Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[ForceUser]

Well i think several things come into play. One, to be really good a Fighter needs to choose really good feats and understand all the naunces of the melee combat rules very well. Also, Fighters more so than the other melees have a lot of trouble dealing with magic. Especially in terms of the low Will save. The reflex isnt as bad cause he has the hit points to survive damage spells...although eventually that would run out.

Paladins and Monks especially dont face that problem nearly as much.

Also I feel like this...the other melees get the full BAB and good hit points and AC (the Paladin especially on these last). And then they get other powerful abilities as well. The And really in core only...I think that only goes so far. Many are very situational. And you really have to know how they work and all the intricacies for it to be that helpful.


Thats my take anyway

I see. Well, you're right about Will saves--that is the fighter's weakness. In that regard, paladins and monks do have more staying power. Of course, a fighter can take Iron Will, have a decent Wis (12, perhaps), and buy resistance items to mitigate that disadvantage somewhat. My fighter has a decent Will save for a fighter: +5, or +9 verses fear effects thanks to an item. Since he's a dwarf, if he's saving verses a spell it becomes +7 and +11, respectively. Not great, but not bad.

But the part of your comment that I really want to address is this:

Fighter only gets feats.

Saying that fighters only get feats is like saying that wizards only get spells. Feats are the lifeblood of fighters, and they get more of them than any other class--while a 20th level human paladin has only 8 feats, a 20th-level human fighter has 19! That is enormous depth for crafting a character, even when only using the core rules. It seems as though the real issue people are having is that many of the PHB feats don't scale well past 12th-level or so. It's true that Great Cleave and Greater Weapon Specialization don't really compare to wish or gate. I can't speak for beyond 12th-level, though, because that's where I am right now. Up to 12th-level, however, my fighter has flat-out owned. Nobody in the party can touch him in sheer damage output, not even the wizard (unless he gets in a big AE verses many opponents). And that seems about right.

 

[Storm Raven]

I see. Well, you're right about Will saves--that is the fighter's weakness. In that regard, paladins and monks do have more staying power. Of course, a fighter can take Iron Will, have a decent Wis (12, perhaps), and buy resistance items to mitigate that disadvantage somewhat. My fighter has a decent Will save for a fighter: +5, or +9 verses fear effects thanks to an item. Since he's a dwarf, if he's saving verses a spell it becomes +7 and +11, respectively. Not great, but not bad.

More to the point, since a fighter has so many feats, he can afford to spend a couple on the save enhancing feats. Taking Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes is a minimal cost for a fighter, usually 2 of 19 feats, or about a tenth of his total. Taking those feats for, say a paladin accounts for a quarter of all his feats.

 

[Rystil Arden]

First level:

Inspire Courage. Every combat. +1 to hit and +1 damage for every PC using weapons.

versus

Some combats (e.g. not undead or a variety of other creatures) +1D6 damage for ONE PC a few times at most in a combat.

Well first off, I was comparing a Bard with a Rogue, not a Bard with a Cleric.

It isn't the Rogue's job to buff the party, however. By changing the focus to buffs and calmly stating that buffs can do more damage eventually than a flat-out attack (and they can, you're right), you are implicitly requiring the comparison to cleric. If I already had a cleric or wizard to give me (admittedly smaller than a maxed Inspire Courage) morale bonuses with their own spells, I would want the Rogue over the Bard though, anyway.

I do like how you chose level 14 to make your comparison instead of, say, level 13. At level 13, the Rogue will do over 100 damage per round if he can hit consistently, perhaps 50, then, if he's having trouble hitting. The Bard gives the whole party +2 to attack and damage. Does it eventually add up to more? Sure. Do the other classes have morale boosting buffs that would have been a fine substitute? Yup.

