D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Best classes.

[VariSami]

Having finished an exam on social justice a quarter-hour ago I would recommend Brian Barry's "Why Social Justice Matters" to Evenglare, possibly "Disadvantage" by Wolff & De-Shalit as well. But that would be dragging politics to a discussion about a geeky table-top game.

On the matter actually at hand... I've actually attended a game in which one player was a specialist Conjurer made to be the best teleporter and battlefield-controller the player could manage, a Hellfire Warlock with a Binder tip for Naberius and a Dread Necromancer/Anima Mage (my character) that controlled an Awakened Hydra Zombie (10 heads, methinks), 3 Awakened Dire Tiger Skeletons and an Awakened Pegasus Zombie. This was at level 11.

So, in that particular game we all played casters, somewhat optimized even (although only the Wizard was Tier 1). We gained control over a small island and began building a nation. On average, fighters at this level learn how to smash a rock in two with their heads (in other words, their STR Mod rises). It was fun - but it was also a very special campaign. Had it been about nothing besides traditional dungeon hack, Fighters and such could have found a niche for themselves. They are good at certain things (although, see my thread "Monster Manuals, WTH?") and as such, can be enjoyable to play. However, enjoyability is relative to the type of campaign. I'm sure that if any of us would have opted for an average Fighter in that campaign's that stage, he would have felt left out. On average, though, he would have been golden (unless the campaign focused on anything but combat and actual RPG'ing).

 

[Evenglare]

So the prevailing thought is that a Cleric or Druid can be a fighter better than a fighter. So why not just use the builds of druids and simply call them fighters, seeing as they are strictly better than the fighter class (so they say). If you dont want to cast spells or have an animal companion then simply dont use them right? Again im just playing devils advocate. I just want to hear from the community why you should play a particular class if there is another class that can do exactly with the sub optimal class can do but better. Is it the fact that the class is NAMED druid or cleric that people are hesitant to just reflavor. I personally have no issue with the fighter or anything else really, just trying to create some dialogue.

 

[delericho]

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?...

... but I just have never had that problem that seems SOOOOO prevalent in theory discussions online.

A key part of the reason is that when you dig into these theory discussions, a lot of the power comes from having just the right selection of feats and spells, taken from a very wide range of books. What that means, in effect, is that while the Wizard, Cleric or Druid can be the most powerful character, actually achieving that is quite hard - you need to read through many many spells, and then carefully consider not just what they do but the potential implications of this in actual play.

Even if you stick with the PHB only (which, to be fair, by itself contains some of the worst offenders), that still means you've got an extra 100+ pages of reading to do. And, again, the 'abuses' aren't immediately apparent in the text; they're largely emergent in gameplay.

Conversely, it's easier (much easier) to optimise a Fighter or Rogue - just pick one or two things to be good at, and take all the options that relate to it.

So while the Tier system claims that the Wizard is strictly better than the Fighter at the same level of optimisation, it neglects to note that actually achieving that "same level of optimisation" is frequently harder.

Of course, the other reason why people choose to play 'lesser' classes? It's fun to do so. And besides, theoretical discussions aside, very few people actually derive fun from optimising their characters to the point where they break the game they're playing.

 

[JamesonCourage]

So the prevailing thought is that a Cleric or Druid can be a fighter better than a fighter. So why not just use the builds of druids and simply call them fighters, seeing as they are strictly better than the fighter class (so they say). If you dont want to cast spells or have an animal companion then simply dont use them right? Again im just playing devils advocate. I just want to hear from the community why you should play a particular class if there is another class that can do exactly with the sub optimal class can do but better. Is it the fact that the class is NAMED druid or cleric that people are hesitant to just reflavor. I personally have no issue with the fighter or anything else really, just trying to create some dialogue.

Flavor is a big deal. Druids can be great in melee, but they're shapeshifting to do it. Clerics can be great in combat, but they're casting spells to do it. The Fighter or Rogue can be great in combat, but they're purely non-magical in nature. So, when I'm making a character that I want to be "mundane", I go for something that isn't a guy that turns himself into a bear or a tiger, or another guy that uses magic on himself. I'd go for a non-magical guy.

Also, when I'm making a character that is a druid or a cleric (or a wizard, or whatever), I also don't try to gain as much power as possible; I go for what makes sense for the character I'm making. So, when I'm making a Fighter, why would I act any differently? As always, play what you like

 

[Jackinthegreen]

It is the circumstances that can make a character powerful or useless. T1 characters tend to have many, many ways to get through things, but only if their spells and such are lined up for the task. Keeping track of those spells or powers is a hassle that not many can actually keep up with. Some people just don't want all that bookkeeping, hence why they might choose a different class than "the most powerful." For the record, if anyone wanted "most powerful" it'd probably be Pun-Pun, and thus all sense of fun would die upon achieving effectively infinite godly power.

And that's one of the reasons people don't play the most powerful classes: It gets to the point where they know they can win almost regardless of what the DM throws out, so why even bother playing? Going with a lower-power character can make things interesting because you don't know what'll happen next and don't know with any kind of certainly whether the next fight is going to be a wn or perhaps a TPK instead.

