Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[Merlion]

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.

I agree. I think Wizards are pretty much balanced, except I think theres a few spells they should have that they dont. Also no class should have less than a d6 hit die.

other than that, they work pretty well. Lots of spells, but pay for it everywhere else.And as you say with a competent DM their weakness in the physical area usualy is just at the right level...a limitation but not a death sentence. Still need a d6 tho

 

[Shin Okada]

I am not saying all Good gods and religions tell people they should be poor and turn the other cheek...

#What Good person doesn't heal the sick when they have the power from their Good God...

When he can save some dozens of people per day by personally cast remove disease spells but he can spend the same amount of time to defeat an archfiend and save the life of millions of people.

#What Good Person lets that sick person die because he can't afford your fees???

Fees will not be the problem. But time could be the problem when only he can achieve bigger goodness.

#What Good Person gathers great wealth and gives nothing to charity or those less fortunate???

When he spends all of those wealth for buying or making gears to fight greater evil.

#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???

Because not all the gods demands it. And church is just a mundane organization. May not necessarily the most important nor effective things to spread his god's will.

#Where are the Religious Duties??? where are the commoners who go out to seek his wisdom and follow his advise because he speaks the word of their God???

He may show the god's will by adventuring and defeating evil.

#Where are the Commoners who ask more of him than he can do....

However PCs are strong, they are not all-mighty. When he can't do all the good things, he must choose only some of them. That kind of poor commoners may or may not add good roleplaying aspect. But that does not mean all the powerful clerics must concentrate on saving commoners from sufferings.

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

Remember, PC clerics are supposed to be ADVENTURING CLERICS. Not some high priest governing a church nor a hermit type. They are supposed to be spreading gods's will by adventuring and fighting things they (and their god(s)) see as opponents. There will be pope of a church organization in D&D world, there will be city clergymen who is tending poorest people, their will be hermit type in somewhere. But typical PC clerics are not supposed to be that kind of people. They are ADVENTURERS!

 

[Zimbel]

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....

Some of the best offensive spells are in the Cleric list (harm being an obvious one). A few of the ones missing from that list are in one domain or another.

Have you played a Bard and a Cleric? Or at least seen both classes in play? Bards have, at best, 2/3 of the spell power of a Cleric, both in spell levels and in spells/day. Frankly, since they have very few good core spells, I think that1/2 of total spell power is closer. I played a fairly effective 3.0 Bard (archer - and yes, most of my combos were nerfed in 3.5), and whenever I looked over the character, I realised that it would have been stronger in virtually every way as a Cleric. A handful of spells, for example, can substitute for quite a few skills.

I agree that these three classes are multi-taskers. However, to me a mid-level Cleric or Druid has a frightening amount of power, whereas as a Bard it's a struggle just to be effective.

 

[Merlion]

Some of the best offensive spells are in the Cleric list (harm being an obvious one). A few of the ones missing from that list are in one domain or another.
.

Direct Offense/disability: Hold Person, Inflict and Mass Inflict spells, Searing Light, Blindness/Deafness, Flame Strike, Blasphemy etc, Slay Living, Harm, Destruction, Implosion, Fire Storm. And then the various turn into a fighter buffs. And thats right off the top of my head, and PH only.

Now its not a huge *number* of spells. but how many doesnt really matter. They get the job done, quite effectively.

 

[IamIan]

You keep saying "the best" 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.

Multi-Tasking Characters are only comparable in power to a dedicated best Character when the party group is a bunch of Multi-Taskers with no one Focusing on anything.... and you never face a Dedicated Group.

A Cleric if up front Fighting with the Fighters is not useing any spells as they would require concentration checks and provoke attack of opertunities.... so in this roll he is a sub-par fighter... trying to fill the roll of a full fighter...

I understand that multi-tasking has a benfefit... but things are lost as well....

Yes... The Cleric has 1 HP / Lv less than the Fighter... but also only has 1 HP / Lv more than a Rogue... and the Rogue is not a HP Bag and it isnt' generally a good idea to try to play them as such...

A Multi-Tasking Group with a Cleric a Fighter a Rogue and a Wizard... meets another group of 4 Barbarians of equal Level to the first group... the First group is in trouble... they lost the power of specialization by trying to multi-task... The Wizard will be useful if he can stay at a distance from the fighting... the Rogue needs Sneak attack to be useful... the Cleric will not do as well as the Fighter will....

