D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Best classes.

[Evenglare]

So I haven't asked this question before so I want to know. If Druids/ clerics /wizards are the best class why does anyone play ANYTHING else? I mean if you can just reflavor those classes what's the point of playing anything else?

Me personally? I usually have a group that played most anything and I personally have never run into any overpowering gameplay. I guess I must be lucky or something, but usually our fighter is as functional as our wizards throughout the levels. I know we are probably playing it "wrong" or something (have been playing with these guys for around 15 years) but I just have never had that problem that seems SOOOOO prevalent in theory discussions online.

 

[Mark1733]

I am playing a high-level druid for the first time, and it rocks...although I am not getting full value out of his powers (my fault). I think the point of all the other classes is simply variety/diversity for storytelling and not necessarily optimization.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So I haven't asked this question before so I want to know. If Druids/ clerics /wizards are the best class why does anyone play ANYTHING else? I mean if you can just reflavor those classes what's the point of playing anything else?

If being the star of a big movie is the best acting gig, why do people ever get into acting and play bit parts? If being the president is the best political position, why do people run for city council? If being a doctor is the best career, why do some people manufacture toothpicks for a living?

I think the answer is that it isn't always about being the "best" and also that the best isn't necessarily the best for you.

Me personally? I usually have a group that played most anything and I personally have never run into any overpowering gameplay. I guess I must be lucky or something, but usually our fighter is as functional as our wizards throughout the levels. I know we are probably playing it "wrong" or something (have been playing with these guys for around 15 years) but I just have never had that problem that seems SOOOOO prevalent in theory discussions online.

If you're playing in a way that makes sense to you and works for you, you're doing it right.

Personally, I've never had this "problem" either. My players favor martial classes, and many of the the most powerful characters (and most of the few really overpowered ones I've had) are fighters, barbarians, paladins, monks, or rangers. Then again, casters have their perks. D&D is a winning formula for a reason, I should think.

 

[MoonSong]

Because, well the other thread speciffically asked "in combat" everybody knows that the truly overpowered class is the Bard, yes first level is a drag, but once you reach second level, you become a diplomancer, which dramatically reduces the threats form intelligent creatures, also as a bard you get a very high skill efficiency thanks to perform, then at sixth level you hit another milestone, you gain a druid cohort with a bear companion and a bunch of follower which can be used to bee good at many tasks (as a bard none else but a sorcerer will have a leadership score as high as yours, but your followers will hit better and harder) or to break the economy... [end joke]

But the truth is because not everybody cares about being good and supreme in combat, in fact some would rather avoid it as much as possible, or want to try different stuff everytime. Personally I find heavy armor ugly, so try to stay away from it (so no war priest clerics), find the wizard too bookwormy for my tastes (Sorcerers ont he other hand are very cool), Preffer to play healers over clerics, and I like skill monkeys. Healers, clerics, druids (as multiclass element mostly), sorcerers, bards, rogues, paladins, favored souls, fighters, shadowcasters those make up my 3.5 repertory, in second edtion I favor specialty priests (of many kinds, no clerics though), bards and rogues. On fourth edition Sorcerers, Bards, ardents and clerics (though I'm dying to try out a lazylord and like to experiemnt with hybrids, ranger is a good component thugh I feel they are kinda broken). On basic nobody will be able to convince me to play anything other than a cleric. (Still experimenting on PF, however I find bards extremely unpalatable there)

Basically I like more constant characters, and I don't care about being the most optimized character in the party, I just want to play, the only times when I care about what is optimal and what suboptimal are when I'm creating a subotpimal character on purpose (like say a focussed specialst enchanter with transmutation, conjuration and illusion as banned schools, a 13 on Int and an 18 on Cha, then planning on using inchantatrix to ban necromancy). When playing I only care about gtting the character I want to play right, and paying attention to character evolution. Nothing else.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Simple, other classes are just as fun. Be it for role-playing reasons or simply because I enjoy the challenge of playing "weaker" classes. I have probably played as many, if not more, bards and paladins over the years as I have clerics and wizards. Why? Because I enjoy playing my D&D as a romanticized version of the Hundred Year's War set in Greyhawk; and bards and paladins fit the flavor that I envision. It's fun.

 

[Evenglare]

If being the star of a big movie is the best acting gig, why do people ever get into acting and play bit parts? If being the president is the best political position, why do people run for city council? If being a doctor is the best career, why do some people manufacture toothpicks for a living?

To be fair most of those people are forced into other positions of mediocrity by not having the talent, skill or motivation for being the best. In D&D that simply isn't the case when you can freely pick your race and profession. But I understand what you are saying.

 

[Ahnehnois]

To be fair most of those people are forced into other positions of mediocrity by not having the talent, skill or motivation for being the best. In D&D that simply isn't the case when you can freely pick your race and profession. But I understand what you are saying.

In some cases that may be true, but I think you're underselling the alternatives.

In my healthcare example, I think many people would agree that a medical doctor is the "best" of the healthcare professions (and many would put doctors at or near the top of the heap for all possible career fields). Doctors have the most legal power and are generally in charge of the other professions, they have a long and noble history, and they are highly paid. And yet, I think it would be unfair to characterize nurses, physical therapists, psychologists, receptionists, administrators, janitors, or other people working in healthcare as lacking in talent, skill, or motivation. If anything, it may take more motivation to be a good nurse, given the limited opportunity for professional advancement, difficult work, tough hours, and low pay. And nurses, as anyone who's been to a hospital knows, are awfully important, even if they can't do the things doctors can do.

Similarly, D&D does not rely on equality of all participants. The DM is clearly the "best" player, and some character options (be they feats, classes, tactics, whatever) are clearly "better" than others. And yet, a good game experience derives from the full range of possibilities. Yes, you have a lot more control over your D&D character than you do over your life, but having a variety of different (and unequal) participants makes the game dynamic, unpredictable, and enjoyable.

 

[Dandu]

So I haven't asked this question before so I want to know. If Druids/ clerics /wizards are the best class why does anyone play ANYTHING else? I mean if you can just reflavor those classes what's the point of playing anything else?

Me personally? I usually have a group that played most anything and I personally have never run into any overpowering gameplay. I guess I must be lucky or something, but usually our fighter is as functional as our wizards throughout the levels. I know we are probably playing it "wrong" or something (have been playing with these guys for around 15 years) but I just have never had that problem that seems SOOOOO prevalent in theory discussions online.

Not everyone should drive a 2011 Bugatti Veyron Super Sport, but if you asked what the fastest car in the world was, that would be your answer.

 

[Evenglare]

If I had the choice of driving that or my car I'd take that one in a heartbeat lol.

 

[The Human Target]

I sense a lot of subtext in this thread.