Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[Merlion]

I don't know if your players hate to set up flanks, or you have crappy rogues, or you always fight undead, but occasioanlly get a +1 or +2d6. Huh!!!! The rogue can easily get it every round he hits, frequently multiple times in a round.

I dont see how this is possible. Although I admit my knowledge of sneak attack rules isnt 100%. The only way I can see how you could do this would I guess be flanking. But even then, I was under the impression that once you get off a sneak attack, the target is aware of you and it would no longer work. Certainlly thats the case for sneak attacking from hiding, invisibility etc.

And even if it can be done multiple times in a round via flanking, you cant always count on flanking. And i'm not sure you should have to really. Plus once you do that, you draw attention to yourself, and as I mentioned, Rogues are quite fragile.

 

[Storm Raven]

I dont see how this is possible. Although I admit my knowledge of sneak attack rules isnt 100%. The only way I can see how you could do this would I guess be flanking. But even then, I was under the impression that once you get off a sneak attack, the target is aware of you and it would no longer work. Certainlly thats the case for sneak attacking from hiding, invisibility etc.

You can sneak attack as often as you meet the conditions for getting a sneak attack. When a rogue who is flanking an opponent attacks, he gets the sneak attack damage. If the opponent is still standing, and the rogue gets another attack, he gets his sneak attack damage again.

In the case of a rogue who is hiding or invisible, after his first attack, (assuming his opponent is not otherwise flat-footed) the condition that allowed him to be eligible to make a sneak attack no longer exists, so he does not get additional sneak attacks.

 

[Merlion]

How effective are they in combat against foes that must be fought at range (for example)? If an opponent with Improved Combat Expertise simply outlasts their rage, how good are they? How good are they if their chosen combat tree isn't that useful?

This isnt a "sweet spot" for the Barbarian. These are examples of areas where they might be at a slight disadvantage. Only really the first one though...I dont think even Combat Expertise would really be enough to outlast anything. The Barbarian is still going to hit...a lot...and do a lot of damage.

As for the ranged thing...well first I cant really think of a lot of circumstances where ranged combat would really be the only option for any length of time. But even if it were...really the Barbarian isnt going to be any worse at shooting arrows than anyone else except someone who has really specialized in it, especially as far as anything other than shooting into melee. Now yea the Fighter may well have Rapid Shot etc and get a few more ranged attacks...but the Barb's rage bonuses can apply as well, so I dont see a huge advantage...and its a pretty rare circumstance I'd say.

 

[KarinsDad]

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...

On the surface, your analysis seems fairly accurate. But, I think there is one area you missed. I think you were quick to judge offensive spells. Not only do Wizards typically have better single target offensive spells, but they tend to have more and better multi-target offensive spells verus single target offensive spells. This is the area where Wizards shine over Clerics. For example, the following tend to be some of the best offensive spells that Wizards and Clerics get at various levels:

1 Color Spray, Ray of Enfeeblement, Sleep VERSUS Cause Fear
2 Flaming Sphere, Scorching Ray, Summon Swarm, Web VERSUS Sound Burst, Spiritual Weapon, Hold Person (single target, save every round and Wizards get this at 3rd)
3 Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Stinking Cloud, Deep Slumber, Sleet Storm VERSUS Searing Light, Blindness/Deafness, Bestow Curse
etc.

Most of the Clerical offensive spells are single target. Those that are multiple target tend to be less impressive than the Arcane multi-target spells of the same level.


I also think that there are more ways to improve a Wizard than a Cleric.

For example:

1) A Wizard can specialize. Especially at low to mid-levels, that one extra spell per day per spell level boosts a lot.

2) A Wizard can take better defensive spells. Clerics tend to buff a little for everyone, Wizards just plain try to never get hit (e.g. Mirror Image, Invisibility, Fly, etc.). Even at first level, Mage Armor and Shield tends to be a higher AC than what a Cleric is using and at low level, parties tend to stop adventuring after 3 encounters anyway.

I think some people who play Wizards sometimes do not take enough defensive spells.

3) Scribe Scroll is vastly underestimated. Most Wizards should walk around with a lot of scrolls.

4) Consider taking a Dwarven Wizard. +2 Con helps on hit points and Fort Saves, and Darkvision is indispensible for hanging back in the dark while the party fights.

5) There are only 3 stats needed for a Wizard in combat. Int, Dex, and Con. Clerics tend to need 4: Wis, Con, Str, and Cha (Dex tends to be less useful for them, if they are wearing armor).

6) Metamagic is not that helpful for Wizards. Having a few metamagic feats is fine, but a Wizard should typically not specialize in metamagic (Sorcerers should specialize in metamagic). Wizards would be better off taking item creation feats (especially Craft Wondrous Items) and boost their abilities that way.

