Which 3.5 class do you think is the weakest?

[Taneel BrightBlade]

PPPPPS: my spelling stinks
PPPPPPS: my grammer stinks
PPPPPPPS: I like PS'

 

[Taneel BrightBlade]

PPPPPPPPS: the warrior/spellcaster balinse is that the fighter is still alive to reach tenth level mean while the mage got defeated by the kobalds in the opening fight the insectoid monk then roles a one after jumping on the attacking griffen an falls to the ground where said griffen finishes him.
PPPPPPPPPS: I slaughtered said Kobalds and said griffen without taking damage as a fighter1/barbarian1
PPPPPPPPPPS: Then I challenged Asmodaos to a duel after being dumped into the nine hells by the rogue
PPPPPPPPPPPS: still level two

 

[S'mon]

Fighters are very weak in a zero-magic-items game, making them totally reliant on party spellcasters for buffs to be effective; buffed by spells & items they can be very powerful though.

Re the best class for a starting player - I'd suggest possibly Cleric (can hardly go wrong, even a weakly 'built' Cleric is viable) or boom-spell Sorcerer. A greatsword 'tank' Fighter - with help from GM choosing Feats - might be ok too, depends on the player. Newbie players should probably steer clear of Rogues, Rangers & other 'subtle' classes.

 

[Taneel BrightBlade]

12PXS: the pole should have 'all unbalanced and every spellcaster should be turned down at high levels and made more powerful at low levels

 

[Thanee]

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?"

Very funny!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Psion]

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.

The question was not what is ineffective. The question was what was weakest. I have run several games with effective sorcerers in the party. That's not the point.

In a team driven game like D&D, all the classes have room to be effective if the DM runs the game competantly. Which is why I say that it's hard to say what it strong and what is weak between classes with divergant focuses.

But the sorcerer and wizard have nearly identical focuses and it's not difficult to see which one tends to come out on top. It's interesting to see when evaluating several prestige classes or variant core classes, when using the sorcerer as a reference point, many classes look overpowered, but when using the wizard as a reference to the same class, it doesn't. That ought to tell you something.

 

[Thanee]

The question was not what is ineffective. The question was what was weakest.

Yeah, and sorcerer surely isn't the weakest.
Weaker (overall!) than monk, bard or rogue?

The wizard is among the strongest classes (together with cleric and druid) and the sorcerer is slightly behind that, still stronger than most other classes, IMHO.

But the sorcerer and wizard have nearly identical focuses and it's not difficult to see which one tends to come out on top.

of course, although the difference isn't as big as some people claim, IMHO.

It's interesting to see when evaluating several prestige classes or variant core classes, when using the sorcerer as a reference point, many classes look overpowered, ...

That's mostly, since often the power of spontaneous casting is simply ignored in such comparisons, at least I have seen that happen a lot.

It's surely somewhat campaign-specific how useful this ability is, but on average I'd rate it as being highly useful, once you have left the lower levels.

...but when using the wizard as a reference to the same class, it doesn't. That ought to tell you something.

Sure, wizards are better than sorcerers. No argument there.

Clerics and druids are also better than fighters, but that doesn't make fighters the overall weakest class, or does it?


And just for the record (not meant specifically for you, Psion, also some other folk here, like the dude who said, people that think the rogue is among the weaker classes have no gaming experience ), weakest does not equal weak! It's a relative term.

A level 1,000,000 character is weaker than a level 1,000,001 character, but surely not weak!

Important difference!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Psion]

Yeah, and sorcerer surely isn't the weakest.
Weaker (overall!) than monk, bard or rogue?

Again, I think it is difficult to make that direct comparison given the difference in focus. But I think all of them have important roles, so I'd say no, it does not stand out as markedly weaker, because any observable and context independant difference is power is "below the fence" of noise of differences in GM play styles.

Clerics and druids are also better than fighters, but that doesn't make fighters the overall weakest class, or does it?

Since I don't agree that such an assertion can be conclusively made, I can't answer the question. Because the function of what is "overall" better in a game varies too widely from game to game, and how you would rate the importance of various roles is highly subjective.

And just for the record (not meant specifically for you, Psion, also some other folk here, like the dude who said, people that think the rogue is among the weaker classes have no gaming experience ), weakest does not equal weak! It's a relative term.

That was the upshot of the first two sentences of mine you quoted.

 

[tarchon]

Sure, wizards are better than sorcerers. No argument there.

I think sorcerers tend to multiclass a little better, especially with the prestige classes that give +1 spell level. It's always hard to compare though, since it depends a lot on how free the DM is with wizard spells. A wizard with access to every spell in the PHB probably is more powerful than a sorc of the same level, but a wizard with only the 2 default spells per level clearly isn't. The point of parity must lie somewhere inbetween.
So many of the class power comparisons come down to variables of DM and player style, that the question of comparative power is impossible to answer with much objective accuracy.

 

[Sanackranib]

Very funny!

Bye
Thanee

Im not infering that you are a weaker player my dear just stating the obvious fact thats been listed on this thread several times already . . . a strong player can do a lot with what might appear as a weaker character on paper. your spontaneous casting comment about the sorc only serves to prove my point further I have yet to see a really weak core class - that said I can't STAND monks! :\