Impressions: Most dissapointing class?
- Thread starter phil500
- Start date
In the end, I had to ask myself what about each class I was most dissapointed on.
I wasn't disapointed about just about ANYTHING with the warlock, so it was in the clear
Fighter is...ok-ish? I liked the Tome of Battle more, semi-ironically enough (so long as nobody played a "Swordsage," grrr), and the no-plate issue seems lame. But my problems with the fighter are less about the fighter itself and more about the overall mechanics.
Aside from the "ANY ALIGNMENT, ANY DEITY" bit, paladins seem fairly strong, actually.
I'm not dissapointed in rangers and their ability to dodge almost any attack while doing the most damage in the game and healing themselves constantly with a paragon path. Dissapointed isn't the word there at all
Rogue is, well, rogue. It loses points for being too "NINJA" oriented (Seriously, bonus to shurikans? Is this a joke?), but is still overall not to bad. Kinda bizarre you need a light blade to throw sand at someone and can only do it once per battle, though.
My gripe with warlord is that it shouldn't exist, as most if not ALL of its abilities feel like they should be able to be chosen by any class. Warlord was a strong contender.
However, the end went to wizard and cleric. And it seems I'm not alone in this.
I wasn't disapointed about just about ANYTHING with the warlock, so it was in the clear
Fighter is...ok-ish? I liked the Tome of Battle more, semi-ironically enough (so long as nobody played a "Swordsage," grrr), and the no-plate issue seems lame. But my problems with the fighter are less about the fighter itself and more about the overall mechanics.
Aside from the "ANY ALIGNMENT, ANY DEITY" bit, paladins seem fairly strong, actually.
I'm not dissapointed in rangers and their ability to dodge almost any attack while doing the most damage in the game and healing themselves constantly with a paragon path. Dissapointed isn't the word there at all
Rogue is, well, rogue. It loses points for being too "NINJA" oriented (Seriously, bonus to shurikans? Is this a joke?), but is still overall not to bad. Kinda bizarre you need a light blade to throw sand at someone and can only do it once per battle, though.
My gripe with warlord is that it shouldn't exist, as most if not ALL of its abilities feel like they should be able to be chosen by any class. Warlord was a strong contender.
However, the end went to wizard and cleric. And it seems I'm not alone in this.
* Warlord: Smells like Bard (and horribly named). Cleric's a better healer...err..."leader." (And "leader" is so horribly euphamistic.)
* Cleric: No real diety specialization. (3.0 PHB was able to deliver that without the need for splatbooks.) At least offer proficiency in the cleric's diety's favored weapon as a class feature.
* Warlock: Opposite of Cleric: Too much railroading. Fey-pact warlocks especially will be very cookie cutter.
* Rogue: I can accept limiting sneak attacks to light blades on the melee side, but for ranged attacks why exclude bows? (How is a crossbow so much more precise than a bow when used by someone with training in a bow?)
IMO, there' s one too many strikers, and one too few controllers for core. Would have merged ranger and rogue into one class (skillmonkey scout), and added a divine controller who focuses on buffs/debuffs/pets/true crowd control (not "control" via AoE).
At first I was annoyed that fighter's didn't get plate proficiency, but I see now that's just a bonus/incentive for playing a paladin (which still are resource hogs). Since feats are much cheaper now, blowing a feat on plate proficiency isn't such a huge hit.
* Cleric: No real diety specialization. (3.0 PHB was able to deliver that without the need for splatbooks.) At least offer proficiency in the cleric's diety's favored weapon as a class feature.
* Warlock: Opposite of Cleric: Too much railroading. Fey-pact warlocks especially will be very cookie cutter.
* Rogue: I can accept limiting sneak attacks to light blades on the melee side, but for ranged attacks why exclude bows? (How is a crossbow so much more precise than a bow when used by someone with training in a bow?)
IMO, there' s one too many strikers, and one too few controllers for core. Would have merged ranger and rogue into one class (skillmonkey scout), and added a divine controller who focuses on buffs/debuffs/pets/true crowd control (not "control" via AoE).
