Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[Li Shenron]

While the class has great versatility it is rather bland IMO. It really doesn't gain any class abilities as it progresses, except for more spells.

Clerics are likewise bland IMO but make up for powerwise with their weapon/armor and the domain granted abilities. But still they don't gain anything as they progress in levels other than spells.

"Blandness" doesn't have much to do with power... furthermore the lack of special abilities (which is what classic classes shares) is indeed what makes up for ultimate "versatility". Being bland and being versatile is the same for a core class; classes that follow narrower concepts display more special abilities but have a more fixed path.

 

[Kristivas]

I voted Bard.

No one in any of my games ever uses a Bard. I don't run just hack/slash games, either. My players often find themselves embroiled in politics/social scenarios. Still, in the end, it all comes back to dungeon crawling and they all want to be useful in combat. (I also blame it on Elan from Order of the Stick. After reading that, no one I know will ever play a bard again lol)

In 2nd Ed, I remember Bards being stronger (at least in the campaigns I played in). The DM would always allow me to pick 1 combat spell per spell level, so I guess that might be one thing. I was really a fan of the class back then.


I'll add in that I think monks really are freakin' underpowered too (but not as much as the bard). Since I don't have a large group of players, I'll let them pick one or two NPCs to accompany the party and in the last game they picked a monk for one and he got tore up pretty badly (and died hehe). They replaced him with a Gnoll Ranger/Barbarian, but that's neither here nor there.


I don't think Sorcerers are underpowered at all. I've seen my brother try to play one (he usually plays dumb warrior-types) and fail miserably, but from a game I played in awhile back, I saw some darn good sorcerer playin'. Spell after spell in every battle can be mighty handy. Imho, if someone's playing an underpowered sorcerer, they picked the wrong spells or they have the wrong mindset for the class.


The Fighter. I'm kinda stuck here. The only down side to the fighter is lack of a will save. Sure, they don't get rage or lay on hands or any such exciting ability, but taking 20 feats can make a pretty tough (and versatile) melee combatant. Probably the only class that could pick the feats to use 2 weapons, shield bashing, ranged combat, mounted combat, ect, and still pick a few utility feats after that. Sure, when they get charmed and they're beating on your cleric you'll curse them, but if you can get them a good will save (iron will, multiclass with a cleric or something) then the fighter is a tough combatant. Probably one of my favorite classes, even though I always multiclass with something else to up that will save and give a few added abilities.


Haven't had enough experience with Rangers to be able to make an informed opinion. I know that d8 hit points kinda shocked a few of my players. Same with druids. I guess we're not really into the whole nature thing. Whenever one of my players wants to make an Aragorn-type, he just makes a fighter and spends a few skill points to cross-class survival. I don't think Paladins are underpowered, nor wizards or Barbarians (well, maybe for the high end). Rogues, imho, deffinately are not.


Though not mentioned here, Psychic Warriors get the shaft as well. I'd vote for that one a dozen times. One of the closest DnD classes to a Jedi and they're floppy. Ahh well.

 

[Testament]

Monk: Horrendous MAD, a lack of focus and the beta bab hurt them badly. That, and their problems overcoming DR.

Fighter: You're actually trying to tell me that there's MORE than six levels? Heck, I only just discovered that it went past four!

 

[Krelios]

I find it highly amusing that the four of the potentially most powerful classes are here listed as the weakest. It just confirms my opinion that polls are typically pointless.

 

[Nail]

...and on that note, lemme put in my pointless 2 cents: the Bard class is the weakest.

 

[Merlion]

Barbarian: all it really has going for it is the Rage... thus I tend to splash a little Bbn into my Fighter. Bbn DR is pretty craptastic at any lvl. Please, by lvl 17 or whatever DR 5/- just isn't that relevant... certainly not compared to your typical fighter's uber AC... the Uncanny Dodge is nice though. A throw-back to the original Barbarian from Unearthed Arcana (1e).

Ummm.....from your posts in this and my other poll thread, saying that you feel a few classes are fine and the rest are weak...which seems strange to me since as near as I can tell a few classes are fine, a few are weak, one is way to strong and another a bit to strong, it seems like you just basically feel melee types suck and spellcasters are fine. but I shall address your specific points.

Barbarian: Um, rage is all it has going for it? How about the biggest HD in the game? The DR may seem low, but it applies to *everything* but magic and to EVERY blow. Even if something is hitting you for 30 or 35 points each hit, taking 5 off each one adds up quite a lot. And then you get uncanny dodge, and a boost to the typical melee weak spot of Will saves as well.

If anything, I'd say Barbarian is maybe the strongest of the Melee classes, and tends to outshine the Fighter at its own job.

Bard: They're a support class. As such, they tend to be weak. I don't know if this is just how people play them... or if its true to the class in general. I've seen some rather pathetic Bards...

Umm....support=weak? How so?

The Bard is balance as a support class, now. And with the right tweaking it can have deccent offense as well. However I wouldnt mind seeing it require less tweaking to be able to go on the offensive.

