Which core class sucks the most?

[Kahuna Burger]

Bard. Just because it has the most diconect between the kind of characters it makes me want to play and the kind that can be played with it. The concept has so much potential, and the mechanics so much suckage. :\

 

[Psion]

Cleric. One class cannot cover the whorshipers of all gods. A cleric of war and acleric of knowledge should not seem so much alike.

While this is a great argument and probably tied for first, I voted the bard. The class could have been a lore keeper, performer, and oral historian of a number of stripes if it was written write. As it is, it's so narrow as to belong in Prestige Class territory.

 

[diaglo]

Bards completely suck

 

[Kryndal Levik]

I'd have to say bard- I've seen a few players (in the pretty distant past) play the class, only to ultimately be disappointed. I've not had a player pick a bard for 10+ years in my campaigns.

 

[Imruphel]

IMO, the bard followed closely by the monk.

I suppose it's like those well-known studies of the Harvard Business School: companies that specialise or, to use the vernacular, "stick to their knitting", tend to out-perform less focussed rivals. It seems that D&D classes work the same way.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm really surprised to see the sorcerer in the number 3 spot. I knew some people had a problem with it, but I didn't know it was that common.

Me, I love the sorcerer. The ability to cast spells spontaneously, rather than choosing in advance, is a really nice feature, and makes them absolutely devastating under the proper circumstances. I agree they could be even better--I'd like to see them further differentiated from the wizard, or else folded into a single class with two different "paths" of casting--but I hardly think they "suck."

 

[Starglim]

Your question assumes that at least two of the core classes suck. Happily, I'm willing to accept that.

I voted the monk as not only a flavour problem for many campaigns, but also playing no decisive role in a stand-up combat at any level. Mid-level monks can play the strategy of defending and blocking a space or of attacking melee-weak opponents, which strategies befit only a loser character and loser party. At low or high levels a monk isn't viable even to do those things. The only thing the monk is good for is to break the system by taking one level to twink out the defence or number of attacks of a multiclass or unusual-race character.

I'm also not too happy with the sorceror. The barbarian is limited, but has some place in the game.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I see that 2 of the top 3 are Charisma-centric. Just goes to show again that D&D is pretty much all about combat.

So help me, I am gearing up to run an Eberron campaign and I am going to make it my personal mission to make the Charisma stat matter in it.

I voted Sorcerer because at least a Bard can cast healing spells and has enough of a selection of skills to still be worthwhile. Ensuring that Use Magic Device is at max ranks will allow a Bard to use wands and staves of any spell casting class. Basically, the Bard is an "okay" substitute for the other classes. Don't forget that Bards are the ONLY arcane caster class in the PHB that can get away with wearing armor even if it is only light armor. A Wizard or a Sorcerer has to cast Mage Armor to get +4 to AC. A Bard can pay for a Chain Shirt and have it for good and what is more the Bard can wear "enchanted" armor and get some of the special qualities that enchanted armor can have.

Does a Bard still suck? Sure... in a combat centric game. In a game with a bunch of NPC interaction they really shine.

 

[diaglo]

I see that 2 of the top 3 are Charisma-centric. Just goes to show again that D&D is pretty much all about combat.

So help me, I am gearing up to run an Eberron campaign and I am going to make it my personal mission to make the Charisma stat matter in it.

you are exactly right.

the mechanics of combat do not lend themselves to cha.

it is shown in the balance of stats too. with str, dex and con weighing more than int, wis, and cha in design.

cha is so badly balanced they let half orcs lose more stat points than other races.

 

[Starglim]

I see that 2 of the top 3 are Charisma-centric. Just goes to show again that D&D is pretty much all about combat.

So help me, I am gearing up to run an Eberron campaign and I am going to make it my personal mission to make the Charisma stat matter in it.

Easy: do as Alternity did, and make Action Points a function of Charisma. It also wouldn't be difficult to justify basing bonus spells for all classes on Charisma.