Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[Storyteller01]

In my experience, fighters greatly outdamage paladins and have far more staying power than rangers. They lack those classes' versatility, but more than make up for it in sheer battle prowess.

And here we thought the fighters were the most versatile!? Unlike the ranger/barbarian/warmain/unfettered, etc you can pretty much take any path you choose. Your path isn't preset, and you can learn multiple feat chains over the course of your career. The fighter can exist in any campaign, where as the paladin, ranger, and barbarian may need kweaking to fit the setting.


my 2 cents...

 

[IamIan]

Oh yes! Us clerics are soooooo weak! Please, we need even more spells and feats and magic items to make us as powerful as those nasty monks!

well... it is good you know your proper place

but of course more stuff won't help either... everyone has there place

Fighter , Palladin , Barbarian up front
Rogue , Monk flanking
Druid , Cleric Second Line Support
Wizard , Sorcerer glass cannon's in the back.

now accept your fate and eat your vegies.

 

[ForceUser]

And here we thought the fighters were the most versatile!? Unlike the ranger/barbarian/warmain/unfettered, etc you can pretty much take any path you choose. Your path isn't preset, and you can learn multiple feat chains over the course of your career. The fighter can exist in any campaign, where as the paladin, ranger, and barbarian may need kweaking to fit the setting.


my 2 cents...

I think we're talking about different kinds of versatility. I agree with the meta-game versatility of which you speak--fighters indeed have far more flexibility in choosing their talents than rangers and paladins. I was speaking of in-character flexibility. No matter how you path it, fighters are pretty much all about killing or incapacitating foes in interesting and varied ways; rangers and paladins have other talents. Rangers can track and master animals, paladins can detect evil and move in diplomatic circles, and so on. Fighters...fight. Good thing they're good at it!

 

[Storyteller01]

I think we're talking about different kinds of versatility. I agree with the meta-game versatility of which you speak--fighters indeed have far more flexibility in choosing their talents than rangers and paladins. I was speaking of in-character flexibility. No matter how you path it, fighters are pretty much all about killing or incapacitating foes in interesting and varied ways; rangers and paladins have other talents. Rangers can track and master animals, paladins can detect evil and move in diplomatic circles, and so on. Fighters...fight. Good thing they're good at it!

Agreed

 

[beaver1024]

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

We have 3 clerics and a druid .

 

[beaver1024]

Just about all the classes are underpowered compared to the cleric and druid. This is a reflection of designer bias and lack of playtesting in 3.5.

 

[ForceUser]

Just about all the classes are underpowered compared to the cleric and druid. This is a reflection of designer bias and lack of playtesting in 3.5.

The designers were smoking crack when they made the already-powerful druid even more powerful in 3.5. I really have no idea what they were thinking. As for the cleric, I think that the reason the class is so strong is quite straightforward--nobody wants to play one. Most players detest the idea of hanging to the back and patching up the characters who get to do the "fun stuff," and rightly so. I believe that the design decision that was made in 3.0 to make clerics able to heal without having to reserve all of their spell slots for healing was a deliberate hook to get more people interested in playing them. In this way, the cleric's player could participate in the fun until it was time to heal. I believe that this is a good compromise, and it works for the most part. Even with clerics as the acknowledged "most powerful class in the game," I still see few of my players choosing to roll them up. I have 16 players across three campaigns, and a whopping one cleric among them (as well as a cleric/wizard/mystic theurge). YMMV.

 

[Storyteller01]

The designers were smoking crack when they made the already-powerful druid even more powerful in 3.5. I really have no idea what they were thinking. As for the cleric, I think that the reason the class is so strong is quite straightforward--nobody wants to play one. Most players detest the idea of hanging to the back and patching up the characters who get to do the "fun stuff," and rightly so. I believe that the design decision that was made in 3.0 to make clerics able to heal without having to reserve all of their spell slots for healing was a deliberate hook to get more people interested in playing them. In this way, the cleric's player could participate in the fun until it was time to heal. I believe that this is a good compromise, and it works for the most part. Even with clerics as the acknowledged "most powerful class in the game," I still see few of my players choosing to roll them up. I have 16 players across three campaigns, and a whopping one cleric among them (as well as a cleric/wizard/mystic theurge). YMMV.

I agree, mostly. They don't overshadow any one class (although they come close), and their resposibility to the group tends to diffuse their spell power (rather hard to bring your full might to bear when half of it goes to the rest of the party, spantaneous or not).

 

[KarinsDad]

Most players detest the idea of hanging to the back and patching up the characters who get to do the "fun stuff," and rightly so. I believe that the design decision that was made in 3.0 to make clerics able to heal without having to reserve all of their spell slots for healing was a deliberate hook to get more people interested in playing them. In this way, the cleric's player could participate in the fun until it was time to heal. I believe that this is a good compromise, and it works for the most part. Even with clerics as the acknowledged "most powerful class in the game," I still see few of my players choosing to roll them up. I have 16 players across three campaigns, and a whopping one cleric among them (as well as a cleric/wizard/mystic theurge). YMMV.

I think it depends on the players (and the campaign) a lot.

Our "healers" tell everyone else straight up that they might get one or two cures per day, but don't expect more than that. The Cleric (or Druid or Favored Soul or whatever) has better things to do with his divine spells.

When divine PCs operate like that, it forces the entire party to be cautious as opposed to reckless. IME.

We also have a "damaged house rule" where a PC 1/3rd damaged is at -1 to all D20 rolls, 2/3rds damaged is at -2, and at 0 hits or less is at -3. This too forces players to be a little less reckless and to carry their own cure potions. Nobody wants to be "in a wounded category".

 

[DM_Matt]

Wow Ian, I guess not only are we to bow to your amazing wisdom about clerics and monks, but we should play all characters in accordance with your radical All Bread No Bombs political beliefs.

There are a lot of folks like you in the real world who say, without much practical thought, that if only the USA would take its military budget and write a big check they could solve all the world's problems. The problem is that there are acutally evil poeple out there who will steal the "bread" without sufficient "bombs" to stop them from doing that. That is what happened in Somalia, for instance.

But in the real world, we only have evil humans that can only be so powerful. People cant become Superman if they kill enough folks, and there sure as he11 arent mighty dragons, archwizards, and nigh-invincible incarnations of evil such as powerful fiends. In dnd worlds, the churches have both bread folks and bomb folks. Some clerics are tasked with helping their communities, and some are tasked with making sure the bad guys dont come in and do nasty things to said communities. NPC clerics are usually bread folks, PC clerics are usually bomb folks. The world needs both.