Which class is most powerful?

[Thanee]

No big weaknesses (sneak attack vs uncrittables, wizards vs monks, etc.)

Monks are no weakness of Wizards... Antimagic Fields are!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Numion]

Cleric.

By conscious design of the creators of the game to encourage people to play "healers".

A cleric completely buffed can be a better fighter than a fighter.

A cleric can do even more party good by buffing the fighter.

I disagree. While a fighter buffed by a cleric might be better than a single buffed cleric, the sum is lesser. One buffed cleric and one normal fighter are more useful for the party than one normal cleric and one buffed fighter. Because cleric thats used his spells to buff others is pretty useless.

 

[Halivar]

I disagree. While a fighter buffed by a cleric might be better than a single buffed cleric, the sum is lesser. One buffed cleric and one normal fighter are more useful for the party than one normal cleric and one buffed fighter. Because cleric thats used his spells to buff others is pretty useless.

I think folks who play fighters with regularity would vociferously disagree with you. Fact is, one fighter with the combined buffs of a cleric, mage and bard in his party can solo a significant number of encounters at the whole party's CR. At least, that's my experience. Replace the bard with a thief, and the duo can easily take out any one monster CR'd at their level.

Clerics and bards who are best at buffing their groups make for good team players. Clerics who buff themselves leave their otherwise unprotected fighters out to dry.

 

[Storminator]

Monks are no weakness of Wizards... Antimagic Fields are!

Bye
Thanee

Heh heh heh. I'm getting my monk a ring of Antimagic Field! Take that!

Clerics are unbeatable, as this poll shows.

PS

 

[Storminator]

I voted Wizard, based on my experience playing a 17th level Diviner/Loremaster/Archmage in 3.0. Our 17th level Cleric/Divine Diciple was capable of laying the proverbial smack down, but it seemed that either he was being more reserved, or didn't play the class up to its full DM frustrating potential. My opinion is colored a bit by the prestige class aspects of my Wizard, though. I've never played a high level straight class Wizard.

I played a 3.0 Druid from 5th to 13th, which definately is a potential contender for most powerful class, especially with the Natural Spell feat.

On the low end, the Infiltrator from Kalamar has potential, for much the same reasons as a rogue. It may well be, though, that I am a bit of a powergamer compared to the people I was gaming with.

We still miss Imgond, you traitor!

Come back any time...

PS

 

[pyk]

Flawed poll:

you didn't specify AT WHAT LEVEL.

"Power" of the classes varies quite a bit by level.

If you're talking 1st level, it's hard to argue against the fighter or Barbarian.

OTOH, At 20th level, anyone who doesn't immediately say "Wizard" is fooling themselves.

But, at mid levels it would have to be the Druid: Wildshape and have a companion, still able to cast while in Wildshape, Decent attacks, get those nifty buff spells, also get those nifty healing spells...

 

[Numion]

Clerics and bards who are best at buffing their groups make for good team players. Clerics who buff themselves leave their otherwise unprotected fighters out to dry.

Two clerics as a team are more powerful than a team of one cleric and one fighter, or a team of two fighters.

Me, I play a cleric for the ability to kick serious ass while being protected myself. I play cleric as a divine warrior. His god helps him fight trough the spells. Simple as that - no more a team play issue than the fact that a barbarian can only use his rage on himself.

 

[Bauglir]

Flawed poll. Define "powerful". And at what level?

In any case, based on years of experience in play, without a doubt it's the cleric.

Edit: IME, IMC, IMO, yadda yadda yadda.

Define it yourself

That's part of the point of the poll really. Different people value different elements of the classes - this is largely fuelled by the way the DM runs the game, among other elements.

I'm interested in what _you_ have found to be powerful, judging by your own experience.

BTW if any mods reading this could add the Ranger to the poll I'd be really grateful

Cheers,
Baug

 

[Atridis]

I decided on Rogue, because of their flexibility.

- Rogues are fairly balanced throughout their level progression; I would feel okay choosing this class without knowing what level I would be.
- They're very self-sufficient; if it were a single-character campaign, I would choose to play a Rogue.
- They are, imo, least affected by circumstances; with no knowledge of the opposition, the terrain, or the objective, I would feel confident playing a Rogue. I would never feel that I was completely powerless, and I would be able to operate under a variety of conditions within a single campaign or adventure.
- Their abilities are (almost) the least reliant upon equipment (I think a Sorcerer is probably the least reliant on equipment).
- Their abilities are not degraded simply by exercising them, even in the short term. Their operational endurance is very high.
- Their stealth, mobility, and adaptability allow them a great degree of control over the situation, both tactically and strategically, and they are able to cope with, or simply escape, circumstances that are unfavorable.

I could go on, but that's the gist of it, I think.

 

[jasamcarl]

I disagree. While a fighter buffed by a cleric might be better than a single buffed cleric, the sum is lesser. One buffed cleric and one normal fighter are more useful for the party than one normal cleric and one buffed fighter. Because cleric thats used his spells to buff others is pretty useless.

Now i seriously doubt that is true. Most estimates of damage capability are based on the concept of expected damage, or the probability to hit times average damage. Given that most buffs bestow a bonus to hit or damage, there is always a greater damage potential in investing a buff in a fighter. If you give are giving a bonus to hit, you are increasing the probability that the fighter or cleric will hit and increasing the expected damage by some fraction of base damage; because the fighter's base damage is almost always higher (better weapon selection, more advantageous ability distribution) the marginal damage increase of a buff is higher for a fighter. The same applies in reverse for a bonus to damage, because with the fighter's higher BAB and (likely) str and dex, a larger fraction of that bonus to damage will translate into an increase in expected damage. There is no such thing as diminishing marginal returns, its just that, in efficient parties, clerics aren't suppossed to be good combatants.

This doesn't even approach the subject of time. A cleric who buffs himself is taking himself out of combat for a few rounds. A cleric who buffs a fighter will see the benefits of each buff the same round or the one after which he buffs, because the fighter still gets its actions.

This is why i doubt two clerics are superior to two fighters, because they start out with a significantly weaker 'base' combat status (absent magic), and i doubt the cleric's contribution to the fighter outstrips the fighter's inherent combat ability and (at higher levels) the effects of the fighter's equipment. Two fighter's, even unbuffed, will be dishing out greater damage round after round, which means combats will be shorter, which offsets the need for healing somewhat, which itself becomes very cheap in later levels. Two clerics would have to spend time to buff themselves to even put each other even close to the capability of two fighters and will infact deny themselves healing in the process....

The game rewards specializing. Being second best at everything doesn't mean you are the best in general, or the most 'overwhelmingly powerful'. Being good at everything gives the impression of power without neccessarily reflecting the reality.