# The WORST Classes



## tylermalan (Sep 9, 2011)

I think I already know how this is going to go... but what do you think are the worst classes in Pathfinder?  You can draw from the Core Rulebook, APG, UM, or UC.  Hate away!


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 9, 2011)

1. Monk
2. Rogue
3. Ninja

After that it's a sizable gap...  next up would probably be Samurai, Cavalier, Fighter, and Barbarian, not sure what order.  Then Bard.  Then Inquisitor.  Then probably Alchemist.

Ranger I'm honestly not sure where to place, possibly worst than bard but better than that gaggle of melee classes.  Paladin's about the top of heap for full BAB classes.


----------



## Dykstrav (Sep 9, 2011)

From a purely mechanical point of view...

*1. Monk.* They have tons of abilities, but none of them really help you until you get some levels under your belt. You're extremely mobile, yes, but your damage output isn't all that good and you're unarmored--not a good place to be in melee. Things get interesting once you hit fifth level or so, but the early levels are a challenge. A monk with the right skills (Climb, Perception, Stealth) _can_ be an awesome scout if you're not terribly concerned about their ability to find and disarm traps. Evasion and improved evasion helps meliorate this somewhat, and multi-classing into rogue can be an attractive option for a monk.

*2. Bard.* The bard does several things, but none of them particularly well except for having scads of social skills. In an urban setting or intrigue-based campaign, a bard can be awesome, but in most campaigns, they vacillate between being subobtimal dabblers and just sheer dead weight. You have to really twink out a bard to have them be more than a supporting character in anything but social situations. I actually have a bard in my current campaign, and he's really surprised me by being as useful to the group as he is. I think the player understood the challenges of being a bard and made some good choices to beef up his performance.

*3. Ninja.* I don't mind the concept of a ninja class. I don't like the ninja presented in _Ultimate Combat_ because it's basically better at being a rogue 
that a rogue is. They get tons of cool ninja abilities like a ki pool, light steps, no trace... _and_ they can select any rogue talent. The only thing that a rogue gets that a ninja doesn't is trapfinding--in every other way, the ninja is clearly superior.

The following are the worst from a roleplaying point of view. In all fairness, I don't think that the classes themselves are designed poorly or have any mechanical or narrative flaws--they just seem to attract the goobers for some reason.

*1. Bard/paladin/sorcerer, or any other Charisma-based class with an emphasis on social skills. *This isn't a phenomenon unique to the Pathfinder RPG, but there are people that want to play characters with strong Charisma scores and social skills as a means of forcing the party into doing what they want. From the bard that insists that she is the party leader "because I have the highest Charisma" to the sorcerer that casts _charm person_ on anyone that disagrees with them... It's an odd paradox that people with no social skills try to gravitate toward social roles. Maybe I don't understand it, or maybe I understand it too well, I'm not sure which.

*2. Magus.* I think that the magus class is reasonably designed and interesting. It's a bit annoying, however, because there are a lot of people that want to play magi because they think that a magus can fight as well as a fighter and cast as well as a wizard. They get disappointed when the GM holds them to the class' limitations. The first game I saw with a magus, the player thought that the magus' spell combat class feature gave him an extra action every round--he kept trying to "cast, _then_ move, _then_ attack," despite the clearly-worded "full-round action" thing in the spell combat class feature. The last session I played with a magus, the player kept trying to talk the GM into letting their magus character cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity, because otherwise, "the class is useless." He got a bit frustrated with the GM when the GM explained how casting defensively and concentration checks work and referred him to the _Pathfinder RPG core rulebook_ about it.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 9, 2011)

Now I'm confused.  Is this thread about the mechanically weakest classes, or the classes we hate the most?


----------



## Asmo (Sep 9, 2011)

It´s all about the hate!

Asmo


----------



## tylermalan (Sep 9, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Now I'm confused.  Is this thread about the mechanically weakest classes, or the classes we hate the most?




Well, either.  I guess my main question is which are the worst from a mechanical point of view, but whatever.  I'm assuming that you are asserting that Dykstrav's choices are from a personal hatred, and not a mechanical standpoint?

