Which 3.5 class do you think is the weakest?
- Thread starter dontpunkme
- Start date
Kalendraf
Explorer
Sanackranib said:
I think you should have included a smiley there...or were you serious?
Nearly everyone I game with fits under the experienced category, at least I think they do. Most of them have been playing since 2e, with a few since 1e days. Since moving to 3e/3.5, I've been involved in 4 long-running campaigns including a monthly campaign which switched over from 2e and is still running now going on 5 years. My weekly campaign recently celebrated its 1-year anniversay. The other 2 campaigns lasted 6 months, and the other nearly 2 years. In addition to those, I've been involved in several 1-shot adventures. I would consider that to mean that my players and I are rather experienced. None would be classified as weak. In fact, I would call several of them strong players. Some could be called less experienced I guess, but only if you compare them to folks playing since the mid-70's.
I've played several classes, but I mostly DM, so I usually get the luxury of seeing how all the other classes stack up from the opposite side of the DM screen. We've had every class show up in varying degrees. The one class that has struggled badly in nearly every campaign has been the rogue. The campaigns have ranged from combat-light/rp-heavy to combat-heavy/rp-light styles, and each time it was typically the rogue that was the 1st to die. It didn't matter which player ran them. Rogues simply died, probably 3 to 4 times more often than any other class. No other class had this same degree of difficulty, not even the d4 spellcasters or the "supposedly" wimpy bards. I've mentioned in early posts what I think is wrong with the rogue, so I won't repeat it here. My entire reason for this post is to show you that the reason for failure isn't due to lack of experience or weakness on the player's part. In my book, when even strong players can't keep a rogue alive, that's a clear indication of a weak class.
Sanackranib
First Post
Kalendraf said:
Doh! yes there should have been a smiley but it was 2:30 and I had long prior given up proofreading . . .
I am surprised about your expirences with the rogue, that may be simply due to the style of game you run or a less then optomal selection of feats and skills. when I play a rogue my combat philosophy is simple this: get a flanking partner/ hit the other guy before he hits you / raise your ac as high as permited by law so you dont often get hit / become the cleric's "new best friend" and you can never have too many toys. my rogues tend to do rather well
Brother Shatterstone
Dark Moderator of PbP
Half elf all the way and it seems like most agree too. 
Shard O'Glase
First Post
I was going to say fighter but Psion has been making some good points about the dificulty in comparing classes with a different focus. So I'll go with fighter in my games. The fighter contributes nothing but the ability to kill things, and the fighters ability to kill things is not much better than most of the other classes ability to kill things. D&D seems to consider combat the primary balancing factor, many others seem to as well. I don't its just one of many balncing factors maybe slightly more important because it keeps you alive to do things.
as an example people keep ripping into rogues and yet with a 10 int and being non human they can max snekaing abilities, spot, search, disable device, open locks leaving 2 skill points to spread out as you wish when you get 0 extra skill points(something I have never seen on a rogue) And search/open locks/disable device generally only have to be maxed for so long before there automatic even against the best traps and locks out there. I guess its a different game focus or something in my games those skills contirbute just as much to a parties success than a fighters killing ability, and the rogue can help in a fight. Sick damage in melee if your willing to take the risk with low HP, and with their usually high as the fighters str dex they make solid archers at low to mid levels when the BAB diference hasn't manifested to strongly yet.
as an example people keep ripping into rogues and yet with a 10 int and being non human they can max snekaing abilities, spot, search, disable device, open locks leaving 2 skill points to spread out as you wish when you get 0 extra skill points(something I have never seen on a rogue) And search/open locks/disable device generally only have to be maxed for so long before there automatic even against the best traps and locks out there. I guess its a different game focus or something in my games those skills contirbute just as much to a parties success than a fighters killing ability, and the rogue can help in a fight. Sick damage in melee if your willing to take the risk with low HP, and with their usually high as the fighters str dex they make solid archers at low to mid levels when the BAB diference hasn't manifested to strongly yet.
Arkhandus
First Post
To Atra2 and Sejs: My point wasn't that Fighter is weak or useless for multiclassing. The bonus feats are great for multiclassing, but mostly just for taking a few levels of Fighter and no more. And Complete Warrior has no less broken stuff than Sword & Fist did, though I guess it isn't as bad as Masters Of The Wild. The Fighter can't really stand on its own, it desperately needs to multiclass in something else to be effective, and even then a Fighter is never as effective as a Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, or any mid-to-high-level spellcaster. The Fighter needs many buffs from a Cleric and Wizard in order to hold up well in battle at middle and high levels, and can't make use of the many Cleric and Wizard spells that are self-only and completely stop various effects or attacks (Stoneskin, Major Sphere Of Invulnerability, Prismatic Sphere, etc.). The Fighter is useless beyond 4th-level or so without a good magic weapon and magic armor (well, not quite as much a problem in 3.5, but then, a 3.5 Fighter needs adamantine and mithral and cold iron and alchemical silver weapons as back-ups as well or they're just as useless, which is expensive and absurd).
