What is the weakest character class you could still have fun playing?

[Particle_Man]

If you go by tiers or if you don’t, some classes are weaker than others. What would be the weakest class you could play that you would still have a lot of fun playing? I imagine this could vary between players, of course.

Personally I had a lot of fun with a hexblade, a rogue and a not particularly optimized fighter.

[Rynjin]

I am "the Monk guy" among my friend circle, so that weak.

[Biggus]

Fighter is my personal lowest-tier class I'd want to play (according to the rankings here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?600635-Why-each-class-is-in-its-tier-2019-update!)). I played in a large group a few years ago where we had two characters each, and all the tier 4 characters (including a Fighter, Paladin and Ranger) had fun; they could contribute to the game and do their core job reasonably well. The only one who didn't was the Monk, there were frequent wails of "I just can't hit anything!".

This was a relatively low-op group, obviously the optimization level of individual characters/the group as a whole can change things (I was the nearest thing to an optimizer there, so when I played casters I chose a Mystic Theurge and a Sorcerer because I didn't want to overshadow the others).

[Kayblis]

You need to set a mark for 'weak'. Is it tier, or just numbers, or maybe versatility? If it's percieved weakness, I love playing Monks. They have tons of features and a metric ton of ACFs, so you can make an effective Monk for any martial style, and the ones I'm used with usually outclass everyone in tier 4 at their job, playing up to tier 3 initiators. It's just the meme coupled with poor system knowledge that leads people into thinking the Monk is worthless, you just need to put in the work.

If it's actual build-related weakness, as in you build something to not be good at anything, the half-casters are fun to play, because they get a built-in option that isn't "I move and attack". The Not!Casters like Dragonfire Adept are fun too. If you build something badly and it has no spellcasting or special features, that's where I draw the line of 'fun', because it's simpler to write 3 lines of code and let a computer play that for you. It's that braindead.

Now if you mean weakest class as in "well-built, but to still play that class and not just its feats"(so discarding Maneuver feats and Incarnum feats, for example), then I draw the line on NPC classes(maybe not the Adept, but still). The reason is they don't have actual features, they're not actual classes, they're something you apply to NPCs to not have to spend time thinking about them. That's what I'd consider below 'weakest character you can still have fun playing'. Anything above can be made into a fun character to play with a passable functionality. Yes, even the Samurai. It's just harder to build, but it's still fun for me as a player.

[NerdHut]

With the right campaign and the right group, I could probably even enjoy an NPC class for a while (probably not past level 6 or 7, though). A more flexible option without being particularly strong is Healer. While I enjoy a powerful and versatile character, there's something else I can enjoy about a character that's hard to optimize. Just as long as the other players aren't so much more powerful that I'm useless.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I've built and have every intention of playing a Forsaker from masters of the wild. Entering the PrC at level 3 and running it all the way out.

[AvatarVecna]

built a commoner/survivor for a game that ended up falling through. Goal was to just carry stuff and aid during the combat when possible, and just be the guy who inexplicably survives fights he has no business being in. Most of the fun there is in the character rather than the mechanics though, so I'm not sure if that's really the answer you're looking for (since it's having fun despite playing a weak character, rather than having fun actually using said character).

[Batcathat]

Personally, I don't care so much about all out power as I do about having my own niche that's contributing enough to the party's success. I could probably have fun playing a Commoner, as long as it had some useful skill set no one else did.

Though I suppose it depends on the campaign, if it was very combat-heavy I'd probably need decent combat power not to get bored with it eventually.

[ben-zayb]

I don't mind playing low tier classes, at all. Whenever I play in a low op game, I just love how straightforward and easy these are to play: Soulknife/Soulbow
Fighter
Warlock

Roll stats, put skill ranks, slap feats, then get equipment. That's pretty much it.

[SangoProduction]

Barbarian.
I mean, not have fun combat-wise, as it's as boring as it gets. And that's the only thing the class benefits, mechanically.
But everyone expects the barbarian to be dumb as a bag of rocs. And it can sometimes be fun to do that.

[Quentinas]

Well the weakest i played probably was a shadowcaster in a play by post, while by voice a paladin. But is quite difficult to consider him the wealest as we are level 7-8 and I'm the only one with a prestige class so is basically among the most optimized (well luckily the group doesn't optimize as a monk , a fighter , a paladin are similar but we even have a wizard) Another strange character i play is a leopard as the animal companion of a ranger, and this leopard can talk. I think is comparable to a barbarian that one but i'm not sure

[Uncle Pine]

I've played a Commoner/Dread Commando before (with a couple levels with full BAB to not delay the PrC too much iirc) and had loads of fun - although the character ended up dying horribly against some advanced wraiths playing peek-a-boo from inside a wall. :')

[LadyIslay]

A commoner. I mean, it is *the* weakest class, right? But yes, I could still have fun playing one. Or many consecutive ones, actually, since they might not last very long.

