Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-too powerful?

[Arnwyn]

For us, in a "standard" campaign that includes multiple types of encounters, it's the cleric. No question.

In regard to long-term survival, it's still the cleric.

 

[Thanee]

I can remember five cleric PCs (the first three of those where in 3.0).

The three 3.0 clerics where all pretty dominant (a human cleric/warpriest of Heironeous, a dwarven cleric of Grumbar with Persistent Spell, and my own elven archery rogue/cleric/contemplative of Labelas Enoreth with Quicken Spell).

The two 3.5 clerics where not very dominant (an aasimar cleric of Tymora, who died at some point in his early career and was replaced by a paladin of Tyr, and a human cleric of Tymora, who was played in a rather half-hearted manner and died because of stupidity ('Hey, why should I heal me, they'll just beat down the extra hit points again. I rather attack the almost unwounded opponent and die thereafter.' *shrug*) and was then replaced by a dwarven fighter/rogue).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Merlion]

Some might care. This is the Rules forum, meant for:



You seem interested in changing a few classes to "make them more balanced". That's great --> I've got no problem with that. I'm suggesting you post in the appropriate forum. That's it. No offence is meant or implied.

I'm not sure that's what your Poll shows. You can take the facts of your poll and say:"Perhaps I asked an overly broad question". Or "Most people on these boards haven't voted in my poll." Those are other reasonable conclusions, no?

would agree, so long as we throw in the caveat: "Everyone knows you need a cleric in the party, so some one has to play the cleric." That's purely a mechanical issue, not a roleplaying one.

Of course you can! Easy, fella! All I'm saying: Most people who took your poll did not vote for Barbarian. Therefore saying that stating: "I'm going to focus on .... (also) the Barbarian which I kind of have some issues with, and has recieved some votes as well (relative to other melees)." is a bit disingenuous. As of right now, the Paladin is ahead of the poor overpowered Barbarian.

I really dont think the forum rules would prohibit us discussing problems in class balance, and then discussing possible ways to solve those problems (real or percieved or whatever). I dont really think a seperate thread is neccesary to do that, so I really dont see why you cant give you actual opinions and feedback instead of stating disagreement and moving on without giving any reasons, or you own contributions to the idea.


Who says every party has to have a Cleric? I know the designers think that, but I dont think the mechanics support it.


Poll results: Again, like Force User you basically seem to feel these polls, and these types of discussions are more or less useless and pointless, and so I ask again without rancor, why are you taking part in the discussion at all?


And for the Barbarian...I said what I said at that moment because I was trying come up with an excuse to move the conversation away from everyone trying to argue with IAmIan. It was what I really think, but I only mentioned the votes to try and sound casual. And when I said relative to other melees I meant the barb's power level not the votes, but I phrased it badly I know

 

[gabrion]

As for specific complaints:

• Cleric: Sure, the cleric can be amazing. Tell me, have any clerics in your campaign actually been amazing? Has a cleric PC dominated the game? The fact that there is so often a disconnect there should tell you something. Put another way: as this thread has amply demonstrated, those that think clerics are over powered still prefer to play something else.

Well to make one more reference to it, I'm in a game with 4 clerics and a druid, so it's difficult to say "the cleric" is dominating the game. Really they all are. As for other examples, I played 3.0 real life game from 1-20 and the cleric it the group rocked. I was a wizard so when we got to higher levels I was way cooler, but he was constant all the way through and outshined every other player through all levels until the high levels when my wizard was top dog.

• [*]Druid: The number of "outlandish" things a Druid can do is relatively limited. In our games, the two problems have been a few spells (like Animal Growth, Quill Blast, and Spike Growth) and the extra potential of the animal companion. If you really must, a few minor tweaks should take care of everything.

The druid from 1-5 can control his animal companion and summon creatures that can do as much damage as anyone in the group and when that runs out he can smack stuff with his spiked shillelagh. At 5th level he pwns with wildshape cause he can be an effective tank, scout, spy, caster, and everything else the party needs.

To make things better, the druid is the only class that can be perfectly effective with a 16 point buy stat gen (not that anyone uses that, but the point still stands).[/QUOTE]

Or perhaps most specifically: What specific action, during gaming, did these clerics take that (to you) felt way-over-the-top?

Um...breathing? I mean the cleric is running around in full-plate with good HP and awesome buffs, plus he can stop and cast spells if need be.

Things I've seen clerics do that overshadow other classes...

• Quickened Divine Favor (obviously was worse before the errata)
• Persistant Divine Power (my DM allowed it)
• Using Spikes on a club
• GMW
• Using detect traps and Divine Insight (or wieldskill)
• Dispel magic
• Magic Vestment
• Spell Resistance
• Commune

The list goes on and on, but the point is that they can handle to job of a fighter better than a fighter, a caster almost as good as a caster, and a skill-monkey almost as good as a skil-monkey. If you are looking for specific things you won't get far, but every well played cleric I've seen does a multitude of things that all put together make an overpowered class.

 

[beaver1024]

Really?

How many clerics and how many druids over the last 5 years? What levels did they play through? What PrCs did they take? What kind of player played them?

Or perhaps most specifically: What specific action, during gaming, did these clerics take that (to you) felt way-over-the-top?

Try focusing on that last question. I'm honestly curious.

Every since 3.5, our groups has experimented with other classes but basically settled on variants of clerics and druids as party members. Now pretty much now all our parties consist of clerics and druids and they can take on CRs much higher than the iconic party can.

