Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[Elder-Basilisk]

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).

I disagree with this. I've seen a VERY effective monk built around grappling (though it isn't his only tactic--any one trick pony will be in trouble at high levels). He's good enough at it that he can often grapple foes who you would assume grappling wouldn't well work on (giants, trolls, etc). There were some foes he didn't want to grapple and other foes he didn't want to grapple next to (once he came close to starting a grapple in between a level 2/6 fighter rogue and a 10th level rogue but decided against it at the last minute). But the range of grappleable foes is a lot larger than you might imagine. Even against animals with natural attacks, they at least take -4 to attack within the grapple.

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.

She probably learned the wrong lesson then since creatures without rake can't attack with multiple natural weapons. Grappling an annis hag is generally a bad idea, but grappling a lizardman warrior isn't. (And, even if you don't follow that rule, the lizardman can tear you up with his natural weapons even if you don't grapple him--he just has an easier time when there's no -4 for attacking inside a grapple).

 

[Wiggus_Ironhand]

monk

It depends if you mulity class or use a prestiage class if you mix the monk and dulest class you get a pretty bad ass char because it is hard to damage what you can not hit. but the monk than does not excell in melle combat but it can be better if you use some of the feats out of the feat book and orintal hand book they meke most char more affective

 

[Wiggus_Ironhand]

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!

The cleric can cet a major boost by taking the warpreist class than he can spend time on the front lines and does not need as much watching after and will still have time to heal all the other char in the group while takeing care of their share of the work load

 

[Storm Raven]

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....

Except that you definitively haven't shown that. The example fighter would wipe the floor with your monkl at all levels. That's why you are having a hard time convincing anyone you are right - the facts presented simply don't back up your opinions. The things that you seem to think "allow the monk to get ahead" are just as available to the fighter, and they have an array of other, often more valuable items that they can get for less expense. When you are forced to get down to concrete examples, your opinions simply don't hold up - they are not backed by any substance.

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 ....

And his low AC and lousy hit points make him useless. He's not even that good at grappling, unless he uses a temporary one shot item (the potion of enlarge person) he's no better at grappling than the example fighter, and for the example fighter grappling was his third best method of combat. How "overpowered' are you when your best mode of combat is no better than a straight fighter's third best?

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...

Allowing such a magic item would be a house rule, such is clearly stated in the DMG. This is not the house rules forum, which makes it irrelevant to the dicussion. The magic item creation guidelines also say that certain items simply are not priced appropriately using the pricing guidelines - items of true strike are the most obvious example. A continuous antimagic item would be another.

Monk... ober powerful

Cleric weak as kitten....

That is what I think... have tried to show why...

And failed miserably. Until you can show an actual example of an overpowered monk (or on the flip side of your opinion, you could give examples of characters who would vastly overshadow a cleric of the same level, point value, and equipment value), your opinion has nothing to back it up other than your repeated claims, all of which have been countered with actual, concrete examples. If you want people to listen to your opion, you should actually back it up with something. As of yet, you haven't. It isn't that we dislike the fact that you have a different opinion, it is that your opinion is so clearly counter to the facts that have been shown thus far. Give examples - actual, concrete examples of what you are talking about and people might listen to you.

 

[Storm Raven]

I disagree with this. I've seen a VERY effective monk built around grappling (though it isn't his only tactic--any one trick pony will be in trouble at high levels). He's good enough at it that he can often grapple foes who you would assume grappling wouldn't well work on (giants, trolls, etc). There were some foes he didn't want to grapple and other foes he didn't want to grapple next to (once he came close to starting a grapple in between a level 2/6 fighter rogue and a 10th level rogue but decided against it at the last minute). But the range of grappleable foes is a lot larger than you might imagine. Even against animals with natural attacks, they at least take -4 to attack within the grapple.

Sure, sometimes you can pump your grapple enough to take on big opponents, but it's tough, and a very tactical decision, as I said before. It is still a lousy option for many of the foes a high level party will have, as they have all kinds of nastiness to deal out simply as a result of touching them, but that's a problem monks have in general.

She probably learned the wrong lesson then since creatures without rake can't attack with multiple natural weapons. Grappling an annis hag is generally a bad idea, but grappling a lizardman warrior isn't. (And, even if you don't follow that rule, the lizardman can tear you up with his natural weapons even if you don't grapple him--he just has an easier time when there's no -4 for attacking inside a grapple).

Most people don't use the "must have rake" rule because it doesn't exist. Check page 156 of the PHB again. And trading a round trying to get a grapple on a foe in exchange for a full round of natural attacks in response is a bad move, and the lesson she learned.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Most people don't use the "must have rake" rule because it doesn't exist.

Item: You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling...

Item: If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.

Item: Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons.

So, a creature with more than one natural weapon can't attack with two of them while grappling. And since he can't attack with three until he's attacked with two, he can't attack with more than two either.

He'd get multiple attacks if his BAB allows it... but BAB doesn't allow multiple attacks with natural weapons.

He can make a full attack using unarmed strikes instead of natural weapons, if he likes.

-Hyp.

 

[Iku Rex]

Re: Grapple hijack

See http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=150397, especially post 16 for my opinion.

(Summmary: IMO the rules are unclear - there's no solid by-the-book answer.)

 

[Storm Raven]

Item: You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling...

Attacking with natural weapons is not the same as "attacking with two weapons". The rule is inapplicable.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

That is because you are flat out incorrect on this issue.

I have illustrated that with 3 of the 4 current party members from my group (4 of the 5 if you count the dead Warmage) versus a grappling designed Monk above.


Some people are disagreeing with you pretty strongly, but that does not really mean that they are attacking you.

You'll note, however, that NOBODY is agreeing with you.

That really should tell you something if you would only take the time out to think about it.

 

[Merlion]

Not to put too fine a point on this or anything, but: Yup.

Back on topic for this thread: In some cases "underpowered" does have a related "roleplaying restrictions" component, either express or implied. I'm a firm believer in not having roleplaying balance an mechanical advantage...but I think the Game Designers would disagree (in part).

The druid is a prime example. Players in games I have played in usually play-up the druid's nature aspect...and therefore play-down some of the druid class potentially over-the-top abilities.

Thoughts?

Well, the designers have stated that roleplaying restrictions dont enter into mechanical balance. The games roleplaying restrictions, the alignment restrictions, the Clerics need to follow something, the Paladin's code...are all their for flavour. They dont make the classes any less powerful mechanically.

Also note that I personally dislike these restrictions..especially the alignment restrictions...anyway because they are not part of the balance of the game and I feel flavour should come mostly from the players and the DM, not the game itself.


What you mention about the Druid is a good example. Your players choose to play the Druid that way because it fits the flavour they want...but even if they dont use certain of the classes abilities, it still has them.

Thats why RP restrictions really *cant* be a balancing factor in the game as a whole, because RP is purely a matter of taste, opinion, and perspective unlike the mechanics which are at least to some extent concrete.


Now a DM could use a Clerics religion to try and reign in the classes power, but the only way to really do that would be either to remove access to certain spells (which is a mechanical change as well as an RP one) or to have the clerics god/church/whatever basically forbid them from adventuring or from using certain tactics, which would be clunky, unrealistic and in many ways unfair.

Thats why mechanical balance has to come from the mechanics.