[Remuko]

I am "the Monk guy" among my friend circle, so that weak.

This

I've also played a Samurai and didn't hate it (tho I dont think that campaign lasted long so who knows if id have continued feeling that way).

[Dimers]

Like Batcathat, for me it's more about bringing a unique contribution to the group than about strength. I think Divine Mind is about as low as I can go and still get something from the class that meets my criteria.

[newguydude1]

any arcane spellcaster.
obtain familiar->improved familiar->mirror mephit->djinni simulacrum for permanent duration minor creation->scroll crafting materials->craft scrolls of simulacrum at my cl paying only scroll xp cost.

so the lowest tier arcane spellcaster. if someone knows of a tier 4 or lower arcane spellcaster please tell me. thats my answer.

[Max Caysey]

If you go by tiers or if you don’t, some classes are weaker than others. What would be the weakest class you could play that you would still have a lot of fun playing? I imagine this could vary between players, of course.

Personally I had a lot of fun with a hexblade, a rogue and a not particularly optimized fighter.

I'd say, its probably commoner! Because you can have fun playing anything, if the party, setting and DM all agree to run a campaign where said class and concept fits! So really anything!

If you asking what class is fun to play in a high optimized campaig consisting of only tier 1 classes, I's say "it depends" but probably no lesser than an tier 2.

[King of Nowhere]

If you go by tiers or if you don’t, some classes are weaker than others. What would be the weakest class you could play that you would still have a lot of fun playing? I imagine this could vary between players, of course.

Personally I had a lot of fun with a hexblade, a rogue and a not particularly optimized fighter.

the question is poorly defined.
first, there is a huge difference among classes. i can play a sword-and-board fighter, or i can play an ubercharger fighter. one is virtually useless, the other one-shots enemies every round.
second, there i a huge difference between playing groups. i can play an unoptimized monk in a low-op party and be the stronger character around, or i can play the best cleric i can at a high-op table playing all high-op tier 1, and still be weak and struggle to contribute.
remember that, regardless of tier, player > build > class

[Silly Name]

Only things I'd never want to play (unless maybe as part of a challenge or a joke party) are NPC classes, the Noble class from DL Campaign setting and the CW Samurai, though I may play the OA one.

Me and my group usually aren't really concerned with optimization, we just play whatever feels more fun and interesting.

[Quertus]

Wizard. d4 HP, half BAB, only 1 good save, 2 skill points per level. There really aren't much worse chassis (other than maybe incarnate golem levels).

[Malphegor]

Unintelligent Hairy Spider (so doesn’t level as nonsentient vermin).

I reckon I could make being an ordinary if hard hitting poisonous tarantula work.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Particle_Man
What would be the weakest class you could play that you would still have a lot of fun playing?

I once played a beguiler in a game where the principal opponents were undead. :smallsigh:

But I could also enjoy playing a fighter, a commoner or an aristocrat, depending on the game.


Originally Posted by NerdHut
A more flexible option without being particularly strong is Healer.

I’ve always wanted to play a healer, never had the chance.


Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
I've built and have every intention of playing a Forsaker from masters of the wild. Entering the PrC at level 3 and running it all the way out.

Out of curiosity, what’s your build for this concept?

[GrayDeath]

Depends VERY heavily on what the Game is.

If we are talking more or less "expected D&D" then its actually a Monk. I kinda like them in low OP games where magic items are rare and noone plays a full caster.

If we are talking AT ALL using 3.5, then that would be a young Expert (the whole 8 sessions of the game were actually playing the youth and early adulthood of totally normal people. The group and the DM made it worth every Minute, but I wouldnt come to a "normal" D&D game with one^^).

So I have to say, depends on the rounds power level. I dont have to be the strongest, or eben Nr. 2, but I have to be in the same ballpark and have a niche to enjoy "regualr" D&D.

Which in msot games means I play the Sorcerer (if T1 exist, or msot are T2) or the Warlock (otherwise).

[Dimers]

so the lowest tier arcane spellcaster. if someone knows of a tier 4 or lower arcane spellcaster please tell me. thats my answer.

Hexblade is usually considered tier 5 or 4. I don't know much about Magewright, but I expect they'd qualify too, and they're ranked lower than Hexblade.

