Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[Storm Raven]

this is true.... but even warrior faiths... Go to Heaven for smiting Evil and being a great warrior in battle types .... Even these faiths Those who worshiped God's of War etc... ... have religious rites and beleifs .... practices and policies

Yes, they do. But those religious practices don't always include healing the sick, giving to the poor and the various other things you assume is part and parcel of being a good cleric. Thus, your arguments, while they might be relevant in a particular setting, are of almost no value elsewhere.

yes... that must be it... becuase I don't agree ... Something MUST be Wrong with something I am doing... I don't think it through.. I have bad math skills ... I haven't read the Book ... I don't know how to play ... yeagh ... that MUST be it... couldn't possibly be that I have a different opinion ... or maybe that I value sertain things differently??? ... of course not that is crazy talk... everyone values things the same... and the only opinions are the right ones and the wrong ones??? .... you are entitled to think so all you want....

Yes, you are bad at math. here's why: every example you have put forward of elements of an "overpowered" monk, or an "underpowered" cleric has been shown to be flawed. Your monk examples are especially bad - your "super grappler monk" isn't even better than the straight fighter at grappling, his supposed specialty. Your tactical examples of how the monk could deal with comparable members of other classes are laughable, since they are easily thwarted by the most rudimentary preparation and tactics (throwing shuriken from 45 feet away was an especially silly idea of yours). You just don't understand the rules and the math underlying them well enough to advance arguments on this topic that make sense.

You get basic math wrong - you estimated the difference between your example monk and a typical fighter at 20th level would be "~20 hit points". In reality, it turns out that it would be about 80. Go over to the "overpowered" thread and deal with the counterexamples set out to your "super grappler monk", if you get your numbers straight and make any viable points then maybe someone might start paying attention to you.

 

[FireLance]

But the bard isn't meant to shine on the battlefield. Really, they aren't... they are meant to make others shine on the battlefield.

Of course, in the campaign I DM, the bard borders on over-powered because there are 10 total PCs.

Exactly. A bard makes a great force multiplier, even with the core rules only. If you add some non-core material like Song of the Heart from the Eberron Campaign setting, and the 1st-level swift action bard spell inspirational boost and a masterwork lute from Complete Adventurer, a 7th-level bard can give everyone a +4 morale bonus to hit and damage with inspire courage. Even a 3rd-level bard can use inspire courage to grant a +4 morale bonus to hit and a +2 morale bonus to damage with Song of the Heart, inspirational boost and a masterwork mandolin.

 

[Zimbel]

Yes, you are bad at math...

Even if that's true, that's not a reason to launch a personal attack. Please attack the position, not the person. Frankly, I think that the facts support your position well enough on their own.

It's quite possible, for example, that the only competant player in IamIan's group played a Monk, so it rocked compared to the rest of the party. It's possible that IamIan is comparing an in-game Monk that rolled unbelievably well with PCs of other classses that rolled poorly. It's also possible that IamIan is doing a raw book analysis without having played at the appropriate levels, which is why IamIan's perceptions are skewed towards the monk. Without IamIan's input, we'll likely never know which of these (or whatever else) is the case.

As an aside, after reading through this thread, I'm becoming very glad that I retired my Monk PC Althoguh I still don't think it was a horrible character, this discussion has made my lack of knowledge of high-level front-liners painfully obvious.

 

[Zimbel]

Exactly. A bard makes a great force multiplier, even with the core rules only.

When I played a (3.0) Bard at low levels, I'd always console myself by thinking that one point of damage from each attack by each party member was due to my PC(due to inspire courage). Interestingly enough, if one counted that way (and added in the damage done directly by the bard), my PC was often one of the top damage dealers in the (fairly large) party.

In 3.5, although they pumped up the bard's abilities base , they made a number of things that could be used to create a combat-effective bard (GMW, stacking enhancement bonuses between bow and arrow) weaker or harder to (ab)use. Although I don't think it's a useless class, I did vote for it as the weakest. It seems very difficult to create an effective combat build with one at high levels, and most of the other spellcasting classes are better force-multipliers. I'm skeptical that the Bardic songs are effective enough at high levels, save in very large parties.

Frankly, I think they'd be pretty good if they just got a better spell selection (say, at least 1 good offensive sonic spell/spell level) and more spells known/spell level.

My vote for the best 5th member of a (C/W/F/R) 4-member party? Druid.

 

[Storm Raven]

Even if that's true, that's not a reason to launch a personal attack. Please attack the position, not the person. Frankly, I think that the facts support your position well enough on their own.

I'm not seeing this so much a personal attack as a statement of fact - he gets his math wrong frequently. So much so that multiple posters have pointed it out.

It's quite possible, for example, that the only competant player in IamIan's group played a Monk, so it rocked compared to the rest of the party. It's possible that IamIan is comparing an in-game Monk that rolled unbelievably well with PCs of other classses that rolled poorly. It's also possible that IamIan is doing a raw book analysis without having played at the appropriate levels, which is why IamIan's perceptions are skewed towards the monk. Without IamIan's input, we'll likely never know which of these (or whatever else) is the case.

Maybe any of those could be true, but the problem is that many people have suggested those were the issue, and IamIan has denied most of them - that was the explicit reason why he posted his half-orc grappler monk: it was an effort to prove that modestly statted, well-played monks were overpowered. And it was a laughable attempt, to the point where he has gotten multiple responses of incredulity. As a raw book example, his grappling monk is so ludicrously underpowered that it seems implausible such a character would survive two rounds against level-appropriate foes. My counterexample fighter wasn't even an attempt to craft a really good fighter, I dashed it out in about ten minutes of flipping through the PHB and DMG. I probably could have come up with something "better" given time. It also wasn't especially designed to counter the grappling monk, it was just a vanillaish fighter build.

As an aside, after reading through this thread, I'm becoming very glad that I retired my Monk PC Althoguh I still don't think it was a horrible character, this discussion has made my lack of knowledge of high-level front-liners painfully obvious.

Monks are not horrible. They will never be the front-line fighter the full BAB classes are, but can still be fun to play. But overpowered? Not a chance.

 

[Zimbel]

Monks are not horrible. They will never be the front-line fighter the full BAB classes are, but can still be fun to play. But overpowered? Not a chance.

Exactly my point. I was trying to run him as a front-liner (he was doing pretty well through LV 3, which is when he was "forcably" retired). I think that through a number of the previous posts, weaknesses that I was not aware of have been exposed in that build- I think that some of those weaknesses would have been difficult to overcome (example: Grappling counter through a significant number of levels).

 

[gabrion]

My vote for the best 5th member of a (C/W/F/R) 4-member party? Druid.

See, I adopted the mindset that the druid is the best 5th member of a C/C/C/C party.

 

[Zimbel]

See, I adopted the mindset that the druid is the best 5th member of a C/C/C/C party.

Nah, then I'd go Sorcerer or Wizard- Clerics don't have all the spells, and those two classes have less of an overlap than a Druid and a Cleric. Now, in a C/C/C/W party, I'd agree with you.

 

[Storm Raven]

Exactly my point. I was trying to run him as a front-liner (he was doing pretty well through LV 3, which is when he was "forcably" retired). I think that through a number of the previous posts, weaknesses that I was not aware of have been exposed in that build- I think that some of those weaknesses would have been difficult to overcome (example: Grappling counter through a significant number of levels).

Grappling is a very tactical maneuver - sometimes useful, often not. One big problem is that adventurers often face foes that it would be extremely inadvisable to grapple, such as wights, fire elementals, salamanders, ropers, and so on. Or creatures that are very difficult to grapple, like giants, or Large animals or beasts. Against humanoid foes who do not have nasty natural attacks it can be really good. But against other foes it just doesn't work well (certainly not well enough to build a character around doing it).

Note: ask the monk in my last campaign about grappling foes with natural attacks. She tried to grapple a lizardfolk warrior. He tore her up with his claws and bite. She learned her lesson.

 

[IamIan]

I posted on that thread how a fighter can be better and where he falls behind in grappling...

I also Posted how the extra str from the barbarian's rage gives him an edge over other types of grapplers....

I never said the grappler was the best build for all senarios.... which is what people thn proceeded to do ....

Grappplers always are in trouble when faced with many foes....

But the Target I was asked to make a monk to beat was the Magic Armor Magic Weapon Weilding fighter... limited to lv 10 money and power.... the monk as I stated earily on before the lv10 challenege was both monk and fighter die from wet floor at low levels........ the fighter gets ahead in mid level becuase of many things that allow the monk to get ahead at higher levels are too costly at mid level.... By high level the monk can easily have an edge over the fighter becuase he can stack benefits from more sources than the fighter can... and armor and shield's are easily to get around with touch attacks and are more limited than the monk in the amount they can help....

But... Instead of folllowing what I was asked to do and what I did or the progression I have posted many times.... people just keep seeing just that I say monk powerul Cleric weak and they ignore the rest...

I also said that the build of the grappler was a focus not a AC and not a multi-tasker... but that was also ignored ....

oh well....

as for my experience... I have been playing Role -Playing games and D&D for over 20 years... I have seen allot.... I have read the rules .... but that doesn't matter....

I have been told an Anti-Magic Field Item would way ... too powerful and no DM should ever let it in the game... but some how Wish Spell Rings and Atrifacts are somehow less powerful than wish spell rings???? but oh well.. I guess... I just dont' see the tactics or bigger picture... Maybe not.... But The forums were supposed to be about what people thought and why... I said that and have tried to explain why as asked.... but all I get is attacked.... fine.. people are that way.... sorry I disagree...

but...

Monk... ober powerful

Cleric weak as kitten....

That is what I think... have tried to show why... but it keeps getting taken out of context and twisted... so ... to everyone else.. .when they ask for your opinion on a polll... this is what will happen.. .expect it.... They dont' want your opinion .... they want you to agree and when you dont' they fight about it....

sorry but that is what I see...