Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[jdrakeh]

I voted bard and monk - Exactly what is it they do?

IMHO, bards are essentially walking meta-support systems possessing plenty of abilities that benefit other characters mechanically, but precious few that really benefit themselves. This has always bothered me because, mechanically, it reduces the Bard to serving as little more than a 'good luck charm' for their traveling companions in many games. Living Luck Charm is kind of a neat idea, but a really lousy player character concept (it would work great as an NPC support role, though).

 

[ForceUser]

IMHO, bards are essentially walking meta-support systems possessing plenty of abilities that benefit other characters mechanically, but precious few that really benefit themselves. This has always bothered me because, mechanically, it reduces the Bard to serving as little more than a 'good luck charm' for their traveling companions in many games. Living Luck Charm is kind of a neat idea, but a really lousy player character concept (it would work great as an NPC support role, though).

Feh. Depends on the bard--the bard IMC is a perfectly viable combatant, thanks in part to careful spell selection and in part to Complete Adventurer. It also helps that the player is a sly, talkative roleplayer and the character has Perform (oratory) instead of something noticable like, say, wind instruments. He can fascinate people just by telling them a story. Pretty devious Jedi mind trick stuff.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Living Luck Charm is kind of a neat idea, but a really lousy player character concept.

Interesting you should say that. If you look in my sig in my first post on this thread, you'll notice a character by the name of Sye Dillinger - human bard. She is designed from the ground up to be exactly what you describe - a mega support system. She is designed to make other people better. She is admittedly tragically horrible in combat (except maybe with her crossbow). But she is designed to capture people's attention and get what needs to be gotten through any diplomatic or performance means.

I actually did think it was a cool character concept - although I've only just now started playing her. We'll see how it actually shakes out. But then again, I actually really relish playing the support roles - that's why I love cleric and bard so much. I've got no desire to be the one making a name for themself - I'd rather be the one behind the scenes letting other people take the glory. So maybe that makes me weird.

Oh - and gabrion - I think (maybe I should say I hope) that your example is rather rare. Perhaps not. And if not, then your players are to be well commended on their religious efforts!

 

[gabrion]

Oh - and gabrion - I think (maybe I should say I hope) that your example is rather rare. Perhaps not. And if not, then your players are to be well commended on their religious efforts!

Ya, it's pretty rare.

Very effective though.

 

[Shin Okada]

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!

It is off-topic but I found this mind set is strong in people who used to play AD&D. Or who used to hear a lot of rumor regarding AD&D. Newer players, who met D&D after 3rd edition, tend not have that mindset. I met a lot of newer female players (or even male players) who try to play a "sacred heroine" type. Or, in other words, Miko-San.

Or, people who used to play Chromatic D&D but not AD&D (that means many older Japanese players) tend to have memories that clerics were almost as strong as fighters in melee (or even stronger with striking spell) and yet could cast a lot of spells. The difference of THAC0s were so small.

It's the DM and the player - not the rulebook.

IMHO it is partially true. In some extend, all the abilities of characters are irrelevant. But we are talking about "baseline games" right?

And also, when a party has two or more characters who can do a certain role, the difference in effectiveness based on rules become significant, and possibly a problem.

Say, a party has a typical warrior type (someone with high strength and full-BAB) and a monk, who has lower BAB and tend to have lower strength. If a DM set an encounter to be a challenging one, and choose a monster with AC which the warrior type can hit and miss in good percentages, a monk may become really inefficient. This kind of thing may happen especially at higher level games.

On the other hand, a cleric can be an efficient melee combatant with a single cast of Divine Power spell in this case. Or he can just cast Flame Strike. When such difference is there, I say Monk is a weak class, and Cleric is a strong class. Because, the player of the monk may easily feel he is playing a class with no good, while the player of cleric may easily find a way to make his character do some active role.

 

[Legildur]

<snip> I've got no desire to be the one making a name for themself - I'd rather be the one behind the scenes letting other people take the glory. So maybe that makes me weird.<snip>

And it also makes you less of a target! Afterall, who'd bother to target the Bard in the background when they aren't a direct threat! And yet, with their 'luck charm' abilities, they are a great force multiplier.

 

[ForceUser]

And it also makes you less of a target! Afterall, who'd bother to target the Bard in the background when they aren't a direct threat! And yet, with their 'luck charm' abilities, they are a great force multiplier.

The bard IMC hardly ever sings inspire courage. What he does do in combat is a lot of grease, glitterdust, and charm monster. Heck, he saved the entire party last night with a single well-placed charm monster spell followed by a speak with animals spell, because character deaths were a very real possibility, faced as they were with a pack of dire wolves. Instead, he charmed the pack leader and convinced him to call off his pack. It was extremely well-played. As an encore, he charmed the evil spellcaster that had sent the wolves after the party, and used his silver tongue to gain valuable intelligence from her.

I mean, sure he lacks the spells/day of a wizard, but with the Lyric Spell feat from Complete Adventurer and some well-chosen control-the-battlefield type spells, he pulls his weight as much as any other PC.

 

[Shadowdweller]

I have to go with rogue.

Not because they're necessarily WEAK, but because much of their power is skill-based. And I've seen SOOOO many DMs completely screw over skill-use and stealth (the exact nature of stealth being one of the more vague parts of the ruleset). Notwithstanding many PLAYERS can't be bothered with letting the scout do his scouting.

 

[jdrakeh]

I mean, sure he lacks the spells/day of a wizard, but with the Lyric Spell feat from Complete Adventurer and some well-chosen control-the-battlefield type spells, he pulls his weight as much as any other PC.

You keep mentioning supplements. I believe the poll refers to core classes only, not altered core classes by way of Supplement X. If you take supplements into consideration, that changes everything. My response about Bards being walking meta-support (i.e., a living source of dice roll bonuses) was based only on the core class as it appears in the PHB, per the context of the poll.

 

[Li Shenron]

No class is underpowered in our games.