Which 3.5 class do you think is the weakest?
- Thread starter dontpunkme
- Start date
buzzard
First Post
I'd have to say that paladins are the creampuffs.
Sure, we all know that a bard is mincemeat if it gets up front, but my fighter ends up a much happier camper when a reasonably high level bards starts up the music. We recently did a battle interactive in LG, and the combination of inspire courage and inspire greatness was a wonderful thing. We just had to keep the bard alive. Now mind you, I would not want a bard at my table if we only had four players. However as player 5 or 6, they are quite useful.
The paladin OTOH, is a creampuff. Sure they get a few cool spells. However they aren't as good as the cleric in this. The truth is they are supposed to be melee combatants, and they fail by comparison with fighters and barbarians. Any paladin which expects to be useful will have to take a prestige class (Templar most commonly or maybe Knight of the Middle Circle).
buzzard
Sure, we all know that a bard is mincemeat if it gets up front, but my fighter ends up a much happier camper when a reasonably high level bards starts up the music. We recently did a battle interactive in LG, and the combination of inspire courage and inspire greatness was a wonderful thing. We just had to keep the bard alive. Now mind you, I would not want a bard at my table if we only had four players. However as player 5 or 6, they are quite useful.
The paladin OTOH, is a creampuff. Sure they get a few cool spells. However they aren't as good as the cleric in this. The truth is they are supposed to be melee combatants, and they fail by comparison with fighters and barbarians. Any paladin which expects to be useful will have to take a prestige class (Templar most commonly or maybe Knight of the Middle Circle).
buzzard
Setanta said:
Well I will vote monk also in hopes that more monk goodness comes down the pipe
I have been playing a monk in our regular campaign since 3E came out and have found it to be a fun and challenging character to play.
I have stood face to toe with giants, and face to claw with a few dragons (the character is a female gnome).
I have lived to retire at 10th level (which is a huge accomplishment in our campaign where we only play once a month). This survival also included being the only player alive after a near TPK, I knew when to run away and hide whan no one else did
I only added 1 level of Psion after the first psionic handbook came out, but progressed no further because of the limited usefullness of low level psions.
The only concession to being a psion was inertial armor which helped me get hit less (which was key during the parties "everyone is a support character phase").
So my comment is that the monk has plenty of power and survivability, you will not hit as hard as many front line tanks but you can step up when the need arrises.
The thing I have found is that it is a class that requires alot of patience and tactical skill to play effectively.
My new character for our campaign is a druid because I wanted to play something else for a while, but I would not hesitate to bring my monk out of retirement to help smack down some more bad guys.
Kalendraf said:
Hi Kalendraf - yes, I've considered this too. I tend to agree a generic 'priest' class (as opposed to Battle Cleric) ought to have d6 hit die, and the 3e Cleric certainly wouldn't be underpowered with that reduction, but I'm reluctant to make the change. Rogues would still be weak even with d8 hit die IMO. I've vaguely considered giving them full BAB - more Grey-Mouserish, but still unlikely to result in a long life.
I think Sorcerers as they stand are ok with d4 hit die, if I gave them d6 I'd also give them 3/4 BAB and more skill points - modelled on the Expert - but reduce their spellcasting power, prob keep the spells known, but with much fewer slots/day.
Re Sorcerers - I let them cast Quickened spells as free action IMC, which helps balance w Wizard and helps burn through their slots.
Paladins need very high stats to be good; a Holy Avenger doesn't hurt, either.
Monks likewise need high stats - w 25PB these two are probably the weakest classes, at 50 PB they are probably among the strongest.
Paladins need very high stats to be good; a Holy Avenger doesn't hurt, either.
Monks likewise need high stats - w 25PB these two are probably the weakest classes, at 50 PB they are probably among the strongest.
Capellan
Explorer
shadow said:
Leaving aside the obvious exaggeration of "all the spells" being seriously nerfed (since 90% of them didn't change), have you tried the 3.5 haste? Sure, the wizard himself is no longer a 2-spells-per-round monster, but if anything, the new version is actually more useful to a group than the old one, especially if that group has more than 4 characters (eg extra players or NPC cohorts).
I played a wizard (up to 8th level; campaign currently on a break) in a group with a cleric and a psychic warrior (who are both tanks), plus a monk/rogue (scouts/flanks) and a ranger cohort (archer-based). With haste, the tanks make a lot more hits, and are actually able to chase down fleeing foes. The monk's ability to move around the battlefield becomes just obscene, and the ranger unleashes a blizzard of arrows. As for myself, while I can't doble-cast spells anymore, I have a much improved ability to move around and provide spell suppport, and/or dodge any foes that try to take me out of the fight.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I chose the paladin and monk would have been my second choice.
Paladins are great from a role-playing perspective and can make decent tanks. The problem is that their primary ability is really great saves and a warhorse that doesn't instantly die at higher levels. A paladin with incredible stats or who takes all of the mounted combat feats and cons the DM into giving him some kind of half-celestial mount can be quite fearsome. Even more so, if the paladin shares all his buffs with the mount. However, depart significantly from that model (or don't have enough room to do your spirited charges) and the paladin seems like he's sucking air except on the attacks where he gets to smite--then he's as effective as a real fighter or a raging barbarian...on two to five attacks per day. Still, even such a paladin will usually be subject to the "wow, we get a great equine fighter we can summon once per day and a paladin comes with him too" complaint.
Monks can be very effective too. However, they suffer from the same problem as paladins. They need very great stats to be effective (a previous post that said, "try to get an 18 in wisdom and dexterity" indicates this--that's 32 points right there and the monk hasn't even gotten a strength or constitution score yet (both of which need to be decent if he's to be effective). I've seen very effective high strength half-orc monks but in general, monks seem to be weak.
