# Rank the D&D 3.5 classes!



## greymarch

Post your rankings for the D&D 3.5 classes here. These rankings should be based on how powerful you think each class is relative to each other, and relative to the monsters and NPCs you might fight in your campaigns. DO NOT post your list based upon which classes you like to play the most, or which ones you think are the "most cool." Simply list the classes based upon raw power.

Here is my list:

1. Wizard - was #1 in 1st edition D&D, was #1 in 2nd edition D&D, was #1 in Third Edition D&D, and is still #1 in D&D 3.5

2. Cleric - they have some amazing spells on their spell lists. Anyone read Holy Word yet in D&D 3.5? Thats just a sample of their wonderful spells. D8 hit points, ability to cast spells in heavy armor, ability to turn undead. Clerics rock in D&D 3.5.

3. Sorcerer - the inability to use quickened spells effectively keeps 
them out of the top 2.

4. Fighter - all those feats! If you own all of the splat books, and Forgotten Realms books, you can take some serious feats, and do some serious damage with a fighter.

5. Ranger - In 1st edition D&D, rangers were one of the best classes in the game. In 2nd edition, rangers stunk up the joint. In 3rd edition D&D rangers still stunk up the joint. Now in D&D 3.5, rangers kick butt again. Giving rangers evasion, and three bonus feats for dual-wielding makes them a wonderful class.  Their spell list improved dramatically too.  Cat's Grace, Bear's Endurance, Owl's Wisdom.  Hello???  This is good stuff people.

6. Barbarians - D12 hit dice, Uncanny dodge, rage, and better damage reduction really makes a barbarian shine.

7. Paladins - they get to smite more often in D&D 3.5. I havent found any significant nerfs to them yet. They are still a good class, especially if you have a high charisma. Getting that charisma ability modifier to saving throws is invaluable!

8. Monks - monks still suffer from the same problem they had in 3rd edition...they cant hit anyone! They added amulet of mighty fists to the DMG, and that should help with their to hit rolls, but other melee classes will have weapons with the same modifiers at the same levels, so a monk will never catch up to the other melee classes when it comes to how often they hit.

9. Rogue - Rogues got nerfed a little in D&D 3.5, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. It takes a little longer to get some of their good abilities, but they still get them. In the gaming groups I have been a part of, the DMs like to use lots of undead, constructs, and elementals, so rogues dont get to use their sneak attack very often. If your DM uses lots of NPCs, then you might want to move rogue higher up your list.

10. Druids - IMO, the key to playing a druid in D&D 3.5 is to completely understand and manipulate the animal companion rules, and to use wildshape to your advantage. Unfortunately, I think both of these abilities stink, so unless you have a very open-minded DM, a druid is a lousy class. Their spell list is not as good as a cleric or wizard, their pets will never be quite powerful enough to make a big difference, and their wildshape ability has too many limitations.

11. Bard - bards blew chunks in 3rd edition D&D, and they still blow chunks in D&D 3.5. Bards really are more of a roleplaying class. They have a few decent defensive spells on their spell list, but power-wise, they are at the bottom of the list.

Remember, these are just my opinions. Proving or disproving any of the above statements can be difficult, yet rewarding. So...lets see your lists!


----------



## PA

Wizards better than Clerics?? Uh, OK. Let's see... A Cleric has:

1) Better HD.
2) Better BAB.
3) Better saves.

As far as spellcasting is concerned:

1) They've got the single best spell: Miracle.
2) They can cast in armor.
3) They can cast more spells per day than a non-specialist wizard.
4) They don't need to rest for 8 hours before preparing their spells.
5) They can cast Cure spells spontaneously.
6) They know their whole list of spells, which means that they usually know more spells than a wizard, even though the latter's list is bigger (you need to find the spells, and scribing them is costly, even if less so in 3.5 than in 3.0).

As far as special abilities is concerned, it is "feats + familiar" vs. "turning + domain powers".


----------



## tetsujin28

Clerics have always been the best class, overall.


----------



## Kyramus

Monks can't hit anyone?

Let's see at 4th level, they are the only class that I can see that can hit a creature that needs a magical weapon to hit.  See Ki Strike (Magic)

At level 10th, it's lawful
level 16th, it's adamantine

Have a fellow cleric and he can have ki strike lawful,evil,good,chaos
And have a mithril weapon and a cold iron weapon and he's set for all the DR creatures.


----------



## MarauderX

PA said:
			
		

> *Wizards better than Clerics?? Uh, OK. Let's see... A Cleric has:
> 
> 1) Better HD.
> 2) Better BAB.
> 3) Better saves.
> 
> As far as spellcasting is concerned:
> 
> 1) They've got the single best spell: Miracle.
> 2) They can cast in armor.
> 3) They can cast more spells per day than a non-specialist wizard.
> 4) They don't need to rest for 8 hours before preparing their spells.
> 5) They can cast Cure spells spontaneously.
> 6) They know their whole list of spells, which means that they usually know more spells than a wizard, even though the latter's list is bigger (you need to find the spells, and scribing them is costly, even if less so in 3.5 than in 3.0).
> 
> As far as special abilities is concerned, it is "feats + familiar" vs. "turning + domain powers". *




Yeah, I am a wizard fanatic and I agree to everything on the list you are saying.  Not that I like it the way it is, but here is how I see them ranked:

1. Cleric
2. Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian
3. Rogue, Monk
4. Wizard, Sorcerer
5. Bard
6. Aristocrat, Warrior, Town Drunk, everyone else
7. Druid, Ranger

Monks are finally a bit better with 3.5, and with Unarmed attack bonuses PLUS BAB to hit, they shouldn't have any problem.  They aren't tough front-line guys, but better than they used to be, enough to keep up with the Rogues anyway.
Still don't see Druids or Rangers adding up to much with 3.5, as they are worse support fighters & casters than Bards IMO.


----------



## Belphanior

1: Cleric
Unstoppable. They can heal, they can destroy, they can wear armor, they can fight better than fighters. While some Sultan of Smack might be able to out-perform him in any given area (but I doubt it), nobody can match the sum of the parts.

2: Wizard
Spells, spells, spells. With these, you can do anything. The only thing that keeps him from greatness is the lack of armor, HP, and healing.

3: Rogues
Rogues got nerfed in 3.5? No they didn't. You just have to wait 2 more levels, but you're still the man of many skills. And his skills are none of the wimpy "all knowledge" kind, but the useful stuff. (Use magic device anybody?)
Oh, and sneak attacks can still lay down just about anything.

4: Druid
aka "I can't believe it's not a cleric!"
Wildshape is easy to break if you care to do it, nice instant damage spells, healing, and respectable skills.

5: Barbarian
Now that the rangers got fixed, we're looking at the new one-level wonder. Who doesn't like rage?
Plus, their DR got a bit better, and they've still got the same HD as dragons. For pure destruction, look no further.

6: Fighter
Did anybody say destruction? The fighter can pull off all those sickening combos you've always wanted with his feats.
Problem: there will be a time you've got enough feats and you'll want to multiclass. Talk about luxury problems!

7: Ranger
Stealth, good skills, nice attacks, and his spells are just icing on the cake. The 3.5 ranger may just be the best ranger I've ever seen. His new favored enemy that does respectable damage, works at any range, and works against undead (and such) is a pleasant surprise.
Situational though. Take him out of his environment and he suffers a bit.

8: Paladin
While this class is actually pretty strong, there's a point where multiclassing is just too good an option. Even with the extra smites. There are feats for that as well. Taking those extra levels of fighter is still the better option.

9: Sorceror
Now that Haste no longer allows you to cast an extra spell, sorcerors have it rough. Sure, you can cast fireball 100 times a day. Too bad the wizards can Quicken theirs and blow you out of the water before you can make good use of yours. Even with spellswapping, sorcerors have become too restricted to compare to other classes.

10: Monk
The poor monk just doesn't have the attacks to properly dish it out. His schtick is his many special abilities, but aren't the spellcasters much better at that?
You can turn him into a horrific grappler though, and that's always a plus.

11: Bard
Don't get me wrong, the bard class is not truly weak. The rest is just stronger.
Bards only perform well in a supporting role, but they perform admirably at it. Still, giving support is not a sign of strength or power in my eyes, so the glory goes to all those other classes which he supports.
Excellent power in diplomatic situations though, but I've found that a well-timed Dominate Monster also does the trick.


----------



## LordAO

Everything Belphanior said.


----------



## mmu1

1. Clerics... Although it's a bit of a stretch, since they certainly aren't more powerful as casters than Wizards, and only fight better than a Fighter if they waste half of their 2nd-4th level spells buffing themselves - and even then, they can only do it for a few minutes at a time.

2. Wizards. High versatility, great spellcasting power, extremely low ability requirements, bonus metamagic feats.

3. Fighters. Assuming standard ability scores, they're still by far the most effective of the "warrior" classes.

4. Rogues. Very good in combat or the standard dungeon, while at the same time excellent in any game with an emphasis on social interaction and role-playing. Amazing for multi-classing.

5. Barbarians. Almost better than a Fighter when played intelligently, great when mixed with Rogue.

6. Druids.  Weapon restrictions are gone, so they can finally be made to hold their own in combat, they have a much better selection of damaging spells than the Cleric, and anyone who thinks 3.5 animal companions are too weak hasn't seen them in action. The only way they come off as weak if you insist on playing them as a party medic.

7. Paladins. Good special abilities, but they still need too many high ability scores to really be effective. Special Mounts still suck.

8. Sorcerers. Still much too limited, they're inferior in nearly every way to a specialist Wizard.

9. Bards. The 3.5 version is actually a solid class, but D&D still doesn't reward the "Jack of All Trades".

10. Monks. A class that can't even properly be called a "Jack of All Trades" since while they are spread very thin, their abilities are all purely defensive or combat oriented, with no versatility to speak of - and they are practically unplayable with standard ability scores. A class purely for when you luck out and roll a 40-point characters.

11. Rangers. To me it feels like they've been pretty much made into a slightly tougher Rogue without the versatility, special abilities, and Sneak Attack.  Their armor restrictions and virtual feat trees make them just about the least customizeable class in the game.


----------



## Valiantheart

1. Cleric
The party monster.  Can do virtually everything all the other classes can do and better at times.  Nearly as many offensive spells as a wizard and can heal himself instantly.

2. Wizard
Spells and mass destruction.  Limited spells and hit points keep them out of the same league as the cleric.

3. Rogue
Versatility personified.  Can do more things that just about any character and is probably the best multiclass friendly class around.

4. Barbarian
Nobody can dish the damage and take the punishment like a the Barb.  Only downside is.....wait there arent any.  Will absolutely cream a melee fighter unless they get lucky.

5. Ranger
Without a doubt the best Ranger version I have ever seen.  Fighting a dual wielding Ranger who has taken your race as their main FE since level 1 is absolute suicide.  FE damage to Undead was a no brainer but really changes the whole special ability.

6. Paladin
The extra smites per day really makes this a class to be reckoned with.  Not to sure what i think about the Poke-Mount though.

7. Druid
Has more direct damaging spells.  The feat to cast spells in animal form is in the PHB.  Instant Nature's Ally.

8.  Monk
Still good at what he does....kill mages.  A Monk grappling can tear you to pieces.

9.  Fighter
Needs some high level feats critically.  Starts out great but winds up the weakest class in the game when his feats no longer have much impact.

10. Bard
Stunk in 3.0 and still stinks in 3.5.  They give him more spells and light armor casting and then remove a bunch of good spells from their spell list.  Huh?

11. Sorcerer
So how long do I have to stay in this class before I take a PrC Mr. DM?  You mean all I give up is Familiar advancement?  *Gasp* Thats gonna be a costly hit.


----------



## ThirdWizard

1. Cleric
2. Wizard
3. Druid
4. Barbarian
5. Rogue
6. Fighter
7. Ranger
8. Monk
9. Bard
10. Paladin
11. Sorcerer


----------



## the Jester

1 Cleric
2 Fighter
3 Wizard
4 Druid
5 Barbarian
6 Ranger
7 Sorcerer
8 Rogue
9 Paladin
10 Monk
11 Bard... because he's a supporting character, not the greatest at anything but good at everything.


----------



## Olive

MarauderX said:
			
		

> *Still don't see Druids or Rangers adding up to much with 3.5, as they are worse support fighters & casters than Bards IMO. *




How can the ranger, with bigger HD, better BaB and more combat related feats be a worse fighter than the bard?


----------



## PA

the Jester said:
			
		

> *11 Bard... because he's a supporting character, not the greatest at anything but good at everything. *




Too bad the Cleric is _also_ better at supporting other classes.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Ranger = last.


----------



## Kai Lord

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *Ranger = last... *



...one standing.


----------



## Dougal DeKree

greymarch said:
			
		

> *...5. Ranger - In 1st edition D&D, rangers were one of the best classes in the game...*




Sorry to hijack here, but i read this just one too many times now. 

In first Edition D&D there were fighter, thief, cleric, wizard, elf, dwarf and halfling. That's it. Don't see a ranger there.

Dougal.

