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

[Storm Raven]

Or maybe he's busy.

I doubt it. He's made long, wandering posts in other threads. He's just letting this "monks are uber" argument drop in the thread where the concrete evidence shown has been pretty much lined up against his position.

 

[Merlion]

Well we seem to have a pretty good idea what we're working with now. And so I am going to see what people think, for a bit, about solutions to the issues we've brought up.

I'm going to focus on Cleric and Druid since they have by far the most votes, and so that its not limited to casters only, also the Barbarian which I kind of have some issues with, and has recieved some votes as well (relative to other melees).


For the Cleric, RP issues aside and focusing on balance without a total revamp, I'd say a big part of the problem is simply that the Cleric has too much other stuff to go with their full spellcasting, and their defenses are too good. Also I have a general problem with the whole "divine" spellcasters getting automatic access to every spell on their list. And I feel theres a few Cleric/Druid spells that more classes should have access too (Spell Resistance, Freedom of Movement, Death Ward, Find the Path are biggies).


Anyway, I would reduce Armor Prof to Light, and Hit die to a d6. Take the Fort save down to poor or to a Medium progression like in AU/AE. And remove Divine Power and Righteous Might entirely...and spread some of the spells around a bit more as I mentioned above. Some of the trouble with defenses might be in the spells themselves too...Death Ward and Freedom of Movement make you totally immune to a bunch of stuff...granting save bonuses and resistances might really be better.
Also I dont think anything should allow greater access to Domain spells, especially the ones from the Wizard list.


For Druids, much the same. I dont really see them as being as bad because their spell list is much more limited, and doesnt include any other-class-duplicating spells. And they dont have the heavy armor. Still, they dont really need a d8 for hit dice, or a good Fort save.


As for Barbarian...well to be honest its one of the few classes I dont really see why it exists...if it were up to me I'd fold it into the Fighter and Ranger classes.

That being said, I think the combination of d12 hit dice, the Rage ability, and Damage Reduction is a bit much. Most of the Barbarians abilities are useful all the time or in almost any combat, whereas many of the other melee classes abilities tend to be situational.


thoughts?

 

[Nail]

Merlion: I strongly disagree with your house rule suggestions, both as a player and as a DM. But as they are just house rule suggestions, I won't go further in this Rules Forum.

As for specific complaints:

• Cleric: Sure, the cleric can be amazing. Tell me, have any clerics in your campaign actually been amazing? Has a cleric PC dominated the game? The fact that there is so often a disconnect there should tell you something. Put another way: as this thread has amply demonstrated, those that think clerics are over powered still prefer to play something else.
  
• Druid: The number of "outlandish" things a Druid can do is relatively limited. In our games, the two problems have been a few spells (like Animal Growth, Quill Blast, and Spike Growth) and the extra potential of the animal companion. If you really must, a few minor tweaks should take care of everything.
  
• Barbarian: Dude, barbarian got as many votes as Monk and Rogue. Let it go.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Cleric: Sure, the cleric can be amazing. Tell me, have any clerics in your campaign actually been amazing? Has a cleric PC dominated the game? The fact that there is so often a disconnect there should tell you something. Put another way: as this thread has amply demonstrated, those that think clerics are over powered still prefer to play something else.

I've seen a Cleric PC dominate the game. Then again, I've also seen a Druid dominate, seen a Wizard dominate, and even seen a Monk with the right PrCs dominate. I've seen Fighters dominate and Barbarians dominate and a Rogue with the right multiclasses and PrCs dominate. In a campaign where almost everyone is human, I've seen a Ranger nearly dominate (but not as much as those others). The only classes that I've never seen totally dominating a group are Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin, (and sort of Ranger).

 

[Merlion]

Merlion: I strongly disagree with your house rule suggestions, both as a player and as a DM. But as they are just house rule suggestions, I won't go further in this Rules Forum.

As for specific complaints:

• Cleric: Sure, the cleric can be amazing. Tell me, have any clerics in your campaign actually been amazing? Has a cleric PC dominated the game? The fact that there is so often a disconnect there should tell you something. Put another way: as this thread has amply demonstrated, those that think clerics are over powered still prefer to play something else.
  
