Debate about the worst class in D&D

[kiryoku]

The rules are you must use facts not just say they suck because. You must quote page numbers if asked or might as well post them from the get go for ease of use. as well as the FULL name of the book no PHB or any short cuts so some who don't know the names of every book like that don't have problems. You also may only post PC classes here. From dragon magazine, the core books, splat books, and possibly third party and homebrew. Next anyone that just states they suck and doesn't give any good reasons will not be responded to by anyone. I don't want this closed because of another flamer. I also don't want bad experiences/DM screwing you with that class brought into this at all. I want facts and valid reasons the class sucks. Now if we can keep this civil I would love that I don't want it closed for getting derailed so stay on subject please.

[eggynack]

Well, in this case as in the last one, the term "worst" is poorly defined. It could indicate either low power level, or general brokenness. Still, truenamer from Tome of Magic is likely the worst. That class is broken in every way that counts, from skill checks beyond the reach of regular players, to abilities that just don't work as written, to feats that actually make the class strictly worse. Other classes sometimes don't have the crunch match the flavor, like the samurai or monk, but I think that the truenamer is the only class for whom the crunch doesn't match the intended crunch. It's just a generally sad excuse for a class, banished from the tier list for crimes against the game.

[kiryoku]

Ya truenamer gets a lot of crap there are a few good "fixs" out there but its more like a rewrite of the rules more then a minor fix so it is pretty horrible. still though the martyr class kills you at level ten so where you can still limp along with the truenamer. so its hard to pick what one would be worse. I mean having to pile all your money into getting your skill up just to use your spell like casting. is kinda crappy but being killed automatically is lame on the grounds of there is no way around it because the class railroads you into taking only that class each level until you die. at low level it can kill you really fast. higher level it can be shut down by level cap but if your going epic your dead and have to reroll a new character. so while broken it can be "forced" into the usable area just barely. Not in the sense of the wizard or cleric. but usable none the less.

[Deophaun]

I want facts and valid reasons the class sucks.
I'm confused. The question in the title is "worst class," which would be wizard because of all its campaign-destroying and party-member sidelining potential, but then you talk about why the class "sucks," which the Wizard does not, unless it wants to conjure a quantum singularity.

[eggynack]

I'm confused. The question in the title is "worst class," which would be wizard because of all its campaign-destroying and party-member sidelining potential, but then you talk about why the class "sucks," which the Wizard does not, unless it wants to conjure a quantum singularity.
I'd disagree with this notion on the basis of subjective balance, and some kind of example party featuring the wizard along with a druid and a cleric, and blahdeblah. The other part of your claim is quite worth debating though. Before we can even discuss what the "worst class" in D&D is, it must be determined what that term means. I suppose some example classes and how they fill the worst class role would be prudent.

One metric for "worst" is how much a class can unbalance a game. Despite the aforementioned subjective nature of balance, there are some things out there that indisputably break games, the best example of which being Pun-Pun. You listed wizards, but I don't see them as being particularly imbalanced, because they have a whole tier right there that can compete with them. Better examples are probably things like the StP erudite, which can cast just about anything, planar shepherd, because of their ability to break the action economy on a whim, and incantrix, because of their ability to take the already crazy magic system, and somehow manage to break it relative to that system. . In this category, the true goal would be the use of classes in a way that was clearly not intended.

A second metric is the most obvious, but also possibly the most pointless. This metric is, "Which class is the worst". The reason why it's a pointless question is because it seems to have pretty obvious answers. If NPC classes are allowed, then the answer is obviously commoner. If NPC classes aren't allowed, then the tier system only lists one non-NPC class at tier 6, and that class is the CW samurai. They are terrible, and there are few things as bad as them. There might be something else out there that's that bad, but it just seems boring to argue.

The third metric is the one I listed in my initial response. Here, the goal is classes that just don't work. I listed Truenamer, but there might be others. Also included here are classes which technically work, but are poorly designed, and don't work very well.

The fourth, and possibly final, metric is just regular subjective opinion. "Worst" is a highly subjective notion, so if someone just hates a perfectly good class for some reason, that it would be entirely within his prerogative to declare it the worst class, and moreover he'd be correct within his personal boundaries. A good example here are the Tome of Battle classes, which draw large amounts of ire despite not fulfilling any of my previously stated requirements. There are a few reasons for this: they have a tendency to be overpowered in low-op games; they require the understanding of new mechanics; they replace classes that some people love; their flavor feels off. All of these are valid reasons, and yet another second person could equally call them the best classes for various other reasons. This metric is an entirely valid organization for a topic, but it's not really the kind of thing that leads to conversation. At that point, it's just a bunch of people stating their opinions, which is nice I suppose.

