| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is lots of talk about what class and builds are best at what they do, but what's the weakest class? Sure, any of them can be made to work, but what's the toughest to optimize, or the most poorly designed?
J
Rogue is the first one that came to mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely the original Rogue and Monk from the core rulebook. With CRB only the Monk is the worse of the two, and is in a rather pitiful state. With access to archetypes the Monk improves phenomenally, while the Rogue just doesn't have anything that improves it by leaps and bounds (I'm counting Ninja and Unchained Rogue as different classes). Monk and Rogue got unchained renditions in Pathfinder Unchained for a reason.
low level wizard/sorcerer3.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
commoner
ok you win
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So are we talking combat-wise, or is utility a factor?
Because core rogue definitely falls down combat-wise, lacking spells, and no reliable way of sneak attacking every turn they simply fall behind other martial classes. But they definitely come out ahead with the sheer number of skill points available to them. And lets face it, a party will always happily accept a rogue as a 5th or 6th character to overcome skill challenges.
I do like Lady-J's answer though, because commoner is objectively worse than a rogue, with worse BAB, saves, fewer class skills, and no class features. But I assume OP didn't have NPC classes in mind.
So are we talking combat-wise, or is utility a factor?
Because core rogue definitely falls down combat-wise, lacking spells, and no reliable way of sneak attacking every turn they simply fall behind other martial classes. But they definitely come out ahead with the sheer number of skill points available to them. And lets face it, a party will always happily accept a rogue as a 5th or 6th character to overcome skill challenges.I do like Lady-J's answer though, because commoner is objectively worse than a rogue, with worse BAB, saves, fewer class skills, and no class features. But I assume OP didn't have NPC classes in mind.
Core rogue isn't even that good of a skill monkey. The average Investigator has as many skill ranks as a rogue, along with extracts and inspiration.
This isn't to say that rogues can't be fun to play, or that they can't contribute to a party, of course. It's just more difficult for them, and they can't really do anything another class doesn't do better.
Core rogue isn't even that good of a skill monkey. The average Investigator has as many skill ranks as a rogue, along with extracts and inspiration.So are we talking combat-wise, or is utility a factor?
Because core rogue definitely falls down combat-wise, lacking spells, and no reliable way of sneak attacking every turn they simply fall behind other martial classes. But they definitely come out ahead with the sheer number of skill points available to them. And lets face it, a party will always happily accept a rogue as a 5th or 6th character to overcome skill challenges.I do like Lady-J's answer though, because commoner is objectively worse than a rogue, with worse BAB, saves, fewer class skills, and no class features. But I assume OP didn't have NPC classes in mind.
Even if we stick to core a base Bard competes pretty easily between their multiple skill-boosting class features, spells and six ranks.
I mean is there a class that people will actively object to as a 6th party member? I don't think that's a very convincing argument for a rogue and I honestly feel a bit bad for that chained rogue player. His niche in a 6pc party is liable to be very small.
That said I actually kinda think the chained no archetype monk may be worse, can someone explain to me why I'm wrong?
Even if we stick to core a base Bard competes pretty easily between their multiple skill-boosting class features, spells and six ranks.Core rogue isn't even that good of a skill monkey. The average Investigator has as many skill ranks as a rogue, along with extracts and inspiration.So are we talking combat-wise, or is utility a factor?
Because core rogue definitely falls down combat-wise, lacking spells, and no reliable way of sneak attacking every turn they simply fall behind other martial classes. But they definitely come out ahead with the sheer number of skill points available to them. And lets face it, a party will always happily accept a rogue as a 5th or 6th character to overcome skill challenges.I do like Lady-J's answer though, because commoner is objectively worse than a rogue, with worse BAB, saves, fewer class skills, and no class features. But I assume OP didn't have NPC classes in mind.
For sure. Not to mention with versatile performance, they probably end up having a greater number of effective skill ranks in the long run.
I mean is there a class that people will actively object to as a 6th party member? I don't think that's a very convincing argument for a rogue and I honestly feel a bit bad for that chained rogue player. His niche in a 6pc party is liable to be very small.
That said I actually kinda think the chained no archetype monk may be worse, can someone explain to me why I'm wrong?
No, you're right, it's just that introducing archetypes improves the core rogue only a little, whereas it can be a game-changer for the monk. With the CRB only the monk is worse but a couple more books and they have a niche even if it's precarious.
|
|
I don't know, I think I still give the core monk a bit of an edge. It can still be fairly good with maneuvers, or deal decent damage to low AC enemies without needing help from a teammate. And can do that while maintaining mid to high AC with good saves. Not going to say it's a lot better, but it would be my choice, if I had to make a choice between the two. Though I might just drop out of any game where my two choices were either core monk, or core rogue.
Wizard.
My sarcasm detector doesn't work before breakfast, but actually there is a true facet to this answer: Hand over a wizard to a completely new player and the incredibly low floor of this class will show. A badly played Core rogue or monk still shines in comparison to a wizard who picks niche utility spells and charges into melee.