The Fighter is entirely dependant on Kewl Lewt and those Magic-Using Egomaniacs He Must Always Suck Up To In Order To Survive (tm). The lack of those, or just very little of them, results in a useless Fighter. And Fighters just don't have the versatility or raw power to make them worthwhile like that. Only horribly broken supplements, feats, prestige classes, and such can make playing a Fighter, probably not even a pure Fighter, a good and effective choice; and that defeats the point. Which sucks, cuz as I said, Fighters should be scary-powerful in their battle skills at high-level, like Sephiroth or Conan.
I figure the classes are in roughly this order of usefulness, from most to least: Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Rogue, Sorcerer, Paladin, Barbarian, Bard, Ranger, Monk, Fighter.
Bards are effective support characters and can make an entire party fight more efficiently and effectively. They can heal, they can buff, they can charm, they can produce illusions, they can even blast stuff just a bit. They have enough skills and skill points to effectively fill several roles, even if not terribly well sometimes, and they can generally accompany anyone else in the party for almost any task (need to scout ahead? no problem, I'll go with you, and I can even make us invisible; need to ambush that monster? I'll sneak around the other side and flank 'em; need to get on the Baron's good side? No problem....). Bards have enough combat ability to help flank in combat and to help protect the party's major spellcasters, and they can be decent in battle once buffed up with their spells and bardic music. They're very versatile and DO NOT suck at everything they do, there's just not many things that they specialize in; what they do specialize in though is stealth, misdirection, deception, socializing, controlling the situation, disguise, support, and knowledge. Yes, Bards are a generally weak class, with only mediocre combat ability and spellcasting and skill selection, but largely make up for it in the versatility of all this together.
Barbarians have more raw offensive and defensive power than Fighters, and more general versatility, though not as much as Rangers or Bards.
Clerics can heal allies, enhance allies, blast enemies, cripple enemies, divine the future, divine clues and lore, summon allies to fight for them or perform other tasks, fight well in melee or ranged combat especially if using their spells to pump themselves up, survive attacks that would kill other spellcasters, and control or ward off undead. They are very versatile and solid, very capable and especially so in their specialties. Only an inexperienced, foolish, or old-school-jaded player would play a 3/3.5 Cleric as just a boring healer.
Druids can do several things that Clerics do, though sometimes not quite as well, but they have the advantage of greater destructive power at some levels and better versatility outside of battle. Their combat ability is a bit worse due to their armor/weapon restrictions, but their spells and wild shape ability can make up for that. They're very potent in the wilderness, of course, though about half of their spells and abilities are useless elsewhere (still leaving them with mediocre combat ability, wild shaping, animal companions, and such though).
Monks are more versatile than Fighters and Barbarians besides combat, and have combat versatility somewhere in between. They could definately use more skill points though, and they need too many high ability scores to be effective and survivable. They do have many cool powers at middle and high levels, but even then they have difficulty surviving due to their mediocre hit points, reliance on staying in melee, and low to mediocre attack/damage rolls. They need d12 hit dice or better attack bonuses to be effective, but then they might need to have a few of their special powers removed.
Paladins are very effective against undead and evil creatures, but lose some of their offensive and defensive abilities when fighting other types of foes. They have only a little more non-combat versatility than Fighters do, and greater survivability. They give up some of the combat versatility of a Fighter to instead have greater power against a few types of enemies, and for the sake of gaining a special mount and healing/buffing spells. They are not useless against non-undead, non-evil enemies, though they are only about as effective as a Fighter in those cases, with the advantage of healing and buffing even then.
Rangers have greater non-combat versatility than the other warrior classes, though half of that versatility only applies in the wilderness, which still leaves Rangers at least more sneaky and observant regardless of environment. They aren't as versatile in combat as Fighters, but are more effective against a few types of enemies, and have enough usefulness and effectiveness outside of combat so as to make them better than Fighters overall. They're more accurate and deadly in combat than Monks, so they can survive somewhat better as they can actually hurt enemeis and slay them without wasting as much time missing with their attacks.