[Unavenger]

I generally avoid monk and fighter, not because they're weak (they are), but because their tactics in combat generally consist of "Go up to thing with stick, hit thing with stick" or in the monk's case "Go up to thing without stick, hit thing without stick" and their tactics outside of combat generally consist of "Cry". At least with adept or truenamer I have more than one action to take on a round and might actually deal some level appropriate damage. But it's not like I can never enjoy playing the character, I just have to lean more into RP and character shtick to make up for how boring the actions I'm taking are. So, yeah, anything, in theory.

[Elkad]

It has nothing to do with power.

It has everything to do with options.

Give me a character that can shoot CLd6 disintegration beams at will and I'll be bored. Same with a guy who only ubercharges for "you are dead" damage every round.
Give me a guy who has a pile of utility skills and different combat options, even if they are relatively weak compared to the rest of the party and I'll have a blast.

I hate barbarians, sorcerers, warlocks, and anything else that gets jammed into one niche their whole career.

Rogue, Healer, Wizard, non-early-entry Mystic Theurge, etc. That's what I love. Options.

[TerrickTerran]

Another monk fan here.

[Endless Rain]

Truenamer. (Or Divine Mind once you can actually use powers)

I'm totally fine with playing underpowered classes, but I tend to get bored if I play a character that isn't versatile. So long as a character has more options than "hit enemy with sword", and doesn't require significant out-of-game prep like most prepared casters, I can enjoy playing them.

[D+1]

If you go by tiers or if you don’t, some classes are weaker than others. What would be the weakest class you could play that you would still have a lot of fun playing? I imagine this could vary between players, of course.

Personally I had a lot of fun with a hexblade, a rogue and a not particularly optimized fighter.
My enjoyment of a CHARACTER isn't often tied to being the most powerful in the party and so they RARELY are the most powerful. And I even more rarely look outside the core books (in any edition) for an alternative class, feats, skills or whatever. I too am sort of a sucker for monks despite knowing they always suck. I gravitate to rogues and even assassins as well, but I also play a lot of vanilla fighters.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

I can handle weak classes as long as they're reasonably versatile. So most Tier 6/5 classes like Commoner or Samurai are out, but a Dragon Shaman or Truenamer could work because they're mildly useful in most situations. Of course those classes are annoyingly bad at doing their actual job without a well thought-out build, so I'd prefer to play a Tier 4 class like Incarnate, Rogue, Scout or Ninja. They're all decent in combat in interesting ways, they all have out-of-combat options, and they're all good skillmonkeys. Sure they'll never amaze their party or rule the world, but I'm unlikely to have to sit at the table twiddling my thumbs while the wizard's summoned creatures make me irrelevant again.

[Psyren]

Probably PF Gunslinger, but only if I could go ham with alchemical cartridges and the like. Or PF Fighter with some of the options they got later on.

Anything weaker, including several low-tier 3.5 classes, and I would be bored quickly.

[Wildstag]

Knight always tempts me, though its Code really makes it prohibitive.

The weakest I've enjoyed playing is Fighter. I played a dual-wielding whip-master that used the Lasher PrC. Sadly, I rolled low on stats, but ideally it would have had Greater Two-Weapon Fighting for an absolutely absurd number of attacks. It went "Kensai" from Dragon Mag, and took every option that gave it more attacks per full-round. With high enough attack modifiers, I could hit at least 6 attacks per round reliably and deal pretty decent damage.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Out of curiosity, what’s your build for this concept?

Start off with human paragon 2, between that and being a karsite (human subrace) I cover Forsaker's entry tax. Then Forsaker for 4 levels followed by a quick dip into warblade for some versatility; probably 3 levels there. Then back to Forsaker and start alternating 2 in Forsaker and 1 warblade until I'm at Forsaker 8 and warblade 5. Not sure after that, tbqh. Probably finish out Forsaker at least and I'm not 100% commited to that distribution yet (only built to my group's starting level of 5 as yet.)

Gonna buy devices off of a Gnome Artificer from MoF to help with some of the lack of real magic and make the best use I can of alchemy and special materials to get by.

If I'm being 100% honest, i expect that even with all the skill I can bring to bare that I'm going to struggle mightily and die horribly somewhere past level 10. Gonna have a great time giving my buddies crap about leaning on their "cheater, punk-ass magic" along the way though; tongue firmly in cheek, or course.

[Spore]

Yeah, Paladin or Cavalier/Knight. Usually on a spectrum ranging from edgy (orphaned black knight out for revenge) to zealous to a fault (I do not care I am a 4th level halfling, I WILL stop that Balrog or die trying!).

