Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[Merlion]

As a companion to my other poll, I'd like to see which classes people feel are a little on the weak side, mechanically.
Again assuming a baseline game..and in this case comparison to like classes is important. For instance many feel the Sorcerer is a little weak compared to other primary casters, but obviously has a lot of oomph compared to the Fighter.


My votes in this case would be Sorcerer (slightly compared to other primary casters), Fighter (as compared to the other full BAB classes which get all sorts of other things too, especially Barbarian), and Monk (its a lot better in 3.5 but I think the Monk still lacks a true strength in any given role, other than magekiller).

 

[Angel Tarragon]

As per the RAW, I would have to say Fighters and Sorcerers. I think fighters need a little more oomph and deserve to have at least two to three unique class abilities (aside from weapon specialization). Sorcerers, I'm not sure what to with. The way I rectify 'em is using Monte's variant Sorcerer from Eldritch Might.

 

[Shin Okada]

It may depend on if you include multiclass builds and/or prestige classes.

But anyway, I say Monk.

Indeed, all a monk can do is melee combat. And Monk is not that good at it. And non of the class abilities significantly solve various problems in adventures.

In my experience, Monk is not even the best mage killer. It is fast and can take Stunning attack at 1st-level. But fast of all, Monk must hit a mage and monk is not good at it (only 3/4 BAB). And stunning attack is not that much assuring. Many wizards indeed have high Con. Usually, it is much faster to let greatsword wielding fighter types to smack a mage and send it into limbo. Or, if there is some distance, PC casters can ready damaging spells to disrupt opponent's spell casting.

 

[Merlion]

It may depend on if you include multiclass builds and/or prestige classes.

But anyway, I say Monk.

Indeed, all a monk can do is melee combat. And Monk is not that good at it. And non of the class abilities significantly solve various problems in adventures.

In my experience, Monk is not even the best mage killer. It is fast and can take Stunning attack at 1st-level. But fast of all, Monk must hit a mage and monk is not good at it (only 3/4 BAB). And stunning attack is not that much assuring. Many wizards indeed have high Con. Usually, it is much faster to let greatsword wielding fighter types to smack a mage and send it into limbo. Or, if there is some distance, PC casters can ready damaging spells to disrupt opponent's spell casting.

Well, the advantage a Monk has for going after mages is all in the defenses. Spell Resistance, all good saves, good touch AC...and mages tend to have low ACs so the Monk's medium BAB isnt as big a deal.

Overall I agree tho. The Monk is a melee combatant that isnt that great at melee. Even his mobility isnt always that helpful because of all the AoOs, and his mediocre AC and HPs.

As per the RAW, I would have to say Fighters and Sorcerers. I think fighters need a little more oomph and deserve to have at least two to three unique class abilities (aside from weapon specialization). Sorcerers, I'm not sure what to with. The way I rectify 'em is using Monte's variant Sorcerer from Eldritch Might.

One thing I did with Fighters in one game was to give them a scaling competence bonus to attack rolls and to AC (basically to give them better attack bonuses and AC than even the other full BAB/heavy armor classes).


Monte's Sorcerer helps some of the mechanical issues...especially if you just use the standard list instead of the one he modified (I feel he overdid it a bit). It gives them enough spells to really use their spontaneous casting. Plus the extra HP (although I think all classes should have at least a d6 anyway).

I'd still like to see something that makes Sorcerers more conceptually unique as well tho

 

[Shin Okada]

Well, the advantage a Monk has for going after mages is all in the defenses. Spell Resistance, all good saves, good touch AC...and mages tend to have low ACs so the Monk's medium BAB isnt as big a deal.

I know. And I guess designers have thought that will work.

Those defenses against spells help in a duel between one PC against one enemy spell caster. But does not help much when he is a member of a party. As a member of a party, he must kill the enemy mage before that badass spellcaster kill SOMEONE in your party. So, the important thing is how fast he can kill the mage (or how effectively he can prevent the mage from casting spells). Not that how long he can survive against spells.

Survivability is great when he can do significant offence, or when he can help other member of the party (like clerics). But not that much helpful when a monk is a poor attacker.