That said, Core rogue has a quite low floor indeed. More in combat than at skills: It's easy to mess up a fight by simply wading into melee, but it's more difficult to really mess up skill rank distribution (and ability score choice).
But I wouldn't want to trade tinkering on a rogue build for ready-to-go packages like investigator or slayer.
Core rogue.
The core rogue is like taking the bard, removing spellcasting and bardic performance and all the abilities that make them good at skills, and replacing them all with an unreliable burst damage ability.
That said I actually kinda think the chained no archetype monk may be worse, can someone explain to me why I'm wrong?
If built right his DPR and AC are comparable to a fighter's with better saves and mobility.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard.My sarcasm detector doesn't work before breakfast, but actually there is a true facet to this answer: Hand over a wizard to a completely new player and the incredibly low floor of this class will show. A badly played Core rogue or monk still shines in comparison to a wizard who picks niche utility spells and charges into melee.
That said, Core rogue has a quite low floor indeed. More in combat than at skills: It's easy to mess up a fight by simply wading into melee, but it's more difficult to really mess up skill rank distribution (and ability score choice).
But I wouldn't want to trade tinkering on a rogue build for ready-to-go packages like investigator or slayer.
Thank you, my answer was a little from column A and a little from column B.
|
Honestly, Unchained Rogue isn't even all that much better. Dex to damage is pretty much all it has going for it, as it's pretty much the only real option now if you want Dex based TWF. Yes, I know you can just buy two +1 Agile weapons, but 16000gp means you're not doing that until after level 5, which is pretty much worthless unless your campaign is starting at higher levels.
I'll never even consider playing a chained rogue at all, while I'll at least consider a few levels of Unchained (3 for Dex to damage, or 4 if using the Scout archetype).
Personally, the most useless character I've ever had sit down at a table with me was a Psychic. Though, to be fair, I'm pretty sure that's largely because the person built it terribly.
Once had a guy sit down with a vigilante that took gunsmithing as his first feat.
Even after I showed him the archetype for guns.
|
|
Once had a guy sit down with a vigilante that took gunsmithing as his first feat.
Even after I showed him the archetype for guns.
That sounds painful. I've played a few sessions with a Bard who, in three sessions, used his Bardic Performance once and instead always just hit things nonlethally with a whip... At least he often made knowledge rolls, so there's that I guess.
|
|
Are we counting prestige classes? The majority of those are mostly worthless. Either way, I guess, I still keep coming back to chained rogue.
If you break it into groups, though, there are a number of classes I'd never choose to play, generally speaking.
Like, I don't think I'll ever choose a Wizard over a Sorcerer or Arcanist, for example. Some of that is preference, and some is that I primarily play PFS and Wizards are generally much worse in early levels than Sorcerers.
|
Honestly, Unchained Rogue isn't even all that much better. Dex to damage is pretty much all it has going for it, as it's pretty much the only real option now if you want Dex based TWF. Yes, I know you can just buy two +1 Agile weapons, but 16000gp means you're not doing that until after level 5, which is pretty much worthless unless your campaign is starting at higher levels.
I'll never even consider playing a chained rogue at all, while I'll at least consider a few levels of Unchained (3 for Dex to damage, or 4 if using the Scout archetype).
Personally, the most useless character I've ever had sit down at a table with me was a Psychic. Though, to be fair, I'm pretty sure that's largely because the person built it terribly.
You are seriously undervaluing debilitating injury and rouges edge. Dex to damage is just icing on the cake, the unchained rouge is a very viable melee debuffer.
"It depends."
Rogue's Edge with Perception gives massively increased detection ranges.
Presuming Signature Skill is available in the game, shoehorning that feat in for Perception is always worth it for characters with robust Perception bonuses. An elf built to maximize all things Perception at 20th has no vision-based penalty at all for 300', taking only a -1 per 60' thereafter. "What do your elf eyes see" is embodied quite well.
Heal with Rogue's Edge is a very nice "rest time" benefit, especially if the character is built for it. Daily treatments of deadly wounds in combination with natural rest repairs a lot of ability damage and hit points without expending a single spell slot. In some environments this is especially invaluable: Castle Scarwall from chapter 5 of CotCT, Slumbering Tsar and Rappan Athuk are examples of places where having rogue's edge or signature skill (heal) unlocks for Heal will be of incredible value. If the character's Heal bonus is high enough, they can do so with only improvised tools. Otherwise, shovel 10 or so healer's kits into a side pocket of their handy haversack whenever possible.
PFS is not the only way the game is played. By a lot of people, sure, no question. Definitely not by everyone.
Otherwise, Pathfinder becomes the most ridiculously rules-bloated organized-play-only game system currently in play (that I'm aware of).
;)
|
|
Now now, we are talking weak classes, not problem due to noob players.
What happened to Fighter being the worst PC class?
It was never the worst pc class. Even in the CRB it's good at fighting, it just can't do anything else. Archetypes, Advanced Weapon & Armor training, more feats, and combat stamina make them excellent in combat and good out of combat.
Good at fighting until high levels play. Random loot is also one of the worst nightmare of this class.What happened to Fighter being the worst PC class?It was never the worst pc class. Even in the CRB it's good at fighting, it just can't do anything else.