[CIDE]

I would totally play a Truenamer in the right game. I may "optimize" but that hardly means anything with this class. I've played with several groups that went the classic archetype routes where something like an optimized truenamer would fit in perfectly.

[Luccan]

I'm currently playing a low level magewright in one game. Currently Magecraft has been my most relevant spell. So at least that low. I think an Expert with some choice skills could be fun

[DeTess]

For me, it isn't about direct power, but about options. As long as I've got a variety of tools and options relevant to the current situation*, then I'm happy. The weakest character I've probably played as a level 2 or 3 warrior in a city-guard one-shot. Numerically he was incredibly weak, but I had all the tools needed for that session (intimidating people, waving my badge around, accepting and demanding bribes, etc.).

Generally, I enjoy playing martial initiators and beguilers because those tend to have a nice selection of in and out-of-combat tools, but I could definitely see myself enjoying a rogue, or even a fighter or monk (maybe even a truenamer) in the right campaign.


*Assuming, of course, that there's no one else that overshadows me on all fronts. I once played a warblade that had a fairly versatile selection of abilities, but because the party also had an incredibly well-optimized cleric and a decently build wizard that happily took advice form the cleric's player for the optimal plays I rarely got to use my tools, because summoning, polymorph and teleportation tended to solve all problems far better than I could, even though I did have solutions to problems.

[Blazeteck]

Fighter is my personal lowest-tier class I'd want to play (according to the rankings here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?600635-Why-each-class-is-in-its-tier-2019-update!)). I played in a large group a few years ago where we had two characters each, and all the tier 4 characters (including a Fighter, Paladin and Ranger) had fun; they could contribute to the game and do their core job reasonably well. The only one who didn't was the Monk, there were frequent wails of "I just can't hit anything!".

This was a relatively low-op group, obviously the optimization level of individual characters/the group as a whole can change things (I was the nearest thing to an optimizer there, so when I played casters I chose a Mystic Theurge and a Sorcerer because I didn't want to overshadow the others).

i personally dont see why people say that classes like fighter and paladin are weak. i think that completely depends on how your dm is running the game. if you run the game to where you only have 1 or 2 decent or hard fights between a resting period the of course a wizard or cleric is going to do a hell of a lot always having access to their spells but the point of spells is supposed to be that they are limited. if the adventure youre on is more of a long grind with no opportunity to rest or you just have a seemingly endless horde of mobs to kill then the Fighter, Ranger and paladin are gonna be just as good from start to finish and do their job, whereas if the wizard and cleric ran out of spells well theres only so much they can actually do depending on builds and gearing.

Im not gonna say all of the weakers classes are like this but a lot of the time a class is weak, Fighter for example, because of how the DM has the game progress. if the thought of running out of spells simply doesnt come into play then congratulations youve literally taken away the biggest weakness and balance check for those classes.

[DeTess]

i personally dont see why people say that classes like fighter and paladin are weak. i think that completely depends on how your dm is running the game. if you run the game to where you only have 1 or 2 decent or hard fights between a resting period the of course a wizard or cleric is going to do a hell of a lot always having access to their spells but the point of spells is supposed to be that they are limited. if the adventure youre on is more of a long grind with no opportunity to rest or you just have a seemingly endless horde of mobs to kill then the Fighter, Ranger and paladin are gonna be just as good from start to finish and do their job, whereas if the wizard and cleric ran out of spells well there's only so much they can actually do depending on builds and gearing.


The thing about cleric and wizard is that in situations like you describe, they often have options to avoid grinding though all those enemies, like invisibility, flight, etc. If there's an army between you and your goal, all a fighter really can do is fight that army. Rogues and rangers might be able to sneak around, while a wizard has options like making everyone invisible to sneak through, flying over, teleporting through, etc.

You're right that a lot of the 'wizards are powerful' arguments are based around the idea that attrition isn't a massive factor, but casters have so many options to avoid attrition that it's not that big of an assumption to make, and the kind that would actually bring meaning full attrition to full casters (forcing them to expend a lot of spells to avoid encounters they're not interested in fighting) would most likely kill a fighter.

