Impressions: Most dissapointing class?

[Victim]

Pally. Clerics can step on their thing as melee hitters and healers. The paladin mark is somewhat unimpressive, IMO. They seem to need more attributes without even getting into feats. At low levels, pallies seem to use a lot more STR based attacks than they can have at higher levels, so one build diminishes in power over time.

Wizards are also somewhat disapointing, since the Expanded Spellbook means that most wizards will have similar lists of dailies and utils (even if they're default prepared spell differs).

 

[Nifft]

I'm mostly dissapointed with Wizards. Although there are several possible combinations of at will powers and encounter powers. They start to look pretty similar, especially if it's a human wizard.

Huh. IMHO Wizard is one of the very few classes that actually benefits from a Human's extra at-will.

One shooty power (Magic Missile or Ray of Frost), one Close power (Thunderwave), one ranged area attack (Scorching Burst or Cloud of Daggers).

Every non-Human Wizard I build feels frustratingly constrained.

Cheers, -- N

 

[phil500]

Agreed that human is the best for a wiz. they get their 20 int and need the extra at will, which never goes up past 2 otherwise.

I am still dissapointed in the wiz. i just get an image of the wiz player begging the DM to use more minions, and being really pissed when the dragonborn beats his initiative.

 

[Cadfan]

Warning! The following is the opinion of someone without the books or the pdfs!

Fighters using two handed weapons seem weak. Other than that, everything seems ok.

Wizards were due for a nerfing, and honestly, they got less of one than I expected. Rituals add an awful lot to the wizard. Having your regular spells available, plus your rituals available, is a lot like having a much, much bigger list of spells available. And their damage doesn't seem bad if you play them smart. If you target an average of two enemies per attack, your damage should average out equal or above that of other classes.

Clerics look fine to me. I'll probably play one soon. I'm not surprised they didn't go the "you automatically get special powers based on your deity" route. That takes up a lot of space. And if you spend a feat, you DO get special powers based on your deity. Frankly, had they gone the route of the warlock and given entire paths to various deities, I think it would have been disastrous. They'd only have been able to fit in maybe three, and suddenly those three deities would become the de facto core pantheon. I like the solution they used much better.

Warlocks with the same pact look like they're going to be pretty similar to one another, but that's probably the result of having three possible pacts. Being upset by this is kind of expectation creep- what did you want? No other class gets three build options.

 

[Bison]

I am most dissapointed with the lack of some iconic classes like the Druid, barbarian, bard etc (ok, maybe not the bard)

 

[Nifft]

Clerics look fine to me. I'll probably play one soon. I'm not surprised they didn't go the "you automatically get special powers based on your deity" route. That takes up a lot of space.

It's also unnecessary.

They could have made me happy if Clerics had four more at-will choices. IMHO that's all you'd need to get really distinct character options, and then the player could fit his choices to his concept of the deity. (Seriously, look at the two Wisdom based at-wills. They're practically the same power.) At least the Cleric's two Strength powers are distinct. Hmm, maybe I'm just playing the wrong type of Cleric.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Cadfan]

They could have made me happy if Clerics had four more at-will choices. IMHO that's all you'd need to get really distinct character options, and then the player could fit his choices to his concept of the deity. (Seriously, look at the two Wisdom based at-wills. They're practically the same power.) At least the Cleric's two Strength powers are distinct. Hmm, maybe I'm just playing the wrong type of Cleric.

Well... yeah. They do need more variety in their at will powers. I'm ok with Lance of Faith and That Other One being so similar, but really there need to be two more to deal with human clerics. I'd be happy with just two more, one strength one charisma.

 

[MindWanderer]

I can't really vote; many of the classes are disappointing to me in one way or another.

- Fighter: if you specialized in one type of weapon (which most will), your freedom to choose powers gets cut by 50%. Half the levels force you to pick the one power that corresponds to your weapon of choice.
- Cleric: I agree that the two Wis-based at-wills could really have stood to be different. Other levels are better, though.
- Most of the paragon paths: I like multiclassing. The fact that paragon multiclassing is a crap choice, and most of the PPs rely heavily on class features, makes multiclassing a poor option in most cases. The ranger deserves a special shout-out, of course (I hope that, but would be seriously annoyed if, Martial Power has a feat that lets you get Fighting Style in some way).
- Warlord: Yes, I'm even disappointed in the vaunted warlord. The Leader role is the new Healer role, and Warlords are strictly second-class healers compared to clerics.
- Paladin: Too much MAD. Str, Cha, and Wis are needed for class features; it's possible to dump Str or Cha and still be functional, but barely. And you need Con to be an effective Defender, especially since you sac healing surges like crazy. And you'll want either Int or Dex for your Reflex save.

 

[IanB]

One issue that we're running across with clerics a bit in actual play is that they're kind of attack bonus challenged compared to most of the other classes, at least if they go for the ranged at-wills.

 

[Nifft]

One issue that we're running across with clerics a bit in actual play is that they're kind of attack bonus challenged compared to most of the other classes, at least if they go for the ranged at-wills.

Are you using the pre-gen Cleric? Because both pre-gen Clerics that I've seen suck.

Cheers, -- N