P.S.: oh, as for the list:

1) Cleric
2) Wizard
3) Fighter 
4) Druid
5) Sorcerer
6) Rogue
7) Barbarian
8) Paladin
9) Ranger
10) Monk
11) Bard


----------



## Brekki

Have been playing 3.5 for a few weeks now.

1) Cleric ... the most combat-boost-able-character with impressive defensive and offensive spells
2) Druid ... great 24 hour campaigner with lots of out of combat versatility and incombat boosting
3) Wizard ... all that very nice spells 
4) Barbarian ... there's a reason that lots of combat-characters take at least 1 lvl of this class ... with the better rage and DR very nice
5) Rogue ... great versatility in combat and the ability to use near every item available
6) Fighter ... feats can only do so much

No Bards/Monks/Paladins/Rangers in the party so far.


----------



## mooby

*Re: Re: Rank the D&D 3.5 classes!*



			
				Dougal DeKree said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sorry to hijack here, but i read this just one too many times now.
> 
> In first Edition D&D there were fighter, thief, cleric, wizard, elf, dwarf and halfling. That's it. Don't see a ranger there.
> *




I think you can assume the person was talking about AD&D 1e (where the ranger was by far the most powerful character class).

anyway, I think 3.5 did a decent job at balancing the classes out a lot more.

that being said, here's my list:

1)Barbarian
2)Cleric
3)Wizard
4)Paladin
5)Ranger
6)Sorcerer
7)Druid
8)Monk
9)Rogue
10)Fighter
11)Bard


----------



## Kerrwyn

1.  Clerics.  For all the reasons that everyone else _already_ said.
2.  Fighters.  Bonus feats means that you can sculpt your fighter into something completely different than your gaming partner's fighter.
3.  Rangers.  All their new abilities are nasty.  Camouflage, Hide in Plain Sight, Evasion.  The epitome of the mobile front-liner.
4.  Sorcerers.  Even with _Haste_ shafted, I still like the fact that they don't have to prepare anything.  Simple weapon proficiency doesn't hurt either.
5.  Paladins.  Summoning warhorses not withstanding, Paladins are one of the best characters against the evil that is prevalent in so many campaigns.
6.  Wizards.  Never really dug the buggers, but wizards with Quicken spell are nasty.  Specialists only get worse from there.
7.  Bards.  Got a character slot that your party is missing?  Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard?  A Bard can fill that slot.  Flexible.
8.  Rogues.  Two words:  Sneak Attack.  Flanking.  Tumble.  Hide.  Move Silently.  Alright, it was seven words, but the rogue is the master of getting around while not being noticed, and then stabbing you in the back later.
9.  Barbarians.  Big.  Nasty.  d12 HP.  Rage.  DR.  Dumber than a dirt golem in a rainstorm.
10.  Druids.  Nothing really against them, but nothing really for them, either.  Someone has to go in the next-to-last spot.
11.  Monks.  Never liked the concept or the execution.  It might have to do with the fact that monks were all that a guy in my  last group would play.  Ever.  Ever seen a centaur monk?  Wasn't pretty.


----------



## smetzger

PA said:
			
		

> *
> 4) They don't need to rest for 8 hours before preparing their spells.
> *




Although they don't need to rest 3.5 now requires them to _not_ cast any spells in the last 8 hrs in order for them to receive the full acutrement.


----------



## jasamcarl

Ok, I'll shoot. The only way a cleric can be better than a fighter is if it spends several rounds buffing either immediatly before or in battle. That is a major disadvangtage and is often times temporary. The spell list is good for the buffs, but lacks the combat utility of the wiz/sorcs. Hmmm...what else. While alot of its buffs spells have more immediate oomph than that of the bard, the bard can buff in combat without sacraficing the ability to attack or even cast spells (given the minimum duration of bardic music and the small number of rounds most combats take). It is a versatile class, but one has to remember the concept of oppurtunity cost when factoring in large numbers of abilities; what often looks significant on paper might never or rarely be used ingame.


----------



## TalonComics

PA said:
			
		

> *Wizards better than Clerics?? Uh, OK. Let's see... A Cleric has:
> 
> 1) Better HD.
> 2) Better BAB.
> 3) Better saves.
> 
> As far as spellcasting is concerned:
> 
> 1) They've got the single best spell: Miracle.
> 2) They can cast in armor.
> 3) They can cast more spells per day than a non-specialist wizard.
> 4) They don't need to rest for 8 hours before preparing their spells.
> 5) They can cast Cure spells spontaneously.
> 6) They know their whole list of spells, which means that they usually know more spells than a wizard, even though the latter's list is bigger (you need to find the spells, and scribing them is costly, even if less so in 3.5 than in 3.0).
> 
> As far as special abilities is concerned, it is "feats + familiar" vs. "turning + domain powers". *




Not to mention I play a Dwarven Cleric so it's a given I have "LGMF" stitched on my wallet. 

~D


----------



## greymarch

Wow!  I posted this thread yesterday afternoon, and didnt get any immediate responses, so I figured it had died out.  I am glad some people have started to post their rankings.

I also posted this exact same question at the official WoTC boards.  I have received a tremendous response over there, and have started to tally the votes.  I will add the votes from this message thread to my tallies.  I will post the averages in a few minutes...just give me a little time, hehe.

Here is the link to the thread at the official messageboards:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=842385#post842385


----------



## KnowTheToe

First off, I love this thread.

I notice the sorcerer bounces all over the lists.  How many of you have actually player a sorcerer.  I never have for many of the reasons listed, but maybe it is a better class in application than it appears on paper.  I do not yet have my 3.5 books and cannot comment on power levels.


----------



## greymarch

I added the responses from this thread to the responses I have received from the WoTC message thread.  We are now over 30 responses!  I only added your rankings if you ranked all 11 classes, and only if you ranked them by power.  Here are the averages.  Remember, the lower the average, the more powerful everyone thinks the class is:

1. Cleric - 2.69
2. Wizard - 3.10
3. Druid - 3.79
4. Sorcerer - 5.66
5. Rogue - 5.76
6. Barbarian - 6.00
7. Ranger - 6.69
8. Fighter - 6.72
9. Paladin - 7.62
10. Monk - 7.97
11. Bard - 9.97

If you would like the actual spreadsheet, you can email me at greymarch@yahoo.com.  I am keeping all the scores with the names of the people who posted the scores, on the spreadsheet.


----------



## Simulacrum

1.Fighter: Especialy when played clever and mixed with a few levels of Monk. It's fun to create nearly unbeatable fighters with high *stay* factor. Invest your feats clever! ---> the whole trick.

2.Monk: I love the class, especialy when combined with Fighter or just about anything else. People who think Monks are not D&D like because they are not *medival europe* are dumb.
D&D is fantasy and not medival europe. Medival europe was boring and completely killed fantasy and romantism.
I like fantasy *eastern mysticism* style!

3. Wizard. Just classic what can I say?

4. Cleric. I think the concept of the cleric is weird after all. yet its an awesome class. I dont agree with clerics being the best class.
They are when the campaigns and DM's let them be.
In a challenging *realistic* campaign clerics arent necesserily the best class.

5. Sorc.  DM's best friend for a spellcaster opponent when you just feel like using one! Far more fun as monster etc....

6. Rogue. I love this class. It takes alot to play them properly. Yet it seem like everyone tries to get those rings of blinking (or similar stuff) as fast as they can.

7. Barbrain. I like the 3.5 version of it. If you wanna lay waste of anything that comes your way, take the feat carmic strike from OA
and make sure to max out your HP!

8. Paladin + Bard. I never use them.....


----------



## JoeGKushner

Fighters: Mainstream, main combat all around action bad boys.

Wizards: Death to play at low levels but the cool factor is much better at 5th and higher. Sure, clerics have many advantages but wizards have so many spells available to them via 3rd party support that by the time the cleric gets his miracle spell, no one cares.

Rogues: Traps, traps and more traps are there for the rogue to take care of. 

Cleric: An essentail part to any party for his healing and fighting abilities but he's still a band aid.

Barbarian-Ranger-Paladin-Monk-Bard: All have their place but to me, I'm still thinking of the first four as fighters with some variants and the bard as the poor cousin whose kinda cool when used by that guy who does things a little different.


----------



## PA

TalonComics said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not to mention I play a Dwarven Cleric so it's a given I have "LGMF" stitched on my wallet.
> 
> ~D *




Lawful Good M*er F*er?


----------



## seasong

*Top Four, Neck-and-Neck*

1. Fighter. The important part of being a fighter, is that you figure out what the other guy is good at, and then you do something else in that particular combat. Magic items should be selected to give you ways around the more annoying things (like _wall of force_), or you could go for an _antimagic field_ build, but basically, you shoot arrows at the melee monsters, and you close in for the kill on ranged death masters - no other class can do BOTH as well as a fighter, they always have to specialize in one or the other. Fighters also do very well at mounted combat, which makes them Death Incarnate as far as I'm concerned - even a monk has problems touching that bidness.

2. Wizard. Although a properly built fighter can take a wizard apart, same as anyone, a properly _prepared_ wizard can kill just about anything else without using up too many spell slots. Not to mention scrolls, wands, and _quicken spell_. Heck, a wand specialist wizard can even wear armor.

3. Bard. Hate to be the naysayer here, but at 6th level and up, the bard starts to get really scary. Leadership + Inspire Courage + skills at the supporting role makes the bard the hands-down best kicker of booty. The change to an illusionist role hasn't hurt the warfare aspect, either.

4. Cleric. To be honest, the cleric is 4th by a narrow margin, since he's about 2nd best at the above three. Some people will argue that the cleric can out-melee the fighter, but that's only with preparation... and that preparation makes him less able to deal with a fighter who switches to range. The cleric can wear armor and cast spells, which makes him seem better than the wizard... except that the spells aren't that great, and wizards have armor spells. The cleric _might_ outdo the bard at the warfare angle, but the new Inspire Courage is damned hard to argue with.

*Middle Four, all pretty good*

5. Barbarian. A melee fighter with comparatively marginal missile capabilities, the barbarian is beaten out by the cleric (who can also wear better armor).

6. Rogue. They have a good niche, and they do well in it, but without someone else to help flank, the rogue's combat role is vastly diminished. And even getting flanking bonuses with a comrade can be surprisingly difficult. The halfling rogue, however, built for defensive capabilities, and granted _improved invisibility_, is capable of frightening damage output... until he gets caught.

7. Ranger. In his specialty, the ranger will be pretty good. Like the barbarian, however, he gets beaten out by the cleric (who can also wear better armor) and is somewhat marginal outside of his specialty. Rangers can at least do cool stuff, though.

8. Druid. Nice general abilities, but still second place to the cleric, who does what the druid does, better.

*Not So Good*

9. Monk. The monk's role in combat is a bit too subtle for most, but he can be an absolute master of unusual tactics such as grappling, tripping, targetting spell casters, and so on. He sucks at long ranges, however, and doesn't do too well in pure melee, either.

10. Paladin. He's pretty cool, and with some good PrCs, can be spectacular for one or two hits, but ultimately, the paladin just isn't that great.

11. Sorcerer. As written, he's a weak wizard. He gets a _few_ more spells per day, but gets nothin' for spell selection. It's like a wizard, only with the one real strength taken away.


----------



## Endur

*Power Levels*

Core Rules Only, Not epic
Assumes opponents are evil.  If opponents are not evil, Paladin drops to #11.

1. Cleric 
2. Wizard 
3. Sorcerer 
4. Druid 
5. Ranger 
6. Barbarian 
7. Paladin
8. Fighter
9. Rogue 
10. Monk 
11.  Bard


----------



## burnrate

1. Cleric
2. Druid
3. Rogue
4. Wizard
5. Barbarian
6. Sorcerer
7. Fighter
8. Ranger
9. Paladin
10. Bard
11. Monk


----------



## Holy Bovine

> *seasong wrote10. Paladin. He's pretty cool, and with some good PrCs, can be spectacular for one or two hits, but ultimately, the paladin just isn't that great.*





Better not let my player hear you say that!  His paladin of Corean can dish out 50+ points of damages for no less than 7 hits/day (with smite).  *He* is the LGMF Talon talks about! 

Unfortunately I can't rank the new classes as I have only just d/l the SRD and haven't had a chance to get a good look at it.


----------



## darkbard

holy bovine:  great to see you back and feeling well, i hope.


