Classes that don't suck from a tactical point of view [Archive] - Wizards Community

Classes that don't suck from a tactical point of view [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Redja_the_Foolish
12-28-06, 05:19 AM Let's see, classes that don't suck since sucking implies that it is completely worthless, that it is so bad that it don't have any worth.
That it is so competely lame that it has no value in any way whatsoever.

The core classes I have that don't suck are the following:
Bard, barbarian, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, wizard, rogue, scout, ninja, samurai, swashbuckler, hexblade, beguiler, knight, duskblade, dragon shaman and spellthief.
I might have missed one or two, but they don't suck either.

All the core classes which I have do not "suck" and can be useful in a party, can be made into a decent party member, can with a bit of thought be made powerful and in many cases extremely powerful.
Any class is as powerful as you make them, wih a bit of tactical thinking almost every class can be made powerful even without serious min maxing and powergaming and without using cheesy tactics.

There are many ways to measure power, but it all comes down to utility and how valuable you are to the party.
Damage dealt does not automatically equate power, being useful in a way which doesn't require combat can often be more powerful and useful than the extreme damage you can deal in melee or ranged combat.

Any intelligent DM knows several ways to incapacitate or take out your barbarian or fighter who wields a weapon which deals so much damage that it isn't even funny.
If you cannot use that shiny weapon because you are taken out of service then all those modifiers on it are wasted.
Just as any intelligent player knows several ways to use that "sucky" class and race combination and make it into an extremely powerful combination and to utilize his strength and weakness to create a highly useful,
potential lifesaver.

Being versatile is important in any party, specialize too much and you are not very useful if a situation comes up where your specialization is not needed or which even hinders you.

Almost every character have a use and value and is powerful in several different situations if the character is properly planned.
Therefore no character automatically sucks just because his damage and
to hit modifiers aren't astronomical.

At sea, on a ship. Your fighter in his heavy platemail +5 is pushed overboard. Goodbye sinky person.
Try to get out of that armor mate.
Though no fighter would be so stupid as to wear heavy armor on a ship.
Jaxgaret
12-28-06, 10:54 AM Though no fighter would be so stupid as to wear heavy armor on a ship.

I'm sure Joe the Epic Fighter would care to disagree with that statement.

Also, Joe the Colossally Stupid Fighter may disagree with you as well :)
Damionte
12-28-06, 11:29 AM You didn't leave anything for us to actually talk about.
Seerow
12-28-06, 11:34 AM Except to tell him he's an idiot amirite?
Milo HoBo
12-28-06, 11:39 AM It might be easier to have this discussion with well defined perameters. I don't exactly know what your definition of core is. Most people concider core to be the classes in the Player's Hand Book. Yet I see many of them are from the Complete ______ series. This means either that you mean core with addition to the complete series or just any base classes from WotC.

So, some small additions are in order if it is the latter.

Psion, Psychic Warrior, Binder, Totemist, Lurk, Ardent, Psychic Rogue, all of the classes from Bo9S, and Spirit Shaman.

Now, many people dissagree with certain classes that you have posted. These include (but probably aren't limited to) the Fighter, Sorcerer, and Spelltheif. You even speak about the concept of versatility, of which those 3 are known by some to lack.

Sorcerers have a very limited number of spells known (though scrolls can help) and no class features to help fill gap in power. This leaves them without the versatility needed to be always useful.

Spelltheives are limited to being useful in very specific cercumstances. They help eliminate spellcasters and can be marginally useful in other situations. They are probably as useful in the average campaign that a normal Rogue would be useful in an undead campaign.

Fighters are hard to build well, but even built well, they lack versatility. They can do one or two tricks really well, but even then, they lack versatility. In most situations, the classes from the Bo9S or even a Barbarian would be preferable.

Hope to hear your reply.
Witch
12-28-06, 11:43 AM I'm sure Joe the Epic Fighter would care to disagree with that statement.

Joe the Epic Fighter wouldn't be wearing fullplate.
mkill
12-28-06, 12:25 PM It might be easier to have this discussion with well defined perameters. I don't exactly know what your definition of core is.

Adding to that, I didn't get what his definition of "suck" in relation to classes is and I also didn't get what a "tactical point of view" is.
I also don't know why he assumes a game where every character is barred from multiclassing and entering PrCs, since he totally left that out of consideration.
I think, what he wants to say is "in the end, no class sucks, but every class has it's strength and weaknesses."
But maybe this thread should just be closed.
DarkRhystar
12-28-06, 01:31 PM Joe the Epic Fighter wouldn't be wearing fullplate.

