Which 3.5 class do you think is the weakest?

[Thanee]

Since I don't agree that such an assertion can be conclusively made, I can't answer the question.

Fair enough.

Although I don't understand why you say a comparison like that cannot be made, except for sorcerer and wizard. Sure, they are similar, but so are fighter and barbarian and ranger or cleric and druid.

It's really hard to compare the usefulness of spontaneous casting to prepared casting.

And even if that is the only meaningful comparison, it's still impossible to say the sorcerer is the weakest overall then, since you have no means to compare the sorcerer or the wizard for that matter to the other classes.

That was the upshot of the first two sentences of mine you quoted.

As mentioned, it wasn't meant specifically for you, more a general comment for everyone (should have made it a seperate post, probably ), as some people here seem not to differentiate this properly.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

...just stating the obvious fact thats been listed on this thread several times already . . . a strong player can do a lot with what might appear as a weaker character on paper.

Yes, but what does that change?

Is a stronger class (assuming that there is a disparity) in the hands of a strong player not stronger than a weaker class in the hands of a strong player?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Sanackranib]

Yes, but what does that change?

Is a stronger class (assuming that there is a disparity) in the hands of a strong player not stronger than a weaker class in the hands of a strong player?

Bye
Thanee

again that depends on the style of play and expierence of the player. some players are stronger in one class because they know that class better and have played it longer. however it also depends on the level and style of the game being run. a poster above said a fighter is weaker next to a mage at high level. I couldnt disagree more. last time I played a fighter to level 10 I was averaging between 35-50 points of damage per hit for each of my 4 attacks. as the fighter monster feat progression plays out to 20th level it comes down to 1 die roll as it always seems to in high level game. inniative.
he who goes 1st often goes last.

but its interesting to debate anyway.

 

[Sanackranib]

Thanee,
its too bad you are all the way accross the pond (its at least 13 hours from here to Frankfort by plane) you sound like you are one hell of a gamer.

 

[Thanee]

Sure, there is a difference with players, but that still doesn't have much meaning about the classes themselves, as they might provide an uneven base. Your argument does nothing to resolve this, unless you compare a very large (representative) number of players this way.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Just for the record, I also think, that in 3.5 warriors and spellcasters in general are about equal, all things considered.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Sanackranib]

Sure, there is a difference with players, but that still doesn't have much meaning about the classes themselves, as they might provide an uneven base. Your argument does nothing to resolve this, unless you compare a very large (representative) number of players this way.

Bye
Thanee

the classes can be broken up according to comabt effectiveness, spellcasting ability, and skills/feats. at that starting point of 1st level the arguement can be made that any of them is the strongest or weakest since going first and either hacking/ sneak attacking or enspelling your opponent can end combat.

there is a famous quote here in the U.S. that God made all men but Sam Colt (inventer of the revolver) made them equal. the classes are basically ballanced. sure there is some luck involved in the combat order but the real weakest character is a weak or inexperienced player. of course thats just my opinion

 

[Thanee]

...but the real weakest character is a weak or inexperienced player.

Yeah.

The basic question is, that if a player has no specific 'affinity' for a certain class and is not compared to other players, how do classes rack up for him or her? Are they all balanced or not?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Sanackranib]

I know from my own gaming expierence that a weak player or stuipd mistake can get you killed quicker the a weak character - who if smart will flee if he can when he realizes he's outta his league. that said if you want to consistantly do well you need a balanced party of players using the strengths of thier individual characters. some characters like the bard do better in a support roll or do fine as long as they are not in the front row. thats just common sence. if you have d6 hit points you wont last that long aginst guys with d10's and d12's. of course you could always use spells and missile weapons to take them out - you have to use your strengths and every core class has something that is a strength. I think the more that you explore that the less the idea of a weak class is an issue.

I have enjoyed this lively discussion but its 2:30 here in California and time for this old gamer to sleep

 

[Sanackranib]

I think that for the most part the classes are ballanced power wise. the type of campaign will make some character types less desireable or obsolete. thats where the caliber of the player makes the biggest difference
G'nite