At 15th level or higher with a suitable caster in the group - not a guarantee by any means of course - that is not an overwhelming problem either. With at most a day of rest a Wizard with polymorph any object can suppress via dispel magic nearly any item's magic long enough to *pouf* it into stuff the Fighter can use. ;)
That said I actually kinda think the chained no archetype monk may be worse, can someone explain to me why I'm wrong?If built right his DPR and AC are comparable to a fighter's with better saves and mobility.
I'd say not without considerably more effort that it takes for a fighter to take power attack and hold a two handed weapon in plate Armour. And probably not in a 15 PB at all. Not until they can buy an amulet of agile mighty fists anyway.
I'm also not entirely convinced they can hit the same DPR within the core class anyway. When they're given fair and equal resources and equal access to material.Go far enough outside of core and this may change. But go far enough outside of core and fighters actually end up decent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good at fighting until high levels play. Random loot is also one of the worst nightmare of this class.What happened to Fighter being the worst PC class?It was never the worst pc class. Even in the CRB it's good at fighting, it just can't do anything else.
Yeah, but most groups (based on anecdotal evidence from many posters on this website) don't seem to use "random loot only".
You get random loot, which is promptly sold to buy things you need.
I remember our GM telling us all the time about the myriad +1 weapons we found...which is (mostly) worthless if you already have a +1 weapon.
And so off to the market to get rid of them and buy what you need.
Random loot is only a problem if you're GM doesn't let you get access to a market to buy and sell "the big six".
Still, just convince your GM to use automatic bonus progression, and then everything gets much much better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues are as weak as the party that fails to support them and each other, chained or otherwise.
Core rogue is the weakest class across a wide variety of tables. There are a bunch of different options that are better than you who also do what you do.
However, with an uncooperative GM the Medium is probably even weaker, because of less-than-reliable access to spirits. It's not hard to imagine a GM saying "you're in a dungeon, there's no spirits around" resulting in you being largely helpless.
An uncooperative GM can nerf any class.
For a ranger -- he can be sure that the party never encounters a favored enemy.
For a paladin -- he can ensure that all foes are of neutral alignment and/or make the paladin fall for trivial reasons.
For any martial class -- add punitive and crippling fumble rules.
And don't get me started on GMs who set things up so that plot critical goals can be accomplished only by the special GMPC.
Yes, but the Medium is especially vulnerable to an uncooperative GM, since basically all of their class features are tied to "being able to channel a spirit."
A ranger outside of her favored terrain with no favored enemies around is still a full BAB 4-level caster with martial weapon and shield proficiencies and bonus feats and maybe an animal companion.
A Paladin when nobody around is evil is still a full BAB 4-level caster with martial weapons, heavy armor, and shield proficiency with divine grace, divine bond, auras, mercies, and lay on hands.
A medium without access to spirits is a 3/4 BAB 4 level caster with simple weapon and medium armor (but no shield) proficiencies and no other class features.
I dont know about weakest but realizing you're still casting level 1 spells as a level 1 oracle or Sorc usually makes me feel like I am playing the weakest class. That is a damn grind.
How does casting level one spells at level one make them seem any weaker than any other full caster O.o
Honestly, Unchained Rogue isn't even all that much better. Dex to damage is pretty much all it has going for it, as it's pretty much the only real option now if you want Dex based TWF. Yes, I know you can just buy two +1 Agile weapons, but 16000gp means you're not doing that until after level 5, which is pretty much worthless unless your campaign is starting at higher levels.
The sheer number of bonus feats the URogue get makes it very solid at low-level play. You get weapon finesse for free and the URogue's sneak attack rules are written slightly differently so the benefits of the Shadow Strike feat are built-in. That dodges two feat taxes at the 1st level, which for low-level play makes the URogue phenomenally better than its CRB counterpart. That's even before considering dex-to-damage, which as you mention comes online earlier than agile weapons.
That said, I do understand the temptation to take 3 levels of URogue then multiclass out. It's very front-loaded.
What happened to Fighter being the worst PC class?
Weapon Master's Handbook happened. Skill Monkey Fighters are a thing now. Hell hath frozen over.
That said I actually kinda think the chained no archetype monk may be worse, can someone explain to me why I'm wrong?If built right his DPR and AC are comparable to a fighter's with better saves and mobility.I'd say not without considerably more effort that it takes for a fighter to take power attack and hold a two handed weapon in plate Armour. And probably not in a 15 PB at all. Not until they can buy an amulet of agile mighty fists anyway.
I'm also not entirely convinced they can hit the same DPR within the core class anyway. When they're given fair and equal resources and equal access to material.Go far enough outside of core and this may change. But go far enough outside of core and fighters actually end up decent.
There is a huge difference between chained monk with no archetypes (the statement I commented on) and core only.
Feats and options added after core was released completely change what both fighter's and monks can do, and I was using this assumption when comparing the two classes.
On the other hand, we could always use the No True Scotsman fallacy to exclude anything that might make a class stronger than our assertion.