Joe the Epic Fighter wouldn't bother traveling by ship either.
philnicau
12-28-06, 01:47 PM At sea, on a ship. Your fighter in his heavy platemail +5 is pushed overboard. Goodbye sinky person.
Try to get out of that armor mate.
Though no fighter would be so stupid as to wear heavy armor on a ship.

16th lvl Half-Orc fighter with 19 ranks in Swim, a strength of 24 plus skill focus swim, could have swimming of 19+(str)7+(Skill Focus) +3=29 (less armour check -12) Swimming skill of +17, i don't think he'd have any problems swimming in full plate.
Manyfist
12-28-06, 01:54 PM Core=
PHB + DMG + MM I + (Conserversial) XPH.

I would say that the following classes don't suck:

Psion, Erudite, Ardent, Lurk, Psychic Warrior, Psychic Rogue, Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Swordsage, Crusader, Warblade, Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, Warlock, Wilder, Artificer.

The rest I say suck, but hey I got diffrent views so you may and may not agree. :P
Crimson_Concerto
12-28-06, 02:04 PM The only two classes I think really suck are Soulblade and Healer, though I have yet to see either in action, so it may be that they look worse on paper to me than they actually are. Marshal and Bard are close, but they can still serve their purpose well if you know what you're doing, Bard especially.

Really, I know that the Clerics, Druids, Archivists, and Artifacers are where the power really is, but a party of a Fighter, Ninja, Sorcerer, and Favored Soul could very easily get by, I think. It's my belief that these power curves we're always talking about on these boards are very exaggerated and really only come up when one is actively trying to break something.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Redja_the_Foolish 12-28-06, 05:19 AM	Let's see, classes that don't suck since sucking implies that it is completely worthless, that it is so bad that it don't have any worth. That it is so competely lame that it has no value in any way whatsoever. The core classes I have that don't suck are the following: Bard, barbarian, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, wizard, rogue, scout, ninja, samurai, swashbuckler, hexblade, beguiler, knight, duskblade, dragon shaman and spellthief. I might have missed one or two, but they don't suck either. All the core classes which I have do not "suck" and can be useful in a party, can be made into a decent party member, can with a bit of thought be made powerful and in many cases extremely powerful. Any class is as powerful as you make them, wih a bit of tactical thinking almost every class can be made powerful even without serious min maxing and powergaming and without using cheesy tactics. There are many ways to measure power, but it all comes down to utility and how valuable you are to the party. Damage dealt does not automatically equate power, being useful in a way which doesn't require combat can often be more powerful and useful than the extreme damage you can deal in melee or ranged combat. Any intelligent DM knows several ways to incapacitate or take out your barbarian or fighter who wields a weapon which deals so much damage that it isn't even funny. If you cannot use that shiny weapon because you are taken out of service then all those modifiers on it are wasted. Just as any intelligent player knows several ways to use that "sucky" class and race combination and make it into an extremely powerful combination and to utilize his strength and weakness to create a highly useful, potential lifesaver. Being versatile is important in any party, specialize too much and you are not very useful if a situation comes up where your specialization is not needed or which even hinders you. Almost every character have a use and value and is powerful in several different situations if the character is properly planned. Therefore no character automatically sucks just because his damage and to hit modifiers aren't astronomical. At sea, on a ship. Your fighter in his heavy platemail +5 is pushed overboard. Goodbye sinky person. Try to get out of that armor mate. Though no fighter would be so stupid as to wear heavy armor on a ship.
Jaxgaret 12-28-06, 10:54 AM	Though no fighter would be so stupid as to wear heavy armor on a ship. I'm sure Joe the Epic Fighter would care to disagree with that statement. Also, Joe the Colossally Stupid Fighter may disagree with you as well :)
Damionte 12-28-06, 11:29 AM	You didn't leave anything for us to actually talk about.
Seerow 12-28-06, 11:34 AM	Except to tell him he's an idiot amirite?
Milo HoBo 12-28-06, 11:39 AM	It might be easier to have this discussion with well defined perameters. I don't exactly know what your definition of core is. Most people concider core to be the classes in the Player's Hand Book. Yet I see many of them are from the Complete ______ series. This means either that you mean core with addition to the complete series or just any base classes from WotC. So, some small additions are in order if it is the latter. Psion, Psychic Warrior, Binder, