What is the most balanced class?

[MoogleEmpMog]

No class is "balanced" in isolation. Balance is completely relative to OTHER classes, so it's impossible to answer the question.

I evaluate classes using non-PHB2 Fighter and Cleric as the benchmarks (Druid having been nerfed). A class that falls between non-PHB2 Fighter and Cleric is generally balanced for D&D 3.5. A class that is slightly stronger, as weak or weaker than non-PHB2 Fighter is too weak (as is a narrow class that is only a bit stronger), a class that is as strong or stronger than Cleric is too strong.

In general, I prefer new classes to fall closer toward Cleric than non-PHB2 Fighter, because they will be played in parties likely to include Clerics, and therefore need to be able to hold their own.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I have to say that Rogue is just about the ideal class for what it tries to represent.

It works perfectly well as a 20 level class but it also multi-classes very well. It has some nice high level abilities and a ton of flexibility.

 

[ShadowX]

D&D is almost entirely a group game. Searching for balance makes sense in something like World of Warcraft where a vast majority of the game is a solo or competitive endeavour. In a group game, with a clearly identified need for certain archetypes, the need for balance recedes because as long as one class doesn't impede on another class' niche. Even if some overlap exists, the tolerance for imbalance is higher in a group setting. Of course, a druid able to wildshape and cast spells pretty much violates any semblance of balance; similarly cleric's martial prowess often overshadows a warrior type character.

Aside from those examples (both, oddly, divine casters), I think D&D does a farily good job of assuring everyone a role. Balance in D&D needs to be confined to comparing classes intended to fill the same role. You don't compare a wizard and a fighter and declare imbalance because each serves a unique purpose and is balanced in the context of a group. However, analyzing a barbarian and a fighter side-by-side is a more fruitful juxtaposition for pursuing balance.

With that criteria, I would point out these particular problems. Sorcerers pale in comparison to wizards, monks lack a role, and bards suffer from a variety of problems, but at the root is the inability to adequately fill any of the typical roles.

 

[Hussar]

For those who keep on about any single class not being balanced without having anything to compare it to, simply replace the word balanced with "closest to the middle of the power curve" and you will find it a fairly easy question.

Honestly, I think Shade may be onto something there. Paly's are fairly well middle of the road in the power band. They aren't combat monsters, but, they aren't getting nerfed by half the critters in the book either. They have some spells, but, it's certainly not their schtick.

Switch out the summonable mount for something that is actually useful like a summonable weapon and you have a pretty good standard to judge all other classes by.

 

[Hussar]

Aside from those examples (both, oddly, divine casters), I think D&D does a farily good job of assuring everyone a role. Balance in D&D needs to be confined to comparing classes intended to fill the same role. You don't compare a wizard and a fighter and declare imbalance because each serves a unique purpose and is balanced in the context of a group. However, analyzing a barbarian and a fighter side-by-side is a more fruitful juxtaposition for pursuing balance.

I disagree with this actually. At higher levels, wizards can totally dominate the game and fighters get relagated to support roles. It doesn't have to happen, but, it can. This is something of a failing with the magic system in D&D. The power band for wizards is too steep. Spells just increase in power too much compared to what a fighter can do.

Or, looking at it another way, there is nothing a fighter can do to kill an opponent in a single action at 10th level or higher. OTOH, there are numerous spells which will kill/incapacitate an opponent available to 10th level or higher wizards. This is a serious disparity in power between the characters.

Never mind spells which allow casters to perform multiple roles such as polymorph. Casters can easily make rogues or fighters redundant. Giving fighters access to some spells, such as you see with Paladins, can go a long way to leveling the playing field.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

For those who keep on about any single class not being balanced without having anything to compare it to, simply replace the word balanced with "closest to the middle of the power curve" and you will find it a fairly easy question.

Only if you think designers should design to the middle of the curve.

If that's the standard you want to go by, however, Paladin and Rogue are both good choices.

 

[Victim]

I disagree with this actually. At higher levels, wizards can totally dominate the game and fighters get relagated to support roles. It doesn't have to happen, but, it can. This is something of a failing with the magic system in D&D. The power band for wizards is too steep. Spells just increase in power too much compared to what a fighter can do.

Or, looking at it another way, there is nothing a fighter can do to kill an opponent in a single action at 10th level or higher. OTOH, there are numerous spells which will kill/incapacitate an opponent available to 10th level or higher wizards. This is a serious disparity in power between the characters.

Never mind spells which allow casters to perform multiple roles such as polymorph. Casters can easily make rogues or fighters redundant. Giving fighters access to some spells, such as you see with Paladins, can go a long way to leveling the playing field.

If you can't kill or seriously injure targets in a full attack action at 10th level, then you might need new fighters - or the defense structure of the enemies is set up to favor casters (high AC, low saves/SR).

Paladin casting in the core is a joke - its best feature is the ability to use wands without Use Magic Device. It takes supplements with swift action spells or crazy stacking buffs to make it worthwhile in its own right.

I've found casters playing support just as often at high levels. Sure, they've got a million strategic tools. That just makes them great fighter taxis and buffers - and good at debuffing the enemy so fighters can kill it more easily. Increasing saves, SR, resistances/immunities to many attack forms, and defensive spells have, in my experience, often relagated casters to supporting roles as their direct actions have a high failure rate.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I do think that class would be rather strong. Monk AC bonus, full spellcasting (and druids spellcasting is the most versatile in the game, healing, blasting, utility), ranger bonuses...

And with just 3 Scout levels and one feat you'll get full skirmish damage as well... Nono. This class is not average.
[/url]

darn, caught green handed. btw whats the name of that feat

 

[Nepenthe]

Since "balance" implies something to balance against, I don't see how you could pick one single class as being already balanced.

That about covers what I thought.

 

[Umbran]

The question is misleading. Single classes in isolation are not balanced or unbalanced. Classes are only balanced or unbalanced in comparison to one or more other things.

We can pick an arbitrary standard, and all other classes could be compared to it. But, since the class system is partly about niche-protection makes that a bit less useful. perhaps it is better to have a set of base classes that represent your primary niches that you feel play nicely with each other, and compare to the group of them.

"Would this be reasonable to have alongside my primary classes?" is probably the best way to ask the question.