Which class is most powerful?

[Djeta Thernadier]

Yes, but you can't compare that. Sure a character can be more powerful, even if a member of a less powerful class, but the class itself is neutral in that context. You should assume that every class is utilized in the best and most imaginative way and then think about which one would be the best base for a powerful character.

I guess, IMO, for me, each class, if played in the best and most imaginative way can be equally powerful.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

Looking forward to the eventual results - since the impetus was sparked by a discussion between Bauglir and myself.

Though I would have though a "What are the three most powerful classes" might have shown better results.

I am curious as to who actually voted for the Fighter and why though?

 

[Harlock]

Cleric: Armor? Check. Fair Hit Points? Check. Turn Undead? Check. Way cool spells for buff, offense and defense/healing? Check, Check, Check. Decent melee skills? Check, again. The only hit a cleric takes is skills. Cleric is still the most powerful class, hands down. Of course, a lot of this is sort of necessary and in three campaigns of 3.0-3.5 we've only had one player even choose cleric. I'm not sure if it was due to anything in particular other than everyone had some other heroic concept they wanted to play.

 

[LuYangShih]

Cleric, and then Ranger. Clerics can serve so many purposes, it is folly to be without one. As mentioned above, the only thing they lack is skills, and who needs skills when you have Commune?

 

[Thanee]

Who needs skills, when you have Wieldskill (ok, not in 3.5... yet)!

Bye
Thanee

 

[jasamcarl]

Cleric: Armor? Check. Fair Hit Points? Check. Turn Undead? Check. Way cool spells for buff, offense and defense/healing? Check, Check, Check. Decent melee skills? Check, again. The only hit a cleric takes is skills. Cleric is still the most powerful class, hands down. Of course, a lot of this is sort of necessary and in three campaigns of 3.0-3.5 we've only had one player even choose cleric. I'm not sure if it was due to anything in particular other than everyone had some other heroic concept they wanted to play.

Yeah, but how well do those things stack? Armor and hitpoints provide some degree of defense, but without the grounding in melee ability that a fighter enjoys, their utility is limited. Generally speaking, the spellcasting ability of the cleric is limited to utility, being weaker in general than wizards/sorc interms of combat balance. Now, some claim that a cleric can be a better fighter than a fighter, but that is only true if they spend muliple rounds worth of actions buffing; time is an essential limiting factor. That is the major weakness on any class with the range of abilities that the cleric has, i.e. the use of one comes at the expense of others. The same logic applies to the MT and EK. The cleric really only excells as a healer/buffer, and i think most players realize this on an intuitive level. But many just look at the range of abilities and think 'wooo' without considering what actually happens in play.

 

[Harlock]

Yeah, but how well do those things stack? Armor and hitpoints provide some degree of defense, but without the grounding in melee ability that a fighter enjoys, their utility is limited. Generally speaking, the spellcasting ability of the cleric is limited to utility, being weaker in general than wizards/sorc interms of combat balance. Now, some claim that a cleric can be a better fighter than a fighter, but that is only true if they spend muliple rounds worth of actions buffing; time is an essential limiting factor. That is the major weakness on any class with the range of abilities that the cleric has, i.e. the use of one comes at the expense of others. The same logic applies to the MT and EK. The cleric really only excells as a healer/buffer, and i think most players realize this on an intuitive level. But many just look at the range of abilities and think 'wooo' without considering what actually happens in play.

We've obviously had different experiences with Claerics, then. In the games we play the DM has NPC'd clerics and they frankly, were front line fighters and when Flamestrike became available they generally took on the roll of blasting as well. Granted, this was 3.0 when buffs lasted more than enough time so could be used at the beginning of the day. One cleric even used a glaive so had reach and didn;t even need to move (much) to cast a healing spell before wading back into the slaughter. So, as far as thinking "wooo" without considering play, consider I as a DM have run them and I as a player have seen them run and they are by far the most powerful class in my experience.

 

[pogre]

I voted Cleric.

I think it is good thing the cleric is very powerful. In my experience it can be a tough class to get folks to play as it is. Having it be a powerful choice really helps.

 

[Pants]

Yeah, but how well do those things stack? Armor and hitpoints provide some degree of defense, but without the grounding in melee ability that a fighter enjoys, their utility is limited. Generally speaking, the spellcasting ability of the cleric is limited to utility, being weaker in general than wizards/sorc interms of combat balance. Now, some claim that a cleric can be a better fighter than a fighter, but that is only true if they spend muliple rounds worth of actions buffing; time is an essential limiting factor. That is the major weakness on any class with the range of abilities that the cleric has, i.e. the use of one comes at the expense of others. The same logic applies to the MT and EK. The cleric really only excells as a healer/buffer, and i think most players realize this on an intuitive level. But many just look at the range of abilities and think 'wooo' without considering what actually happens in play.

I don't know, the dwarven cleric that I play is a pretty tough guy and he's hardly min/maxed. Then again he's more of a battle priest/buffer than a healer.

 

[jasamcarl]

We've obviously had different experiences with Claerics, then. In the games we play the DM has NPC'd clerics and they frankly, were front line fighters and when Flamestrike became available they generally took on the roll of blasting as well. Granted, this was 3.0 when buffs lasted more than enough time so could be used at the beginning of the day. One cleric even used a glaive so had reach and didn;t even need to move (much) to cast a healing spell before wading back into the slaughter. So, as far as thinking "wooo" without considering play, consider I as a DM have run them and I as a player have seen them run and they are by far the most powerful class in my experience.

Yeah, but did he actually excell at any of these things? In a standard cleric/wizard/rogue/fighter breakdown, the cleric would be dumb to regularly take up any of the other roles. A bonus to hit/damage is more beneficial in the hands of the fighter, than the cleric, hp for the wizard who needs to stay in the fight or dex for the rogue. A cleric could spend time to buff himself up into a powerhouse, but i maintain that the party as a whole would suffer and would be better off with a specialist as a fourth member. And while the 3.0 buffs had largly allowed for a cleric to have its cake and eat it to, time is now much more of a consideration. A cleric can buff himself to fighter like ability, but to judge his true utility, you would have to compare his subsequent damage to the damage a fighter does in those same rounds + the damage a fighter inflicted in the prep rounds.

EDIT: the cleric is a powerful class, but i don't think it really stands up in play to the image many poster have of it.