----------



## Fedifensor

Well, I think almost everyone agrees about the cleric.  Here's my rankings:
*1)Cleric* - Domains really push a cleric over the top.  You're already a flexible spellcaster and second-tier fighter, and domains can add attack spells, bonus feats, unique abilities...really allowing you to make the character just the way you like it.
*2)Monk* - At 20th level, a fighter's attack bonus is +20/+15/+10/+5.  A monk's is +15/+15/+15/+10/+5...which means only the fighter's first attack hits better than the monk.  Add in enough special abilities to choke a horse, a lack of item dependence (that all other classes suffer from), and SR (!!!), and you have a really tough combo.  Their only problem is their dependency on high stats...but they're much better off than a paladin.
*3)Ranger* - BAB of a fighter, one less HP per level, but loads more skills and special abilities.  They don't have as many bonus feats...but they still get three on top of everything else.  Fighters have a slight edge with heavier armor, but the Ranger is a much more flexible character, that can fill multiple roles.  In particular, many adventures need a person who can track.
*4)Barbarian* - With the changes to DR and Rage, the Barbarian is a more durable combatant than the Fighter.  The lower-magic the game is, the better off the Barbarian will be.
*5)Wizard* - The spell changes (especially Haste) has lowered their ranking, but they're still a solid choice...especially when you specialize.  Quicken spell puts them WAY ahead of Sorcerers.
*6)Rogue* - Sneak attacks are horribly powerful against anything vulnerable to them, and they are the skill gods.  However, against certain foes or situations they're as useless as a spellcaster fighting a high SR creature.
*7)Fighter* - A solid class, but one that becomes rather inflexible.  The Weapon Focus and Specialization feats mean that most fighters rely on a single weapon.  Take it away or Sunder it, and they lose a lot of effectiveness.  They also suffer from the "diminishing returns" problem.  They can meet the requirements for any feat by 12th level.  This means that any feat chosen after 12th becomes something that's a secondary or tertiary choice for them.  This is a class that you take for 4, 8, or at most 12 levels, then go into something else.
*8)Druid* - I'm probably underrating them, but they're just nowhere near the power of Clerics.  1 less spell per spell level (no domains) and no spontaneous casting of cure spells.  The animal companion would place them higher on my list, but there's many times where it's just inappropriate to bring them along (good luck bringing your bear into a city adventure).  The wild shape is very nice, though the lack of extrordinary special qualities is a downside (can't even see in the dark).
*9)Bard* - They've definately improved from 3.0.  However, many spells offer morale bonuses, which don't stack with their bardic song.  They can still be quite effective, especially if they focus on Enchantment spells...but I'd still rather rely on a heavy-duty caster or fighter-type in a tough fight.  
*10)Sorcerer* - In tough combats, mages rely on their highest level spell first.  Sorcerers get their highest level spell one level later than wizards, and only have one choice of what they cast at that level.  They also max out at one spell/round, because of the Haste changes and no Quicken option.  To top it all off, no bonus feats.  People say that metamagic on the fly balances this out...but aside from Quicken, metamagic is an overpriced way to change the effect of a spell.
*11)Paladin* - A fighter-type with good saving throws, a few interesting special abilities, and spells.  However, they're horrible under standard point buy for stats, since they need Str, Con, Wis, and Cha as high as possible (preferably 14+ in each), and an argument can be made for a 12 Dex as well (for an AC bonus in full plate).  Also, they don't get ANY bonus feats...at least the ranger has two choices for a chain of three extra feats.


----------



## Li Shenron

1. Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard

2. Adept, Aristocrat, Expert, Warrior

3. Commoner


----------



## Camarath

1. Cleric
2. Wizard
3. Fighter
4. Rogue
5. Barbarian
6. Druid
7. Ranger
8. Socrerer
9. Paladin
10. Monk
11. Bard


----------



## LazarusLong42

OK, I'll bite.

1) Cleric.  Overpowered in 3.0, overpowered in 3.5, but that's not a complaint.

2) Bard.  Like seasong, I have to be a naysayer, though I rank the Bard even higher.  Need to be healed?  Need a spellcaster?  Need an archer?  Need a lock picked?  Need a diplomat?  Need +1 to all your attack and damage rolls, *every single combat*?  Yep, the Bard can do all that.  Oh yeah, and sing pretty darn well, too.

3) Fighter.  For sheer, raw power, you can't beat the fighter's weapon specialization, the fighter's number of feats, or the fighter's pure badassitude.

4) Rogue.  Evasion and uncanny dodge are a powerful defensive combination.  Add the Expertise feat and you can sit in melee and deal huge amounts of damage.  Plus you get a bazillion skill points.

5) Barbarian.  All the uncanny dodge and rage in the world doesn't make up for lack of evasion when facing fireballs.  But even without that, the Barbarian is a damage-dealing machine, especially when raging.  Unfortunately, that's all the depth he has.

6) Wizard.  Magic missile.  Fireball.  Cone of cold.  I think that pretty much sums it up.  There may be other spells that are more powerful, but the... dare I say it... _iconic_ spells are always the best, and the Wizard gets them a level before...

7) Sorcerer.  One level behind the Wizard in spells, a lot less spell selection, but she gets to set up her metamagic as needed and can throw spells all day, long after the wizard has pulled out a crossbow.

8) Ranger.  The poor ranger is a hodgepodge of abilities that pack quite a punch, but never quite come together as a coherent package or synergize with one another.

9) Paladin.  Guy.  On a horse.  With a sword.  Sure, it's a celestial horse, and that smite ability's nothing to laugh at, but in the end he's a guy on a horse with a sword, and not near as many feats as the Fighter.  Plus, he does not have badassitude.  That would be against his code.

10) Druid.  The almost-a-cleric-not-quite-a-ranger-animal-summoner-shape-changer.  Lots of spells with a crappy spell selection; nerfed wildshape; need I go on?

11) Monk.  I like the Monk.  It's a cool class.  But it's approximately as powerful as a FunNoodle.  That extra speed and evasion are nice, but Flurry of Misses and a bunch of odd, non-synergizing abilities, plus the inability to get the most out of his abilities while using most weapons, make him the weakest of the bunch.  (Notable exception:  the Monk starts getting pretty awesome around, say, 18th level.  Assuming there's a druid around to cast GMF.)


----------



## greymarch

I haved added some weekend votes to the tally.  We are now up to 41 votes.  Here are the averages so far:

1. Cleric - 2.32
2. Wizard - 3.12
3. Druid - 4.15
4. Sorcerer - 5.66
5. Rogue - 5.68
6. Barbarian - 6.10
7. Fighter - 6.56
8. Ranger - 6.63
9. Paladin - 7.59
10. Monk - 8.37
11. Bard - 9.80

If you havent ranked the classes yet, please post your rankings.


----------



## Branduil

1)Cleric- Real Ultimate Power

2)Druid- A close second. 1st in Wilderness campaigns.

3)Wizard- Still one of the moset insanely powerful classes there is.

4)Rogue- Can do almost anything if he wants to. Only thing that weakens him is the immunity most things have to sneak attack at high levels.

5)Sorceror- Weaker brother of the wizard. 

6)Barbarian- Look out for Sundering Barbs with Adamantine Greatswords.

7)Ranger- Best survivalist of the warrior classes.

8)Paladin- Evil creatures finally have something to fear.

9)Monk- Still 100-trick pony.

10)Fighter- Still 1-trick pony.

11)Bard- Still no-trick pony.


----------



## greymarch

We are up to 52 votes at this point.  Here are the averages so far:

1. Cleric: 2.21
2. Wizard: 3.08
3. Druid: 3.94
4. Rogue: 5.83
5. Sorcerer: 6.00 (tie)
6. Barbarian: 6.00 (tie)
7. Fighter: 6.58
8. Ranger: 6.77
9. Paladin: 7.40
10. Monk: 8.35
11. Bard: 9.83

If you havent voted yet, please remember to vote.


----------



## Braney

seasong said:


> *Top Four, Neck-and-Neck*
> 
> 1. Fighter. The important part of being a fighter, is that you figure out what the other guy is good at, and then you do something else in that particular combat. Magic items should be selected to give you ways around the more annoying things (like _wall of force_), or you could go for an _antimagic field_ build, but basically, you shoot arrows at the melee monsters, and you close in for the kill on ranged death masters - no other class can do BOTH as well as a fighter, they always have to specialize in one or the other. Fighters also do very well at mounted combat, which makes them Death Incarnate as far as I'm concerned - even a monk has problems touching that bidness.
> 
> 2. Wizard. Although a properly built fighter can take a wizard apart, same as anyone, a properly _prepared_ wizard can kill just about anything else without using up too many spell slots. Not to mention scrolls, wands, and _quicken spell_. Heck, a wand specialist wizard can even wear armor.
> 
> 3. Bard. Hate to be the naysayer here, but at 6th level and up, the bard starts to get really scary. Leadership + Inspire Courage + skills at the supporting role makes the bard the hands-down best kicker of booty. The change to an illusionist role hasn't hurt the warfare aspect, either.
> 
> 4. Cleric. To be honest, the cleric is 4th by a narrow margin, since he's about 2nd best at the above three. Some people will argue that the cleric can out-melee the fighter, but that's only with preparation... and that preparation makes him less able to deal with a fighter who switches to range. The cleric can wear armor and cast spells, which makes him seem better than the wizard... except that the spells aren't that great, and wizards have armor spells. The cleric _might_ outdo the bard at the warfare angle, but the new Inspire Courage is damned hard to argue with.
> 
> *Middle Four, all pretty good*
> 
> 5. Barbarian. A melee fighter with comparatively marginal missile capabilities, the barbarian is beaten out by the cleric (who can also wear better armor).
> 
> 6. Rogue. They have a good niche, and they do well in it, but without someone else to help flank, the rogue's combat role is vastly diminished. And even getting flanking bonuses with a comrade can be surprisingly difficult. The halfling rogue, however, built for defensive capabilities, and granted _improved invisibility_, is capable of frightening damage output... until he gets caught.
> 
> 7. Ranger. In his specialty, the ranger will be pretty good. Like the barbarian, however, he gets beaten out by the cleric (who can also wear better armor) and is somewhat marginal outside of his specialty. Rangers can at least do cool stuff, though.
> 
> 8. Druid. Nice general abilities, but still second place to the cleric, who does what the druid does, better.
> 
> *Not So Good*
> 
> 9. Monk. The monk's role in combat is a bit too subtle for most, but he can be an absolute master of unusual tactics such as grappling, tripping, targetting spell casters, and so on. He sucks at long ranges, however, and doesn't do too well in pure melee, either.
> 
> 10. Paladin. He's pretty cool, and with some good PrCs, can be spectacular for one or two hits, but ultimately, the paladin just isn't that great.
> 
> 11. Sorcerer. As written, he's a weak wizard. He gets a _few_ more spells per day, but gets nothin' for spell selection. It's like a wizard, only with the one real strength taken away.



I disagree on what you said to the cleric because I am playing a cleric who at 1st lvl does 2d6+3 with his great sword without preparation and already owns a temple has an ac of 18 soon to be 20 when you are playing a cleric I suggest a lot of feats that make your turn undeads do stuff like add to your healing ability or give you ghost touch weapon or give you smite or dmg reduction clerics are very powerfull and I suggest the juggernaut armor ac + 10 and the wall blade 2d8 dmg that with the buffs you are the most powerful class


----------



## James Gasik

1. Wizard is king.  While it's true the Cleric has a better chassis for defense, and their Domains let them grab some neat arcane spells, the breadth and depth of arcane shenanigans cannot be ignored.  Add to that bonus feats to do some of the most broken stuff in the game (like magic item creation to break WBL in half), and better skills (due to being Int-focused), there's not many limits for a Wizard once they figure out how not to get stabbbed to death by goblins.  Also, it's worth noting that it's hard to build a Cleric that can actually use all their advantages- melee and heavy armor require Strength, you'll want Con to be anywhere near combat, you really don't want to dump Charisma as there are neat uses for Turn attempts, and Wisdom governs your spells...unless you roll amazing stats, you'll likely have terrible Initiative and Skills.

2. But the Cleric is still right here.  It's close between a Cleric and a kitted out Druid, but more spells thanks to having Domain slots and Divine Metamagic puts them solidly here.

3. Druids are next.  It can be a little rough to figure out your AC woes with Wild Shape, but you can get a lot of mileage out of an animal companion, and the Druid spell list is surprisingly effective at most levels.

4. Sorcerer should be higher, since they share the Wizard spell list.  But no real class features of note, and a super limited spell list really holds them back.  They can't afford to spend many spells known on magics that aren't going to be used on a day to day basis, and it's unlikely they'll have the silver bullet spells to deal with major problems.

5. Bards don't have a lot going for them, but their bardic inspiration is a nice buff, and spells cover a lot of sins.  If you go splat book diving, you can find things like Dragonsong Inspiration and Snowflake Wardance to really make them shine.

6. Barbarians are the melee class of choice.  Big hit points, big damage with rage, and a better skill package than the Fighter.  AC is weak, and if you're not careful, you'll die when your Rage ends, but fast movement and uncanny dodge are nice things to have.

7. Ranger has some lackluster abilities, but they have a really good skills package, and bonus Feats they don't need to meet the prerequisites for.  Two-Weapon Fighting is a trap in 3.5 but there are some really good alternate class features and toys they can acquire, like Sword of the Arcane Order.  Splatbooks give them some really neat spells as well.

8. I hate putting Paladin here, since their immunities and save bonuses are amazing, but they lack feats, they lack skills, Smite is a limited resource that doesn't even work on some enemies, and their healing is weak unless you have a really high Charisma.  But they do get some neat spells.