Even so, comparing the Bard's buffs to the Rogue's attacks is like comparing those buffs to the Monk's attacks or the Fighter's attacks. Yes, the buffs are useful, but if you don't have someone who can make use of those buffs, then not so much. Without that Rogue, there's one less person who wants the attack buffs. If my party consists of a Wizard, the Bard, a Psion, and a Barbarian, how much is the song helping now? On the other hand, if you have a group full of seven fighters and the Bard, it helps a lot. That's why the Barbarian who took a level in Skald was popular with his group in my melee-heavy game.

Have you ever played a Bard? It seems unlikely. Inspire Courage alone in the long run makes them HUGE contributors to a group, but unless you actually do the math, you may not see it.

As a player? I love the concept of Bard, but the class is poorly executed. I've played a 3.0 Wizard/Virtuoso, though. As well as a Telepath who pretended to be a Bard and had her psicrystal in her harp.

As a GM, I've run plenty of Bards, and I've seen players choose them as PCs and cohorts. I haven't met one in person yet who hasn't regretted the decision, though I do hear plenty of success stories with Bards on these boards --the key is that your analysis makes a lot of assumptions. You were right to point out that the Rogue's combat skill can become useless in certain situations. For Bards, certain parties make them incredibly useless, and short battles make them less so too (If the Sneak Attacking Rogue can ambush the opponents and with the help of the Wizard and Barbarian take all the baddies out in three rounds, the Inspire Courage wouldn't have been preferable.

 

[Merlion]

I see. Well, you're right about Will saves--that is the fighter's weakness. In that regard, paladins and monks do have more staying power. Of course, a fighter can take Iron Will, have a decent Wis (12, perhaps), and buy resistance items to mitigate that disadvantage somewhat. My fighter has a decent Will save for a fighter: +5, or +9 verses fear effects thanks to an item. Since he's a dwarf, if he's saving verses a spell it becomes +7 and +11, respectively. Not great, but not bad.

But also not generally enough to save you from the Holds and Charms and Dominates. Holds especially are unpleasant since you can then be coup de grad.
And especially at higher levels the low Ref can be a pain to...and also against things like Otiluke's Resilient Sphere.

Against spellcasters or creatures with a lot of magical ability Fighters have a lot of trouble...and the other melee types tend to be able to continue with little trouble.

Saying that fighters only get feats is like saying that wizards only get spells. Feats are the lifeblood of fighters, and they get more of them than any other class--while a 20th level human paladin has only 8 feats, a 20th-level human fighter has 19! That is enormous depth for crafting a character, even when only using the core rules. It seems as though the real issue people are having is that many of the PHB feats don't scale well past 12th-level or so. It's true that Great Cleave and Greater Weapon Specialization don't really compare to wish or gate. I can't speak for beyond 12th-level, though, because that's where I am right now. Up to 12th-level, however, my fighter has flat-out owned. Nobody in the party can touch him in sheer damage output, not even the wizard (unless he gets in a big AE verses many opponents). And that seems about right.

well as you say the feats tend to peter out at mid levels. And so many of them, especially in core, are very situational. Now yea, the Fighter can probably eventually pick up enough to cover a number of situations.

But it seems to me...and I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a Fighter can only rely on a few feats like Power Attack and Expertise, and on his basic atributes..BAB, hit points and AC...whereas the other melees, and especially Barbarians, have several abilities that work more or less in any situation or in a very large chunk of them.

 

[Storm Raven]

But also not generally enough to save you from the Holds and Charms and Dominates. Holds especially are unpleasant since you can then be coup de grad.
And especially at higher levels the low Ref can be a pain to...and also against things like Otiluke's Resilient Sphere.

Against spellcasters or creatures with a lot of magical ability Fighters have a lot of trouble...and the other melee types tend to be able to continue with little trouble.

I don't know. Take a reasonable example - a 20th level fighter. Give him Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes and decent stats for his level (say a 20 Constitution, an 18 Dexterity, and a 12 Wisdom) with a +5 cloak of resistance and his saves are Fort +23, Reflex +17, and Will +14. Against a 9th level spell requring a Will save cast by an opponent with a +7 ability modifier the save DC is 26. The fighter saves on a 12 or better. That's not too bad.

well as you say the feats tend to peter out at mid levels. And so many of them, especially in core, are very situational. Now yea, the Fighter can probably eventually pick up enough to cover a number of situations.