• Druid: The number of "outlandish" things a Druid can do is relatively limited. In our games, the two problems have been a few spells (like Animal Growth, Quill Blast, and Spike Growth) and the extra potential of the animal companion. If you rely must, a few minor tweaks should take care of everything.
  
• Barbarian: Dude, barbarian got as many votes as Monk and Rogue. Let it go.

For the first part: I posted them so people could comment...please do so. I dont really care what forum it is....discussing a rules problem involved discussing how to fix it.

And as I said, one of those I tried, and used, and had no problem with ~shrug~. I'd really like to know your actual opinion, and its reasons rather than just saying you disagree.


And yes I understand what your saying. If you think all the classes are fine, thats fine. Most seem not to tho, and I wished to discuss what people would do to fix those problems. I think people tend not to play Clerics for roleplaying reasons, and for percieved mechanical issues. A lot of people do think all they can do is heal, even tho thats not at all the case. And I think a lot of people just dont like the "priest" archtype.

As for the Barbarian...why should I not be able to voice and discuss my opinion, the same as everyone else? Especially since I do have things to back it up...which you are then free to refute and rebutt as you like.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Merlion: I strongly disagree with your house rule suggestions, both as a player and as a DM. But as they are just house rule suggestions, I won't go further in this Rules Forum.

As for specific complaints:

• Cleric: Sure, the cleric can be amazing. Tell me, have any clerics in your campaign actually been amazing? Has a cleric PC dominated the game? The fact that there is so often a disconnect there should tell you something. Put another way: as this thread has amply demonstrated, those that think clerics are over powered still prefer to play something else.
  
• Druid: The number of "outlandish" things a Druid can do is relatively limited. In our games, the two problems have been a few spells (like Animal Growth, Quill Blast, and Spike Growth) and the extra potential of the animal companion. If you really must, a few minor tweaks should take care of everything.
  

• 
  
  every single cleric/druid I've seen since 3.0 has been the powerhouse of the gorup, past 3rd level.

 

[Nail]

For the first part: I posted them so people could comment...please do so. I dont really care what forum it is....discussing a rules problem involved discussing how to fix it.

Some might care. This is the Rules forum, meant for:

This forum is for D&D Rules questions and queries about character design/tweaking.

You seem interested in changing a few classes to "make them more balanced". That's great --> I've got no problem with that. I'm suggesting you post in the appropriate forum. That's it. No offence is meant or implied.

Most seem not to tho,

I'm not sure that's what your Poll shows. You can take the facts of your poll and say:"Perhaps I asked an overly broad question". Or "Most people on these boards haven't voted in my poll." Those are other reasonable conclusions, no?

I think people tend not to play Clerics for roleplaying reasons, and for percieved mechanical issues.

would agree, so long as we throw in the caveat: "Everyone knows you need a cleric in the party, so some one has to play the cleric." That's purely a mechanical issue, not a roleplaying one.

As for the Barbarian...why should I not be able to voice and discuss my opinion, the same as everyone else?

Of course you can! Easy, fella! All I'm saying: Most people who took your poll did not vote for Barbarian. Therefore saying that stating: "I'm going to focus on .... (also) the Barbarian which I kind of have some issues with, and has recieved some votes as well (relative to other melees)." is a bit disingenuous. As of right now, the Paladin is ahead of the poor overpowered Barbarian.

 

[Nail]

every single cleric/druid I've seen since 3.0 has been the powerhouse of the gorup, past 3rd level.

Really?

How many clerics and how many druids over the last 5 years? What levels did they play through? What PrCs did they take? What kind of player played them?

Or perhaps most specifically: What specific action, during gaming, did these clerics take that (to you) felt way-over-the-top?

Try focusing on that last question. I'm honestly curious.

 

[Nail]

...Then again, I've also seen a Druid dominate, seen a Wizard dominate, .....

That's been my experience too. Heck, in my last campaign in was the Ranger/Wiz/Arcane Archer that dominated.....so there's yer Ranger example.

 

[Rystil Arden]

That's been my experience too. Heck, in my last campaign in was the Ranger/Wiz/Arcane Archer that dominated.....so there's yer Ranger example.

Wow, I'm frankly amazed that that build would dominate, but I guess you never know The Ranger in my campaign beat a demigoddess of archery at a hunting contest to kill Stymphalian Birds by using his Prestige Class ability to locate his marks and then cheating.