9. It was a hard choice, but I'll put Rogue here.  Once Skill Tricks are on the table, their superior Skill package can be leveraged into usefulness.  The variant Rogue from Unearthed Arcana that trades Sneak Attack for Feats is worth a look.  Sneak Attack is a weird ability- it does a lot of damage when you meet it's requirements, but the Rogue has weak hit points, AC, and their attack bonus is lackluster, with no way to increase it with buffs like the Cleric has.  And let's not talk about the ability score requirements, as you can't even start with Weapon Finesse, and even if you do use Dexterity to hit, your damage is going to be terrible when Sneak Attack isn't online.  Plus there is a host of creatures Sneak Attack doesn't work on, forcing you to invest in magic or alternate class features to get it to even function more than half the time.  If you could Sneak Attack from range that would be fine, but oh no, sorry, 30' only.  Fortunately, investing in Use Magic Device can help a higher level Rogue out immensely, but really, you'd be better off as a Bard.

10. The Fighter has the advantage of being customizable, but he has to meet the requirements for his Feats, which can be a real pain, since many that you'll want are locked behind Combat Expertise, requiring a 13 or better Int.  You'll find yourself wanting Dodge as well, so now you need a decent Dex.  Saves are bad, skills are bad, and their AC isn't better than a Cleric's.  Good for making a specific build, but easy to foil.  

11. I feel bad for the Monk, but the ability score requirements are insane.  Just like the Rogue, they can't start with Weapon Finesse, and they will still want Strength to deal any kind of damage.  Dex, Con, and Wis need to be high.  A decent skills package is held back because you probably can't invest in much Intelligence.  There are some variant Monks out there like Kung Fu Genius or Carmendine Monks, but you still have to deal with Flurry of Misses, an odd requirement for magic items to fix the problems of your class (expensive ones at that) despite your host of supernatural abilities, and the fact that many creatures have a good Fortitude save means Stunning Fist won't work as often as you need it to.  You do have good saves though, but at higher levels, a Paladin might outpace you.  Avoid unless you're a super-optimizer or like a challenge.


----------



## Mezuka

Braney said:


> I disagree on what you said to the cleric because I am playing a cleric who at 1st lvl does 2d6+3 with his great sword without preparation and already owns a temple has an ac of 18 soon to be 20 when you are playing a cleric I suggest a lot of feats that make your turn undeads do stuff like add to your healing ability or give you ghost touch weapon or give you smite or dmg reduction clerics are very powerfull and I suggest the juggernaut armor ac + 10 and the wall blade 2d8 dmg that with the buffs you are the most powerful class



You do realize this poster was last seen 'Last seen Nov 29, *2012*', his post is from 2003.

Carry on.


----------



## James Gasik

Ooh, I didn't even notice this was an ancient thread!  I'm a Necromancer and didn't know it!


----------



## Braney

PA said:


> Wizards better than Clerics?? Uh, OK. Let's see... A Cleric has:
> 
> 1) Better HD.
> 2) Better BAB.
> 3) Better saves.
> 
> As far as spellcasting is concerned:
> 
> 1) They've got the single best spell: Miracle.
> 2) They can cast in armor.
> 3) They can cast more spells per day than a non-specialist wizard.
> 4) They don't need to rest for 8 hours before preparing their spells.
> 5) They can cast Cure spells spontaneously.
> 6) They know their whole list of spells, which means that they usually know more spells than a wizard, even though the latter's list is bigger (you need to find the spells, and scribing them is costly, even if less so in 3.5 than in 3.0).
> 
> As far as special abilities is concerned, it is "feats + familiar" vs. "turning + domain powers".





greymarch said:


> Post your rankings for the D&D 3.5 classes here. These rankings should be based on how powerful you think each class is relative to each other, and relative to the monsters and NPCs you might fight in your campaigns. DO NOT post your list based upon which classes you like to play the most, or which ones you think are the "most cool." Simply list the classes based upon raw power.
> 
> Here is my list:
> 
> 1. Wizard - was #1 in 1st edition D&D, was #1 in 2nd edition D&D, was #1 in Third Edition D&D, and is still #1 in D&D 3.5
> 
> 2. Cleric - they have some amazing spells on their spell lists. Anyone read Holy Word yet in D&D 3.5? Thats just a sample of their wonderful spells. D8 hit points, ability to cast spells in heavy armor, ability to turn undead. Clerics rock in D&D 3.5.
> 
> 3. Sorcerer - the inability to use quickened spells effectively keeps
> them out of the top 2.
> 
> 4. Fighter - all those feats! If you own all of the splat books, and Forgotten Realms books, you can take some serious feats, and do some serious damage with a fighter.
> 
> 5. Ranger - In 1st edition D&D, rangers were one of the best classes in the game. In 2nd edition, rangers stunk up the joint. In 3rd edition D&D rangers still stunk up the joint. Now in D&D 3.5, rangers kick butt again. Giving rangers evasion, and three bonus feats for dual-wielding makes them a wonderful class.  Their spell list improved dramatically too.  Cat's Grace, Bear's Endurance, Owl's Wisdom.  Hello???  This is good stuff people.
> 
> 6. Barbarians - D12 hit dice, Uncanny dodge, rage, and better damage reduction really makes a barbarian shine.
> 
> 7. Paladins - they get to smite more often in D&D 3.5. I havent found any significant nerfs to them yet. They are still a good class, especially if you have a high charisma. Getting that charisma ability modifier to saving throws is invaluable!
> 
> 8. Monks - monks still suffer from the same problem they had in 3rd edition...they cant hit anyone! They added amulet of mighty fists to the DMG, and that should help with their to hit rolls, but other melee classes will have weapons with the same modifiers at the same levels, so a monk will never catch up to the other melee classes when it comes to how often they hit.
> 
> 9. Rogue - Rogues got nerfed a little in D&D 3.5, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. It takes a little longer to get some of their good abilities, but they still get them. In the gaming groups I have been a part of, the DMs like to use lots of undead, constructs, and elementals, so rogues dont get to use their sneak attack very often. If your DM uses lots of NPCs, then you might want to move rogue higher up your list.
> 
> 10. Druids - IMO, the key to playing a druid in D&D 3.5 is to completely understand and manipulate the animal companion rules, and to use wildshape to your advantage. Unfortunately, I think both of these abilities stink, so unless you have a very open-minded DM, a druid is a lousy class. Their spell list is not as good as a cleric or wizard, their pets will never be quite powerful enough to make a big difference, and their wildshape ability has too many limitations.
> 
> 11. Bard - bards blew chunks in 3rd edition D&D, and they still blow chunks in D&D 3.5. Bards really are more of a roleplaying class. They have a few decent defensive spells on their spell list, but power-wise, they are at the bottom of the list.
> 
> Remember, these are just my opinions. Proving or disproving any of the above statements can be difficult, yet rewarding. So...lets see your lists!


----------



## Braney

1. Cleric/druid
2.sorceror/wizard
3.monk/barbarian
4. Ranger/rouge
5. Paladin
6. Bard
7. Fighter,You might not agree with me on this one but all they do is get feats I mean maybe if it was fighter cleric you would have enough feats to kill anything


----------



## Gradine

I love how all over the place this thread was, really puts into perspective just how nonsensical the whole tier list nonsense was from the start


----------



## glass

Gradine said:


> I love how all over the place this thread was, really puts into perspective just how nonsensical the whole tier list nonsense was from the start



That fact that people get things wrong does not invalidate those who get it right.

_
glass.


----------



## BigZebra

Now what if we add more classes. Eg PHB2. Also is Truenamer really so bad?
I looooove this thread. More 3.5.


----------



## James Gasik

Yes, Truenamer is that bad.  The DC's scale beyond your ability to actually make Truenaming checks as you go up in level.  If a class requires you to make custom magic items to have a prayer of success, there's a problem.


----------



## Gradine

glass said:


> That fact that people get things wrong does not invalidate those who get it right.
> 
> _
> glass.



Well, I mean, the Tier list was pretty wrong, but the recommendations to avoid mixing tiers was laughably wrong


----------



## Gradine

Also, I _played _a Truenamer, and it was pretty fun. Granted, I never got too high level with that PC, which is where the math really starts breaking down.


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Ooh, I didn't even notice this was an ancient thread!  I'm a Necromancer and didn't know it!



Braney raised it.


----------



## Maxperson

glass said:


> That fact that people get things wrong does not invalidate those who get it right.
> 
> _
> glass.



Sure, but the fact that these rankings are primarily based on subjective criteria doesn't invalidate people with a different opinion than yours.


----------



## James Gasik

Maxperson said:


> Braney raised it.



I participated!  I get a trophy right?


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> I participated!  I get a trophy right?



Honorable mention?


----------



## TwoSix

Amazing to see how much the meta changed within a few years.  The 3.5 tier system was pretty much set by the time PF1 came out, and nobody was considering Druid at the bottom anymore.


----------



## Gradine

People got Fighter anywhere from best to second-worst. 

The meta never had a chance vs. actual experience.

Good riddance


----------



## CleverNickName

Hmmm...for me?

Cleric > Druid > Fighter > All other class options > insurance salesmen > people calling about my vehicle's warranty > Bards


----------



## glass

Gradine said:


> Well, I mean, the Tier list was pretty wrong, but the recommendations to avoid mixing tiers was laughably wrong



I'm not going to get in to a "is not" - "is so" argument with you. Suffice it to say that I consider the Tier list to be very accurate, and the advice that players from with classes from widely-spaced tiers _may_ lead to problems to be well-founded. That your experience did not include any such problems in no way disproves their possibility.

_
glass.


----------



## Orius

Gradine said:


> I love how all over the place this thread was, really puts into perspective just how nonsensical the whole tier list nonsense was from the start




Well the topic was started at the very beginning of 3.5 at the latest, so it wasn't informed by all of 3.5's bloat and powercreep.  There weren't a whole bunch of new base classes watering down the traditional niches.

The tier list may be a useful tool for certain purposes, but it doesn't take into account player skill.  Min-maxers can still do better with a low tier character than a less optimized player can with a high tier.


----------



## James Gasik

I don't think it was nonsense, you can establish a metric by which classes can be measured.  The problem is, each player has a different game experience.  It is quite possible that the only Druid you ever played with was lackluster, the DM said some of their spells, like _entangle_ don't work in dungeons, their animal companions die all the time, and wild shape seems pointless.

In another game, the Druid may be the most powerful character, and makes most of the other classes seem pointless and lame.  All a tier list does is indicate *potential*.  A class with access to great spells, lots of skills, and powerful ways to defend themselves, destroy or inhibit their enemies, and a lot of "narrative power" has a higher ceiling than one whose schtick is "martial weapons, heavy armor, shields, feats, good BAB, weak saves and no skills".  Where the floor is, however, is a bit subjective.

Fighter was intended to be a simple class, but just like the Sorcerer, it proves to be one of the hardest and most complex, because you really need to plan ahead and carefully consider each build choice, because there are few (or no) opportunities to change them.  I saw a lot of early Fighters avoid "situational" abilities, focusing on Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Toughness, Improved Initiative, etc., etc., wanting to have basic, numerical, and "always on" abilities.  I remember in my very first game a player declaring their Combat Reflexes Feat to be completely useless, because they had no reach, and enemies had no real reason to try to get away from them.

And they refused to accept _enlarge person_ because it would lower their precious Dexterity.  In the very next campaign, I played a Cleric with the Strength Domain and a longspear, and I got opportunity attacks all the time, to the point that enemies started to avoid me like the plague- fine by me, as I was a spellcaster and had all the spells to keep my party fighting (and once the Barbarian heard "3d6 weapon damage", he was begging me to use my daily Enlarge on him).


----------



## Orius

Dexterity isn't all that important for a fighter since heavy armor limits how much they can benefit from it in the first place.


----------



## James Gasik

Well not being forced to wear heavy armor would be nice, especially if your DM likes group Stealth checks.  Every time I played in AL game that asked for a group Stealth check, I just shook my head, because there's usually at least 2 heavy armored guys who are going to make even the most fantastic Stealth check pointless.

Plus lighter armor is cheaper, and is especially nice if you play with a DM who wants to use Encumbrance.  I'm not saying that having better ability scores across the board is useless, but it has less of an impact on the perceived issues with higher level play than one might suppose.

Some classes get more mileage out of more good ability scores than others.  It's really all about the Feats, as there are some really nice ones, but most Feats are outshined by spells the same way everything else is.

I mean, look at the PAM/Sentinel Fighter.  Now imagine if Fighters could cast Spirit Guardians. and Spiritual Weapon.  One of these things is not like the other!


----------



## MichaelSomething

I'm throwing my hat in for the commoner class!

It's the most realistic and mundane class. Mundaneness always had a strong appeal to many.

It's the most popular in world class there is. For every classed Fighter, there are a hundred commoners.

Also, if most of us were stated into D&D classes, we would be commoners. So a vote against the commoner is a vote against yourself!


----------



## Orius

I don't play D&D to be me.  That's why I insist on playing the wizard.  It's the only class that can keep up with my power fantasies.


----------



## haakon1

I just realized this was revived from 2003.