What the feats do is give the fighter the ability to pick up a second or third combat specialization. He can be good at melee and ranged attacks, and mounted combat, or grappling, and so on.

 

[Faradon]

Arcane Casters vs Divine Casters

In the types of games I've played in and run...

Arcane casters have really felt underpowered, especially when compared to divine casters.

So quickly let's look at the differences at lvl 10 and 20 between a cleric and wizard.

Cleric - 10th +7/+2 +7 +3 +7 6 4+1 4+1 3+1 3+1 2+1
Wizard - 10th +5 +3 +3 +7 4 4 4 3 3 2

Cleric - 20th +15/+10/+5 +12 +6 +12 6 5+1 5+1 5+1 5+1 5+1 4+1 4+1 4+1 4+1
Wizard - 20th +10/+5 +6 +6 +12 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Clerics have: Double the hit die (D8 vs D4), can wear any armor, use more weapons, turn undead, has the superior base attack bonus, gets access to all cleric spells without having to learn/acquire/pay for them, gets more spells per level (at level 10 it's the difference of just the domain bonus, but at 11+ the cleric actually gets more raw spells per level as well!), oh and let's not forget the domain powers like free weapon focus, or if you choose the magic domain: Use scrolls, wands, and other devices with spell completion or spell trigger activation as a wizard of one-half your cleric level (at least 1st level). Also, because clerics can spontaneously cast cure spells, this gives them extra versatility in what spells they can choose to prepare, making them better suited to deal with more situations.

Wizards have: The hit die of a commonner (d4, 1/2 of what the divine classes get), can not wear armor, supplied with limited weapons, have the worst BAB in the game, get 2 bonus feats by level 10, can scribe scrolls, and can shoot themselves in the foot by taking a familiar. They receive fewer spells per level than a cleric, must purchase new spells as they go up in levels, get no sort of spontaneous casting to broaden their selection, and even as a specialist caster they get less spells per level than a cleric at levels 11+.

Both classes receive the same amount of skill points (though the wizard is likely to have the higher intelligence and get a few more as a result).

So, with everything else being as unequal as it is the wizard must have far more powerful spells right?

Well... not exactly... Now I'm not saying wizards don't have *some* spells that really are great... but on the whole... well.. let's compare a couple.

5th lvl- Cone of Cold (Wiz) vs Flame Strike (Cleric)
1d6/lvl (15d6 max) 1d6/lvl (15d6 max)
Cone shaped all ice 10' rad / fire/divine mix

The cone of cold can potentially hit many more targets, but is harder to target properly while avoiding allies and is all 1 type of damage.

The flame strike is easier to target / avoid hitting friends, does the same amount of damage, and half of its damage is divine power (so no resistance).

---

7th lvl - Finger of Death vs Destruction
Fail your save you die from both (can't be rez'd as easily from destruction though)

Make your save and finger deals 3d6 (+1/lvl)
destruction deals 10d6

Both spells have the same range, etc.

I tried to choose spells that were relativly similar. I don't think the arcane caster really gets much of an edge if any...

Like I said though, wizards do have some other special spells that are pretty good, but pound for pound spell wise I don't think arcane casters pull very far away from their divine counterparts. Even at 9th lvl... Miracle vs Wish, etc... the differences in spellpower that justified the physical differences in the classes isn't present any longer in 3.x.

Are other gaming groups running into this at all? from what I'm reading here everyone is saying wizards are just fine the way they are... and people have even called them overpowered. If a wizard is overpowered I don't know what to call a cleric other than divine...

P.S. I had everything spaced all nicely and easy to read, but the page formatting doesn't seem to like me much. Sorry.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Hah! Good point. I guess I'm still here because it bugs me to see that so many people find what I consider to be the most solid melee class in the game so weak. It boggles my mind, and makes me wonder in what ways our games are different.

