Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[Shin Okada]

I have never heard of Paladin being weak. A fighter with good save is definitely one of the most efficient type of character. The ability to use the Happy Stick (Wand of Cure Light Wounds) is useful. The ability to cure himself by lay on hand can save it's life in emergency.

Yes most of the Paladin's abilities are defensive (within core rules, of course). Still, unlike Monk, Paladin has full attack power (full BAB and can use greatsword). That is a biiiig difference.

And, if you once consider some multiclass builds and/or prestige classes, Paladin is like a default of warrior type build.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

At one point i toyed with the idea of letting sorcerers have a bonus metamagic feat at 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th level.
I already allow the Cleric to take a bonus divine feat at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th levels.
Fighters i think need to be able to have a feat at every level, either bonus or through normal leveling up and then be able to choose special abilities like the rogue. I already allow fighters to take any feat as a bonus feat so long as they meet the prerequisites (this has caused absolutly no balance issue in my game so far.)

But anyway i voted bard. every campaign i have someone play the bard and every campaing i have someone whining that they want a knew character. however i see alot of potential in prestige classes available to the bard if only someone would stick it out for once.

 

[Shin Okada]

I already allow the Cleric to take a bonus divine feat at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th levels.

YOU DID!!!????

Why? Why have you decide to give additonal powers to a class which is already the strongest class!?

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Why have you decide to give additonal powers to a class which is already the strongest class!?

In your opinion - the strongest class, you mean. Granted, in many peoples opinions.

But I digress. To me it really depends on the campaign.

 

[Shin Okada]

In your opinion - the strongest class, you mean.

Yeah it is just my opinon.

But I digress. To me it really depends on the campaign.

I am curious. In what kind of campaign cleric class is weaker?

A campaign in a communist world where religions are illegal?

Hmm.... I gues it is still legal to be a lawful cleric without patron deity who embrace communism.

 

[Legildur]

1) It's difficult to be a paladin riding inside. 2) What are you going to do against the second bad guy of the day?

1. Not if you are small size riding a medium-sized special mount. Or in a large enough area.

2. Extra Smiting is a good feat.

3. Did I mention Divine Grace?.....

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I am curious. In what kind of campaign cleric class is weaker?

I think you missed a few words in my post. The "I digress part" means that my next comments go back to the original question. I am saying that the weakest class depends on the type of campaign.

For example - an all RP campaign with no combat at all probably is going to have a fighter as a weak character, because they've got virtually no skills and no outlet to shine. Perhaps this is a silly example, but it makes a point.

Or, a campaign set on other planes (which may dampen or distort magic casting) might make an arcane caster weaker.

To be honest, I would wonder if a no-combat campaign wouldn't make the cleric a less than desireable class. No combat would mean no real need to heal damage. So no bandaid needed. They don't have great skillpoints, so they wouldn't shine in skill areas. About the only thing a cleric could do at that point would be to get feats to boost what few skills he does have or find other ways to use turning attempts. Now, I'm not saying the cleric would be worthless - I think a fighter would be more useless than a cleric in this situation - but I'd certainly rather play a bard, rogue, wizard, sorcerer or even a monk before I'd play a cleric in a no-combat campaign. Okay, maybe not the monk.

My point is - although you got testy - that even though I never stated it, there are campaigns that people might find interesting that just don't suit clerics. The great thing about fantasy is that anything can happen. If a person is creative enough, they can DM a situation to favor any given class or hinder any given class.

The value of a class is largely dependant on two factors - the person playing it and the campaign setting. Those two factors have great impact on a class being underpowered or overpowered in everyone else's eyes.

 

[Shin Okada]

The value of a class is largely dependant on two factors - the person playing it and the campaign setting. Those two factors have great impact on a class being underpowered or overpowered in everyone else's eyes.

I tend to agree, a half. I doubt if non-combat campaign is something to be better played with D&D rule set. I'd rather use other games such as GURPS or maybe Basic Roleplay (or something with less rules to encourage players' own wits over rules). I also doubt if such campaign is considered to be one of "baseline game" of D&D.

And still, I think Cleric is VERY useful in social-type campaign. Clergy man has a lot of influence on people. And there are ton's of spells in cleric list which can help social/conspiracy situations. For example, Zone of Truth is a Clr2/Pal2 spell. And a cleric can save someone drunk a cup of poisoned wine.

This class is considered to be a very strong one as it can solve far more various problems compared to others, and there are things only this class can solve, and yet this class can fight well and cast strong offensive spells.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I'm not saying the cleric class isn't strong. I'm also not saying that the cleric class is overpowered, ether.

I just think it is funny that very few people tend to pick cleric as their first desire to play. The cleric is valuable - there is no doubt. But in my opinion a class that comparatively few people choose to play is not worth getting one's knickers in a bunch!

Each class has its value. Each class has its moments of greatness. I can (and do!) play a horrible theiving and sneaking rogue. Does that make the rogue class underpowered because I can't play those aspects of it well? No - it means that its gifts do not jive with my way of thinking and my way of approaching the game. I can, however, make a bard, a ranger, a cleric, or a paladin that will knock you up one side and down another with some of the combos I can put together. [Not meaning that offensively, just stating that some combinations in those classes are downright lethal!] But that isn't necessarily because those classes are better ... it means that those classes fit my way of thinking - how I approach the game.

That's what makes D&D so much fun in my opinion. The fact that I can play a horrible rogue but an awesome bard while someone else can absolutely butcher the bard class but play one heck of a rogue ... is what makes the game fun. It isn't one better than the other - although there are disrepancies ... sure. But alot of it depends on what the DM wants to do to let the characters shine and how much intelligence each player can put behind their character builds. To me, that's what makes or break a character. It's the DM and the player - not the rulebook.

 

[gabrion]

...very few people tend to pick cleric as their first desire to play.

Try telling my party of four clerics and a druid that.