Fighter: great at lower lvls... extremely weak and lame compared to any spellcaster at the high end.

Comparing Fighter to spellcasters is an apples to oranges kind of thing, and utterly pointless. At all levels, spellcasters are going to be able to do a bunch of stuff a Fighter cant. Thats the way of a fantasy game.

The trouble with the Fighter is he doesnt always measure up to the other martial classes. Barbarians in particular, since they have everything the Fighter has plus more HP, rage, and DR. Barbarians,Paladins, Rangers all also have full BAB, and Paladins have the d10 hit die and full armor also, and the only other thing a Fighter gets is Feats. And while feats are good, many combat feats dont really make you better in combat, they just let you do interesting things.

I think the Fighter needs a special competence bonus to attack and/or damage rolls and to AC, and maybe some free DR too.

Monk: Monks are mighty if you have great stats (not just good, but G R E A T)... otherwise they're pretty wussified

Monks definitely have some problems. I think some of them stem from the movement rules in combat rather than from the class though. However, I some times really think Monks should just have full BAB and be done with it.

Paladin: Not only are these a pain to Roleplay (I can think of perhaps 3 players in 16yrs who didn't make a total mess of it...) but they're kinda weak at all levels...

Umm....how so? They have the best saves of any full BAB-class. Some pretty decent spells. Against undead or anything evil they will pretty much outdo any other melee.

Ranger: eh, what do these guys do? They're tough vs a small group (or 3) of monsters, and rather lame vs everybody else. Tracking is nice... but in truth they could've just given Fighter more Skills and been done with it. They're terrible casters, all thier spells should just be bumped to the Druid list. Not to mention the craptasticly weak Animal Companion they get... Perhaps if thier companion was "As level -3" instead of "as 1/2 level"...

Thats not a bad idea with the animal companion. However otherwise I think the Ranger is fine. His AC and HP are a bit low for a melee, but he gets lots of skills and other class features to help make up for that.

The most successful Melee Characters I've seen have been Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue multiclassings... with heavy focus on Rogue. Nothing like a Dwarf tumbling into position (in Full Plate no less!) with greatsword and then raging...

Umm...ok...

 

[ForceUser]

If anything, I'd say Barbarian is maybe the strongest of the Melee classes, and tends to outshine the Fighter at its own job.

Sometimes. But remember, barbarians tend to take more damage than fighters, as well. I think both classes are on par with each other, with each outshining the other in certain situations.

Umm....support=weak? How so?

There's been an argument on this board before that if you're going to take a 5th PC, why go bard when you could grab a 2nd cleric? I see the point but don't necessarily agree with it because it is largely campaign-dependent--as is every other interpretation of what is a "weak" or "strong" class. That's why these polls are pointless.

The trouble with the Fighter is he doesnt always measure up to the other martial classes. Barbarians in particular, since they have everything the Fighter has plus more HP, rage, and DR. Barbarians,Paladins, Rangers all also have full BAB, and Paladins have the d10 hit die and full armor also, and the only other thing a Fighter gets is Feats. And while feats are good, many combat feats dont really make you better in combat, they just let you do interesting things.

I think the Fighter needs a special competence bonus to attack and/or damage rolls and to AC, and maybe some free DR too.

Free DR for a fighter is called adamantine full plate.

Perhaps you haven't seen a high-level fighter in play. Me, I'm running one, and let me tell you, fighters are fine. More than fine, in fact--I've never seen so much damage output as I have from my fighter. No other character in the party can touch him in sheer damage potential per round, and that includes the ranger and the paladin. The wizard can outdamage him situationally, provided there are a lot of targets for his AE spells--but pound-for-pound, I've never seen another 12th-level PC that can potentially truck out 250+ damage per round. It's all about the 2-handed weapon + Power Attack + Improved Critical + Great Cleave, baby.

Umm....how so? They have the best saves of any full BAB-class. Some pretty decent spells. Against undead or anything evil they will pretty much outdo any other melee.

Paladins are solid. While they lack the pure damage output of fighters and barbarians, they tend to make up for it in staying power.

Thats not a bad idea with the animal companion. However otherwise I think the Ranger is fine. His AC and HP are a bit low for a melee, but he gets lots of skills and other class features to help make up for that.

While I don't like the 3.5E ranger and use a variant, I agree. Just don't be the first guy into melee, and don't get hit.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

My view:

Monk is not an underpowered class. It's just a class that's easy to screw up because 3 out of 4 players seem to think "ooh, monk--I'll take a 10 strength and beat up bad guys; I get 2d10 damage from my fists" and then wonder why they're doing 11 points of damage at 20th level when the fighter is doing 35 points of damage and one point of con per hit. If you use stunning fist, grapple, etc to your advantage, however, and get the party to properly buff you, you end up very effective. And it doesn't require particularly high ability scores to do right either. Two of the most combat effective Living Greyhawk characters I've seen are 28 point buy monks. (Of course, I've seen quite a few weak Living Greyhawk monks too for exactly the reaons I described earlier--if you ever end up saying "but without spikes, my character won't deal any damage" it should be a clue that your character has completely neglected his offensive ability).