Rogues are the only good trap-finders and trap-disarmers amongst the core classes, which at least leaves them an important niche, and they are almost as good as Bards when it comes to sneaking and deception (lacking only the Bard's spells of illusion, charm, and stealth). Rogues have great versatility with their skills, and have enough combat ability to be useful when their skills don't apply. They can do great damage with sneak attacks, and can use Bluff, Hide, and Move Silently to improve their chances of getting off many sneak attacks each battle. Their combat ability is cut in half against creatures they can't sneak attack, but they at least retain decent defensive abilities, a decent attack bonus, and survival abilities like Evasion, Slippery Mind, Uncanny Dodge, and Defensive Roll. They could certainly use a bit more sneaking ability and defense, but are reasonably effective as-is. A skilled rogue doesn't get hurt or killed by traps or scouting very often, unless they're foolhardy or horribly inexperienced (generally just player faults, really). Well, unless their DM is evil, anyway, in which case the rogue is about as likely as anyone else to die, they just have better chances of dying seperate from the rest of the party who's about to be TPK'd by an RBDM.
Sorcerers are fairly powerful, they just lack versatility and some defense. They only learn a few spells of each level, so they can't learn every defensive or offensive spell for each possible type of attack against them, but that's why they must choose their spells carefully and take stuff like Fly and Invisibility to stay out of harm's way (or out of its notice) for as long as needed. They can cast their spells many times per day, spontaneously, which is very effective, simply limited by the small number of spells they know. A sorcerer rarely has to worry about their magic being dispelled since they easily have enough spell slots to re-cast it again. Having multitudinous Magic Missiles, Mage Armors, Lightning Bolts, Hastes, Flies, or Tenser's Transformations each day can be pretty powerful. Sorcerers only lack in versatility and uniqueness (they steal the psionicist's original shtick and flavor, and squander it). They need a few more spells known, more skill points, and a superior class skill selection. A better hit die or base attack bonus would make sense with their flavor text, but would probably be unbalanced unless their spellcasting was reduced (say, slowing their spell progression a bit and limiting them to spells no higher than 7th by 20th-level).
Wizards are just plain powerful. I think that's about all there is to say on that. If I need to explain it, there's something wierd about how your group plays, or you're a total newbie. Not trying to flame, just sayin', most groups quickly and clearly witness the raw power and versatility of a Wizard in due time. They could use a few more skill points maybe, or better benefits from specializing perhaps, but it'd probably just be overkill.
The Fighter is entirely dependant on Kewl Lewt and those Magic-Using Egomaniacs He Must Always Suck Up To In Order To Survive (tm). The lack of those, or just very little of them, results in a useless Fighter. And Fighters just don't have the versatility or raw power to make them worthwhile like that. Only horribly broken supplements, feats, prestige classes, and such can make playing a Fighter, probably not even a pure Fighter, a good and effective choice; and that defeats the point. Which sucks, cuz as I said, Fighters should be scary-powerful in their battle skills at high-level, like Sephiroth or Conan.
I figure the classes are in roughly this order of usefulness, from most to least: Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Rogue, Sorcerer, Paladin, Barbarian, Bard, Ranger, Monk, Fighter.
Bards are effective support characters and can make an entire party fight more efficiently and effectively. They can heal, they can buff, they can charm, they can produce illusions, they can even blast stuff just a bit. They have enough skills and skill points to effectively fill several roles, even if not terribly well sometimes, and they can generally accompany anyone else in the party for almost any task (need to scout ahead? no problem, I'll go with you, and I can even make us invisible; need to ambush that monster? I'll sneak around the other side and flank 'em; need to get on the Baron's good side? No problem....). Bards have enough combat ability to help flank in combat and to help protect the party's major spellcasters, and they can be decent in battle once buffed up with their spells and bardic music. They're very versatile and DO NOT suck at everything they do, there's just not many things that they specialize in; what they do specialize in though is stealth, misdirection, deception, socializing, controlling the situation, disguise, support, and knowledge. Yes, Bards are a generally weak class, with only mediocre combat ability and spellcasting and skill selection, but largely make up for it in the versatility of all this together.
Barbarians have more raw offensive and defensive power than Fighters, and more general versatility, though not as much as Rangers or Bards.
Clerics can heal allies, enhance allies, blast enemies, cripple enemies, divine the future, divine clues and lore, summon allies to fight for them or perform other tasks, fight well in melee or ranged combat especially if using their spells to pump themselves up, survive attacks that would kill other spellcasters, and control or ward off undead. They are very versatile and solid, very capable and especially so in their specialties. Only an inexperienced, foolish, or old-school-jaded player would play a 3/3.5 Cleric as just a boring healer.
Druids can do several things that Clerics do, though sometimes not quite as well, but they have the advantage of greater destructive power at some levels and better versatility outside of battle. Their combat ability is a bit worse due to their armor/weapon restrictions, but their spells and wild shape ability can make up for that. They're very potent in the wilderness, of course, though about half of their spells and abilities are useless elsewhere (still leaving them with mediocre combat ability, wild shaping, animal companions, and such though).