The best class could mean many things. Imho, it’s whatever the player wants to play.  From playing and DMing 3.5e all these years, the most survivable class is Cleric.  The easiest to play is Fighter.  The most iconic to the system is Expert or Warrior - it’s a system where monsters and NPC’s get classes too.  The most “powerful“ is uninteresting to me, and really depends on the world and DM - Wizards can be powerful and/or glass cannons.


----------



## James Gasik

haakon1 said:


> I just realized this was revived from 2003.
> 
> The best class could mean many things. Imho, it’s whatever the player wants to play.  From playing and DMing 3.5e all these years, the most survivable class is Cleric.  The easiest to play is Fighter.  The most iconic to the system is Expert or Warrior - it’s a system where monsters and NPC’s get classes too.  The most “powerful“ is uninteresting to me, and really depends on the world and DM - Wizards can be powerful and/or glass cannons.



I made the same mistake, lol.  I need an "assistant Necromancer" badge.


----------



## Beal

None of these rankings consider skills.
Rangers, rogues, bards and monks balance their abilities with their large skill pools.
I agree clerics are super badass, but they have virtually no skills, especially as intelligence is not a priority stat. They will likely be the first to set off a trap, fail a jump or drown.


----------



## James Gasik

That's because there are magical ways to get around skills.  For example, traps?  Just toss out a Summon Monster 1 and send a critter down the hall ahead of you.  Or let the Barbarian do the same and heal him afterwards.


----------



## Beal

"Best class" is a matter of balance. What does the party need? What is the experience level of the players? How many players are there? What restrictions does the DM use in terms of playability in the classes or multiclassing? There is so much more to this than just "what's the best class".

I of course have my own priority. But ask questions that argue conventional wisdom. 

Clerics are must-haves is conflict dungeons, but a druid would be a better healer if the campaign involves tracking, traps, encumbering terrain, etc.

Wizards are very powerful, and certainly more so than a scorcerer, but what if the DM has the spellbook stolen?

Rangers are not as preferrable as fighters, barbarians, or paladins in a fight, but their high skills, wild empathy, animal companion and divine casting might make them perfect in a small party...


----------



## James Gasik

As far as stealing the Wizard's spellbook goes, by that logic, you can throw the party in a prison and take all their gear, and then Monk is now the best class.  A tier list can't take contrived circumstances into account- "oh well, in my game, there are large dead magic zones, so the best class is Fighter" isn't very useful as a metric for examining class balance.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> That's because there are magical ways to get around skills.  For example, traps?  Just toss out a Summon Monster 1 and send a critter down the hall ahead of you.  Or let the Barbarian do the same and heal him afterwards.



I don't disagree with the strategy, but both those options use up a spell. It all comes down to the party and DM. How they play off each other. A DM should be building campaigns to challenge the players. Remember that you should have between 8 and 12 encounters between levels. And depending on the dungeon, there may not be opportunities to rest...


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> As far as stealing the Wizard's spellbook goes, by that logic, you can throw the party in a prison and take all their gear, and then Monk is now the best class.  A tier list can't take contrived circumstances into account- "oh well, in my game, there are large dead magic zones, so the best class is Fighter" isn't very useful as a metric for examining class balance.



This is why I prefer classes that are consistant. I love the monk class. They are always armed. They have lots of skills and good saves.

That's really the point, I think. It's about building a team that fills in the shortcomings of the others. This thread continually puts down monk, druid and ranger, and has sorcerer under wizard, but that tells me more about the campaigns they like to play, rather than the quality of the class


----------



## Beal

Beal said:


> This is why I prefer classes that are consistant. I love the monk class. They are always armed. They have lots of skills and good saves.
> 
> That's really the point, I think. It's about building a team that fills in the shortcomings of the others. This thread continually puts down monk, druid and ranger, and has sorcerer under wizard, but that tells me more about the campaigns they like to play, rather than the quality of the class



I can not stand a bard... but in a city-based campaign with guile and diplomacy as key elements, they might be so much more than the support role they get pigeon-holed into...


----------



## James Gasik

Using up a spell becomes a trivial matter on a long enough timeline, which is kind of the point.  In the early levels, absolutely, skills are better than spells.  However, when you have 6 first level spell slots and they are pretty much useless against enemies you are facing, these sorts of tactics become much more palatable.  Even better once you can crank out a cheap Wand of Summon Monster.  

Don't get me wrong, having skills is great, but they cease to be equal to spells on a long enough timeline.  That's another thing the tier lists try to encompass- all levels of play, not just the first 5 or even 10.  

Since you brought them up: the Monk has a lot of issues however.  Lower accuracy than a Fighter, made worse by Flurry of Blows.  Need for magic item support despite having a lot of supernatural abilities.  High mobility on a class that has to stand still to do real damage.  Some of their abilities rarely matter, and others can be detrimental, like having spell resistance to make it harder to heal or cast vital buff spells on them.

Ideally, yes, a part that balances each other out is the way to go.  But when a Druid's ANIMAL COMPANION can be a substitute for a Fighter, and a Wild Shaped Druid can be better than a Fighter, that's when you have to say "well, maybe Fighters have less *potential* than Druids".


----------



## Maxperson

Beal said:


> This is why I prefer classes that are consistant. I love the monk class. They are always armed. They have lots of skills and good saves.
> 
> That's really the point, I think. It's about building a team that fills in the shortcomings of the others. This thread continually puts down monk, druid and ranger, and has sorcerer under wizard, but that tells me more about the campaigns they like to play, rather than the quality of the class



Psion is a good caster choice then.  I rate them just behind Wizard and Cleric, but if you're talking being able to cast with stuff taken away, well they don't rely on spellbooks or holy symbols.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> Using up a spell becomes a trivial matter on a long enough timeline, which is kind of the point.  In the early levels, absolutely, skills are better than spells.  However, when you have 6 first level spell slots and they are pretty much useless against enemies you are facing, these sorts of tactics become much more palatable.  Even better once you can crank out a cheap Wand of Summon Monster.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, having skills is great, but they cease to be equal to spells on a long enough timeline.  That's another thing the tier lists try to encompass- all levels of play, not just the first 5 or even 10.
> 
> Since you brought them up: the Monk has a lot of issues however.  Lower accuracy than a Fighter, made worse by Flurry of Blows.  Need for magic item support despite having a lot of supernatural abilities.  High mobility on a class that has to stand still to do real damage.  Some of their abilities rarely matter, and others can be detrimental, like having spell resistance to make it harder to heal or cast vital buff spells on them.
> 
> Ideally, yes, a part that balances each other out is the way to go.  But when a Druid's ANIMAL COMPANION can be a substitute for a Fighter, and a Wild Shaped Druid can be better than a Fighter, that's when you have to say "well, maybe Fighters have less *potential* than Druids".



I agree completely. And higher levels can pool so many skill points as to be redundant. And many classes aren't worth reaching level 20 anyways, when compared to the benefit of a good multiclass...
Again, it really comes down to the players, the DM, and what the party needs to succeed


----------



## James Gasik

I liked the Psion, unfortunately, a lack of understanding labeled them as "broken and overpowered".  And they suffer from a great deal of prejudice, so a lot of people never looked all too closely at how they leveraged "spell points" and a few unique mechanics (psionic focus) into a more balanced "spell caster".


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> I liked the Psion, unfortunately, a lack of understanding labeled them as "broken and overpowered".  And they suffer from a great deal of prejudice, so a lot of people never looked all too closely at how they leveraged "spell points" and a few unique mechanics (psionic focus) into a more balanced "spell caster".



Yeah.  I played one to 17th level and the rest of the group and DM were like, "You can just use all your points and use 5(or whatever number it was) 9th level powers!"  They didn't listen when I explained that while yes, I COULD do that, my usefulness would be over very quickly and I'd spend the rest of the time watching the other PCs do stuff and fight due to lack of power points.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> I liked the Psion, unfortunately, a lack of understanding labeled them as "broken and overpowered".  And they suffer from a great deal of prejudice, so a lot of people never looked all too closely at how they leveraged "spell points" and a few unique mechanics (psionic focus) into a more balanced "spell caster".



This is true too. I have some old farts in my group that won't play psionics at all...


----------



## James Gasik

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  I played one to 17th level and the rest of the group and DM were like, "You can just use all your points and use 5(or whatever number it was) 9th level powers!"  They didn't listen when I explained that while yes, I COULD do that, my usefulness would be over very quickly and I'd spend the rest of the time watching the other PCs do stuff and fight due to lack of power points.



And let's not forget that your level 9 powers, while strong, might not be as ridiculous as whatever spell the Cleric or Wizard produces from their ever-expanding spell list...


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> And let's not forget that your level 9 powers, while strong, might not be as ridiculous as whatever spell the Cleric or Wizard produces from their ever-expanding spell list...



Yep.  Another point of confusion for them were the variable psionic powers where I could add points to alter the power.  They were like, "That's 4 powers in one!" and I was like, "But I pick fewer than a Wizard who ends up with a greater variety of spells memorized!"


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> And let's not forget that your level 9 powers, while strong, might not be as ridiculous as whatever spell the Cleric or Wizard produces from their ever-expanding spell list...



I believe strongly that it is the DM's responsibility to manage the campain to challenge what may be perceived as out of balance. The DM should therefore place challenges in the campaign that force the players to carefully consider the budget of their points.


----------



## Beal

I don't like hearing about how a class is too this or not enough that... the DM determines balance, and if a class seems broken then it needs to be challenged. Harder encounters, cursed items, nemesis npcs...


----------



## James Gasik

Well yeah, obviously, you want to avoid the 5-minute workday.  But at the highest levels, it becomes more that you don't tell the players what adventures they are going on, they tell *you*.  With the ability to teleport, plane shift, jump into an extradimensional mansion, or even pop off to one's own private demiplane where they control the flow of time, running a high level spellcaster out of resources requires pretty much ad hoc cheating via a deus ex machina.

When you can use powerful Divinations to know what your target is doing, then materialize a fully buffed part of adventurers into their bedroom, the game turns into an all out wizard war, and the DM quickly gets locked into an arms race to constantly try to challenge characters who can create armies of Shadesteel Golems, Simulacrum Artificers to craft any magic items they wish to have, and Infinite Wishes to pay for it all.


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> I don't like hearing about how a class is too this or not enough that... the DM determines balance, and if a class seems broken then it needs to be challenged. Harder encounters, cursed items, nemesis npcs...



Yes but, a tier list can *help* a DM who has yet to see this sort of thing in action to realize which classes need to be helped along, and which ones need to be challenged more.

Of course, the problem with simply turning up the difficulty dial is that you can end up punishing the classes that can't compete, like the poor Rogue, whose main combat ability a good 40% of all monsters seem to be immune to (and the only cure is, of course, magic).

Unless you're willing to house rule the game to the point you might as well not even use the rulebooks, of course.  Because what DM doesn't have a 12-page document of house rules?  : )


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> Well yeah, obviously, you want to avoid the 5-minute workday.  But at the highest levels, it becomes more that you don't tell the players what adventures they are going on, they tell *you*.  With the ability to teleport, plane shift, jump into an extradimensional mansion, or even pop off to one's own private demiplane where they control the flow of time, running a high level spellcaster out of resources requires pretty much ad hoc cheating via a deus ex machina.
> 
> When you can use powerful Divinations to know what your target is doing, then materialize a fully buffed part of adventurers into their bedroom, the game turns into an all out wizard war, and the DM quickly gets locked into an arms race to constantly try to challenge characters who can create armies of Shadesteel Golems, Simulacrum Artificers to craft any magic items they wish to have, and Infinite Wishes to pay for it all.



Yep. High level campaigns are tough to dm, for sure. But it depends on the group. The DM could introduce a competing party that seems to get the loot first, each a designed antihero, or perhaps a betrayal of a trusted ally or safe place... I just think that the DM has to remain as interested in the challenge as the players.. and of course the need to pander to the exceptional.. but however it happens, the DM needs to maintain the risk of failure.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> Yes but, a tier list can *help* a DM who has yet to see this sort of thing in action to realize which classes need to be helped along, and which ones need to be challenged more.
> 
> Of course, the problem with simply turning up the difficulty dial is that you can end up punishing the classes that can't compete, like the poor Rogue, whose main combat ability a good 40% of all monsters seem to be immune to (and the only cure is, of course, magic).
> 
> Unless you're willing to house rule the game to the point you might as well not even use the rulebooks, of course.  Because what DM doesn't have a 12-page document of house rules?  : )



Of course, that rogue should probably have multiclassed and prestiged out of pocket picking a long time ago


----------



## Beal

If a campaign starts at a high level... I have a group that always starts at 10... then I think it might take some trial and error to balance the challenges. But if the group started at 1 together, then the DM should have a pretty good idea of what they do and where they succeed and fail.
Again, it comes down to the group.


----------



## Maxperson

Beal said:


> Yep. High level campaigns are tough to dm, for sure. But it depends on the group. The DM could introduce a competing party that seems to get the loot first, each a designed antihero, or perhaps a betrayal of a trusted ally or safe place... I just think that the DM has to remain as interested in the challenge as the players.. and of course the need to pander to the exceptional.. but however it happens, the DM needs to maintain the risk of failure.