Paladin is a hard class to judge. Core rules only, I'd say that they're weak--at least until level 10 or so. However, with divine might, extra smiting, etc, I think they hang in with the other classes very well. Paladins benefit a LOT from non-core material.

Fighter is another class that benefits a lot from non-core material. With Complete Warrior, etc, I think that the fighter class stands up to barbarian etc quite well--even at high levels. In a core only game, it's probably a bit weak but the problem is primarily the lack of specific abilities past level 12. (And the real competition IME is not the barbarian or the paladin but the barbarian/fighter).

Bard is, as other people have pointed out, a support character. In that role, a bard is a very useful and powerful character, but they aren't as shiny as wizards, clerics, etc. Their problem is spotlight time not power.

The only class that I've observed to be weak is the rogue and I wouldn't really say weak as much as vulnerable to being screwed over. Playing a rogue in an undead module or a game full of constructs is an exercise in frustration. Since such modules are fairly common--especially at high levels, Rogue can be underpowered.

 

[IamIan]

Yes it was I who voted Cleric weakest class....

The only ways Clerics can honestly compete is when people stop playing them as clerics and start playing them as just people with powers and abilities...

I mean a Cleric is supposed to be a "Man of God" not just anybody who beleives either this guy actually gets power from his god unlike the masses of commoners and other classes that may also beleive in the same God.... The Paladin is a Crusading Person so he is expected to go out and fight evil and as such having lots of magic and weapons makes since.....

The Cleric can only have any amount of personal wealth when he either worships an Evil God or he turns a blind eye to the less fortunate around him... yes sorry starving commoners I know my 100,000 GP Armor could feed the whole town for most of a Year ... but really I need it you see... There might be some problem that may come up someday ... Faith in my God you say or Faith in the powers he gives me...??? ... yeagh well Faith is all fine and good my son but you just dont' understand.. and the "Good" Cleric walks away from the starving masses....

Unless the DM Makes there be to starving and no rich / Poor distinction in the whole world...

The Cleric either spends all his time and spell casting trying to cure this farmer and have a miricle of food here etc...etc.... but no...

in my experience no DM --EVER-- makes a Cleric be Cleric... they let them act as selfish and greedy as every one else which should piss people off... the commoners should be upset with and angery with the God for blessing and helping such a selfish cold hearted greedy person...

How happy would you be at your church if the Priest / Minister / Rabi .. etc... came in driving a 200,000 Car wearing Gold and Diamond Jewls before going back to his 3rd home all of which are at least 50 room+ unless he flew his personel jet.... all the time he is preaching to you about giving to the church and the less fortunate telling you to have faith and work through your problems... People would get pissed... I saw it happen several times when Holly people were outwardly living it up just a bit too much...

As for thier Fighting .... head to head they are not the best fighting class... they are not the Best Offensive Class .... The are not the best at Saves ... The only thing they excell at is healing people...

Now when the love they enemy as your self Cleric can go around killing those goblins and keep all the tressure for himself or his marry band of mercinaries ... then yeagh sure he becomes more powerful.... but he is only more powerful becuase the DM is doing a Piss poor job of making him play a Cleric and not a magic using fighter mercinary.

If the Cleric can get away with it becuase his God is Evil then ... How many Human Sacrifices and how many times he does something evil before the Palladins and Good Clerics and people of the World Seek him out to End his Evil Ways and Free the People of the Land??

How many Players have spent Game Time With thier Cleric Holding Holy Service??? Or Building a Church??? Managing the Affairs of the Church at Higher Levels ??? How about Competeing with other Clerics for followers and trying to convince LG Characters they need to stop thier sinful ways and see the True Light of Thier God??? Never Seems to come up in the games I have played.... as Holy as these men of God are there doesn't seem to be much reason why any other class doesn't get Cleric Holy Power for thier Faith in a God...

 

[Shin Okada]

IamIan

You IMHO are largely misunderstanding. Actually, way of the good gods varies. Not all the good gods (actually, I say only few of them) teach to abandon one's equipment and concentrate on saving poor people.

Some good god may say that a man of ability should get appropriate for his ability and effort, then if he can, spend some amount of them to save poor. This is like liberalist against communist. Communist says to share all and that is the most important thing. Liberalist says someone who can be rich should be rich and then pay what they can spend to share, and that way is more efficient to save poor people indeed.

Some other may say while there are people suffering from being poor, there are more important things to do, pushing back fiends, stopping evil plans and a like. While wealthy merchant can save poor people, only skilled adventurers can save the world from fiends and evil monsters.

For the type of cleric you have mentioned, there is Vow of Poverty feat.

I don't mind a cleric having 100,000 gp armor as long as that cleric is fighting evil and that armor is needed to win fights against megavillains.

And there always be neutral clerics.

There are various ways of being clergymen.