Rank the D&D 3.5 classes!

[Beal]

"Best class" is a matter of balance. What does the party need? What is the experience level of the players? How many players are there? What restrictions does the DM use in terms of playability in the classes or multiclassing? There is so much more to this than just "what's the best class".

I of course have my own priority. But ask questions that argue conventional wisdom.

Clerics are must-haves is conflict dungeons, but a druid would be a better healer if the campaign involves tracking, traps, encumbering terrain, etc.

Wizards are very powerful, and certainly more so than a scorcerer, but what if the DM has the spellbook stolen?

Rangers are not as preferrable as fighters, barbarians, or paladins in a fight, but their high skills, wild empathy, animal companion and divine casting might make them perfect in a small party...

 

[James Gasik]

As far as stealing the Wizard's spellbook goes, by that logic, you can throw the party in a prison and take all their gear, and then Monk is now the best class. A tier list can't take contrived circumstances into account- "oh well, in my game, there are large dead magic zones, so the best class is Fighter" isn't very useful as a metric for examining class balance.

 

[Beal]

That's because there are magical ways to get around skills. For example, traps? Just toss out a Summon Monster 1 and send a critter down the hall ahead of you. Or let the Barbarian do the same and heal him afterwards.

I don't disagree with the strategy, but both those options use up a spell. It all comes down to the party and DM. How they play off each other. A DM should be building campaigns to challenge the players. Remember that you should have between 8 and 12 encounters between levels. And depending on the dungeon, there may not be opportunities to rest...

 

[Beal]

As far as stealing the Wizard's spellbook goes, by that logic, you can throw the party in a prison and take all their gear, and then Monk is now the best class. A tier list can't take contrived circumstances into account- "oh well, in my game, there are large dead magic zones, so the best class is Fighter" isn't very useful as a metric for examining class balance.

This is why I prefer classes that are consistant. I love the monk class. They are always armed. They have lots of skills and good saves.

That's really the point, I think. It's about building a team that fills in the shortcomings of the others. This thread continually puts down monk, druid and ranger, and has sorcerer under wizard, but that tells me more about the campaigns they like to play, rather than the quality of the class

 

[Beal]

This is why I prefer classes that are consistant. I love the monk class. They are always armed. They have lots of skills and good saves.

That's really the point, I think. It's about building a team that fills in the shortcomings of the others. This thread continually puts down monk, druid and ranger, and has sorcerer under wizard, but that tells me more about the campaigns they like to play, rather than the quality of the class

I can not stand a bard... but in a city-based campaign with guile and diplomacy as key elements, they might be so much more than the support role they get pigeon-holed into...

 

[James Gasik]

Using up a spell becomes a trivial matter on a long enough timeline, which is kind of the point. In the early levels, absolutely, skills are better than spells. However, when you have 6 first level spell slots and they are pretty much useless against enemies you are facing, these sorts of tactics become much more palatable. Even better once you can crank out a cheap Wand of Summon Monster.

Don't get me wrong, having skills is great, but they cease to be equal to spells on a long enough timeline. That's another thing the tier lists try to encompass- all levels of play, not just the first 5 or even 10.

Since you brought them up: the Monk has a lot of issues however. Lower accuracy than a Fighter, made worse by Flurry of Blows. Need for magic item support despite having a lot of supernatural abilities. High mobility on a class that has to stand still to do real damage. Some of their abilities rarely matter, and others can be detrimental, like having spell resistance to make it harder to heal or cast vital buff spells on them.

Ideally, yes, a part that balances each other out is the way to go. But when a Druid's ANIMAL COMPANION can be a substitute for a Fighter, and a Wild Shaped Druid can be better than a Fighter, that's when you have to say "well, maybe Fighters have less potential than Druids".

 

[Maxperson]

This is why I prefer classes that are consistant. I love the monk class. They are always armed. They have lots of skills and good saves.

That's really the point, I think. It's about building a team that fills in the shortcomings of the others. This thread continually puts down monk, druid and ranger, and has sorcerer under wizard, but that tells me more about the campaigns they like to play, rather than the quality of the class

Psion is a good caster choice then. I rate them just behind Wizard and Cleric, but if you're talking being able to cast with stuff taken away, well they don't rely on spellbooks or holy symbols.

 

[Beal]

Using up a spell becomes a trivial matter on a long enough timeline, which is kind of the point. In the early levels, absolutely, skills are better than spells. However, when you have 6 first level spell slots and they are pretty much useless against enemies you are facing, these sorts of tactics become much more palatable. Even better once you can crank out a cheap Wand of Summon Monster.

Don't get me wrong, having skills is great, but they cease to be equal to spells on a long enough timeline. That's another thing the tier lists try to encompass- all levels of play, not just the first 5 or even 10.

Since you brought them up: the Monk has a lot of issues however. Lower accuracy than a Fighter, made worse by Flurry of Blows. Need for magic item support despite having a lot of supernatural abilities. High mobility on a class that has to stand still to do real damage. Some of their abilities rarely matter, and others can be detrimental, like having spell resistance to make it harder to heal or cast vital buff spells on them.

Ideally, yes, a part that balances each other out is the way to go. But when a Druid's ANIMAL COMPANION can be a substitute for a Fighter, and a Wild Shaped Druid can be better than a Fighter, that's when you have to say "well, maybe Fighters have less potential than Druids".

I agree completely. And higher levels can pool so many skill points as to be redundant. And many classes aren't worth reaching level 20 anyways, when compared to the benefit of a good multiclass...
Again, it really comes down to the players, the DM, and what the party needs to succeed

 

[James Gasik]

I liked the Psion, unfortunately, a lack of understanding labeled them as "broken and overpowered". And they suffer from a great deal of prejudice, so a lot of people never looked all too closely at how they leveraged "spell points" and a few unique mechanics (psionic focus) into a more balanced "spell caster".

 

[Maxperson]

I liked the Psion, unfortunately, a lack of understanding labeled them as "broken and overpowered". And they suffer from a great deal of prejudice, so a lot of people never looked all too closely at how they leveraged "spell points" and a few unique mechanics (psionic focus) into a more balanced "spell caster".

Yeah. I played one to 17th level and the rest of the group and DM were like, "You can just use all your points and use 5(or whatever number it was) 9th level powers!" They didn't listen when I explained that while yes, I COULD do that, my usefulness would be over very quickly and I'd spend the rest of the time watching the other PCs do stuff and fight due to lack of power points.