7) Because of their scrolls, Wizards should consider keeping a few spell slots open every day for emergencies. This allows them to prepare for a specific situation. If you need to get through a locked door or chest, it often doesn't matter that you take out 15 minutes to prepare Knock. Don't use a scroll if you do not need to, but don't lock up all of your spell slots and then be forced to use up your scrolls either.

8) Wizards do not wear armor. This tends to be viewed as a weakness, but it in some ways it is a strength. Although Wizards do not take many skills that armor penalties affect, Clerics tend to take none. For example, my Wizards tend to take Tumble, even though it is cross classed. Wizards tend to have a better movement rate than Clerics. Wizards can carry more equipment for the same Strength score as a Cleric (assuming the Cleric has armor and/or a shield and/or more and heavier weapons).


With regard to weapons, I think your accessment is a bit unfair. Wizards shouldn't be using weapons except at low level where their chances to hit tend to be fairly close to that of Clerics, especially with ranged weapons.

Wizards should use spells and items, not weapons. Them not having good weapon abilities is basically irrelevant.

 

[Thanee]

Arcane spells are vastly superior to divine spells. That's why wizards have so little compared to clerics and still are of comparable power (cleric is marginally better, I think).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Merlion]

Arcane spells are vastly superior to divine spells.
Bye
Thanee

How so, exactly? Because I dont see it.

And its not arcane spells versus divine spells...thats decided by the caster. Fireball isnt an arcane spell, unless its cast by an arcane spellcaster. Same for Cure Light Wounds.

Its Wizard spells versus Cleric spells. And I dont see how the Wizard list is vastly superior to the Cleric list, overall. Its superior at some things. But the Cleric list is superior at some things too.

And the Cleric gets total free access to every spell on their list. And more spells per day as well.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

Is Bite a weapon? Is Claw a weapon? Are Bite and Claw together two weapons? If I attack with Bite, and attack with Claw, am I attacking with two weapons?

Note that the combination of primary manufactured weapon attack and off-hand manufactured weapon attack is designated "Two-Weapon Fighting" in the Combat chapter, not "Attacking with two weapons". If the grappling rules stated "You may not utilise two-weapon fighting" or "You may not make off-hand attacks", I'd agree that that's inapplicable to natural weapons. But attacking with a claw and a bite is attacking with two weapons, and prohibited.

The Rake text that supports this has already been quoted: Normally, a monster can attack with only one of its natural weapons while grappling, but a monster with the rake ability usually gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe.

-Hyp.

 

[Storm Raven]

This isnt a "sweet spot" for the Barbarian. These are examples of areas where they might be at a slight disadvantage. Only really the first one though...I dont think even Combat Expertise would really be enough to outlast anything. The Barbarian is still going to hit...a lot...and do a lot of damage.

The "sweet spot' for a barbarian is fighting in melee while raging. Once he is out of that zone, he's at a disadvantage. The fighter, on the other hand, can probably deal with mutliple situations. An opponent who "turtles up" agains the barbarian can frequently outlast him, especially a tank type fighter with heavy armor and Combat Expertise, or even Improved Combat Expertise.

As for the ranged thing...well first I cant really think of a lot of circumstances where ranged combat would really be the only option for any length of time. But even if it were...really the Barbarian isnt going to be any worse at shooting arrows than anyone else except someone who has really specialized in it, especially as far as anything other than shooting into melee. Now yea the Fighter may well have Rapid Shot etc and get a few more ranged attacks...but the Barb's rage bonuses can apply as well, so I dont see a huge advantage...and its a pretty rare circumstance I'd say.

Your enemy is very far away. Your enemy is flying. Your enemy is on another ship. Your enemy is on a cliff, or on a wall. Your enemy is otherwise out of reach. A straight fighter can afford to use feats on point blank shot, rapid shot, far shot, and precise shot if he wants to. The barbarian can't. And his increased Strength while raging isn't that valuable in a ranged fight.

 

[Rystil Arden]

An opponent who "turtles up" agains the barbarian can frequently outlast him, especially a tank type fighter with heavy armor and Combat Expertise, or even Improved Combat Expertise.

Or the truly sickening: Improved Combat Expertise with one of those monsters with significantly higher base attack than its CR I used that to make an advanced half-fiend tyrannosaurus that really caused trouble and couldn't be hit by just about anyone.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Or the truly sickening: Improved Combat Expertise with one of those monsters with significantly higher base attack than its CR I used that to make an advanced half-fiend tyrannosaurus that really caused trouble and couldn't be hit by just about anyone.

A dinosaur with a 13 Int?

Yikes!

-Hyp.