Worst 5th party member

[Hand of Evil]

While I would go with Monk normally I went with other this time due to having seen a number of games where a 5th character was some multi-class combo that falls behind the party, not being able to hold their own.

 

[TroyXavier]

I voted Paladin, but the mroe I think of it, the more I would vote other, and vote most multiclass combos.

 

[Thanee]

I think there is no worst class in a party, since everyone can play what he/she likes and has fun with and every character can add to this enjoyment.

From a pure technical viewpoint, I voted for the Monk, since he adds nothing useful to a parties repertoire and because I generally dislike the Monk class.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Magic Slim]

I agree with everyone that agrees that the monk would make the worst addition to the party. The monk has great survival skills (saves, usually good hp's, good AC) but can't really do much...

Slim

 

[Wycen]

Let's see. I've seen 4 monks since 3E was released. 2 died. The other 2 seemed useless, particularly as I was the DM for the latest and if not for the prestige class which allows you to add damage or feats like extra stunning, Monks just don't cut it in my book.

I can imagine a monk multiclassed with wizard levels might be useful, but I generally like single classed wizards for fasted access to higher level spells.

 

[Rashak Mani]

I always thought the idea of 2 rogues operating together was great... I say the idea because I have never seen it done in fact. Just the idea that you can have two rogues scouting ahead and that they can sneak attack to death any minor intruder seemed great.

In regular combat they would just flank and finish chosen foes too... still people on this thread put the 2 rogues thing as a waste... unecessary duplication... I agree that they shouldnt have the same specializations of course.

Any stories of 2 rogue groups ?

 

[Storminator]

I always thought the idea of 2 rogues operating together was great... I say the idea because I have never seen it done in fact. Just the idea that you can have two rogues scouting ahead and that they can sneak attack to death any minor intruder seemed great.

In regular combat they would just flank and finish chosen foes too... still people on this thread put the 2 rogues thing as a waste... unecessary duplication... I agree that they shouldnt have the same specializations of course.

Any stories of 2 rogue groups ?

I run a PBeM with 3 rogues (and nothing else!). And yup, flanking monstrosity. If they get the jump on someone (not too hard, with all those sneak skills) they can rip down a foe quickly.

The constructs they ran into kicked their tail tho.

The rogues were all built at the same time, and they have a pretty fair diversity of skills. One has a level of barbarian and another has a level of sorcerer to add a bit more to the mix, but mostly its just a rogue group. Heck of a lot of fun, too.

PS

 

[Hopping Vampire]

the clown. while the rest of the party is fighting for there lives, HE's making ballon animals.

no really. the monk

 

[Synicism]

Honestly, I don't see why everyone is so down on the Monk. I've seen two since playing 3.0, and played one of them, and every time, the Monk has become the predominant melee combatant in our series of Planescape campaigns. Here's the best example.

The first party started at 5th level and consisted of an elf monk, a human ranger/rogue (archery based), a dwarf paladin, a dwarf cleric, and a human wizard. Even at the beginning, the paladin was next to useless in combat because he could never *REACH* anything. Between the archer, the cleric, the wizard, and the monk, everything died by the time the damn paladin could tromp his slow, full-plated hide up to the fight. Our battles turned into run-and-guns with the archer and the monk up front while the paladin babysat the casters while they pelted the baddies from long range.

By the time we finished at 18th level, it got even worse. By this time, the paladin was now also a Dwarven Defender and a Templar and the cleric was also a Runecaster, and we had replaced the wizard with a Psychic Warrior.

Even with the additional focus on melee combat, the Dwarven Defender was still so slow he never made it into most melee combat because the monk and the psychic warrior would immediately jump the enemy and anything that tried to get past would get gunned down. The only time the dwarves ever got to bash on anything was when they finally got helms of teleportation.

As for the monk's supposed poor attack bonus, you'd be surprised what you can accomplish when your cleric makes potions of Divine Favor and other fun stuff.

 

[Synicism]

I have to cast my vote for the barbarian. Yeah, he has a big HD, but he only averages 1 more HP per die than the fighter. Yeah, he can rage, but the fighter has a lot more feats and can deck out in better armor. The ranger has better skills than the barbarian and is better ranged combatant. The paladin has more staying power and makes a better front-line basher.

All the 3.0 barbarian's I've ever seen rage, charge, and die because they have a lot of offensive power, but no defense, so they get mobbed and completely trashed. And I'm skeptical about whether the earlier access to damage reduction is enough.