I've never found that high level campaigns are tough, but then I plan mine out to go from 1st to 15-20th level.  The players pick the campaign focus during session -1, so they have buy in to what I put together before the game even starts. When the PCs hit high level, they are on the path they have chosen to walk and been walking for 14 levels and they don't stray from it very far.  Yes, they can pop over to Sigil to look for an answer to something and perhaps throw me for a little loop, but I'm pretty good at improvising and believe in giving the players free reign to go and do what they want.  Still, the primary challenge is there and has been planned out by me in accordance with the session -1 focus.


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> Of course, that rogue should probably have multiclassed and prestiged out of pocket picking a long time ago



Or just asked the DM if he could switch to being a Beguiler, Artificer, or Factotum instead, once those classes existed.


----------



## glass

Beal said:


> I don't like hearing about how a class is too this or not enough that...



Then why have you posted in a thread on that subject about a dozen times?

_
glass.


----------



## Beal

Maxperson said:


> I've never found that high level campaigns are tough, but then I plan mine out to go from 1st to 15-20th level.  The players pick the campaign focus during session -1, so they have buy in to what I put together before the game even starts. When the PCs hit high level, they are on the path they have chosen to walk and been walking for 14 levels and they don't stray from it very far.  Yes, they can pop over to Sigil to look for an answer to something and perhaps throw me for a little loop, but I'm pretty good at improvising and believe in giving the players free reign to go and do what they want.  Still, the primary challenge is there and has been planned out by me in accordance with the session -1 focus.



That seems good to play. Having the group define the direction early on must help planning enourmously. I like open story as well. Generally, I'm just writing dungeons and npcs, and when the group sort of "decides" to adventure, something happens from the book I write. I keep a log of what's happened to aim for consistency  and to keep a reference to the core story as they play. But you have to give the player freedom. Or theyre not playing DnD.


----------



## Beal

glass said:


> Then why have you posted in a thread on that subject about a dozen times?
> 
> _
> glass.



I'm promoting the idea that there is balance, based on the group. I am advocating the opposite of good class/bad class


----------



## James Gasik

glass said:


> Then why have you posted in a thread on that subject about a dozen times?
> 
> _
> glass.



They believe that inter-class balance is too nuanced for a list.  I'm willing to acknowledge that the DM's job is to try and keep the game on even keel, but the truth is, the strengths and weaknesses of the 3e classes are very well understood at this point, and some require more handling than others. There is a gulf between the Complete Warrior Samurai and the Spell-to-Power Erudite or the Archivist that is very hard to cross without extreme levels of optimization or lack thereof on the player's side.

For a DM to cross that gulf will require something on the level of divine intervention.


----------



## Maxperson

Beal said:


> That seems good to play. Having the group define the direction early on must help planning enourmously. I like open story as well. Generally, I'm just writing dungeons and npcs, and when the group sort of "decides" to adventure, something happens from the book I write. I keep a log of what's happened to aim for consistency  and to keep a reference to the core story as they play. But you have to give the player freedom. Or theyre not playing DnD.



They absolutely have freedom. They can do what they want, when they want, assuming they want to pay the in-fiction consequences(if any). I've had them look at a site in the Forgotten Realms that had a name that seemed like it would help them with their current challenge and just decide to go there.  Huh!?  Okay, time to scramble and figure something out before they get there, because it's often a very good idea and advances things wonderfully.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> They believe that inter-class balance is too nuanced for a list.  I'm willing to acknowledge that the DM's job is to try and keep the game on even keel, but the truth is, the strengths and weaknesses of the 3e classes are very well understood at this point, and some require more handling than others. There is a gulf between the Complete Warrior Samurai and the Spell-to-Power Erudite or the Archivist that is very hard to cross without extreme levels of optimization or lack thereof on the player's side.
> 
> For a DM to cross that gulf will require something on the level of divine intervention.



That is a great point! Because while the balance of the adventure is the DMs responsibility, the character build is the responsibility of the player.

I agree completely that the benefits of some classes are more obvious, and that some things are yet to be discovered. So it's true that players need to make sure they are not the high level rogue, useless supporting a Psion, as their combat usefulness plateaued long ago. So if the team has no need for a high level rogue, then that is a failing on the player, because they have built a player that does not contribute. But does that make a high level rogue useless? That comes down to the story


----------



## Beal

So maybe what I mean is, that classes require a sertain measure of experience and understanding to be utilized


----------



## James Gasik

Which is, again, why lists like this exist.  So you can go "ah, this class needs more experience to play well, and this class needs more help from the DM".

For example, if you go back to the early posts on this thread, it shows a lack of understanding of how the game would progress.  Nothing against anyone who posted, it was still early to see how things would fall out, though a lot of the worst imbalances were right there in the PHB, with things like Polymorph Any Object, Wish, Miracle, Gate, and Simulacrum. Fabricate/Wall of Iron was totally a thing (not to mention the Shrink Item/Wall of Iron combo), and it only got worse when more books came out.

But it is true that a good DM and a conscientious player can make even a very unbalanced class perfectly fine.  For example, my last 3.5 game, I told the DM that I was going to play a Divine Metamagic Persist Cleric, *but* I was only going to use Persist on buff spells that affected the entire party.

And once I got rolling, everyone's numbers skyrocketed, but since it affected the group, no one person got to steal the spotlight.  My usual contribution to a fight was Fiery Burst, my reserve Feat, unless I needed to heal someone!

The DM was able to respond by upping the challenge of encounters, but it did eventually come to a head when he admitted that he had reached his limit once we hit level 11.

And not once did any of the players feel overshadowed by my character, in fact, one of them (admittedly, the least savvy character), would often ask what I even did!

To which I just pointed to the index cards in front of him with his various buffs.  "That's what I do."


----------



## Beal

For example, monk, scoring low in the teir for it's poor hit ratio (fair judgement) is a fantastic multiclass.
Two levels of fighter offer an array of proficiencies, two feats and 2D10 HP...


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> Which is, again, why lists like this exist.  So you can go "ah, this class needs more experience to play well, and this class needs more help from the DM".
> 
> For example, if you go back to the early posts on this thread, it shows a lack of understanding of how the game would progress.  Nothing against anyone who posted, it was still early to see how things would fall out, though a lot of the worst imbalances were right there in the PHB, with things like Polymorph Any Object, Wish, Miracle, Gate, and Simulacrum. Fabricate/Wall of Iron was totally a thing (not to mention the Shrink Item/Wall of Iron combo), and it only got worse when more books came out.
> 
> But it is true that a good DM and a conscientious player can make even a very unbalanced class perfectly fine.  For example, my last 3.5 game, I told the DM that I was going to play a Divine Metamagic Persist Cleric, *but* I was only going to use Persist on buff spells that affected the entire party.
> 
> And once I got rolling, everyone's numbers skyrocketed, but since it affected the group, no one person got to steal the spotlight.  My usual contribution to a fight was Fiery Burst, my reserve Feat, unless I needed to heal someone!
> 
> The DM was able to respond by upping the challenge of encounters, but it did eventually come to a head when he admitted that he had reached his limit once we hit level 11.
> 
> And not once did any of the players feel overshadowed by my character, in fact, one of them (admittedly, the least savvy character), would often ask what I even did!
> 
> To which I just pointed to the index cards in front of him with his various buffs.  "That's what I do."



All I meant was, Cleric is not necessarily the "BEST" class of 3.5. Neither is the wizard, or the fighter..there are plenty of reasons to take a druid over a cleric, and visa versa. It doesnt make sense to teir them in my opinion, because I dont agree one is difinitively better. It is situational.

You made a good point about some of the more exotic classes that appear in other books, and yes, the monolithic library as a whole cannot be perfect. But that is where experience comes in.

As to the players handbook, I don't feel that any class in particular is greater or lesser, they all have their place to shine.

A high level wizard is a force to be reckoned with, bo doubt... but at level one, it was at risk of dying from a hastily opened tavern door...


----------



## James Gasik

Maybe, but you're not likely going to use those weapon or armor proficiencies as a Monk.  And it's not going to increase your chance to hit in the long run, as Monk 18 + Fighter 2 is still only a base attack of +15.  Plus you're eventually giving up Empty Body and 2d10 Unarmed Strike damage, and +1 AC...although most likely you'll have taken some Prestige Class long before you reach this point.  So it really depends on what those two Feats are...


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> All I meant was, Cleric is not necessarily the "BEST" class of 3.5. Neither is the wizard, or the fighter..there are plenty of reasons to take a druid over a cleric, and visa versa. It doesnt make sense to teir them in my opinion, because I dont agree one is difinitively better. It is situational.
> 
> You made a good point about some of the more exotic classes that appear in other books, and yes, the monolithic library as a whole cannot be perfect. But that is where experience comes in.
> 
> As to the players handbook, I don't feel that any class in particular is greater or lesser, they all have their place to shine.
> 
> A high level wizard is a force to be reckoned with, bo doubt... but at level one, it was at risk of dying from a hastily opened tavern door...



It's not like the Rogue is much better here, with his 2 more hit points, lol.  And yes, Cleric is incredibly good.  Here's why.

Can wear heavy armor.  Can cast in heavy armor + shield.  Full spell caster.  Bonus spells from Domains.  Domains can grant spells not on the Cleric spell list.  Can prepare *any *spell on their class list each day, without having to spend a ton of money to put a spell in a spellbook.  New book comes out with new Cleric spells?  The Cleric has them.

Better saves than a Fighter.  1 less hit point per level than a Fighter.  Can cast spells like Divine Power and Righteous Might to become equal to or better than a Fighter in combat.

Can craft a wide array of magic items at half price.  Can solve narrative problems other classes cannot.  Stuck in a desert with no way to survive?  Create Water, Endure Elements, Lesser Restoration, Create Food and Water.  Done.

Need to cross long distances quickly and safely?  Say hello to Wind Walk. There's precious little the Cleric can't do, and the right Domain choices can give you some of the most powerful spells in the game.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> Maybe, but you're not likely going to use those weapon or armor proficiencies as a Monk.  And it's not going to increase your chance to hit in the long run, as Monk 18 + Fighter 2 is still only a base attack of +15.  Plus you're eventually giving up Empty Body and 2d10 Unarmed Strike damage, and +1 AC...although most likely you'll have taken some Prestige Class long before you reach this point.  So it really depends on what those two Feats are...



Actually, I like halfling druid/monk, with level one barbarian.
Quarterstaff, shieleighleigh (lv 2 spell)
Halfling improves attack roll, sheleighleigh rolls damage at +2 size. Then rage. Plenty od druid spells to add as well, and I suppose you could level barbarian anytime you need a +BAB.. only downside is experience penalty..
I'm not trying to put this build amongst the greats, but it's how I use the PH to improve the shortcomings of a class I really like


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> It's not like the Rogue is much better here, with his 2 more hit points, lol.  And yes, Cleric is incredibly good.  Here's why.
> 
> Can wear heavy armor.  Can cast in heavy armor + shield.  Full spell caster.  Bonus spells from Domains.  Domains can grant spells not on the Cleric spell list.  Can prepare *any *spell on their class list each day, without having to spend a ton of money to put a spell in a spellbook.  New book comes out with new Cleric spells?  The Cleric has them.
> 
> Better saves than a Fighter.  1 less hit point per level than a Fighter.  Can cast spells like Divine Power and Righteous Might to become equal to or better than a Fighter in combat.
> 
> Can craft a wide array of magic items at half price.  Can solve narrative problems other classes cannot.  Stuck in a desert with no way to survive?  Create Water, Endure Elements, Lesser Restoration, Create Food and Water.  Done.
> 
> Need to cross long distances quickly and safely?  Say hello to Wind Walk. There's precious little the Cleric can't do, and the right Domain choices can give you some of the most powerful spells in the game.



After the giant is defeated, the party feels the earth shake. The floor gives out beneath you, and you fall into a sinkhole 1/4 mile deep unless you can reach safety in a single round....
Rogue lives, cleric dies... as an example. Just saying every class is weak. Every class is strong. It's a matter of play.


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> Actually, I like halfling druid/monk, with level one barbarian.
> Quarterstaff, shieleighleigh (lv 2 spell)
> Halfling improves attack roll, sheleighleigh rolls damage at +2 size. Then rage. Plenty od druid spells to add as well, and I suppose you could level barbarian anytime you need a +BAB.. only downside is experience penalty..
> I'm not trying to put this build amongst the greats, but it's how I use the PH to improve the shortcomings of a class I really like



Oh Barbarian 1/Druid 1 is very beastly.  But it advances terribly- you're held back on Wild Shape, which is a better source of stat bonuses than Rage, and you only get 1 Rage per day unless you sacrifice more Druid...


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> After the giant is defeated, the party feels the earth shake. The floor gives out beneath you, and you fall into a sinkhole 1/4 mile deep unless you can reach safety in a single round....
> Rogue lives, cleric dies... as an example. Just saying every class is weak. Every class is strong. It's a matter of play.



