Which class is the most useless?

[Sejs]

Voted monk.

Bards can shine in their own arena. They're an example of a well-done hybrid spellcaster, for one (the other being psychic warrior).

 

[Seeten]

It's all about Fascinate. The DC is based on your perform check, which is easy to get high into the stratosphere. Skill Focus, mw instrument, max ranks, high Cha, circlet of persuasion, cloak of cha, choker of eloquence. Admittedly, it doesn't work well on undead, constructs, and other similar creatures, but a few feats can fix that.

Completely core sample build: 6th level bard with 4th level bard cohort just for example.

(+6) 15 Cha base + 1 4th level boost + circlet of persuasion (only magic item)
+9 max ranks
+3 skill focus
+2 mw instrument
+2 inspire competence (from cohort)
Total = +22

Fascinate DC = d20 + 22
You find me a pair of creatures (since the bard could affect up to 2) you'd be fighting at 6th level that could come even close to making that saving throw reliably. And on top of that he can give them up to 5 suggestions with a DC of 16? The bard can grind every combat to a halt with a note from his lute. And it just gets worse at higher levels.

This build totally fails in my DM's game, as Leadership is banned, so you have 0 cohorts.

 

[Felix]

This build totally fails in my DM's game, as Leadership is banned, so you have 0 cohorts.

Ok. Fascinate DC = 1d20 + 20.

The question of 6th level enemies not being able to reliably save against that is still a valid one.

Unless you were being facetious.

EDIT:

Does he allow Ability Focus? Because then fascinate's save DC would be back to 22 without a cohort.

 

[brehobit]

I've never seen a useful monk. I'm sure they exist, but I've not seen one.

A useful bard is pretty easy to build if you are using the "complete" series, even easier in Eberron. I find that in parties of 4 or more a bard ends up doing more damage than anyone else (counting for the bard the extra attacks that hit and the extra damage granted). But he can heal, and cast pretty nice enchantment spells.

Mark

 

[EyeontheMountain]

I have always rather liked the bard. A huge variety of spells, and good surviveability and skills.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I won't pretend this survey is scientific, but that doesn't mean it isn't valuable. If 400 posters out of 900 say something is useless, that's an indicator of a problem. The polls on ENWorld have a self-selected sample, BUT the numbers can get so big that they actually represent something significant. Scientific surveys are frequently done with half the numbers we get here on ENWorld.

Having taken on taught Statistics for a number of years, I agree with this conceptually. However, I have to agree with Corthian's earlier point more.

I strongly believe that when people here are voting that they are not voting from a generic possibility but rather they are voting from their specific experience.

Thus, the people that voted monk or bard as bad are saying that in their experience in games specific to their DMs that the monk or bard did not pan out. While that is useful, it is no more than that.

But, as a DM I can make a game that has no combat. Period. Is the bard really so useless now? Is the fighter really so valuable? I can make a game where steel weapons and armor are simply not known and there is no equivalent. Is the monk really so bad now?

I realize and accept that these would not be typical D&D scenarios. I grant that much. But what Crothian was illustrating (or at least what I took the post to mean) is that this is a poll asking people to apply their unknown specific experience generically.

This poll says more about which classes do people not like to play than it says about which classes are truly poor. That is a valid piece of information so long as we do not confuse one with the other.

 

[Crothian]

Lack of criteria is very, very common in polls. Polls are about measuring opinions, which are vague. Criteria can get in the way.

What you asdked is which class is most useless. People are not answering that, they are answering which class is most useless in a D&D adventrue game or limiting how it is useful in that way. Now, maybe you assumed that usefulness of a class would be difned in such a narrow way but that wasn't the questioned asked. I see what you are doing like asking in a governiner is doing a good job and asking people in multiple dimensions. The governer isn't the same in all those dimenstion; sometimes its a good guy other times its bad guy.

 

[The Human Target]

I voted Fighter in terms of "most useless."

They can't do anything but fight, and then they're not even that amazing at fighting.

Yes, I'm sure you can all roleplay the crap out of a fighter. So can I.

But mechanically, they aren't helpful outside of combat.

 

[Sejs]

So, shall we just drop the pretense and start nailing up the bard cross, then?

 

[Arkhandus]

Bards have everything they need to excel in social situations, urban areas, and some wilderness adventures. They even have a bit of dungeoneering ability, though not so much actual offensive or defensive capacity. Still, with the right buffs, bardic music, feats, and such, a bard can do decently as a second-tier combatant.

Monks, however, are fairly limited despite their abundance of abilities. Monks are only really good for moving around, doing alright in grapples, and using hit-and-run tactics. They can fight spellcasters well (mostly just at upper levels though), but need magic items to fly (which an enemy spellcaster can just dispel, and thus attack the monk with impunity). Of course, spellcasters have some difficulty killing mid-level and high-level monks, but can manage if they didn't just focus on area-blasting and ray spells (of course, they can just try using enough summoned monsters). Monks can sneak about, but not as well as a rogue or bard in most cases. They're second-rate or third-rate damage-dealers at most levels, especially if they don't just forsake AC and skills.