Weakest classes

[Fast]

Wizard : This class simply sucks, Other than its ability to have a wide spell list, it is objectively the weakest of the caster classes. Why is this the case? Because concentration alone destroys the purpose of having a diverse spell list, Sorcerers in general are better at everything , and lets not forget wizard is intel based, the worst ability score.
This class also doesnt multiclass well unless you are looking to learn spells that wont be affected by int. "1 level of wizard wow spell book cool" << no. "no damage to my party wowee", guess what a wizard doing damage is a wizard not buffing your martials damage which is better than you wizard no matter what you do...who cares. GIve you fighter 16-19 hits a turn or a paladin or monk instead with 9-12 per turn...

Druid : This class has being being a jack of all trades in fact makes it pretty terrible.
Shapeshifting is hugely limiting and much of the classes power or usage is lost whilst shapeshift for only a few small perks which are generally speaking inconsequential in bg3.
Beyond that, the spell list is pretty weak, outside of spike growth, and faerie fire (which bards get) this class feels ultimately weaker than other classes than can do what they do ...but better... They do get high wisdom saves ofc, but it doesnt make up for being outclassed by clerics and bards for more robust spell lists and shapeshifts being ultimately more limiting than not. This class also has problems multiclassing due to the nature of shapes. Druids being full casters is the only saving grace. Oh i should mention the AC of shapes is too low.

Rogue : This class was what people once used as a skill monkey for all things skill related and had some reasonable functions in combat, but then bard came along and made it worthless. the end. This class does ok for a multiclass bonus action and stealth attacks but as a primary class its pretty scuffed. From the perspective of combat, a sword bard, or dex fighter is going to do all the things rogue can but better, from the perspective of skill monkey, bard does it all better and is charisma based. Monk is also something to consider here, as monk offers better multiclass options, better utility, and better stealth and combat build options.

Barbarian : some people will think this class is strong, but the reality is, rage is nerfed heavily from 5e, and advantage is something we can get from literally anywhere else. It doesnt progress much from is level 1 state and just gets more attacks and becomes tankier. It is also strength based meaning it suffers once again from a weaker ability score pool, and doesnt offer much more than hitting things relatively hard. The problem is, paladins, and fighters hit harder...more often, and can ability score better. Paladins can obviously take the charisma route and fighters can also go dex , meaning barbs are kinda left in the dust. Multiclass options for barb are kinda scuffed as well. Dex fighters will have the best save ability score in game and paladins...well they can do all the things and multiclass well. Not forgetting monk simply being a better barb at literally everything whilst offering better stealth options than rogue.



BEING WEAKER CLASSES SIMPLY MEANS THERE ARE OTHER CLASSES THAT DO THE THING THEY CAN DO EITHER BETTER OR PRODUCE A MORE CONSISTENT OR BETTER OUTCOME. THEY ARE STILL VIABLE, JUST WEAKER THAN PLAYING SOMETHING ELSE.

[SoUL]

Every cless is weak if you a lame

[[OTS]EchoZenLogos]

Wizards early on are a bit weak, but late-game they have so many spell slots and can learn pretty much so many spells that you can pretty much have the perfect solution to any problem. They can summon help, and then spam walls of fire and shoot lightning from their fingertips many times in important fights while someone like a Warlock would have long since run out of steam and been relegated to using Eldritch Blast (still very good). Sorcerers have good metamagic but less versatility which can definitely be a problem.

Druids I haven't seen in action much, but their wild shape gives them a lot of versatility and staying power overall. I can't comment much on them.

Rogues are very strong...if used correctly. Which requires building them right and using invisibility and stealth to the absolute max so you can spam sneak attacks.

Barbarians basically have the most damage potential of any class in the game in burst scenarios, though fighters and paladins also can get quite a lot. Barbarians get massive health pools, can throw enemies around like rag-dolls, and with their rage and the right build you often can have them doing 100+ damage in a turn reliably later in the game. I don't think you can count them as "weak" even remotely.

I have seen other lists of "weak classes" in this game so far, but frankly I have yet to see evidence that any class is weaker than the others when built right. Some class builds are a bit overpowered compared to the others, but on average every class has a niche they can contribute in very well if you utilize them properly. Monks for example (my main character in the game I just finished) do less damage directly than those like Barbarians, but have far more mobility - plus their naturally high dexterity (for most builds) makes them able to do hit and run tactics with ranged weapons very effectively also in a pinch.