Also, it should be noted that attrition isn't that big off a factor at higher levels. I once built a blaster-wizard for one of the iron chef competitions (so with fairly suboptimal PRC's as requirement) that at 20th level could cast 3 384 damage single target fire-spells, 4 280 damage firespells, 5 248 damage firespells, 6 180 damage firespells, 7 124 damage firespells, 7 90 damage firespells and 7 45 damage firespells for a total of 36 fireballs, 22 of which deal over 100 damage. A more reasonable setup still has 22 fireball-rays plus a lot of useful wizardy tricks. The kind of day that would cause this character to run out of steam would likely hit a fighter just as hard by draining their HP. ( The build in question, for those curious: https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23793733&postcount=25 )

[flappeercraft]

i personally dont see why people say that classes like fighter and paladin are weak. i think that completely depends on how your dm is running the game. if you run the game to where you only have 1 or 2 decent or hard fights between a resting period the of course a wizard or cleric is going to do a hell of a lot always having access to their spells but the point of spells is supposed to be that they are limited. if the adventure youre on is more of a long grind with no opportunity to rest or you just have a seemingly endless horde of mobs to kill then the Fighter, Ranger and paladin are gonna be just as good from start to finish and do their job, whereas if the wizard and cleric ran out of spells well theres only so much they can actually do depending on builds and gearing.

Im not gonna say all of the weakers classes are like this but a lot of the time a class is weak, Fighter for example, because of how the DM has the game progress. if the thought of running out of spells simply doesnt come into play then congratulations youve literally taken away the biggest weakness and balance check for those classes.

Well that's partially true. Fighters, paladins, and similar classes can go all day, true. But the fact that HP is limited and they are in the frontlines makes them receive more damage, and then need to rest to heal. Even if you ignore that, I made an entire handbook (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?576339-Spell-Slot-Recovery-Handbook-3-5) on spell recovery like 2 years ago, it's not exactly impossible to have all the spells you want.

[KoDT69]

I would play a commoner in the right game. I have many times in the past joined a game at significantly lower level than the others. One time in a group of newer players after a year I decided to roll up a 1st level character while everyone else was around 17th level.

[Thurbane]

I really enjoyed playing a Dragon Shaman.

[Elkad]

I really enjoyed playing a Dragon Shaman.

I could see playing one for a few couple sessions. I couldn't see playing a campaign as one. You get a few auras to swap, one breath weapon, and one aspect. That's it.
Lacks options, so I'd get bored with it quickly.

[Thurbane]

I could see playing one for a few couple sessions. I couldn't see playing a campaign as one. You get a few auras to swap, one breath weapon, and one aspect. That's it.
Lacks options, so I'd get bored with it quickly.

I played it all the way through EttRoG; I had a few meta-breath feats, but when I wasn't breathing, I played it as a melee type with a Vicious Morningstar. I also had a bunch of use-activated magic items to keep me busy. It was in a relatively low-op group.

[Toliudar]

Generally, I'm fine if I'm only a tier or two behind the rest of the group. I don't mind playing the beguiler among druids, or a commoner among commoners. I had less fun playing a rogue surrounded by tier 1's.

[Luccan]

Thinking about it, is this assuming everyone is around the same utility/power level? Because I've played a commoner in a commoner game before and would do it again, but if even just the other T6 classes are an option I'm probably not going to pick it. I'm having fun as a Magewright, but the other player in that game is an Aristocrat. If they were a Beguiler and I was still just a Magewright I'd feel kinda worthless comparatively.

[rel]

I want a character with enough meaningful options to keep me entertained.
So in short campaigns, oneshots or at low levels I can play anything. I guess commoner would be the weakest.
Joining an inexperienced group as a 3D6 in order commoner (or more likely a series of them) and seeing if I can contribute actually sounds like a fun challenge.

For long campaigns, I need meaningful options beyond "I use my usual trick repeatedly in combat and go get pizza when the challenge does not involve removing hit points from monsters conveniently placed in the same room as me."
So probably one of the spell casting tier 4 or tier 5 options, maybe a skill monkey with a lot of magic item and class feature based support.

[Telonius]

Commoner. (Then again, I'm often the DM).

[Vaern]

I jumped into a game once starting at level 11. I decided that I was going to roll up a commoner with UMD bonuses out the wazoo and start with a couple of wands and a "spellbook" full of scrolls.

His name was Fäk Wei'Saad.

[Ruethgar]

Expert, love being able to pick and choose skills for greater customization. Add on race and class locked(not your race and class) negative spell level spells(via Mind Mage allowance or just Sanctum cantrips) at will for a Sculpt Self to get free resources to build up pseudo class features for even greater customization.

[XionUnborn01]

I've had fun playing monks, fighters, and core barbarians. I've also played high tier classes and not had fun. I think that most people would agree that it depends more on how the DM handles the game than the class you play.