Well the clerics in a mixed party of more than 1 cleric, dominated by being better fighter than fighters, better archers than rangers, better necromancers than necromancers, better summoners than conjurors, better diviners than diviners, better spontaneous casters than sorcerers, better protectors than abjurors and better blasters than evokers.

Pretty much all the cleric's features synergise well together to make them better than other classes are at their speciality. Why play a fighter when the cleric fights better? Why play an archer ranger when the cleric archer is clearly superior? etc etc.

 

[Sledge]

I see druids as ahead of the curve because they have the capacity to out fight the fighters and cast almost as effectively as the wizard, and heal somewhat as well. In short a party of druids could probably out do the standard party quite considerably.

 

[Thanee]

Well the clerics in a mixed party of more than 1 cleric, dominated by being better fighter than fighters, better archers than rangers, ...

With some rounds to prepare and only a few times per day, but then most definitely.

... better necromancers than necromancers, ...

Only for a few levels (and if of evil alignment), then the wizard's spells become clearly superior.

...better summoners than conjurors, ...

Not really. Wizards are clearly better here by a wide margin.

...better diviners than diviners, ...

Probably, there are some cleric spells, which are just too good, i.e. Find the Path, but generally they are about equal here (there are also some really good wizard-only divinations).

...better spontaneous casters than sorcerers, ...

Now you are pushing it!

...better protectors than abjurors...

That would be about equal, I think. Maybe a small advantage for the cleric, but not really.

...and better blasters than evokers.

A clear no to that one.

Bye
Thanee

 

[beaver1024]

With some rounds to prepare and only a few times per day, but then most definitely.

Divine metamagic

Only for a few levels (and if of evil alignment), then the wizard's spells become clearly superior.

Finger of Death vs Destruction.

Not really. Wizards are clearly better here by a wide margin.

Thaumaturgist PrC. Conjure Icebeast? Summoning domain?

Now you are pushing it!

Domain sponteneity.

That would be about equal, I think. Maybe a small advantage for the cleric, but not really.

Freedom of Movement, Deathward, Spell Resistance?

A clear no to that one.

Maximised Fireseeds (no sr, no save) avg damage 120. Meteor Swarm (sr) avg 112. Cone of Cold vs Flame Strike? Chain Lightning? Horrid Wilting?

 

[Nail]

I really dont think the forum rules would prohibit us discussing problems in class balance, and then discussing possible ways to solve those problems (real or percieved or whatever). I dont really think a seperate thread is neccesary to do that,...

I can see that.

I'm quite happy to discuss balance issues, etc. If you'll look above (and in the other thread), I've been doing that. Frankly, I find the discussion far more helpful when everyone is staying within the Rules As Written. Many problems exist/crop-up because of some related house rule the group has made, or errors in interpreting the rules. Besides, this is the Rules Forum. ....it seems only appropriate.

Who says every party has to have a Cleric? I know the designers think that, but I dont think the mechanics support it.

That you say that surprises me. Your other posts indicated you thought otherwise.

... you basically seem to feel these polls, and these types of discussions are more or less useless and pointless,

Not at all. I'm just pointing out the other (obvious) conclusions you can draw.

and so I ask again without rancor, why are you taking part in the discussion at all?

In short: Because I could learn something, and it's fun! Presumably the same reason you are taking part.

And for the Barbarian...I said what I said at that moment because I was trying come up with an excuse to move the conversation away from everyone trying to argue with IAmIan.

Ah. Got it. Sorry, it was too subtle for me. I was too distracted shooting at some fish that were splashing around in a barrel.

 

[Merlion]

I'm quite happy to discuss balance issues, etc. If you'll look above (and in the other thread), I've been doing that. Frankly, I find the discussion far more helpful when everyone is staying within the Rules As Written. Many problems exist/crop-up because of some related house rule the group has made, or errors in interpreting the rules. Besides, this is the Rules Forum. ....it seems only appropriate.

What I am talking about *is* a Rules discussion, not "house rules". "House rules" are how one has changed the game solely for the purposes of ones own campaign.

In this thread, we are discussing class balance in the rules. We have in fact pretty much covered whats likely to get covered as far as which and where and how. To me, another part of the same issue is: Since it seems that most (who have voted on this poll) feel that one or more classes are out of balance to one degree or other in one way or another, what then should be done about it within the rules themselves . Not just "how do you house rule this in your campaign", but "what changes do you think need to be made to the rules as written".

Discussing the future of how things should be in the core rules isnt house rules, its future speculation.

That you say that surprises me. Your other posts indicated you thought otherwise

Why? I've stated many times on these boards that that is a big part of why the Cleric was made overpowered...because the designers eroneously think that every part *must* have a Cleric. Not just a healer, but a Cleric. And thats obviously innacurate.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out the other (obvious) conclusions you can draw.

But those other conclusions are, firstly not neccesarily correct, and second not really a part of the discussion. I am fully aware that a poll like this is not a 100% perfect means of scientifically analyzing the balance of the classes. But its what we have access to right now, so we move on from that and use the information we do have.


You have given me a strong impression that you feel that nothing particularly useful or with any real accuracy is likely to come out of a thread like this. The thing is though...thats not really anymore or less true than of anything else. Once a game like this is released it takes on a life of its own, and everyone plays it different and so it becomes pretty much impossible to get 100% scientifcally precise and accurate conclusions on much of anything with it.