Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[diaglo]

bard b/c they suck as written.

 

[Merlion]

"Weak," therefore, is a concept entirely at the mercy of each DM, which means that the idea upon which this thread is predicated is seriously flawed, because there is no true consensus.

But there is. The rules. When I talk about these things I am talking...at least to start with...about the rules as they are written, without DM modifications.

And part of my point is, if a DM has to do a lot of changing and finagling for a class to shine...or not to outshine others...then there is a balance problem in the rules as written.

Bard and monk. I think this is mostly, because the system does not really reward jack-of-all-trades (or jack-of-no-trades in the case of the monk ) type characters.

This is a good point, and I think a problem within the system both for classes, and for specific things within each class. Specializing is almost always the best way to go in D&D, rarely are you rewarded for trying to be competent in multiple areas.

(Except the Cleric which is mostly because it covers pretty much everything except Rogue stuff, and even some of that)

Sorcerers are powerful--I've seen mid- and high-level sorcerers in play, and they rock

Sorcerers are not underpowered. I've played and seen played several sorcerers and they can definitely hold their own.

I'm suprised at the high number of votes for Sorcerer; I view it as one of the strongest classes at high levels - quite possibly the strongest.

The thing about Sorcerer is a lot like the thing about Fighter. They arent really underpowered across the board, but they are compared to others of their kind. The Sorcerer gained spontaneous casting but it was overcompensated for between the extremely limited spells known, and the slow aqquisition of new spell levels.

Basically the Sorcerer is a variant Wizard that not quite enough thought was put into

Monk is a wonderful targetted Mage/Sorcerer eater, if you are using a Vow of Poverty. Without that, they soak up the majority of the group's healing/defensive magics. And they still don't hit all that hard unless someone turns them into an Archon or Troll or some such. Being the fellow that gets into position to let the Thief flank/sneak attack, over and over.. well, it loses its pizzazz after a while.

For the monk, I think the combat movement rules need to be losened up a bit so the Monk can really take advantage of their speed. I'm also begining to think monks should just have full BAB.

Bards are a prime candidate to be run as an NPC to dispense wisdom and sing, while the party gets the benefits. Of all the classes that I've heard folks say, "Not going to play one of those, they're boring and don't get to *do* anything" about, Bard is right up with Cleric - and they stop saying that to Clerics around 13th level when the neat 7th level Cleric spells come out.

I'd say its more like 7th level up, and then especially 9th level up. You've got Divine Power, Flame Strike, Slay Living..

Funny thing is, a Bard is probably better at offensively enhancing the party than the Cleric is..

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 is very true. the Cleric is among the only classes that can not just manage, but "shine" under almost any circumstances.

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.

But the rulebook is the foundation, and where everything comes from. The rules determine what you can and cannot do, mechanically, in the game. Unless you or the DM change them. No matter how good a player you are, a Rogue has a worse BAB than a Fighter, and a Cleric gets both melee ability and spells, unless you change the rules.

And, if you need to change the rules to make a class be able to "shine" and/or to compete with...or not overshadow, other classes, theres a problem

Also bear in mind, many DMS are interested in changing the rules. They go by whats in the rulebook, as far as mechanics, and leave the rest to RP, but RP cant change what you can and cant do mechanically.

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

This is an important point to. Clerics used to be walking band aids, but they arent anymore. And anyone who either never had that sterotype, or who has really looked at the new mechanics of the Cleric will know that

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.

This is also a very important point, and why even in an RP heavy game, if your going to have combat at all, the mechanics matter. And class balance matters. I feel a character should generally be able to contribute to combat more often than not, *and* yet should not overshadow other characters. Thats why the classes need to be as balanced as possible.

 

[Merlion]

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...

Ok first of all: Roleplaying restrictions do not balance mechanical advantages. Its not ok to have a class be mechanically overpowered because it has certain roleplaying themes.

Nextly, player character classes are not designed to have roleplaying rules. a player character can do whatever they want to do regardless of class.


It sounds like your saying Clerics *should* be weak because they should be forced to spend all their time and money doing good or evil deeds depending on their religion. Thats not how it works in D&D...the only restriction Clerics have is if they completely go against their god/causes aims they can loose their powers. Their not really required to do anything by the rules.