How did the Rogue survive the fall from your deus ex machina pit trap?  : )

The Cleric might have enough time to cast Air Walk falling that far.  Or Summon an Air Elemental.  Or any number of things.

The Rogue just...falls.  Oh maybe he can reduce the falling damage by 10'!


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> How did the Rogue survive the fall from your deus ex machina pit trap?  : )
> 
> The Cleric might have enough time to cast Air Walk falling that far.  Or Summon an Air Elemental.  Or any number of things.
> 
> The Rogue just...falls.  Oh maybe he can reduce the falling damage by 10'!



Does the cleric still have spells? Does it even have that spellprepared?... a summoned elemental doesnt act that round...

Rogue. Rope and hook. Rope use skill.
Just saying.


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> Does the cleric still have spells? Does it even have that spellprepared?... a summoned elemental doesnt act that round...
> 
> Rogue. Rope and hook. Rope use skill.
> Just saying.



You still didn't explain how they didn't die from the falling damage.  Does the Rogue have a long enough rope?  Did they even take Rope Use? There's a lot of skills a Rogue is going to want, and not even they get enough points for them all.

Yes, you can contrive a scenario where any character can wither.  Your earlier example of stealing a Wizard's spellbook, for example.  But in aggregate, the Cleric has a lot more options in a wider variety of scenarios than a Rogue.

For example, I'll cherry pick a counterexample.  The party is facing a pack of ghouls.  If they hit you, there is a fortitude save to avoid being paralyzed for several rounds and likely being killed.

The Rogue has a terrible AC, low hit points, and a bad save.  The Cleric has a high AC, better hit points, a good save, Turn Undead, Free Action, Remove Paralysis...


----------



## glass

Beal said:


> Does the cleric still have spells? Does it even have that spellprepared?... a summoned elemental doesnt act that round...



Which round? IIRC it takes 3 rounds to fall a quarter mile.

Are the casters guaranteed to have something to help? Of course not. Is that more likely that the Rogue randomly being roped to a fixed object during a fight? Absolutely. _EDIT: And even if we pretend that ranks in Use Rope are a get-out-of-gaol-free card in this circumstance, there is no guarantee that the Rogue has them either. Unless it is very generous PB, they can afford _maybe _ten skills, and Use Rope is probably way down the list._

_
glass.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> Oh Barbarian 1/Druid 1 is very beastly.  But it advances terribly- you're held back on Wild Shape, which is a better source of stat bonuses than Rage, and you only get 1 Rage per day unless you sacrifice more Druid...



Barbarian mostly for 12HP and +10 movement speed. rage is just to help in the boss room.
2 lvl monk for another +10 movement speed, and flurry.
3 lvl druid for sheleighleigh. 
The rest is whatever...


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> Barbarian mostly for 12HP and +10 movement speed. rage is just to help in the boss room.
> 2 lvl monk for another +10 movement speed, and flurry.
> 3 lvl druid for sheleighleigh.
> The rest is whatever...



Except that _shillelagh _takes a turn to cast, you have 3 first level spell slots, and it lasts 3 minutes.  So 9 minutes of _shillelagh_ out of your 8 hour adventuring day, that you give up a turn to cast each time, and the rest of the time you have a stick.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> You still didn't explain how they didn't die from the falling damage.  Does the Rogue have a long enough rope?  Did they even take Rope Use? There's a lot of skills a Rogue is going to want, and not even they get enough points for them all.
> 
> Yes, you can contrive a scenario where any character can wither.  Your earlier example of stealing a Wizard's spellbook, for example.  But in aggregate, the Cleric has a lot more options in a wider variety of scenarios than a Rogue.
> 
> For example, I'll cherry pick a counterexample.  The party is facing a pack of ghouls.  If they hit you, there is a fortitude save to avoid being paralyzed for several rounds and likely being killed.
> 
> The Rogue has a terrible AC, low hit points, and a bad save.  The Cleric has a high AC, better hit points, a good save, Turn Undead, Free Action, Remove Paralysis...



I'mnot denying that the cleric is a better frontline dungeoneer. I have a beast of an evil halforc cleric that I run.
1 barbarian
4 fighter (for feats)
Then cleric to max.
Love it. Selfish cleric of gruumsh

But I would bet money a rogue carries and uses rope more than a cleric is ready for a collapsing floor. As for skills.. 8+ int mod? Probably has some ranks in rope..


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> Except that _shillelagh _takes a turn to cast, you have 3 first level spell slots, and it lasts 3 minutes.  So 9 minutes of _shillelagh_ out of your 8 hour adventuring day, that you give up a turn to cast each time, and the rest of the time you have a stick.



Which is lots at level 6...


----------



## Beal

Beal said:


> Which is lots at level 6...



The point is, high AC, high saves, high speed, attacks as small, damages as large. Loose a round for cast? Meh. Same with every cast. Good build.


----------



## Beal

Finally, I googled the spelling, I didn't reference the book. Thanks for correction


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> I'mnot denying that the cleric is a better frontline dungeoneer. I have a beast of an evil halforc cleric that I run.
> 1 barbarian
> 4 fighter (for feats)
> Then cleric to max.
> Love it. Selfish cleric of gruumsh
> 
> But I would bet money a rogue carries and uses rope more than a cleric is ready for a collapsing floor. As for skills.. 8+ int mod? Probably has some ranks in rope..



Uh, yes but do they have *enough *ranks?  Let's take a look.  Human Rogue, 14 Int.  44 Skill points at level 1, 11 Skill points a level.

Rogue Skills you want to have high: Bluff (for creating distractions and synergies), Climb, Disable Device, Escape Artist (grappling is terrifying), Hide, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Spot, Tumble....hm.  Now to choose, do I want Balance, Sense Motive, Swim, Use Magic Device, or Use Rope?  Forget Diplomacy or Gather Information.  Forgery or Knowledge Local would be nice, but just don't have the points!  

And just in case you think a few points in Use Rope is enough:
​Secure a Grappling Hook​Securing a grappling hook requires a Use Rope check (DC 10, +2 for every 10 feet of distance the grappling hook is thrown, to a maximum DC of 20 at 50 feet). Failure by 4 or less indicates that the hook fails to catch and falls, allowing you to try again. Failure by 5 or more indicates that the grappling hook initially holds, but comes loose after 1d4 rounds of supporting weight. This check is made secretly, so that you don’t know whether the rope will hold your weight.

A quarter mile of rope, eh?


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> Uh, yes but do they have *enough *ranks?  Let's take a look.  Human Rogue, 14 Int.  44 Skill points at level 1, 11 Skill points a level.
> 
> Rogue Skills you want to have high: Bluff (for creating distractions and synergies), Climb, Disable Device, Escape Artist (grappling is terrifying), Hide, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Spot, Tumble....hm.  Now to choose, do I want Balance, Sense Motive, Swim, Use Magic Device, or Use Rope?  Forget Diplomacy or Gather Information.  Forgery or Knowledge Local would be nice, but just don't have the points!
> 
> And just in case you think a few points in Use Rope is enough:
> ​Secure a Grappling Hook​Securing a grappling hook requires a Use Rope check (DC 10, +2 for every 10 feet of distance the grappling hook is thrown, to a maximum DC of 20 at 50 feet). Failure by 4 or less indicates that the hook fails to catch and falls, allowing you to try again. Failure by 5 or more indicates that the grappling hook initially holds, but comes loose after 1d4 rounds of supporting weight. This check is made secretly, so that you don’t know whether the rope will hold your weight.
> 
> A quarter mile of rope, eh?



He doesnt need a quarter mile of rope. He needs enough to reach a ledge before falling. Let's say, 50', or whatever.. DC 20 (even 30) would be a fair challenge. 
A rogue with intelligence 10 is still going to have 40 ranks+10 per level... probably 8 proficient skills at level one. Why is rope use out of the question? Rope is soooo useful.


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> Which is lots at level 6...



Or I could just be a level 6 Barbarian with Power Attack and a Greatsword who can on round one charge a guy and smack him for up to 2d6+23 damage while you're still making your stick a magic weapon for the fight.

Or a level 6 Dwarven Ranger with Oversized Two Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Pounce and Power Attack dual wielding Dwarven Waraxes for 2d10+22.  Also while you're playing with your stick.

Or a level 6 Druid Wild Shaped into a Fleshraker Dinosaur, with a Fleshraker Dinosaur Animal Companion that both have _venomfire_ thanks to Share Spells, charging with Leaping Pounce to make 4 attacks each, with 6d6 acid damage on each attack.  Yeah that took a round to cast, but it's worth it, I think.


----------



## Beal

Lets say its 100' just to be difficult. DC 30. Level 5, he could have 20 ranks in use rope. Plus dex. He'll be better off than the cleric.


----------



## glass

Beal said:


> But I would bet money a rogue carries and uses rope more than a cleric is ready for a collapsing floor. As for skills.. 8+ int mod? Probably has some ranks in rope..



You still haven't explained how "has ranks in Use Rope" actually helps in any way with your contrived deathtrap, but even if it does you are severely overstating the likelihood of any given Rogue having ranks in it. 8+Int bonus is not all that many when they cannot afford much of an actual Int bonus (and there are 40-ish skills to choose from).

_EDIT: OK, you have now - it is throw a grappling hook. That does not just require that they have ranks, it requires they have a grappling hook in hand. Which is a fairly big ask for someone who does not like being gear dependent!_

_
glass.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> Or I could just be a level 6 Barbarian with Power Attack and a Greatsword who can on round one charge a guy and smack him for up to 2d6+23 damage while you're still making your stick a magic weapon for the fight.
> 
> Or a level 6 Dwarven Ranger with Oversized Two Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Pounce and Power Attack dual wielding Dwarven Waraxes for 2d10+22.  Also while you're playing with your stick.
> 
> Or a level 6 Druid Wild Shaped into a Fleshraker Dinosaur, with a Fleshraker Dinosaur Animal Companion that both have _venomfire_ thanks to Share Spells, charging with Leaping Pounce to make 4 attacks each, with 6d6 acid damage on each attack.  Yeah that took a round to cast, but it's worth it, I think.



Yea, but I have the saves, size and wisdom to AC, not weapon dependant, wild shape, divine magic, animal companion, better skills.... a barbarian rolls high damage. That's his job.


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> Lets say its 100' just to be difficult. DC 30. Level 5, he could have 20 ranks in use rope. Plus dex. He'll be better off than the cleric.



Uh...20 ranks?   At level 5?  You might want to consult the PHB, since the maximum ranks he can have at that level is 8, and even with a 20 Dexterity, that's a check of +13.  +15 if he can afford 100' of silk rope.


----------



## Beal

glass said:


> You still haven't explained how "has ranks in Use Rope" actually helps in any way with your contrived deathtrap, but even if it does you are severely overstating the likelihood of any given Rogue having ranks in it. 8+Int bonus is not all that many when they cannot afford much of an actual Int bonus (and there are 40-ish skills to choose from).
> 
> _
> glass.



If you guys don't use rope, that's fine. It's a staple of adventuring until we all have featherfall, levitation or flight.


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> Yea, but I have the saves, size and wisdom to AC, not weapon dependant, wild shape, divine magic, animal companion, better skills.... a barbarian rolls high damage. That's his job.



You have a level 3 animal companion, divine magic that's incompatible with rage, and only level 2 spells at this point.  One rage per day, and you can't wild shape until you're a Druid 5.

I thought you said you only need Druid 3?  And you're completely forgetting some rules.  Like how Monks have to be Lawful and you can't use Rage if you're a Lawful Barbarian.  Or how you're pulling off this build without incurring multiclass xp penalties.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> Uh...20 ranks?   At level 5?  You might want to consult the PHB, since the maximum ranks he can have at that level is 8, and even with a 20 Dexterity, that's a check of +13.  +15 if he can afford 100' of silk rope.



Correct, sorry. Got carried away with the 4x.
But regardless, 4+1 per level plus dex plus rope is more likely than an air elemental being on hand.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> You have a level 3 animal companion, divine magic that's incompatible with rage, and only level 2 spells at this point.  One rage per day, and you can't wild shape until you're a Druid 5.
> 
> I thought you said you only need Druid 3?  And you're completely forgetting some rules.  Like how Monks have to be Lawful and you can't use Rage if you're a Lawful Barbarian.  Or how you're pulling off this build without incurring multiclass xp penalties.



I said the xp penalties are the downside


----------



## Beal

Beal said:


> I said the xp penalties are the downside



And you can cast before rage. Not during.


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> Correct, sorry. Got carried away with the 4x.
> But regardless, 4+1 per level plus dex plus rope is more likely than an air elemental being on hand.



Ok, so with 100' of silk rope, and a +15 for your DC 30 check, you have a 30% chance to throw the grapple 100' up on a *secret *check, that you don't know the result of until you try to climb said rope to find out if it's secure.  All for a 1320 foot climb.  Unless the pit has ample ledges, how are you going to throw a new rope once you're 100 ft. up?  Since the grapple you're using is sort of attached to the rock wall?

Small Air Elemental only requires Summon Monster III, not exactly out of reach for a level 5 Cleric.


