Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-too powerful?

[Merlion]

...and they have like 11 fewer feats over 20 levels...

Bye
Thanee

Yea...but I have my doubts about combat feats some times, especially in terms of core. I mean there good and useful and all, but many are again rather situational. Untyped bonuses to Str and Con, and DR X/- are always useful. and Indomitable Will or whatever, and Uncanny Dodge are rather handy as well, plus the better hit die.

It just seems like a Barbarian would often be the best choice for dealing and absorbing damage, overall. The Fighter would have more tricks...but are they tricks that are going to be helpful most of the time?

 

[Zimbel]

Well I would agree with Paladin against most evil enemies. I think part of my thing is the Barbarians abilities...Rage, DR etc...are very generally useful. In particular Rage is an offensive ability on a melee class that works against more or less everything as oposed to Smite Evil or Favored Enemy which are very specific.

Plus the HPs. And again the only loss I can see is that the Barb's AC is going to be a bit low..

I think of a Paladin more of a "mounted combatant whose mount dosen't die every other round at high levels" (a Druid is the other core example). Optimally, you charge every round, save against very weak creatures. The anti-evil abilities, spells, etc. are just icing.

At high levels, I think the only reason a Barbarian's AC is low is due to Rage (-2). Unless your PC's Dex is low, lacking heavy armor isn't a factor (and this can be rectified by 1 feat). Simuarly, typically wanting a 2-H weapon isn't a factor with Animated Shields avalible (if they're more expensive). For that matter, if the Paladin sinks significant money into his/her mount, the Barbarian's AC might be higher.

P.S.: I'm finding this discussion rather useful. It's apparent that I've never actually played a high-level melee type in 3.x, even if I've played with them and DMed them.

 

[Iku Rex]

That is a good grappler build for a monk.

It's an AC 13 character with less than 50 hit points who's main shtick is to run in among his enemies and get rid of his Dex bonus to AC.

If he survived a single session I'd be awed by his incredible luck. Typical monk build though. A couple of shiny, yet very situational, combat abilities, but the character is an easy target with all the toughness of wet toilet paper.

 

[Zimbel]

The problem is that Escape Artist and Grapple checks usually cannot keep up with the grapple checks of things you might be fighting, so really Ring of Freedom of movement or an escape spell (like Dimension Door) is a must.

Hrm... in the group that I was in up through about 22, Grappling was typically a swift death sentance for the grappler. It was just inviting the rest of the party to pound on the grappler until they were dead (which was often under 1 round). The only one that bothered to concentrate on a grappling defence was the Sorcerer, who just took Teleport as a spell at LV 10 (1 level before it was planned).

 

[Thanee]

The problem is that Escape Artist and Grapple checks usually cannot keep up with the grapple checks of things you might be fighting, so really Ring of Freedom of movement or an escape spell (like Dimension Door) is a must.

Against very large creatures, yeah, that's problematic. But Escape Artist with max ranks, super high Dex and a huge bonus from magic items is quite possible without sacrificing too much (as a rogue).

Of course, the rogue is probably better off with a wand of dimension door.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Merlion]

I think of a Paladin more of a "mounted combatant whose mount dosen't die every other round at high levels" (a Druid is the other core example). Optimally, you charge every round, save against very weak creatures. The anti-evil abilities, spells, etc. are just icing.

At high levels, I think the only reason a Barbarian's AC is low is due to Rage (-2). Unless your PC's Dex is low, lacking heavy armor isn't a factor (and this can be rectified by 1 feat). Simuarly, typically wanting a 2-H weapon isn't a factor with Animated Shields avalible (if they're more expensive). For that matter, if the Paladin sinks significant money into his/her mount, the Barbarian's AC might be higher.

P.S.: I'm finding this discussion rather useful. It's apparent that I've never actually played a high-level melee type in 3.x, even if I've played with them and DMed them.

Well mounted combat is very situational also. I'd say almost more so than the VS Evil stuff. You have to have room to get any good out of a mount. Which is why a paladin should probably have the option of a non-mount companion.


And aside from the things you mention, the lower AC on the Barb is largely made up for by the higher HP.


And I'm glad my thread is proving useful

 

[Thanee]

If he survived a single session I'd be awed by his incredible luck.

LOL

Bye
Thanee

 

[Zimbel]

Well mounted combat is very situational also. I'd say almost more so than the VS Evil stuff. You have to have room to get any good out of a mount. Which is why a paladin should probably have the option of a non-mount companion.

Hrm... vs evil depends on the campaign, although a survey of the alignments in the Monster Manual supports your claim.

It was a rare combat at high levels where we didn't have room. Combat that didn't require flying or had ease of access to the opponent is another matter, though. The main problem is that those really big monsters take up a lot of room, so it's hard to fit them in (say) a 20x20 room, where charging isn't an option.

Also, even when the combat is in a 20x20 room, my experience is that making a room larger at high levels isn't tough, if it's important enough to cast an appropriate spell (or sometimes just as collateral damage).

 

[Zimbel]

It's an AC 13 character with less than 50 hit points who's main shtick is to run in among his enemies and get rid of his Dex bonus to AC.

If he survived a single session I'd be awed by his incredible luck. Typical monk build though. A couple of shiny, yet very situational, combat abilities, but the character is an easy target with all the toughness of wet toilet paper.

I wouldn't. We had a Monk with fairly low HP, and sub-par AC that survived up to about LV 13, when 2 AOOs at once killed that character. Spring Attack + low damage output + evasion + good saves can keep survivability (if not effectiveness) quite high, as long as the rest of the party is more effective.

Frankly, I think that the main problem with the Monk in general is that they want at least 4 high stats, which is difficult except with incredibly lucky rolls (preferably 5d6, drop lowest 2, roll well). Most other classes can be effective with 3 or fewer high stats.

 

[Thanee]

I wouldn't. We had a Monk with fairly low HP, and sub-par AC that survived up to about LV 13, when 2 AOOs at once killed that character. Spring Attack + low damage output + evasion + good saves can keep survivability (if not effectiveness) quite high, as long as the rest of the party is more effective.

Heh. Low damage output is pretty good for the survivability. Most opponents will simply ignore you. And if the other three (typical party size) can make up for the 4th member to be completely useless in combat, the party as a whole won't suffer overly much.

Frankly, I think that the main problem with the Monk in general is that they want at least 4 high stats, which is difficult except with incredibly lucky rolls (preferably 5d6, drop lowest 2, roll well). Most other classes can be effective with 3 or fewer high stats.

Yep, that's right. Monks get more out of superhuman stats than most other classes (Favored Souls and Clerics are also quite strong with great stats).

Bye
Thanee