[jonnin]

I do not agree.
Druid shapeshift gives you a large pool of free hit points. This lets you run in and tank with fake HP while still doing some decent damage, and the rothe can exploit the AI's obsession with breaking concentration casting thx to dancing lights... it may as well be a forced taunt. It can also take a path that lets you refresh your spells without sleeping. Between the two, you have an average fighter (can racially get armor and weaponry eg gith) with a ton of healing and other spells mixed with the animal form tricks. Best class ever, no, but its strong if you want a different take on your healer.

rogue is all about the sneak attacks. Hide/shoot every round for an extra 5d6 makes short work of tough guys. I agree it does better hybrid, but the dual hand crossbow sneaker is not weak which is saying something due to poor itemization.

Barbarian may be in the bottom couple. It can hit hard, but so can anyone else and it has little else to offer.
Wizard has its own problems... magic took a hit in this game, with concentration garbage on all the buff spells, high resists on most targets: you have 1 attack per round (your spell) and you have to hit with it twice (once to hit, and once to overcome resist) to do full damage. Imagine if you had to roll each melee attack once to hit, then again to bypass armor or lose half damage, and never got any extra attack skills? that is a caster in this game.

[Cl∅VER]

If you're never switching out your spells to take advantage of the areas you're in then of course Sorc will be better than Wizard, not to mention Necromancy, Abjuration, Divination and Enchantment wizards are very solid subclasses.

Druids are by far the tankiest casters because of their wildshape while still being able to support their allies through concentration spells.

Rogue cunning action is good if used right, gets more proficiencies and gets both sets of their expertises earlier than bards, uncanny dodge and evasion are solid features. Only real changes they need is thief's extra bonus action being limited to cunning actions and reliable talent should prevent nat 1s

I don't know what you mean with barb, Dexterity Barb is viable in BG3, strength has buffed incredibly due to how jump works and how useful shove is most of the time.
Reckless attack's benefit is advantage on enemies hitting you not really the advantage on hitting enemies, so you can take fire away from allies who arent halving all the damage they take and dont have lots of hp.

[HoneyDrake]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RhodosGuard:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Honey Drake:

If we assume you fully invest in a single class, don't multiclass at all and don't abuse damage riders which seem to be bugged regularly?

I would claim Cleric is the "weakest" one. Lack of spells, underwhelming class features which are outshined by most others, too.

But then again Cleric is actually fine.


There are some sub classes which are straight out worse. No clues why anyone would pick Aassassin over Thief, for example (once again ignoring multiclassing)

For the Guaranteed Crit at the start of a surprise round?

Crit in this version is not that great, and, like already said: I am always assuming we don't multiclass and do stuff like assassin warlock to "abuse" Mortal Reminder, as one of many examples.

There are tons of broken things which are just way too strong like Tavern Brawler on some armored Open Hand Monks without relying on glitches and are mostly bad implementations.

Crits are not really part on any list. Assassin doesn't do close to what Thief does, both as an multiclass and solo.

If you ever dip your hands into Illithid powers you can get an guaranteed critical hit as an perk out of it.

[Hangman]

Very good summary , in 5e my favourite is Druid Circle of Spores but here he is so BAD , wasted potential because you are punished for going melee ( loosing your spore aura = loosing your subclass powers ) . You are punished for being to far ( you cannot attack with your spores or resurrect fallen if you are to far ) .
- Stealth is not so good in this game because when enemys find you they nuke your ass to the death = pure Rogue is bad idea
- Barbarian is ok but ... there are better choices for melee/tank/dps like Warrior or Palladin
- Wizard - tons of spells but most of them useless , better to have Sorcerer and focus on DPS or AoE etc.

[Dovahbear]

The daily jester farm for this guy.

Another day, another hot take.

[HoneyDrake]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von OTSEchoZenLogos:

Rogues are very strong...if used correctly. Which requires building them right and using invisibility and stealth to the absolute max so you can spam sneak attacks.

It's enough if you have advantage over someone to get the Sneak Attack bonus.

[yuzhonglu]

OP's mostly right. Without taking multiclassing into account, these would be the 4 weakest classes.

I'd put the Druid over Ranger, though. Druids can have 5 summons, and hero's feast, which makes up for the Ranger multiattacks.

[Hangman]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RhodosGuard:

Wizards being able to throw Fireballs into the frontline without hurting their teammates is about the best thing ever.
Additionally:
Abjuration Wizards are actually quite tanky
Necromancer Wizards can also be very good frontline fighters, especially if you go Dwarf for Medium Armor Proficiency.