Monks are more versatile than Fighters and Barbarians besides combat, and have combat versatility somewhere in between. They could definately use more skill points though, and they need too many high ability scores to be effective and survivable. They do have many cool powers at middle and high levels, but even then they have difficulty surviving due to their mediocre hit points, reliance on staying in melee, and low to mediocre attack/damage rolls. They need d12 hit dice or better attack bonuses to be effective, but then they might need to have a few of their special powers removed.
Paladins are very effective against undead and evil creatures, but lose some of their offensive and defensive abilities when fighting other types of foes. They have only a little more non-combat versatility than Fighters do, and greater survivability. They give up some of the combat versatility of a Fighter to instead have greater power against a few types of enemies, and for the sake of gaining a special mount and healing/buffing spells. They are not useless against non-undead, non-evil enemies, though they are only about as effective as a Fighter in those cases, with the advantage of healing and buffing even then.
Rangers have greater non-combat versatility than the other warrior classes, though half of that versatility only applies in the wilderness, which still leaves Rangers at least more sneaky and observant regardless of environment. They aren't as versatile in combat as Fighters, but are more effective against a few types of enemies, and have enough usefulness and effectiveness outside of combat so as to make them better than Fighters overall. They're more accurate and deadly in combat than Monks, so they can survive somewhat better as they can actually hurt enemeis and slay them without wasting as much time missing with their attacks.
Rogues are the only good trap-finders and trap-disarmers amongst the core classes, which at least leaves them an important niche, and they are almost as good as Bards when it comes to sneaking and deception (lacking only the Bard's spells of illusion, charm, and stealth). Rogues have great versatility with their skills, and have enough combat ability to be useful when their skills don't apply. They can do great damage with sneak attacks, and can use Bluff, Hide, and Move Silently to improve their chances of getting off many sneak attacks each battle. Their combat ability is cut in half against creatures they can't sneak attack, but they at least retain decent defensive abilities, a decent attack bonus, and survival abilities like Evasion, Slippery Mind, Uncanny Dodge, and Defensive Roll. They could certainly use a bit more sneaking ability and defense, but are reasonably effective as-is. A skilled rogue doesn't get hurt or killed by traps or scouting very often, unless they're foolhardy or horribly inexperienced (generally just player faults, really). Well, unless their DM is evil, anyway, in which case the rogue is about as likely as anyone else to die, they just have better chances of dying seperate from the rest of the party who's about to be TPK'd by an RBDM.
Sorcerers are fairly powerful, they just lack versatility and some defense. They only learn a few spells of each level, so they can't learn every defensive or offensive spell for each possible type of attack against them, but that's why they must choose their spells carefully and take stuff like Fly and Invisibility to stay out of harm's way (or out of its notice) for as long as needed. They can cast their spells many times per day, spontaneously, which is very effective, simply limited by the small number of spells they know. A sorcerer rarely has to worry about their magic being dispelled since they easily have enough spell slots to re-cast it again. Having multitudinous Magic Missiles, Mage Armors, Lightning Bolts, Hastes, Flies, or Tenser's Transformations each day can be pretty powerful. Sorcerers only lack in versatility and uniqueness (they steal the psionicist's original shtick and flavor, and squander it). They need a few more spells known, more skill points, and a superior class skill selection. A better hit die or base attack bonus would make sense with their flavor text, but would probably be unbalanced unless their spellcasting was reduced (say, slowing their spell progression a bit and limiting them to spells no higher than 7th by 20th-level).
Wizards are just plain powerful. I think that's about all there is to say on that. If I need to explain it, there's something wierd about how your group plays, or you're a total newbie. Not trying to flame, just sayin', most groups quickly and clearly witness the raw power and versatility of a Wizard in due time. They could use a few more skill points maybe, or better benefits from specializing perhaps, but it'd probably just be overkill.
tarchon
First Post
A Monk can match Fighter, Barb, Ranger or Paladin in combat, and easily outdoes any other class. It is however the most tactically complex of the melee classes, so you will very rarely encounter someone who can figure out how to use complex combinations of flurries, trips, stuns, tumbles, fast movement, etc. effectively. What makes up for the hit points at mid levels and above is the healing ability. After 6th level, since they get 2 hp/level healing, they effectively do have access to d12 hit points, but the trick is that they have to string it out.Arkhandus said:
The one thing I would change about the sorcerer is to give them a couple more Cha-based class skills. They were kind of screwed in 3.0 by not having any skills that go off their primary stat, though in 3.5 Bluff was wisely added.
Similar Threads