4 Clerics vs 4 Barbarians again the clerics are not as good of fighters and are going to be having casualties fast....

So yes the lack of specialization of a class directly relates to its relative power... of course it all depends as many have said on the situation... and situations vary which is why people like to mutli-task thier characters.

------------

"roleplaying issues, which are irrelevent to a discussion of balance"

... that way of thinking is exactly why they are not concidered and people view the cleric as soo powerful... becuase they don't role-play... as sad as that is for a role-playing game... People hack and slash.... Role-Playing issues should always matter to a Role-Playing Game... becuase any time you play it they should matter....

That is like Saying A Rogue will never get to use thier Sneak attack becuase the Cleric always sees them at the other end of the battle Field...

...

how about this for a role-playing issue....

Lv 20 Barbarian gets Magic Books to boost Str and such only leaving enough money for a Anti-Magic Field Item and a adamtine weapon and maybe adamtine armor ... He then proceeds to beat the crap out of every single variation of the Cleric as non of them can compete with him in combat espeically when thier magic is all not working as soon as he gets 10 feet from them... which they don't realise until they are less then 10 feet becuase they have the mistaken idea that they are decent fighters and can hold thier own...

 

[Storyteller01]

I chose bard. I ended up throwing out the PHB variant and used Malhavoc Presses version, as well as the Kingdom of Kalamar's basiran dancer. It was hard to use them as anything but buffs. They can hide, but this gives little advantage since they can't do much there. Singing makes them huge targets. In non-combat situations they are fantastic, but my players don't like sitting on the sidelines during combat.

To me, the monk isn't so weak, but I use the OA/Rokugan books.

 

[Thanee]

Finally, the poor sorcerer isn't leading the poll anymore, which was pretty ridiculous, anyways.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Zimbel]

Remember, PC clerics are supposed to be ADVENTURING CLERICS. Not some high priest governing a church nor a hermit type. They are supposed to be spreading gods's will by adventuring and fighting things they (and their god(s)) see as opponents. There will be pope of a church organization in D&D world, there will be city clergymen who is tending poorest people, their will be hermit type in somewhere. But typical PC clerics are not supposed to be that kind of people. They are ADVENTURERS!

Heh... I've seen a lot of Clerics in play. I've played at least 6 myself. Overall, from playing in easily a dozen campaigns in over roughly 25 years, I'd say it's been the most popular class. Apparently, this is unusual.

Some people play their cleric's god(dess)'s beliefs to the hilt (or at least their character's). Others are much more mechanical, and play the class like any other. Frankly, I've done both. I've even seen both at the same time in a game where there were multiple clerics.

I agree that it's usually more fun to play a religous type (actually, I think that this is true pretty much regardless of your class or the god(dess) in question - playing a Cleric is just an excuse). However, note that many of the god(dess)'s beliefs both in the PH and many suppliments don't require even the slightest amount of self-sacrifice. If the god(dess) requires self-sacrifice, why not of all of his/her rich followers (like other adventurers), not just the Cleric?

 

[Merlion]

Multi-Tasking Characters are only comparable in power to a dedicated best Character when the party group is a bunch of Multi-Taskers with no one Focusing on anything.... and you never face a Dedicated Group.

A Cleric if up front Fighting with the Fighters is not useing any spells as they would require concentration checks and provoke attack of opertunities.... so in this roll he is a sub-par fighter... trying to fill the roll of a full fighter...

I understand that multi-tasking has a benfefit... but things are lost as well....

Yes... The Cleric has 1 HP / Lv less than the Fighter... but also only has 1 HP / Lv more than a Rogue... and the Rogue is not a HP Bag and it isnt' generally a good idea to try to play them as such...

A Multi-Tasking Group with a Cleric a Fighter a Rogue and a Wizard... meets another group of 4 Barbarians of equal Level to the first group... the First group is in trouble... they lost the power of specialization by trying to multi-task... The Wizard will be useful if he can stay at a distance from the fighting... the Rogue needs Sneak attack to be useful... the Cleric will not do as well as the Fighter will....

4 Clerics vs 4 Barbarians again the clerics are not as good of fighters and are going to be having casualties fast....

So yes the lack of specialization of a class directly relates to its relative power... of course it all depends as many have said on the situation... and situations vary which is why people like to mutli-task thier characters.

Ok....you've totally failed to address what I was talking about, and confirmed what I pretty much figured. Your idea is if a class isnt "the best' at something, they suck at it entirely and it shouldnt be taken into account. Which is not really accurate. Yes, D&D generally does reward specialization over generalization, because theres usualy not enough resources in a class or whatever to spread around like that.