Sorcerers only let their friends succeed saves so you can still TPK yourself. The only reason Sorcerers may have the upper hand is quickened Spell and one-shotting encounters by throwing 2 fireballs in, or casting Lightningbolt or Call Lightning into Wet enemies, but that's also something a Wizard can do, at least with Lightningbolt.

Sorcerer Can throw 2 fireballs without hurting anyone lol

[Cl∅VER]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von yuzhonglu:

OP's mostly right. Without taking multiclassing into account, these would be the 4 weakest classes.

I'd put the Druid over Ranger, though. Druids can have 5 summons, and hero's feast, which makes up for the Ranger multiattacks.

Ranger has infinite web through beast master

[Proper Skux]

So far I've found getting melee advantage a bit of a pain on my rogue.

But ranged rogue's working fine early game and outside of assassin being the same gimmicky anchor it is in 5e the two subclasses seem fair.

I mean, I'm pretty sure any table top thief players would literally kill to get a second bonus action and as generous an allowance of 'use an object' as this game has for bonus actions.

[mutantspicy]

First off nearly every class get outclassed by Cleric's in D&D, this is a thing and always has been in every version. The OG D&D guys notoriously hated wizards, and made the puny little nerds who can't survive a single hit. d4 HP die. Beyond that though, I'm going to disagree with your entire premise. 5e makes it so any class can be great in game. Its not a hard game. By level 8 no matter what class you took you should be kicking ass and taking names.

Why are wizards weaker than Sorcerors and Warlocks? It by design. If you play a basic evoker, personally think that is boring and you probably should have a been sorceror. But Divination wizard? Now we are getting somewhere. I saw one of my friends play conjuration wiz but I wasn't impressed with wiz conjuration in 5e. But still the fact you can pick from the entire spell list for specific reasons, and get some spells back for short rest is quite powerful. In BG3 or any video game. Same issue NWN had, you can rest anywhere and anytime. So it takes away from short rest recovery for all the classes. That said, Wizard are supposed to not get hit ever. They are weak little nerds, but who can play the entire book the world is your oyster and you are only limited by your imagination. Of course you can multiclass or subclass into spell sword gish type. Abjuration wiz/fighter can be a total tank.

Druids. You are just wrong on every level. Conjure Woodland Being by itself is just amazing. They can cast spike growth, entangle, shillelagh, conjure another creature who can also cast entangle. Its like being able to cast two or maybe three concentration spells at the same time. Wildshaping for HP in combat or to go into melee. Wild Shape and Polymorph are strangely the best healing spells in game. Wild shaping for scouting and exploration, Wildshaping to get into small cracks and crevices. etc. Plant growth doesn't require concentration, great for creating choke points for an upcoming battle. And with a couple conjured creatures who can cast and concentrate on entangle and spike growth you basically funnel enemies anywhere you want them to go. Preferrably into your wizards grease trap. Also Druids have some of the best cantrips in game. Shillelagh and Thorn Whip are both great in combat. Thorn Whip is great for pulling rangers off cliffs. But also, Guidance and Produce Flame are insanely useful in this game. Also, I find the spell list to be pretty solid. Call lightning, Moonbeam, Spike Growth, Plant Growth, Polymorph, day light in this game. All really solid choices.

Rogue well I'm not sure what game you are playing, but in D&D rogues are right up there with Clerics in terms of being necessary for the party and doing some serious damage, whether you need a flanker in melee or another archer, doesn't matter they do both extremely well.

I find Barbarian to be a bit boring for my taste, but they are kind of fun to roleplay in PnP.

In general, you do you. But I tend to prefer the role playing aspect of D&D and enjoy playing a weaker character or doing something different to force yourself to be creative in situations.

[Yagger]

hot take of the year

[Fast]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von yuzhonglu:

OP's mostly right. Without taking multiclassing into account, these would be the 4 weakest classes.

I'd put the Druid over Ranger, though. Druids can have 5 summons, and hero's feast, which makes up for the Ranger multiattacks.

Rangers saving grace, its is utility in multiclassing, its ability to have spider web uptime, moresoe than druids without being shifted, and overall ability in combat and potential attacks per turn, make it a better pick than something like rogue or barb, and offer a better utility option than all of druids entire spell list. It also being dex based makes it particularly strong in the save department.