And you say all they excel at is healing? Have you *looked* at the class? Have you *looked* at their spell list, all of which they have automatic access to? Not to mention having the two most important saves in the game as good catagories, and having all the best defensive spells?


I think you really need to take a second look at the mechanics of the classes.

 

[Nail]

And part of my point is, if a DM has to do a lot of changing and finagling for a class to shine...or not to outshine others...then there is a balance problem in the rules as written.

Here's the problem.

How do you objectively determine "a DM has to do a lot of changing and finagling for a class to shine"?

The problem appears to be simple. Just run each class through a number of encounters, and see which lags behind the others. If the DM has to slant the encounters in certain way, we have out answer.........And yet doing such a test makes huge assumptions about the kinds of encounters a "typical" PC will face, not to mention the assumptions inherent in each person's ability to play a given class. (As Forceuser's posts demonstrate.) Another possible example: "Are Psions overpowered?" I've argued strongly "YES!"....and others have equally strongly argued "no". Who's right?

Spoiler

Me, of course!

Even so, we might be able to gain some sort of overall picture, so long as we take everyone's experience into account.......although I'm not convinced this poll thread is doing so.

 

[Nail]

Have you [IamIan]*looked* at the class?

Quite possibly. But as his posts in both threads demonstrates, his opinions differ markedly from the norm. Does that really prove anything?

 

[Merlion]

Here's the problem.

How do you objectively determine "a DM has to do a lot of changing and finagling for a class to shine"?

The problem appears to be simple. Just run each class through a number of encounters, and see which lags behind the others. If the DM has to slant the encounters in certain way, we have out answer.........And yet doing such a test makes huge assumptions about the kinds of encounters a "typical" PC will face, not to mention the assumptions inherent in each person's ability to play a given class. (As Forceuser's posts demonstrate.) Another possible example: "Are Psions overpowered?" I've argued strongly "YES!"....and others have equally strongly argued "no". Who's right?

Spoiler

Me, of course!

Even so, we might be able to gain some sort of overall picture, so long as we take everyone's experience into account.......although I'm not convinced this poll thread is doing so.

Its not an exact science. It isnt really possible to totally take everything into account and get 100% accuracy. But we can see and address big issues without much trouble. Although detected underpoweredness is probably a little harder.

Thats why I stick to the actual rules, and trying to focus on the relatively obvious enherent imbalances. Stuff thats going to affect the majority of campaigns regardless of nature.


Perfection may be impossible, but we can still try

 

[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.

I am not saying all Good gods and religions tell people they should be poor and turn the other cheek... What I am saying is what Good person doesn't heal the sick when they have the power from their Good God.... What Good Person lets that sick person die becuase he can't aford your fees??? What Good Person gathers great wealth and gives nothing to charity or those less fortunate??? Also What high level Cleric with more power from his God why is this Person who is closer to his God not acting more as a general and directing the Church???
Where are the Religious Duties??? where are the commoners who go out to seek his wisdom and follow his advise becuase he speaks the word of thier God???

Where are the Commoners who ask more of him than he can do.... Surely the great cleric of the great god can save us from the Great Evil... and the Cleric is Lv9 and the great Evil is a Lv20 Sorcerer Titan... He can't do it... He has to go out and try to get this Mythic Item and that Great Champion over there will gain a few levels along the way and combine thier forces to have a chance.... Mean while the Great Evil does Evil and the Cleric has to deal with People asking Him why He won't Save Them???? But Ohh DMs Never Do this...

I Never See in Game Clerics playing Clerics.... They Play Fighter Spell Casters... no Religion at all.

And you say all they excel at is healing? Have you *looked* at the class? Have you *looked* at their spell list, all of which they have automatic access to? Not to mention having the two most important saves in the game as good catagories, and having all the best defensive spells?
I think you really need to take a second look at the mechanics of the classes.

I have looked.... Cleriics do not have the best Saves.... That Goes to the Monk in General and The Palladin For Fort.

Clerics Do not have the Best HP... That Goes to Barbarian...

Clerics do Not have the Best To Hit.... That goes to in Order Barbarian, Fighter, Palladin

Clerics do not have the Best Skills... Rogues do.

Clerics Do not have the best Offense.... Head to Head or Spell Wise...

Clerics are comparable to Bards... Except Bards loose a bit more Spells in favor of more Skills.

Clerics, Bards , Druids.... are multi-Taskers... they are not the best at most things....