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> And you can cast before rage. Not during.



So when you don't have *shillelagh* to use, what other spells are worth casting for your woefully underleveled character?  And you still can't rage as a Monk/Barbarian.


----------



## Beal

A monk can become unlawful and retain abilities without progressing. You're right about wild shape, but it was really more about the progression of the built and it's versitility. And again... speed, ac, saves, spells, etc... if the damage roll is all that matters, then that's what you build. 
Youve missed the point. It's easy to incorporate a monk into a good character, and easy to put a cleric to his death.
I'm not sure what youre fighting for, but if it's to be champion of this thread, I concede. It's all yours.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> Ok, so with 100' of silk rope, and a +15 for your DC 30 check, you have a 30% chance to throw the grapple 100' up on a *secret *check, that you don't know the result of until you try to climb said rope to find out if it's secure.  All for a 1320 foot climb.  Unless the pit has ample ledges, how are you going to throw a new rope once you're 100 ft. up?  Since the grapple you're using is sort of attached to the rock wall?
> 
> Small Air Elemental only requires Summon Monster III, not exactly out of reach for a level 5 Cleric.



Guaranteed, after a fight with a giant, the cleric cannot cast the elimental, who could not act until you hit the bottom, if you passed your concentration, which you wont... you have no skills


----------



## Beal

30% > 0%


----------



## James Gasik

Beal said:


> A monk can become unlawful and retain abilities without progressing. You're right about wild shape, but it was really more about the progression of the built and it's versitility. And again... speed, ac, saves, spells, etc... if the damage roll is all that matters, then that's what you build.
> Youve missed the point. It's easy to incorporate a monk into a good character, and easy to put a cleric to his death.
> I'm not sure what youre fighting for, but if it's to be champion of this thread, I concede. It's all yours.



I think that's a fairly contrived scenario for a level 1 Monk to suddenly abandon his Lawful ways and become a Barbarian, but you're right, it is legal.

And I think you're missing the point.  Yes, it's easy to contrive a scenario that lets one character shine and another not shine.  But the fact is, you had to go out of your way to do so, and you're blatantly ignoring the fact that in normal circumstances, the Cleric has a lot more answers to problems than the Rogue.

Who isn't even alive in this scenario, having taken 20d6 damage at level 5 from your quarter mile fall.


----------



## glass

Beal said:


> If you guys don't use rope, that's fine. It's a staple of adventuring until we all have featherfall, levitation or flight.



We use rope all the time, especially at low levels. What I have never done is fallen into a quarter-mile-deep pit without a save, so it took me a while to twig how rope was supposed to save you in this instance. Now that I see what you were getting at, but I remain unconvinced.

Also, _featherfall _is available from first level.



James Gasik said:


> Ok, so with 100' of silk rope, and a +15 for your DC 30 check, you have a 30% chance to throw the grapple 100' up on a *secret *check, that you don't know the result of until you try to climb said rope to find out if it's secure. All for a 1320 foot climb. Unless the pit has ample ledges, how are you going to throw a new rope once you're 100 ft. up? Since the grapple you're using is sort of attached to the rock wall?



No, you have to throw the grapple (which you mysteriously have in hand for some random reason) on the first round if it is going to do anything useful. Arresting yourself after you have already maxed out falling damage is not going to help - it does not matter if you are a smear on the side of the sinkhole or the bottom. Although TBF the secret nature of the check is pretty irrelevant, since success or failure will be immediately obvious.



James Gasik said:


> And I think you're missing the point. Yes, it's easy to contrive a scenario that lets one character shine and another not shine.



Not that easy, apparently....

_
glass.


----------



## Beal

James Gasik said:


> I think that's a fairly contrived scenario for a level 1 Monk to suddenly abandon his Lawful ways and become a Barbarian, but you're right, it is legal.
> 
> And I think you're missing the point.  Yes, it's easy to contrive a scenario that lets one character shine and another not shine.  But the fact is, you had to go out of your way to do so, and you're blatantly ignoring the fact that in normal circumstances, the Cleric has a lot more answers to problems than the Rogue.
> 
> Who isn't even alive in this scenario, having taken 20d6 damage at level 5 from your quarter mile fall.






glass said:


> We use rope all the time, especially at low levels. What I have never done is fallen into a quarter-mile-deep pit without a save, so it took me a while to twig how rope was supposed to save you in this instance. Now that I see what you were getting at, but I remain unconvinved. Also, _featherfall _is available from first level.
> 
> 
> No, you have to throw the grapple (which you mysteriously have in hand for some random reason) on the first round if it is going to do anything useful. Arresting yourself after you have already maxed out falling damage is not going to help - it does not matter if you are a smear on the side of the sinkhole or the bottom. Although TBF the secret nature of the check is pretty irrelevant, since success or failure will be immediately obvious.
> 
> 
> Not that easy, apparently....
> 
> _
> glass.



Thank you. The ground shakes. The rogue drops his weapon and looses the rope off his shoulder, throwing it to the edge of the crumbling hole. 30% it finds a hold, 70% nothing. The cleric takes a concentration check to cast an elemental, who unfortunately will not act until next round. The bard, who ranked last in the tier, featherfalls to safety, though he cannot sing himself out of the hole. He can however, ration his dead allies and eventually tell the tale, as bards do.


----------



## Beal

Anyways, the entire point of this was to contribute to reasons to think of classes differently.
If you always pick wizard over scorcerer, I would target the spellbook. If you always pick cleric over druid, I would give challenges that are not combat. If you always pick barbarian over a monk, then I would use spells to aggrivate the weak AC and saves....
Two sides to every coin, and it's the survivors that tell the tale.


----------



## Beal

The example of the pitfall under a giant is an on-the-fly example of a situation where the cleric, who was the most survivable, becomes the most certain to die. It is not a specific example, and we are not playing dnd. So no, it is not a planned encounter, and the redundant and asinine focus on the details of a situational example is just deflecting from the truth of the subject; No character is equipped for everything. 

Clerics are badass. Play em all the time. Strongly recommended for first time casters. But if the room fills with water, or the ground falls out underneath it, that Cleric is a goner, because it has the weakest list of skills. 

Cleric falls off a boat, and dies. Cleric is lost in the woods, and dies. Cleric will set off traps, miss secret rooms and passageways, fail to track the escaped villain, fail to open the final chest, fail to survive the fall into the sinkhole.


----------



## Maxperson

You guys are investing too much into too many skills as rogues.  

Rogues didn't need much rope use at all.  Nearly none. Tying a knot was the only thing you really needed to be able to do.  You're already investing a bunch into climb, so you don't need to throw a grappling hook in the vast majority of instances.  You just climbed up and tied off the rope.  If you were in a huge hurry, you got the Wizard to cast Fly or Dimension Door or something.  

Same with Jump.  Jumping is one of the few skills the Fighters and Barbarians had that was class and useful.  They pretty much all took it and they had the strength to go with it. If you hit a ravine or whatever that the Rogue couldn't just climb down one side of and up the other, you let the big lug make the jump while holding the rope. I almost never put even a single point into that skill as a Rogue.

Many of the other skills didn't need to have points put into them at every level.  You could just be satisfied with being really good at them instead of infallible. Once you did that, you took the extra points you saved there, along with those you guys are putting into rope use and jump, and became good at 3-4 other skills that were actually useful, like having both bluff AND diplomacy, and maybe some other knowledge skills since you could take a feat to make those into class skills.

Rogue, Fighter, Cleric and Wizard were my top 4 favorite classes in 3.5.


----------



## Gradine

The best class is the one you're playing right now.


----------



## Beal

Maxperson said:


> You guys are investing too much into too many skills as rogues.
> 
> Rogues didn't need much rope use at all.  Nearly none. Tying a knot was the only thing you really needed to be able to do.  You're already investing a bunch into climb, so you don't need to throw a grappling hook in the vast majority of instances.  You just climbed up and tied off the rope.  If you were in a huge hurry, you got the Wizard to cast Fly or Dimension Door or something.
> 
> Same with Jump.  Jumping is one of the few skills the Fighters and Barbarians had that was class and useful.  They pretty much all took it and they had the strength to go with it. If you hit a ravine or whatever that the Rogue couldn't just climb down one side of and up the other, you let the big lug make the jump while holding the rope. I almost never put even a single point into that skill as a Rogue.
> 
> Many of the other skills didn't need to have points put into them at every level.  You could just be satisfied with being really good at them instead of infallible. Once you did that, you took the extra points you saved there, along with those you guys are putting into rope use and jump, and became good at 3-4 other skills that were actually useful, like having both bluff AND diplomacy, and maybe some other knowledge skills since you could take a feat to make those into class skills.
> 
> Rogue, Fighter, Cleric and Wizard were my top 4 favorite classes in 3.5.



I might suggest that rope use would be invaluable in a nautical campain or a situation where an individual needs to be taken prisoner/restained. Tying down loads that need to be moved quickly on cart or hoisted up a cliff.
It comes down to the campaign, team and DM...


----------



## Maxperson

Beal said:


> I might suggest that rope use would be invaluable in a nautical campain or a situation where an individual needs to be taken prisoner/restained. Tying down loads that need to be moved quickly on cart or hoisted up a cliff.
> It comes down to the campaign, team and DM...



As I said...........enough to tie a knot.  DC 10. Or if on that ship with funky knots, DC 15.  With an 18 dex and the ability to take 10, you needed 1 whole rank.


----------



## Beal

Small parties where individuals survive through versitility, I pick
Driud
Wizard
cleric
Ranger
monk

Parties of average size, 4 or larger, I grab classes that specialize.
Fighter
Scorcerer
Rogue
Barbarian

Personally, I'm not crazy about paladin or bard,
But again, comes down to players, campaign, and dm...

Battling the undead, the paladin is a no-brainer.
City campaign with lots of diplomacy and guile, you need a bard.


Thats how I play. 
But if I'm introducing a new player, I'd recommend a scorcerer over a wizard, primarily for ease of play. Fighter over ranger, to again keep it simple... but that doesnt put one over the other.


----------



## Beal

Maxperson said:


> As I said...........enough to tie a knot.  DC 10. Or if on that ship with funky knots, DC 15.  With an 18 dex and the ability to take 10, you needed 1 whole rank.



I get it... but on a rogue with all those points, I will almost certainly have ranks in it. Maybe ranger too. It's just how I envision the class. Scaling a castle wall could benefit from compitent skills, or a tightrope, scenario.

DC 10 is reflective of a skill that half of all people could perform without difficulty, or something that all people can do half the time. 50/50 with no skill or understanding. Does rope use need 24 ranks? Definitely not... knowledge royalty/nobility probably doesnt either. My point was only that the skillsets of some classes offset the proficiencies and spells of others. The rope was only an example.


----------



## Maxperson

Beal said:


> I get it... but on a rogue with all those points, I will almost certainly have ranks in it. Maybe ranger too. It's just how I envision the class. Scaling a castle wall could benefit from compitent skills, or a tightrope, scenario.



That's fine.  I've picked skills, spells, class levels, etc. based on RP lots of times.  Most of the time, even when not optimal for anything other than the RP.  My point is just that there are a number of skills that Rogues don't need to take that leave points left over for other useful skills.


Beal said:


> DC 10 is reflective of a skill that half of all people could perform without difficulty, or something that all people can do half the time. 50/50 with no skill or understanding. Does rope use need 24 ranks? Definitely not... knowledge royalty/nobility probably doesnt either. My point was only that the skillsets of some classes offset the proficiencies and spells of others. The rope was only an example.



DC 10 is reflective of an unskilled person succeeding automatically by taking 10. It's not even 50/50 unless pressured somehow.  So it takes an unskilled person to be under pressure to have a 45%(1-9) chance of failure to tie a knot.  Rope use is just one of those skills that doesn't require more than a rank or two unless it's for a thematic reason.


----------



## haakon1

James Gasik said:


> That's another thing the tier lists try to encompass- all levels of play, not just the first 5 or even 10.
> 
> Monk Some of their abilities rarely matter, and others can be detrimental, like having spell resistance to make it harder to heal or cast vital buff spells on them.



Spell Resistance doesn’t stop Harmless spells, but it does take a Standard Action by the creature with SR to allow it.

I never noticed 13th level Monks get SR because, in 21 years of playing 3e/3.5e, we only once played characters at that level, because we found it tedious to play such complex and powerful characters, and super tedious for the DM.  Obviously, we have very different styles of play!


----------



## James Gasik

haakon1 said:


> Spell Resistance doesn’t stop Harmless spells, but it does take a Standard Action by the creature with SR to allow it.
> 
> I never noticed 13th level Monks get SR because, in 21 years of playing 3e/3.5e, we only once played characters at that level, because we found it tedious to play such complex and powerful characters, and super tedious for the DM.  Obviously, we have very different styles of play!



I've never had this problem with Monks, but I have had them with Drow PC's.  They drop to 0 and the player starts begging me to cast a healing spell.  And I'm like "ok, but if it fizzles, I'm not wasting another one on you"...and even then, they're probably getting a _cure minor wounds_ for their trouble!


----------