And actually, I've obviously seen some other threads on the topic, but I'm interested to see a concise post by you, Stream, on why you think the Rogue is bad, other than that their talents are garbage.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 9, 2011)

They have the worst saves in the game.

They're tremendously MAD (only Monk and Ninja are worse).

They had almost every means of ranged SA taken away, and fell behind the other melee classes for melee damage/suvivability (just look at Fighter, Paladin, and even Barbarian and TWF Ranger compared to 3E).  The medium BAB also severely crimps their melee ability.

The skill change BADLY destroyed much of their niche protection as being the "skill guy."  Now thanks to their MAD, they're lucky to be the best at any skill at all, other than Disable Device (partly due to the trapfinding bonus, partly because no one else really would care enough to put ranks in it).

It's more a case of Rogue not being very good at anything at all.  The game rewards specialization, being the second best in the party at most roles isn't really that useful.  Bard has always had a similar problem, but at least gets solid buffing and decent spellcasting to compensate.


Now, I happen to really like rogues, and monks.  So if this thread is about HATE, then my choice is Gunslinger, hands-down.  It does pirouettes as it dances over a decade of broken rules precedents in its tango with its dance partner, "my power is limited only by DM fiat," gaining grit points while doing so.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 9, 2011)

It all depends on how the game is played.  The classes people see as best are the ones that do one thing great and as long as that character can do that one thing they will be.  But that's boring.  Every now and then the fighter has to fight without armor and weapons.  The wizard gets in a situation with few spells and no chance to prepare more.  It can be as simple as makign a situation where the Druid needs to become the face of the group and have to use socuial skills they are not good at.  So, changing the way the game plays a little bit can really make a difference on what classes are the best.


----------



## GreyLord (Sep 10, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Now I'm confused.  Is this thread about the mechanically weakest classes, or the classes we hate the most?




Except for those who try to use some screwed up math to justify their reasoning...isn't it basically the same thing normally...





Crothian said:


> It all depends on how the game is played.  The classes people see as best are the ones that do one thing great and as long as that character can do that one thing they will be.  But that's boring.  Every now and then the fighter has to fight without armor and weapons.  The wizard gets in a situation with few spells and no chance to prepare more.  It can be as simple as makign a situation where the Druid needs to become the face of the group and have to use socuial skills they are not good at.  So, changing the way the game plays a little bit can really make a difference on what classes are the best.




I suppose I should joke less on it...

This is true...but not seen very much.

Most times people are talking only about one factor of the game when they discuss which classes are best, and that's combat.

Many have their niche's which they prefer...with many calling any spellcaster the best...aka...Druid's, followed by Clerics...followed by Wizards or Sorcerer's...

In that I suppose the above are pretty much close to being the top of what they'd call the BEST classes, with Monks and Rogues being there with the WORST classes...many would say Fighters as well...

I say the worst class is the one that you don't want to play, the best one being the one you want to play.  It stinks if you want to play the Wizard and have to play a Rogue, or a Fighter and have to play a Cleric...that's when you suddenly get a Rogue that seems to be focused on scrolls and casting all things that he can possibly qualify for...and Clerics that are selfish and only buff themselves then rush into combat after it's half over trying to kill everything and say they did it all by themselves...and then refuse to heal anyone telling everyone else it's their purpose to provide their own healing.

So, play what you WANT to play...and enjoy the game.  Even if you want to play a Monk, play it and enjoy it.  If you DON'T want to play a class, that's the worst class for you to play.  Even if someone says you need to play such and such because it's the best class ever...if you don't want to play it and it won't be fun for you...then for YOU that's the worst class.

Just my two coppers...and that's not much considering how many have two gold to clink together instead.


----------



## Wiseblood (Sep 11, 2011)

My number one choice for worst class is  Druid.

A class that just irks me to no end. It had some style in older editions. Not enough to really bother playing. It could have been a hedge wizard casting spells both arcane and divine. Much like the druids I would envision from a pseudo medieval fantasy setting. Instead they have been co-opted by hippies. Barf.


 How did it make number one? Over-inflate it with power (shape-shifting, full casting and the two best saves) just to make it a viable choice.(given the horrendous roleplaying opportunities) A splash of neutrality to aid players who are allergic to real alignments. Add in some stupid pet and bingo you have the worst class in the game.