And yes. Monks tend to have AC and hp of mediocre at best. So it is very doubtful if we can say monks to be great survivors.

 

[Merlion]

Those defenses against spells help in a duel between one PC against one enemy spell caster. But does not help much when he is a member of a party. As a member of a party, he must kill the enemy mage before that badass spellcaster kill SOMEONE in your party. So, the important thing is how fast he can kill the mage (or how effectively he can prevent the mage from casting spells). Not that how long he can survive against spells

Well, the fact that he can survive against spells at all is almost unique among melees; most melee classes have poor Will saves and so can be easily neutralized with things like Hold Person etc. The Monks excellent saves, spell resistant, Evasion etc do make him more likely to be able to get to a spellcaster and do something than most other melees


However it still remains that this is far to small a role to be the only thing a class is good at.

 

[Merlion]

Also a small note: I would apreciate if people would, if they have time, post at least briefly to state their vote and why they made it. I'm getting a few that surprise me a bit and I'd like to know more

 

[Drowbane]

Barbarian: all it really has going for it is the Rage... thus I tend to splash a little Bbn into my Fighter. Bbn DR is pretty craptastic at any lvl. Please, by lvl 17 or whatever DR 5/- just isn't that relevant... certainly not compared to your typical fighter's uber AC... the Uncanny Dodge is nice though. A throw-back to the original Barbarian from Unearthed Arcana (1e).

Bard: They're a support class. As such, they tend to be weak. I don't know if this is just how people play them... or if its true to the class in general. I've seen some rather pathetic Bards...

Fighter: great at lower lvls... extremely weak and lame compared to any spellcaster at the high end.

Monk: Monks are mighty if you have great stats (not just good, but G R E A T)... otherwise they're pretty wussified.

Paladin: Not only are these a pain to Roleplay (I can think of perhaps 3 players in 16yrs who didn't make a total mess of it...) but they're kinda weak at all levels...

Ranger: eh, what do these guys do? They're tough vs a small group (or 3) of monsters, and rather lame vs everybody else. Tracking is nice... but in truth they could've just given Fighter more Skills and been done with it. They're terrible casters, all thier spells should just be bumped to the Druid list. Not to mention the craptasticly weak Animal Companion they get... Perhaps if thier companion was "As level -3" instead of "as 1/2 level"...

The most successful Melee Characters I've seen have been Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue multiclassings... with heavy focus on Rogue. Nothing like a Dwarf tumbling into position (in Full Plate no less!) with greatsword and then raging...

Anyways, thats my two bits (never claimed to be good at math )

 

[irdeggman]

I voted sorcerer.

While the class has great versatility it is rather bland IMO. It really doesn't gain any class abilities as it progresses, except for more spells.

Clerics are likewise bland IMO but make up for powerwise with their weapon/armor and the domain granted abilities. But still they don't gain anything as they progress in levels other than spells.

 

[ForceUser]

I voted sorcerer.

While the class has great versatility it is rather bland IMO. It really doesn't gain any class abilities as it progresses, except for more spells.

Oh, is that all?

Sorcerers are powerful--I've seen mid- and high-level sorcerers in play, and they rock.

I don't find any class to be weak if the DM makes it a point to sculpt his game to play to the strengths of his PCs. Novel concept, really--letting the players have fun 'n all.

Along those lines, it must be pointed out that I disagree with everything Drowbane stated, on general principle. From what I can tell through personal conversations, he's just had some lame DMs that don't allow their PCs moments to shine. Any class will "suck" in that case.

For example, he loves rogues, and he's currently playing one IMC. Well, let's see--rogues have 2 bad saves, low AC, low hps, subpar damage output next to fighters, and worse, their sneak attack is easily thwarted by contructs, elementals, plant creatures, oozes, and undead, not to mention concealment and other environmental conditions, plus magic armors with foritification! If I were a lame DM, I could easily dick with him by altering the foes he faces. Bam!--just like that, his awesome rogue would be "weak."

"Weak," therefore, is a concept entirely at the mercy of each DM, which means that the idea upon which this thread is predicated is seriously flawed, because there is no true consensus.