[ericgrau]

I think you're missing a pretty big one, which is fun. A lot of times I hear complaints not of power but of boredom with some classes.

For that I'd say paladin is perhaps the biggest offender. I'm not talking about morality issues, I mean for class features. Like many melee you're mainly stuck with hitting stuff. Unlike barbarians your ACFs are limited, unless I'm mistaken, fighters can find alternate feats, monks have special rules, buffs, various prestiges and other alternatives specific to them, rangers get a ton of options plus splat support, etc. Paladin spells are limited even with splats. And multi-classing to deal with it is harder than normal. After all that the limitations in choices from MAD are just icing. You're left mostly with magic items for variety, which everyone gets. Likewise feats come slowly.

I suppose classes like the samurai are even worse for similar reasons, though less commonly played.

[Stux]

I don't quite get why Risen Martyr gets so much hate. I think people are looking at it the wrong way here: as a build decision rather than a contingency plan.

Sure, perma-death at level ten - but you have to already be dead (and not brought back to life) to take the class. It's a great option if there was no chance of your character getting raised and you are attached to your character. I mean you can take the class at level 6, long before anyone can Raise Dead with any consistency.

Sure it's situational, but it is a mechanically valid way to continue playing your character for another 10 levels when the other option would be to reroll. That doesn't seem so bad.

On top of all that, it actually says your perfected body rises to the heavens after level 10 of the class - there is absolutely no reason that a DM so inclined couldn't rule that you continue to play your character after that. You'll be at least level 16, and planar travel for your whole party at that stage is hardly out of the question.

[eggynack]

I suppose that fun levels are a fairly big component of a class' inherent goodness. I may have considered it as a subset of the final subjective category, but it may not belong there. The biggest difference between the two is that you can likely set an initial set of parameters for what makes a class "fun", and a random third party could give a good approximation for where various classes fit into those parameters. For example, your parameters seem to have a heavy preference towards options, both in play and in character creation. Paladins have some splat support, but leaving that aside they would take up a relatively low level in terms of fun. Two examples of people who would put paladins all the way on the other end of the spectrum are those that prize a classes inherent flavor, leaving aside the mutability of fluff, and those who desire simplicity of play, leaving aside how complicated and rigid melee builds often are.

I'd therefore classify fun as a subset of subjective opinion, however those subjective opinions might apply to the entire spectrum of the game, rather than to a few specific classes. Also, I agree that paladins are pretty annoying. Their fluff often leads to a problematically rigid play style, and their combat abilities aren't much better. They can become somewhat more powerful through extra books, but generally by emulating other classes rather than emphasizing the core engagement of the class itself.

[Taveena]

I've got to say Mountebank from the Dragon Compendium. The flavor is great, but... well. Half sneak attack damage but ONLY to someone who's beguiled... which, in itself, only lasts a little over a turn, so you've got to use your Beguile Ability every single time you want to activate it... and nevermind that you're also using that to fuel your other class features, which are Supernatural abilities. And the capstone is becoming an NPC.

[ArcturusV]

I suppose I'm going to go for Shugenja (Book: Oriental Adventures) myself.

The reasoning for this isn't "Worst" in terms of "Weaknesses" but rather poor design and unnecessarily crippling. Mostly for the sake of source material referencing.

So you're a divine caster, but spontaneous based, so you do not get the one advantage of Divine Casters (Knowing all spells at all times), but rather have a limited spells known list. Which is crippled even further by demanding that you bar 1/4th of the spells on the Shugenja list from ever being known, and have to dedicate over half your spells to a specific element.

On top of that? Your only "Class Feature" (Sense Elements) other than spells is very limited and often won't tell you anything vital. It takes too long to practically use, on top of being capped on uses per day.

Oh, and on top of that? Even as a spontaneous caster you're still "Spellbook Crippled". Your spells, each and every single one, are actually on individual scrolls that you need to use when casting. Lose your scrolls? No casting. Hope you have a decent strength score, because you're going to be lugging around a ton of scrolls at higher levels.

Course, unlike pretty much every other divine caster, you don't even get armor or weapons worth mentioning.

It's redeeming quality is more or less the PrC you can take for it, the Void Disciple. Which is ridiculously broken.

Note that Shugenjas can also learn "Evil, corrupt, forbidden magic", Maho. But Maho spells are usually strictly worse than your normal spells. Typically blasting spells doing about as much damage as your non-corrupt spells of the same level. But you also have to sacrifice HP to use it. And risk getting Taint. And if you get 10 taint (Which will happen fairly quickly as you'll average getting a taint point everytime you cast a Maho spell) you basically become a mindless NPC target.