The runner up is anything not found in the Core Rulebook.

I lack the ability to convey the vitriolic hatred I have for druids. It seethes in my guts like a nest of angry wasps.


----------



## Asmo (Sep 11, 2011)

Wiseblood said:


> I lack the ability to convey the vitriolic hatred I have for druids. It seethes in my guts like a nest of angry wasps.




Now we´re talking! 

Asmo


----------



## tylermalan (Sep 11, 2011)

Asmo said:


> Now we´re talking!
> 
> Asmo




Yeah, man!  I need to make hate threads more often...


----------



## tylermalan (Sep 11, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> They have the worst saves in the game.
> 
> They're tremendously MAD (only Monk and Ninja are worse).
> 
> ...




A guy was about to play a Gunslinger in this Carrion Crown game we are playing.  The DM shot him down, and I think I heard an angelic choir singing just for me... I hate that class!  And I've never even seen it in play!

So, could you expand a little more on why the skill changes hurt the Rogue's niche?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 11, 2011)

Monk, Ninja, Samurai - not because of any mechanical weakness, but because my settings very seldom have that much of an Eastern bent.

The Auld Grump


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 11, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> A guy was about to play a Gunslinger in this Carrion Crown game we are playing.  The DM shot him down, and I think I heard an angelic choir singing just for me... I hate that class!  And I've never even seen it in play!
> 
> So, could you expand a little more on why the skill changes hurt the Rogue's niche?




Well, basically, "class skills" used to really mean something, it was actually sort of a class feature in its own right.  Now it's just a +3, and any schmuck that multiclasses just 1 level can snag all of those bonuses and never look back.  The extremely punitive cross class skill rules in 3E that everyone (but me) seemed to hate were a massive form of niche protection.  "Yeah, your sorcerer has 10 points higher charisma than me, but with half the max ranks allowed and basically having to spend all your skill points just on that one skill, you're not terribly incentivized to jump on Use Magic Device [or Intimidate, or Diplomacy; basically pick any class and skill based on its primary stat that it didn't have as a class skill], now are you?  And even if you did, I'm still going to end up better at it.  Nya!"

That's all gone now.  The rogue _might_ still be the best at dex-based skills, only, but Ranger and some others can give him a run towards the obsolete bin on those, too.  So again, rogue can't even come close to the most damage, can't outshine the other classes at any skill except maybe disable device, is squishy/weak/MAD as hell, instead of being good party support is actually one of the most party-dependent (with the sneak attack nerfs, I'd say even more so than monk; for ranged SA you're basically begging for Greater Invis or sucking), oh and maneuvering into flanking just so you can do not completely worthless damage is now super deadly.  Have fun!

Unless your party is super unbalanced in representation (lots of warriors or mages, and most would argue the latter can handle anything anyway), I can't really justify ever needing the rogue in a party with characters all of different types.

EDIT: And yeah, good for you.  I think I've decided that just as "no D&D is better than 4E D&D" for me, so too is "No D&D/PF better than D&D/PF with the PF gun rules."


----------



## tylermalan (Sep 11, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Well, basically, "class skills" used to really mean something, it was actually sort of a class feature in its own right.  Now it's just a +3, and any schmuck that multiclasses just 1 level can snag all of those bonuses and never look back.  The extremely punitive cross class skill rules in 3E that everyone (but me) seemed to hate were a massive form of niche protection.  "Yeah, your sorcerer has 10 points higher charisma than me, but with half the max ranks allowed and basically having to spend all your skill points just on that one skill, you're not terribly incentivized to jump on Use Magic Device [or Intimidate, or Diplomacy; basically pick any class and skill based on its primary stat that it didn't have as a class skill], now are you?  And even if you did, I'm still going to end up better at it.  Nya!"
> 
> That's all gone now.  The rogue _might_ still be the best at dex-based skills, only, but Ranger and some others can give him a run towards the obsolete bin on those, too.  So again, rogue can't even come close to the most damage, can't outshine the other classes at any skill except maybe disable device, is squishy/weak/MAD as hell, instead of being good party support is actually one of the most party-dependent (with the sneak attack nerfs, I'd say even more so than monk; for ranged SA you're basically begging for Greater Invis or sucking), oh and maneuvering into flanking just so you can do not completely worthless damage is now super deadly.  Have fun!
> 
> ...