At first I was annoyed that fighter's didn't get plate proficiency, but I see now that's just a bonus/incentive for playing a paladin (which still are resource hogs). Since feats are much cheaper now, blowing a feat on plate proficiency isn't such a huge hit.
Last edited:
IanB said:
Like niff said, they need a wis of 18 at least, and an implement like a holy sybol.
i rolled a dorf cleric that I like a lot- will try to play him at the worldwide event day (yeah im bringing MY pregen).
16 str, 18 wis, 14 con, 12 cha, 10 int 8 dex. 1st feat is dwarven weapon training and uses a halberd for +5 vs ac, 1d10 +5 damage with "reach".
IanB
First Post
Nifft said:
I think there's a bit of a bigger problem than just the premades. While wizards have a similar attack bonus issue, they have the wand boost to make up for it a bit, and also powers that often hit more than one target, so you're probably going to hit *someone*. So far in my play attack bonus has ended up being the #1 most important stat, or at least it feels that way. I dunno, maybe we're not using divine fortune enough, but it feels like a lot of the time the cleric's attack misses and provides no benefit, because the at-wills have to hit in order to provide their effect.
A strength build would probably be fine, though, since you get the proficiency bonus on your weapon that way.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
When I played the Wizard, I didn't have all that much trouble hitting, but I did tend to use the area effects against Reflex and single-target against Fortitude. If the Cleric had one Reflex, one Fortitude and one Will attack, I'd be happy.IanB said:
Bah, I'm just going to write them.
Exactly. Strength builds get two distinct powers with different uses (though the same attack rating), and they're just one feat away from swinging a Bastard Sword.IanB said:
Cheers, -- N
Raith5
Adventurer
mattdm said:
I agree. It seems very very strange that having abilities linked to your deity is some optional choice. And it is one choice only! It robs a lot of flavour and depth to the cleric class that domains (imperfectly) added.
So they look like a pretty incomplete skeletal class to me compared to the other classes.
I notice that clerics and wizards are "winning" this thread. I wonder how much that has to do with the fact that they used to OWN all the other classes in later levels of DnD, and now they are basically on par.
I dont get why you claim the wis attacks are the same- one gives bonus to attack, the other either temp hp or a roll on a save.
the 2 melle attacks either give a bonus to attack or damage. Those seem more similar.
If I had to pick str or wis, i would go with wis- that lets you attack 3 different defenses, rather than pigeonholing yourself against AC.
good call on the feat- thats a worthwhile one if going with sword+board. i think dwarven weapon training is good for low levels, then swap it out for bastard later on.
Nifft said:
I dont get why you claim the wis attacks are the same- one gives bonus to attack, the other either temp hp or a roll on a save.
the 2 melle attacks either give a bonus to attack or damage. Those seem more similar.
If I had to pick str or wis, i would go with wis- that lets you attack 3 different defenses, rather than pigeonholing yourself against AC.
good call on the feat- thats a worthwhile one if going with sword+board. i think dwarven weapon training is good for low levels, then swap it out for bastard later on.
Last edited:
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
I'm disappointed in Rangers, and for 2 reasons.
1. twf ranger - I mean sure, the ability to do so has been part of the class for ages, but now twf rangers seem to be the premier damage dealer of the game (if you want pure damage that is)
2. shaky looking mechanics - "just keep attacking until you miss" really seems like a bad idea to include in the game, for instance. It just seems that the same attention that's been payed to avoiding potential rule blowouts hasn't been payed to the ranger (and once again - to the twf ranger)
3. not really enough wildernessy stuff - the ranger is almost at the point where it could have been merged with the rogue for all the difference between the two
1. twf ranger - I mean sure, the ability to do so has been part of the class for ages, but now twf rangers seem to be the premier damage dealer of the game (if you want pure damage that is)
2. shaky looking mechanics - "just keep attacking until you miss" really seems like a bad idea to include in the game, for instance. It just seems that the same attention that's been payed to avoiding potential rule blowouts hasn't been payed to the ranger (and once again - to the twf ranger)
3. not really enough wildernessy stuff - the ranger is almost at the point where it could have been merged with the rogue for all the difference between the two