However, the Cleric is generally the exception to that. The Cleric doesnt have to stretch. The Cleric has a wide range of useful offensive, defensive and utility spells, has deccent basic physical atributes (average HP, good AC, quite good saves), and can augment them easily to allow him to melee or use ranged combat well. And between his AC, hit points, saves and spells is able to pretty easily defend himself from most threats.

that way of thinking is exactly why they are not concidered and people view the cleric as soo powerful... becuase they don't role-play... as sad as that is for a role-playing game... People hack and slash.... Role-Playing issues should always matter to a Role-Playing Game... becuase any time you play it they should matter....

But they dont. And they cant. Because everyone roleplays differently. Thats why the rules of the mechanics need to be balanced *in and of themselves*. Because roleplay restrictions CANNOT mitigate mechanical benefits. Also they really should not.

This has been stated repeatdly by the designers.

Lv 20 Barbarian gets Magic Books to boost Str and such only leaving enough money for a Anti-Magic Field Item and a adamtine weapon and maybe adamtine armor ... He then proceeds to beat the crap out of every single variation of the Cleric as non of them can compete with him in combat espeically when thier magic is all not working as soon as he gets 10 feet from them... which they don't realise until they are less then 10 feet becuase they have the mistaken idea that they are decent fighters and can hold thier own...

Exactly what anti magic field item would this be? I know of no such item. And if it existed, it would be grossly overpowered.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Also a small note: I would apreciate if people would, if they have time, post at least briefly to state their vote and why they made it. I'm getting a few that surprise me a bit and I'd like to know more

I voted for bard, fighter, monk, ranger, rogue and sorcerer. At least I hope I did. I might have voted the wrong way on both polls

Bards don't really specialize in anything. They're social skills aren't much stronger than rogues (unless they use that broken glibness spell) and their spellcasting is blown away by a sorcerer. Most bards I've seen try to use spells in combat, but a sorcerer will always blow them away. Their spells known progression is very slow.

They do have a few nice spells, though, like song of discord and any of the healing spells, but they end up being the fifth wheel.

They also get their songs too slowly (+2 at 8th-level - wow, a D20 Modern Charismatic hero can have +3 at 5th-level) and for some reason don't get their defense song for a long time. This is important - they have that annoying problem of using a cloak of Charisma, which takes up the same slot as the cloak of resistance.

Fighters get weak at higher levels. I'm not even talking about fighters vs spellcasters here (though the barbarian and paladin are both superior in this category). It's just that past 13th-level, you pretty much need to raid Iron Heroes to find any feats worth taking.

Monks are just ... odd. It's like WotC didn't know what they were doing when they made this class. It is, IMO, the worst designed class in the Player's Handbook.

The monk seems to have high speed ... and flurry of blows. They don't work together. Low-level monks have lame AC scores, so you better be a member of House Deneith.

Their unarmed combat system has so many problems, from overly expensive enhancement bonus items that take up the periapt of Wisdom slot to ridiculous amounts of damage that scare DMs so much they don't realize the monk isn't actually hitting anything. Improved Unarmed Strike sucks so much that anyone who wants to be a bad-ass brawler has to be a monk, even with the alignment restrictions and low BAB.

They're touted as mage grapplers - while they can Tumble fairly quickly to get at the mage in the back, or jump him from behind - their grapple check is hampered by low BAB and any spellcaster that can't escape from a grapple wouldn't live long enough to face a monk anyway.

Finally, they have a suite of magical inflexible abilities, just like Monte Cook's oathsworn. It would have been nice if these were part of a list of monk feat abilities instead. Some of these abilities are useful, but that doesn't mean you necessarily want them.

Rangers are cool, and the 3.5 version is so much better than the 3.0 version. However, they don't have any good way of boosting damage. Favored enemy is simply too inflexible for that. It's a great PC class, IME, but is lame when used by NPCs.

Rogues die so often it isn't funny. They kick a lot of butt offensively, but their low hit points and low Fort and Will saves leaves them incredibly vulnerable. Their weak combat ability leaves them especially vulnerable when they're spotted while scouting. I killed rogues all the time when I was DMing, frequently by accident, and in campaigns where I'm a player, they still die all the time.

Sadly, there's been a spate of dual-wielding rogues in campaigns I've been in. The enemy just returns the favor (full-round attacks) and kills the rogue.

Sorcerers are, IMO, weaker than wizards, but not by that much. I'd rather have the right spell than many copies of the wrong spell.