Which 3.5 class do you think is the weakest?

[Sanackranib]

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

Bye
Thanee

In my expierence the rogue is often played by me and very often the last man standing. the rogue if properly flushed out and played is one of the stronger classes.
but I guess the real question should be:
"for a weaker or less expierenced player what class are they least likely to survive any length of time at?"

what it says on the sheet is by and large secondary to the skill and expierence of the player behind it. I have seen players with very strong (for the group) characters get killed because they were stuipd and highly skilled players playing an adverage or weaker (for the group) character do exceptionally well. in the end your style of play answers the question of what is strong and what is weak and the skilled player adapts to whatever the situation requires.

 

[Sejs]

Which of the following tools do you think is the least useful:

1. Hammer
2. Screwdriver
3. Wrench
4. Pliers
5. Saw
6. Chisel

Chisel.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Glitterdust has a Will save, not a Fort save.

 

[Slife]

Commoner, closely followed by aristocrat.

PC class... Maybe rogue. Depends entirely on the GM

 

[tarchon]

The reason why I gave the vote to the Bard is that in every game I've run and/or played the Bard gets stomped in the combat scenes. Either they run and sing a song or they stand and get clobbered. So in a question of 'who's the weakest' the bards end up being my vote.

I played a 3.0 bard from 2nd to 9th, with 1 lev of barbarian, and I never had too much trouble with combat. I do heartily commend everyone for picking the bard as the weakest 3.5 class though - I figure when 4.0 comes out they'll juice us up still more. And then we'll take over! Wahaha!

 

[jeffh]

I'm surprised the Sorc is getting so many votes. Sorry, but absolutely nothing compares to having 9th level spells. The classes that get them - Wizard, Sorc, Cleric and Druid - are all so far ahead of everyone else by high levels that it's nothing short of laughable to call any one of them the weakest class. Sorcerers may not do well in direct comparison to Wizards (though I'm not really convinced that's true, and at least one member of my gaming group is convinced of the exact opposite), but that doesn't make them worse than all the other classes - they still hold their own at low levels and they are still easily in the top four at high levels.

I chose Bard, just because there's no one thing it does really well, but really all eleven core classes are quite playable. Spellcasters may dominate at high levels but they still don't do well without other classes to work with.

Really, the game is designed to force teamwork. No-one can do everything, though some clerics can come close at upper levels.

 

[Arkhandus]

Fighter. As mentioned, nothing can compare to having 9th-level spells. A fighter at middle and high levels generally can't keep up with the offensive and defensive abilities of a cleric, druid, sorcerer, or wizard, and even a rogue can out-damage a fighter at high levels with a good Bluff skill to feint in combat and plenty of sneak attacks. Only at lower levels, or when ambushed at a terrible time, does the fighter even make a decent meat-shield or tank. They don't have the skill points or class abilities to be much use outside of battle, so fighters pretty well get the shaft. I like fighters, but they just get the shaft at upper levels. Fighters deserve to be scary at high levels, darnit, like Sephiroth or Conan.

 

[atra2]

Fighter. As mentioned, nothing can compare to having 9th-level spells. A fighter at middle and high levels generally can't keep up with the offensive and defensive abilities of a cleric, druid, sorcerer, or wizard, and even a rogue can out-damage a fighter at high levels with a good Bluff skill to feint in combat and plenty of sneak attacks. Only at lower levels, or when ambushed at a terrible time, does the fighter even make a decent meat-shield or tank. They don't have the skill points or class abilities to be much use outside of battle, so fighters pretty well get the shaft. I like fighters, but they just get the shaft at upper levels. Fighters deserve to be scary at high levels, darnit, like Sephiroth or Conan.

Arkhandus, the fighter improves greatly if his path is:

1: Barbarian
2: Barbarian
3+: Fighter



Seriously, losing a single feat (the one you'd get for 20th level) gains you
extra movement (if you are not a heavy armor guy, and even then,
mithral full plate gives it back to you), rage 1/day (and you can take the
extra rage feat if your group uses Complete Warrior), more HP and skill
points. and that's just a bbn1/ftr19 build. make it bbn2/fighter 18, and
you gain uncanny dodge, so invisible foes can't sneak attack you.

And Human, Half-Elf, Half-Orc and Dwarf can do that build without an XP penalty.

You'll survive just fine even with fewer feats the first couple of levels. Take Power
Attack at 1st level, wield any 2h weapon (greatsword is nice and you will rule
low-level, then can start adding bonus feats to get the useful feat chains.

That's your basic tank.

Keep in mind a 1st level human fighter can have:

pb shot (1st level char), precise shot (bonus feat), rapid shot (fighter feat)

or

mounted combat (1st level char), ride-by attack (bonus feat) and spirited charge
(fighter feat)

So starting as fighter does have some advantages, but if you are the greatsword
fighter, power attack is plenty good enough as a 1st level barbarian, add cleave or
somesuch if human.

 

[Sejs]

(to atra2)
Personally for the adventuring type fighter, as opposed to a character with a set concept like a soldier or what have you, I prefer to do Bard(1)/Barbarian(1) for the two level away dip. Barbarian gives you the fast movement and the ace-in-the-hole rage, Bard gives you a boost to your ref and will saves, a nice skill point bump, and the ability to use healing wands and the like.

Basically it's a nice way to give you the "Yeah, I'm a warrior, but I've picked up a little bit of some other useful skills along the way to help me out" style Fighter.

^_^

 

[Taneel BrightBlade]

ranger. at first I was going to go cleric because of the 'Whaaaa All I get for growing a level is another spell per day' aspect but then I remembered that last time I saw a cleric his undead army was on a rapage in a duegar outpost so I thought that druid might be but the abilite to turn into anamal is to cool, the I thought of ranger. Ranger(level11) could just be a fighter4/druid7 the increase in feats would cancel weapon style by fourth level with fighter plus you turn into a bear with only small to hit decreases, plus at this level the druids spells would overwhelm the meager ranger spell list.
PS: the ranger may have a new ability that I don't know this is based on my knowlige (3.5) checks
PPS: to everyone who said monk stinks: monks at high levels kick almost all other fighter types
PPPS: note that in an expariment to prove this the barbarian wins by the sheer power of Kord (me lucky) and (I say this as a friend and mortal enemy) the monks own stupid controller.
PPPPS: bard might be weaker I didn't think of that