I mean, sure, he's not as flashy as the other melee classes, but as long as he's got level-appropriate gear, the fighter owns. The amount of damage my fighter dishes out can be truly staggering; the paladin and ranger in the party--both solid combatants--don't even come close. And on top of that, my fighter has the most hit points, a decent AC, and DR from dwarven full plate. The only places he really lacks are mobility and saves, both of which can be fixed with items (boots of flying, etc.).

I don't understand why people think fighters are weak. I don't see it.

I think the thing is and this gets me as well, virtually every feat the fighter can get by 6th level is the best feat he can get. Its way to easy to max out a chain quick, there aren't nearly enough high level feats.. Now I still think they be relatively balanced, they just could use a few more high level feats for the focussed fighter. As is the reason I think fighters excel is because they can max out a archery chain and a melee chain. Problem is very few melee people design there fighter to be decent at ranged combat, with the dex caps on armor a dex past 12 almsot seems a waste for lots of melee fighter types.

Still I wouldn't put them on the weak list in pure comat power the feats they can get surpass any special abilities the other fihgter types can get IMO. I just think they could use some high level feat, its kind of depressing to spend a fighter feat at 18th level on a feat you could of picked up at 4th.

 

[Merlion]

I don't know. Take a reasonable example - a 20th level fighter. Give him Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes and decent stats for his level (say a 20 Constitution, an 18 Dexterity, and a 12 Wisdom) with a +5 cloak of resistance and his saves are Fort +23, Reflex +17, and Will +14. Against a 9th level spell requring a Will save cast by an opponent with a +7 ability modifier the save DC is 26. The fighter saves on a 12 or better. That's not too bad.

Well thats still what a 55% chance of failure? And thats at 20th level. Throughout a Fighters career he's not going to have bonuses that high, but the DCs are still going to be pretty high. Generally against things tartgeted at a poor save, a character isnt going to make it.

What the feats do is give the fighter the ability to pick up a second or third combat specialization. He can be good at melee and ranged attacks, and mounted combat, or grappling, and so on.

Well, how many of the feats really make someone better at straight up melee? the Weapon Focus and Specializations...Power Attack, Expertise..(probably a few others I can remember)...but overall many of them are specialized...and yea being able to attack at range to is nice...but how useful is mounted combat day to day?

as oposed to Rage which adds to Str and Con...and is therefore useful in pretty much any combat. Or even Smite Evil, given that in the bulk of campaigns your going to fight a lot of evil stuff..

 

[Merlion]

In the types of games I've played in and run...

Arcane casters have really felt underpowered, especially when compared to divine casters.

So quickly let's look at the differences at lvl 10 and 20 between a cleric and wizard.

Cleric - 10th +7/+2 +7 +3 +7 6 4+1 4+1 3+1 3+1 2+1
Wizard - 10th +5 +3 +3 +7 4 4 4 3 3 2

Cleric - 20th +15/+10/+5 +12 +6 +12 6 5+1 5+1 5+1 5+1 5+1 4+1 4+1 4+1 4+1
Wizard - 20th +10/+5 +6 +6 +12 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Clerics have: Double the hit die (D8 vs D4), can wear any armor, use more weapons, turn undead, has the superior base attack bonus, gets access to all cleric spells without having to learn/acquire/pay for them, gets more spells per level (at level 10 it's the difference of just the domain bonus, but at 11+ the cleric actually gets more raw spells per level as well!), oh and let's not forget the domain powers like free weapon focus, or if you choose the magic domain: Use scrolls, wands, and other devices with spell completion or spell trigger activation as a wizard of one-half your cleric level (at least 1st level). Also, because clerics can spontaneously cast cure spells, this gives them extra versatility in what spells they can choose to prepare, making them better suited to deal with more situations.

