D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Best classes.

[RUMBLETiGER]

4 druids would be amazing. Except that you need a place to melt down all your metal items.

Have one player take the Fiery Burst reserve feat and then use any spot of exposed earth!

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

While these discussions tend to break down into "A prepared and min-maxed Druid can...blah blah blah...better than a fighter/rogue/etc" I view this as kind of missing the point of a given class. If you're playing a Druid just to outshine the fighter, why didn't you just play a fighter? True, the Druid can be more impressive in combat, but this requires tons of optimization. A halfway decent fighter build can consistently dish out punishment and never has to worry about buffing spells or other factors. It's really a matter of simplicity of play, in my book. Versatility is indeed nice, but if you use it to "beat" another party member's shtick, I think you're ruining the game for others.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

While these discussions tend to break down into "A prepared and min-maxed Druid can...blah blah blah...better than a fighter/rogue/etc" I view this as kind of missing the point of a given class. If you're playing a Druid just to outshine the fighter, why didn't you just play a fighter? True, the Druid can be more impressive in combat, but this requires tons of optimization. A halfway decent fighter build can consistently dish out punishment and never has to worry about buffing spells or other factors. It's really a matter of simplicity of play, in my book. Versatility is indeed nice, but if you use it to "beat" another party member's shtick, I think you're ruining the game for others.

While I get your point, your specific example of using the Druid to outshine the Fighter really wouldn't take tons of optimization. A properly selected Animal Companion could replace a Fighter.

 

[Dandu]

What if your party lacks a fighter for some reason (say, a player had to stop showing up) and you want to cover that role while still playing your druid/cleric/what have you?

 

[TwoSix]

While these discussions tend to break down into "A prepared and min-maxed Druid can...blah blah blah...better than a fighter/rogue/etc" I view this as kind of missing the point of a given class. If you're playing a Druid just to outshine the fighter, why didn't you just play a fighter? True, the Druid can be more impressive in combat, but this requires tons of optimization. A halfway decent fighter build can consistently dish out punishment and never has to worry about buffing spells or other factors. It's really a matter of simplicity of play, in my book. Versatility is indeed nice, but if you use it to "beat" another party member's shtick, I think you're ruining the game for others.

If there's a fighter in the party, you're going to outshine him unless you specifically de-optimize to not show him up. Druids really are that good. Fighters are a specifically bad example, because they take some strong optimization chops to really play to their full potential. A class like the Pathfinder paladin is much better for a new player.

 

[Nezkrul]

the best class is simply the class you enjoy playing the most; fun > IWIN button