All of those who picked druid are smoking crack. Seriously, druids are good at every level. If they didn't get animal companions, they'd be as good as clerics and nearly as good as wizards in the offensive magic department (in fact, stripping out the animal companion and nature abilities, I've seriously considered using the druid as a "wizard" in a non-standard D&D campaign--their abilities fit more in line with the wizards of myth and legend anyway). SNA is absolutely disgusting and wild shape makes druids excellent fighters or perfect spies. If you allow the Complete Divine spells (Nature's Favor, etc), no class can compare to druids in power.
Sorcerors suck at low levels. By the time they hit 4th level, a sorceror starts to get interesting. If versatility is still a problem at high levels, then you just designed a weak sorceror. At high levels, a sorceror has enough spells per day that she can be prepared for nearly any eventuality even without scrolls. Add in a haversack and some scrolls of the useful spell she doesn't know and she's easily the equal of a wizard.
Rogues are quite effective too. They're weak against undead, plants, and constructs but their sneak attack and uncanny dodge abilities are very useful. And their high level abilities (opportunist, the one that deals strength damage, etc) are very useful. They're probably next after monks on the weak list though.
Bards can be very effective if played properly. As others have pointed out, it's just as possible to build a melee bard as a melee cleric. And if you accept that your role in the party is supporting the other characters rather than being the star of the show, a good bard can make the difference between an APL 12 party defeating a fiendish razor boar of legend and that party having their butts handed to them. Haste, +3/+3 bardsong, displacement, Inspire Greatness, etc, all add up to a great addition to the party. Perhaps none of those (except inspire courage and inspire greatness) are things that couldn't be done by other characters but having all of those options makes the rest of the party much more effective.
Paladins are great from a role-playing perspective and can make decent tanks. The problem is that their primary ability is really great saves and a warhorse that doesn't instantly die at higher levels. A paladin with incredible stats or who takes all of the mounted combat feats and cons the DM into giving him some kind of half-celestial mount can be quite fearsome. Even more so, if the paladin shares all his buffs with the mount. However, depart significantly from that model (or don't have enough room to do your spirited charges) and the paladin seems like he's sucking air except on the attacks where he gets to smite--then he's as effective as a real fighter or a raging barbarian...on two to five attacks per day. Still, even such a paladin will usually be subject to the "wow, we get a great equine fighter we can summon once per day and a paladin comes with him too" complaint.
Monks can be very effective too. However, they suffer from the same problem as paladins. They need very great stats to be effective (a previous post that said, "try to get an 18 in wisdom and dexterity" indicates this--that's 32 points right there and the monk hasn't even gotten a strength or constitution score yet (both of which need to be decent if he's to be effective). I've seen very effective high strength half-orc monks but in general, monks seem to be weak.
All of those who picked druid are smoking crack. Seriously, druids are good at every level. If they didn't get animal companions, they'd be as good as clerics and nearly as good as wizards in the offensive magic department (in fact, stripping out the animal companion and nature abilities, I've seriously considered using the druid as a "wizard" in a non-standard D&D campaign--their abilities fit more in line with the wizards of myth and legend anyway). SNA is absolutely disgusting and wild shape makes druids excellent fighters or perfect spies. If you allow the Complete Divine spells (Nature's Favor, etc), no class can compare to druids in power.
Sorcerors suck at low levels. By the time they hit 4th level, a sorceror starts to get interesting. If versatility is still a problem at high levels, then you just designed a weak sorceror. At high levels, a sorceror has enough spells per day that she can be prepared for nearly any eventuality even without scrolls. Add in a haversack and some scrolls of the useful spell she doesn't know and she's easily the equal of a wizard.
Rogues are quite effective too. They're weak against undead, plants, and constructs but their sneak attack and uncanny dodge abilities are very useful. And their high level abilities (opportunist, the one that deals strength damage, etc) are very useful. They're probably next after monks on the weak list though.
Bards can be very effective if played properly. As others have pointed out, it's just as possible to build a melee bard as a melee cleric. And if you accept that your role in the party is supporting the other characters rather than being the star of the show, a good bard can make the difference between an APL 12 party defeating a fiendish razor boar of legend and that party having their butts handed to them. Haste, +3/+3 bardsong, displacement, Inspire Greatness, etc, all add up to a great addition to the party. Perhaps none of those (except inspire courage and inspire greatness) are things that couldn't be done by other characters but having all of those options makes the rest of the party much more effective.
Thanee
First Post
Elder-Basilisk said:
Yeah! My 3.5 Sorceress is now 9th level and almost always has a good spell or something else (wands, scrolls, etc) to do appropriate for the situation. I really doubt, that a Wizard would have the same number of "useful castings per day". Not even half as many. However, when there is enough information and time to properly prepare (15 minutes with enough slots left free in the morning), the Wizard is - of course - unbeatable (plus he has higher level spells half of the time and always more different good spells). But this does not happen all too often in our campaigns (one or the other, sure, but rarely both together). In combat she comes close to our Barbarian/Dragon Disciple already (and that guy is doing insane amounts of damage at this level, with full Power Attack of course, especially after we found those Boots of Speed). Anyways, my Sorceress usually is the one that turns hopeless combats or makes tough ones easy to win. There were only few situations, where she couldn't do anything decent yet. Sure, sometimes another spell would have been better, but then again, would the Wizard have exactly that spell prepared at that moment?
Bye
Thanee
Similar Threads
