What's your least favorite 3.5 class?
- Thread starter Manzanita
- Start date
cybertalus
First Post
I'm not big on Sorcerers, Bards, or Paladins - the Charisma classes. I'm not very extroverted myself and it just takes too much energy to play that for five hours a week.
I've gotta defend monks though. The key to monks is mobility. In my current group my monk is the rear guard. He's tough enough to protect the weaker characters if we get hit from behind, but with his improved speed and the run feat, he can also move to engage enemies who attack from in front. With a high Dex and maxed out ranks in tumble he can get past the front lines of enemies to attack spellcasters, which he can render ineffective with Stunning Fist or trip attacks. With Evasion, a good reflex save, and decent hit points he can also risk being in range of the spellcasters' fireballs once or twice per combat. He's not best in a straight-up fight with a tough monster, but he's still far from ineffective.
I've gotta defend monks though. The key to monks is mobility. In my current group my monk is the rear guard. He's tough enough to protect the weaker characters if we get hit from behind, but with his improved speed and the run feat, he can also move to engage enemies who attack from in front. With a high Dex and maxed out ranks in tumble he can get past the front lines of enemies to attack spellcasters, which he can render ineffective with Stunning Fist or trip attacks. With Evasion, a good reflex save, and decent hit points he can also risk being in range of the spellcasters' fireballs once or twice per combat. He's not best in a straight-up fight with a tough monster, but he's still far from ineffective.
the Jester
Legend
I like all the 3.5 classes; but I guess the one I like the least is prolly the cleric, simply because it's the one that got worse in the transition from 2e to 3e.
I wish WotC would come up with a good way to customize clerics while maintaining balance. The sphere system was great when handled by a good creative dm.
I wish WotC would come up with a good way to customize clerics while maintaining balance. The sphere system was great when handled by a good creative dm.
With most 3.5e classes I've been able come up with a few house rules to fix up classes where I thought they needed improvement. Even monks. Druids, however, just have so many things about them that irk me that I don't even bother.
I don't care too much for their spell list, which on the one hand is mostly mediocre-to-useless stuff, but at the same time most levels have a brokenly powerful must-have spell or two (entangle & plant growth being my two biggest problem-children).
They change shape as a natural ability, which is never as cool in RPG's as it is portrayed in books, comics, & movies. Anyone who's seen The Sword in the Stone probably remembers the shapeshifting duel between Merlin and Madam Mim, with each one trying to trump the other's latest form. If only it were remotely like that in D&D. Instead, players find the one shape that has the most optimal attributes and use it 90% of the time (brown bear anyone?).
They have a pet, and core classes with pets are annoying if the pet is standard rather than optional. Players effectively have two characters, and those players have a habit of taking more than twice as long to conduct their turns. In big groups, it's one more character the DM has to deal with. In small groups, EL gets thrown off by the fact that there's this extra combatant in the party, yet it doesn't earn XP for itself (it's not as if the druid isn't a viable combatant on his own). Worst of all, the druid's pet is a ridiculously disposable resource. He gets another one the very next day, at no cost to himself of any kind. Good role-playing mandates treating the companion like a friend, but the class's design encourages a more utilitarian approach where the druid exploits his pet for all its worth, especially if it looks like the final battle of the adventure. In fact, I've yet to see a druid's animal companion survive one. What really galls me is that in comparison to the animal companion's expendability, the designers saw fit to retain the harsh XP penalty and year-and-a-day waiting period in the event of a familiar's, even though familiars are largely ornamental compared to an animal companion.
I don't care too much for their spell list, which on the one hand is mostly mediocre-to-useless stuff, but at the same time most levels have a brokenly powerful must-have spell or two (entangle & plant growth being my two biggest problem-children).
They change shape as a natural ability, which is never as cool in RPG's as it is portrayed in books, comics, & movies. Anyone who's seen The Sword in the Stone probably remembers the shapeshifting duel between Merlin and Madam Mim, with each one trying to trump the other's latest form. If only it were remotely like that in D&D. Instead, players find the one shape that has the most optimal attributes and use it 90% of the time (brown bear anyone?).
They have a pet, and core classes with pets are annoying if the pet is standard rather than optional. Players effectively have two characters, and those players have a habit of taking more than twice as long to conduct their turns. In big groups, it's one more character the DM has to deal with. In small groups, EL gets thrown off by the fact that there's this extra combatant in the party, yet it doesn't earn XP for itself (it's not as if the druid isn't a viable combatant on his own). Worst of all, the druid's pet is a ridiculously disposable resource. He gets another one the very next day, at no cost to himself of any kind. Good role-playing mandates treating the companion like a friend, but the class's design encourages a more utilitarian approach where the druid exploits his pet for all its worth, especially if it looks like the final battle of the adventure. In fact, I've yet to see a druid's animal companion survive one. What really galls me is that in comparison to the animal companion's expendability, the designers saw fit to retain the harsh XP penalty and year-and-a-day waiting period in the event of a familiar's, even though familiars are largely ornamental compared to an animal companion.
Last edited:
Belegbeth
First Post
You bard-bashers out there should check out Monte Cooke's version in The Complete Book of Eldritch Might. That version of the bard casts "spellsongs" and has access to all kinds of unique song feats.
Regarding cleric homogeneity, the "spontaneous divine spellcaster" option in UA helps make clerics a bit more different from each other by limiting the number of spells they know. Since the spells they know include their domain spells, they are not all mere copies of each other.
Regarding cleric homogeneity, the "spontaneous divine spellcaster" option in UA helps make clerics a bit more different from each other by limiting the number of spells they know. Since the spells they know include their domain spells, they are not all mere copies of each other.
Michael Tree
First Post
Paladin. I like the concept of holy warriors, but their abilities are just a grab bag of uninteresting mediocrity. They're also the least customizable class in the game.
In an Oriental Adventures campaign I used the bard class, unchanged, as Chinese Magistrates. They study immense amounts of lore for the exams, including natural magic lore, rely on their social skills, have some basic grounding in fighting, and use Perform (oratory) to inspire and suggest what they want.
I don't think that's neccessarily a problem with the class itself, just with the way the class tends to be played. It's like saying the Monk is bad because so many people play them as pseudo-wisdom-spouting LN kung fu fighters.Psion said:
In an Oriental Adventures campaign I used the bard class, unchanged, as Chinese Magistrates. They study immense amounts of lore for the exams, including natural magic lore, rely on their social skills, have some basic grounding in fighting, and use Perform (oratory) to inspire and suggest what they want.
Ozmar
First Post
In 3.0 and 3.5, I've been leaning towards druid and bard for the longest time. I tried to play druids many times and then got sick of them b/c they were so weak! (I'm not 100% munchkin, but I don't like playing a sub-optimal character just for flavor.) But I think I've finally found the right way to play a druid, and now I'm having a blast.
So I vote for Bard, because I still think they suck.
Ozmar the Druid hater of Bards
So I vote for Bard, because I still think they suck.
Ozmar the Druid hater of Bards