Hmm, that makes a lot of sense.  What are they supposed to get to offset this?  Trapfinding?  Rogue talents?


----------



## Noir le Lotus (Sep 13, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> They have the worst saves in the game.




This one is true and it's the main problem of the rogue ... 




StreamOfTheSky said:


> They're tremendously MAD (only Monk and Ninja are worse).




Rogues are MAD ?? They need Dex and that's all. Int is no longer mandatory with the skill consolidation (Knowledge Local is the only Int-based skill and 8 SP are enough to cover all the basic skills needed) but can be useful. He needs a bit of Con like any other class. Cha is necessary only if you wants to play social. Wis and Str are ok with a 10.
[/QUOTE]




StreamOfTheSky said:


> They had almost every means of ranged SA taken away, and fell behind the other melee classes for melee damage/suvivability (just look at Fighter, Paladin, and even Barbarian and TWF Ranger compared to 3E).  The medium BAB also severely crimps their melee ability.




Ranged SA was never the main thing of rogues as it needed a lot of support (Blink, Greater Invi ...). Now SA can apply to almost any creature and that's a good change for rogues. Medium BAB was already in like this in 3.5, nothing has changed. Things are even better now that rogues can have the Weapon Finesse feat with a rogue talent : one less feat tax !!



StreamOfTheSky said:


> The skill change BADLY destroyed much of their niche protection as being the "skill guy."  Now thanks to their MAD, they're lucky to be the best at any skill at all, other than Disable Device (partly due to the trapfinding bonus, partly because no one else really would care enough to put ranks in it).
> 
> It's more a case of Rogue not being very good at anything at all.  The game rewards specialization, being the second best in the party at most roles isn't really that useful.  Bard has always had a similar problem, but at least gets solid buffing and decent spellcasting to compensate.





Rogues are still the best at what they are supposed to do : Disable Device, Stealth, Acrobaty, etc ... Classes relying heavily on Wisdow are better spotter than him, but nothing has changed since 3.5 where druids & rangers were better than rogues for this.


----------



## EUBanana (Sep 13, 2011)

Rogues, and thieves before them, always sucked.  D&D has never been kind to these guys.  I think they got better, in increments, and in PF they are a little better again, but their tiny improvements never come near the awesomeness every other class ends up getting.

PF hasn't really changed that.


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 13, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Monk, Ninja, Samurai - not because of any mechanical weakness, but because my settings very seldom have that much of an Eastern bent.
> 
> The Auld Grump




And here I don't like Summoner, because it doesn't fit in my Eastern campaign... 

I really don't like Summoner, actually, and not because it's weak, rather because its too strong - from a GM's POV, I can't stand Summoner...


----------



## concerro (Sep 13, 2011)

Wiseblood said:


> My number one choice for worst class is  Druid.
> 
> A class that just irks me to no end. It had some style in older editions. Not enough to really bother playing. It could have been a hedge wizard casting spells both arcane and divine. Much like the druids I would envision from a pseudo medieval fantasy setting. Instead they have been co-opted by hippies. Barf.
> 
> ...



I think we need to define worst. I thought the OP meant worst in terms of most likely to not be useful, which does not fit the druid at all.


----------



## concerro (Sep 13, 2011)

Noir le Lotus said:


> This one is true and it's the main problem of the rogue ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Ranged SA was never the main thing of rogues as it needed a lot of support (Blink, Greater Invi ...). Now SA can apply to almost any creature and that's a good change for rogues. Medium BAB was already in like this in 3.5, nothing has changed. Things are even better now that rogues can have the Weapon Finesse feat with a rogue talent : one less feat tax !!




Rogues are still the best at what they are supposed to do : Disable Device, Stealth, Acrobaty, etc ... Classes relying heavily on Wisdow are better spotter than him, but nothing has changed since 3.5 where druids & rangers were better than rogues for this.[/QUOTE]
They are the best at disable device and finding traps, but traps don't get much respect it seems. Anything else is questionable about them being the best at it.


----------

