Which class is the most useless?

[mythusmage]

People's objection to a character class boiled down to the essentials:

(Insert Character Class Name) is useless because he can't make a great wyrm his bitch at first level.

 

[Gort]

I love people who take a rather benign post stating something overlooked and immediately claim that since it's not pertaining to combat it's wrong, and this is the wrong game for them.

I love you!

But seriously, if I was running a completely non-combat game, I could either hang the rules and choose to make all reactions to the players completely dependent on what the player says (not the character) or I could rely on the broken diplomacy rules. In either case, it's not going to work out well - the guy who raises diplomacy as high as it can go will be able to sway gods to his will as easily as a feeble-minded commoner if I use the rules, and if I say hang the rules, why bother playing D&D? I'm doing some sort of method acting course if I do that.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Monks need a rewrite. I think they need to be split into two classes; a base non-ki-using class (20 levels) and a 10-level ki-heavy PrC that builds upon the base class. In theory, a Martial Artist 10/Monk 10 would be balanced with a Martial Artist 20. That would be nice to see.

Well, I did the former, but I haven't done the latter. Check my sig for the link to the Bruiser.

 

[drothgery]

I love all the replies saying, "Well, in a game where there is no combat at all, bards are great!" - why are you playing D&D if there's not going to be any combat? Did you miss the fact that 99% of the rules pertain to combat, all the classes are balanced with combat effectiveness in mind, one of the books is full of monsters to fight and so forth? Did you also miss that the main interaction skill (diplomacy) is very poorly written?

Heck, bards are great in combat if you've got a relatively large number of characters who are attacking with weapons in combat; dishing out +5 to hit, +4 to damage, +1 AC, +30' to movement and +4 to saves vs. fear to everyone (which my bard does routinely, at a cost of two uses of bardic magic, a first level spell, and a third level spell) doesn't suck when two front-line warriors and a second-line cohort are picking up the attack and damage bonuses.

 

[was]

every monk that I've seen played died rather quickly....so they get my vote

 

[Scraht]

But seriously, if I was running a completely non-combat game, I could either hang the rules and choose to make all reactions to the players completely dependent on what the player says (not the character) or I could rely on the broken diplomacy rules. In either case, it's not going to work out well - the guy who raises diplomacy as high as it can go will be able to sway gods to his will as easily as a feeble-minded commoner if I use the rules, and if I say hang the rules, why bother playing D&D? I'm doing some sort of method acting course if I do that.

That's already what my group does, I don't think anyone has made a diplomacy roll at all, and we've gotten a lot done. I personally just pretend it doesn't exist in my game. If you need to speak to an NPC, you'll actually speak to him, and actually attempt to sway him with words. If nothing at least it teaches my players a valuable real-life skill.

I've never cared for the ;
*rolls a diplomacy check* *scores a 39* "There's a a giant tree made of pure platinum over there."
NPC: "Oh my god I believe you! I believe you so freaking much!!"

 

[Fishbone]

every monk that I've seen played died rather quickly....so they get my vote

How? Isn't their main appeal that they are harriers extraordinaire and damn hard to kill?
The monk, if you focus on hitting once or twice and jacking the saving throws and Stunning Fist DC is okay. Why it isn't a full BAB class is beyond me, though. They're actually pretty scary if the DM gives them full BAB.

 

[Sound of Azure]

That's already what my group does, I don't think anyone has made a diplomacy roll at all, and we've gotten a lot done. I personally just pretend it doesn't exist in my game. If you need to speak to an NPC, you'll actually speak to him, and actually attempt to sway him with words. If nothing at least it teaches my players a valuable real-life skill.

I've never cared for the ;
*rolls a diplomacy check* *scores a 39* "There's a a giant tree made of pure platinum over there."
NPC: "Oh my god I believe you! I believe you so freaking much!!"

That would be a Bluff check....
---

The only class that's useless is the class with no motivated player behind them. Some classes are stronger or weaker in some situations, or sometimes (rarely) overall, but that's more than a little rare.

Edit: The other ways a class can be useless is if you have a DM who is determined to dislike the class, or a class is in a situation where they cannot succeed at what they do. That is, of course, the advantage of group play... you have team-mates to help out.

 

[The Grackle]

People always say monks suck and/or blow, but all the monks I've seen in play were pretty effective. They don't do uber-damage, but they have lots of neat tricks, good skills, they're hard to kill, and they always have loads of extra cash for random magic equipment.

 

[VirgilCaine]

The only class that's useless is the class with no motivated player behind them. Some classes are stronger or weaker in some situations, or sometimes (rarely) overall, but that's more than a little rare.

Or a stupid player.

Like the Elven Druid. 10 Strength. First level. Instead of casting say, Entangle. He uses his spear.

And his animal companion?

Heavy Horse.

Gah.