Yes clerics Excelle only at Healing... Becuase another Class can beat them at any thing else.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I put monlk and bard for the many reasons already gone over by others.

I almost put wizard and sorcerer as well. The reason for this is they are maybe the weakest low level classes in the game. And at high levels they still aren't as good as the cleric/druid. Though since clerics/druids are overpowered maybe they balance at high levels. The thing is many of the things wiz/sor supposedly can do on a mechanical level they really never should get the chance to do. D4 hp , no armor and just the will save is good.

How the heck do they survive the first round in order to do there fantastic things. There defense spells aren't the type you leave up all day, so unless there in the lets kick open the big double doors and finght the bad guys situaitons where they have time to buff, they should be dead before they have a chance to display any of there power. They are the most likely class to die first with a contingency being there only chance at a save.

But its a game, and games are supposed to be fun so the DM doesn't throw his/her equal level oponents at the party as smart as the party throws themselves at there foes. The wiz/sor survies a couple rounds before any really tough attention is brought there way and they get to shine and look powerful.

 

[Merlion]

I am not saying all Good gods and religions tell people they should be poor and turn the other cheek... What I am saying is what Good person doesn't heal the sick when they have the power from their Good God.... What Good Person lets that sick person die becuase he can't aford your fees??? What Good Person gathers great wealth and gives nothing to charity or those less fortunate??? Also What high level Cleric with more power from his God why is this Person who is closer to his God not acting more as a general and directing the Church???
Where are the Religious Duties??? where are the commoners who go out to seek his wisdom and follow his advise becuase he speaks the word of thier God???

Where are the Commoners who ask more of him than he can do.... Surely the great cleric of the great god can save us from the Great Evil... and the Cleric is Lv9 and the great Evil is a Lv20 Sorcerer Titan... He can't do it... He has to go out and try to get this Mythic Item and that Great Champion over there will gain a few levels along the way and combine thier forces to have a chance.... Mean while the Great Evil does Evil and the Cleric has to deal with People asking Him why He won't Save Them???? But Ohh DMs Never Do this...

I Never See in Game Clerics playing Clerics.... They Play Fighter Spell Casters... no Religion at all.



I have looked.... Cleriics do not have the best Saves.... That Goes to the Monk in General and The Palladin For Fort.

Clerics Do not have the Best HP... That Goes to Barbarian...

Clerics do Not have the Best To Hit.... That goes to in Order Barbarian, Fighter, Palladin

Clerics do not have the Best Skills... Rogues do.

Clerics Do not have the best Offense.... Head to Head or Spell Wise...

Clerics are comparable to Bards... Except Bards loose a bit more Spells in favor of more Skills.

Clerics, Bards , Druids.... are multi-Taskers... they are not the best at most things....

Yes clerics Excelle only at Healing... Becuase another Class can beat them at any thing else.

You keep saying "the best"

a class doesnt have to be the "best" at something to be very good at it. A big part of why the Cleric is so strong is because it can do almost everything well. Not "the best" neccesarily (although they can usualy meet or exceed "the best" under the right circumstances) but just under the best.

They have good-catagory Fort and Will saves. Fort and Will saves are the only saves that really matter. And their Will save is going to be amazing due to high Wis

They along with Druids have higher HP than any other full caster. Only 1 hp/level less than a Fighter! They will have equal or greater AC than a Fighter! Their magical offense, past low levels, is quite strong.


You have a very odd way of looking at things. On the one hand you go on about "the best" and only seem to think something is strong if its "the best" not just because it is strong....but then you also go on about Clerics and their roleplaying issues, which are irrelevent to a discussion of balance.

 

[Zimbel]

The thing about Sorcerer is a lot like the thing about Fighter. They arent really underpowered across the board, but they are compared to others of their kind. The Sorcerer gained spontaneous casting but it was overcompensated for between the extremely limited spells known, and the slow aqquisition of new spell levels.

Basically the Sorcerer is a variant Wizard that not quite enough thought was put into

I agree that the Sorcerer is a varient Wizard which received less thought than it deserved.
I disagree that it (or any major spellcaster, for that matter) is underpowered in relation to front-liners, particuarly at high levels. Frankly, at around LV 16+, I find that the Sorcerer is more of a problem than an equivalent leveled Cleric.