armor w/ lots of HP role well though, and I have seen
one person build a paladin w/ 8 wisdom, cranking strength and doing
everything he could to be a melee monster.

Bards may not be powerful, but their versatility, like a ranger's, puts the
paladin to shame.

Paladin could easily have 4 skill points/level and not be overpowered.

I feel the guy who said rogues, but you have to think of them as versatile
first, and strongly consider the spring attack feat chain so that as a rogue,
you do not have to sit there and take the monster's full attack routine if it's
too dangerous.

The 11 classes can be divided into Power and Versatility camps:

Power
------
Fighter
Barbarian
Wizard
Cleric
Druid
Sorceror

Versatility
---------
Bard
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue

Fighter feats work vs. everything. Barbarian Rage works vs. everything.
Paladin smite doesn't work vs. non-evil (animals, aberrations, oozes, etc).
Ranger favored enemy doesn't work vs. others.

Wiz, Clr, Drd, Sorc can all lay down the smack or change an entire battle
from total party death to victory with one spell. Bard can sometimes do that,
but not reliably.

Monk and Rogue require thought, because they are the most versatile and
least powerful, especially at high level. They look nice at low level getting
2 flurries a round or an extra 1d6 on their weapon damage, nearly doubling
their output, but eventually the greatsword power attacking tanks outdo
them, and the spellcasters outdo even the tanks pretty often.

High-strength monks make expert grapplers and can rule all medium-sized
foes, even some large ones especially w/ an enlarge person buff.

Any monk with max tumble can tumble at full speed, through opponents, to
reach the wizard at the back and put him into a grapple he cannot escape.
He needs the party to keep the enemy off his back, but now the enemy
wizard is neutralized.

Using a "wimpy versatile character" like the monk to take out the enemy's
best spellcaster is HUGE. Of course, not all enemies have a caster in the
party...

The rogue is an excellent scout and tumble-attacker. The rogue's best
chances come when they win init and sneak attack a flat-footed foe, using
their bow (within 30') or when they let the fighters wade in first, and
then maneuver to flank the nearest wounded foe. (or, with enough movement,
spring attack into a sneak attack position, whack the foe and return back
where they started. a single level of barbarian for an otherwise pure rogue
is +10' movement and a rage... max UMD is eventually other ways to get
fast movement too. If the party wizard just hasted you, you have move 60,
and should be able to spring & sneak attack even huge creatures)

Rogue the weakest? Well, in set-piece battles, possibly. I've played in a
living greyhawk adventure that was all constructs, another was all undead,
etc. On the other hand, I've played in adventures with all monstrous
humanoids, and just cleaned their clocks. My rogue 6/fighter1, using
dwarven waraxe and buckler, got in a hastened full attack (two attacks total
at my best BAB) for two rounds vs. a stone giant. missed both times the
first round, hit twice the 2nd round, for 24 and 17 damage. We rogues love
that Haste spell...

every character build has their weaknesses, it's just that some (like rogue)
come up too often when the adventure authors get too enamored of
undead, constructs, etc.

 

[atra2]

Oh, and I almost forgot:

I just love it when DMs say "my homebrew world is special because mostly
only humans are around, and there are many unique NPCs to talk with
or fight or whatever."

You just told the Rogue "you can sneak attack in EVERY BATTLE. There is
no limit to your killing power."

You just told the Ranger "favored enemy: human is tops on your list,
followed right after with "animals" or the 2nd most popular intelligent
race around."

Every Rogue is waiting to hear from the DM "I run my entire campaign in
this city." which really means "every foe is sneak attackable except for
the rare times an evil cleric makes a few paltry undead, or the DM just
watched Dracula last night and wrote another vampire adventure."

Every Paladin is waiting to hear "this is a black-and-white morality world and
all your foes will be inherently evil, even their guard dogs."

Welcome to 3.5 and the niche classes that beg you to make your world
unique, "without all those stupid demi-humans and monsters."

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I have to vote rogue. I think I have to name rogues "Kenny" IMCs for some of the previously stated reasons.

I've never seen a rogue get killed by a trap, but I've seen multiple rogues get killed while scouting.