Wizards have: The hit die of a commonner (d4, 1/2 of what the divine classes get), can not wear armor, supplied with limited weapons, have the worst BAB in the game, get 2 bonus feats by level 10, can scribe scrolls, and can shoot themselves in the foot by taking a familiar. They receive fewer spells per level than a cleric, must purchase new spells as they go up in levels, get no sort of spontaneous casting to broaden their selection, and even as a specialist caster they get less spells per level than a cleric at levels 11+.

Both classes receive the same amount of skill points (though the wizard is likely to have the higher intelligence and get a few more as a result).

So, with everything else being as unequal as it is the wizard must have far more powerful spells right?

Well... not exactly... Now I'm not saying wizards don't have *some* spells that really are great... but on the whole... well.. let's compare a couple.

5th lvl- Cone of Cold (Wiz) vs Flame Strike (Cleric)
1d6/lvl (15d6 max) 1d6/lvl (15d6 max)
Cone shaped all ice 10' rad / fire/divine mix

The cone of cold can potentially hit many more targets, but is harder to target properly while avoiding allies and is all 1 type of damage.

The flame strike is easier to target / avoid hitting friends, does the same amount of damage, and half of its damage is divine power (so no resistance).

---

7th lvl - Finger of Death vs Destruction
Fail your save you die from both (can't be rez'd as easily from destruction though)

Make your save and finger deals 3d6 (+1/lvl)
destruction deals 10d6

Both spells have the same range, etc.

I tried to choose spells that were relativly similar. I don't think the arcane caster really gets much of an edge if any...

Like I said though, wizards do have some other special spells that are pretty good, but pound for pound spell wise I don't think arcane casters pull very far away from their divine counterparts. Even at 9th lvl... Miracle vs Wish, etc... the differences in spellpower that justified the physical differences in the classes isn't present any longer in 3.x.

Are other gaming groups running into this at all? from what I'm reading here everyone is saying wizards are just fine the way they are... and people have even called them overpowered. If a wizard is overpowered I don't know what to call a cleric other than divine...

P.S. I had everything spaced all nicely and easy to read, but the page formatting doesn't seem to like me much. Sorry.

This pretty much sums up how I feel. And its not a matter of running into it...its in the mechanics.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well thats still what a 55% chance of failure? And thats at 20th level. Throughout a Fighters career he's not going to have bonuses that high, but the DCs are still going to be pretty high. Generally against things tartgeted at a poor save, a character isnt going to make it.

Actually, at 20th level the fighter is at one of his weakest points for saves. Before then, the relative value of things like Iron Will is higher (since spell levels are lower, and opponent's casting ability scores won't be as high). Most fighter's should have pretty good saves for most of their career, assuming they don't ignore that aspect of their character for cool looking flashy things.

And of course, he still has a 45% chance of success, against his opponent's best shot, targeting his weakest area. That's not too bad.

Well, how many of the feats really make someone better at straight up melee? the Weapon Focus and Specializations...Power Attack, Expertise..(probably a few others I can remember)...but overall many of them are specialized...and yea being able to attack at range to is nice...but how useful is mounted combat day to day?

as oposed to Rage which adds to Str and Con...and is therefore useful in pretty much any combat. Or even Smite Evil, given that in the bulk of campaigns your going to fight a lot of evil stuff..

Weapon Focus and the subsequent feats in that chain are useful in just about every combat, almost offsetting the barbarian's rage bonuses. Climbing the two-weapon fighting chain can pack a punch. Getting up the Power Attack follow on feats is often useful. As I have shown, a high level fighter can afford to be good at three, and maybe four different "combat modes". The other big combat types can usually only be good at one. If you get a high level barbarian or paladin out of his combat "sweet spot" he's far less effective, the fighter can usually switch to something else and continue being effective.

And the other classes abilities are use limited - even a 20th level barbarian can only rage 6 times per day, and a 20th level paladin can only smite evil 5 times per day. What do you do if you need to fight more often than that?