Also, some people play "weaker" classes so that they don't overload the DM. Some DMs have trouble challenging powerful characters and once that happens the game becomes difficult in the worst sense of the word for gaming. It might be better to get a bit more mileage out of a character before the game starts to unwind.

Yes, there is a lot of discussion about uberly powerful characters or whatever. Sometimes it's just mental "exercise," so don't even bother with it unless you want to engage in that kind of exercise too. If you want to see how things actually go, look at campaigns that actually happened and see how those went. Chances are you'll see that most games don't have quite the discrepancy that all the discussion would have you believe happens.

 

[PureGoldx58]

Basically, what everyone has said about it being a mental exercise is correct. Heck, I am one to try to create extremely powerful characters, my most recent wtf was a fear stacking wizard that could win a fight with a cantrip vs anything, but even if I were to play that I would create weaknesses for the DM to abuse and any amount of power I would have would be reigned in for the other player's enjoyment. My favorite thing is knowing that I COULD crush the enemy, but instead I empower everyone else by doing it together for the epic stories.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I think a party consisting of a Druid & animal companion, Cleric and a Wizard would rock. Who needs all those other classes anyway? Ohhh... or 4 Druids + 4 animal companions + Summon Nature's Allies...

...Slightly more serious, There are execellent classes, there are good classes, and then there are classes that simply don't deliver on what they say they are supposed to do. I have a player who fully expected the Ninja class to be awesome, but when he tried to play the Ninja class like a ninja, it failed to deliver. So he rolled up a Hexblade... >_<. Yeah, a lot of dissapointment all around for my buddy that campaign.

The tier system simply states that some classes can do many things well, some classes can do one or two things well, and some classes really aren't that effective at anything.

THere's nothing wrong with the Fighter. He can hit stuff, and take hits. Cool. Thing is, the Druid can also hit stuff, take hits, cast spells, heal, be a diplomat, train critters, and has a pet that can hit stuff and take a hit, sometimes better than a Fighter can.

Spells can often suppliment or even outshine skills. I Made This Thread as a way to demonstrate that the Wizard and/or Cleric can replace the party Rogue or Bard for most skills. Yes, a player can make an excellent skill monkey from the skillful base classes. I myself have played a Factotum and thuroughly enjoyed it. However, A Wizard can do the job of the party Rogue, and his own job. And with an appropriate summon, he can do the Fighter's job. An Archivist at level 3 with the right spells can grant himself a +17 in any skill in the game and use it as if trained.

...All of this only matters based upon how the players and DM play. The Druid could choose to try to take on the job of the rest of the entire party, which would be no fun for everyone else, or he can choose to cover bases only he can do well and compliment the other players. Just because it's possible to do everything does not mean one should choose to.

I played a game where a buddy of mine wanted to DM for two friends who'd never played D&D before. He asked me to design a character that could carry the party if necissary until the players got the hand of what their characters could do. The other 2 players made a Ranger and a Bard, I designed a Strongheart Halfling Druid with the Wild Cohort feat to give myself 2 Swindlespitter dino's at level 1 and I made liberal use of the Aspect of the Wolf spell. At first level my Druid & pets dominated combat with damage, battlefield control and provided out of combat healing. By level 2 the Ranger figured out how to hit effectively and the Bard started using spells logically, the dino's were set free and I assumed more of a party support role while the Ranger took the melee forefront. They became greater, I became less, and everyone had fun.

 

[MoonSong]

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

HOwever when given the same choice I wouldn't, there is little point on driving a very fast car when you cannot drive it that fast. Though if it was a DB9, that is a car I would never say no.

 

[TwoSix]

So the prevailing thought is that a Cleric or Druid can be a fighter better than a fighter. So why not just use the builds of druids and simply call them fighters, seeing as they are strictly better than the fighter class (so they say). If you dont want to cast spells or have an animal companion then simply dont use them right? Again im just playing devils advocate. I just want to hear from the community why you should play a particular class if there is another class that can do exactly with the sub optimal class can do but better. Is it the fact that the class is NAMED druid or cleric that people are hesitant to just reflavor. I personally have no issue with the fighter or anything else really, just trying to create some dialogue.

I do. My last 3.5 warrior character was a Barbarian 1 (Lion Totem for Pounce)/Shaman X (From OA, updated to be 3.5 equivalent). He just called himself a warrior, and his spells and animal companions were blessings from the spirits. In game, he would deny knowledge of any "spells" (if somebody said "Why don't you cast X" in game, his reply would be "The spirits do as they well, I am but their vessel")and any spell I actually prepped was purely metagame. He was actually a lot of fun, and his damage was awesome (regularly in the 80s to low hundreds by level 8-9).

 

[TwoSix]

I think a party consisting of a Druid & animal companion, Cleric and a Wizard would rock. Who needs all those other classes anyway? Ohhh... or 4 Druids + 4 animal companions + Summon Nature's Allies...

I keep trying to talk other PCs into it, but it just doesn't work. Last game we had 2 wizards, a cleric....and a rogue and a scout. Guess who ran the game?

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

4 wizards would also be awesome. Abjurant Champion or Swiftblade (or Malconvoker!) for your fighter/meatshield, Unseen Seer with Master Spellthief as your skillmonkey, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil to cover defensive magic. And anything you want as the Wizard.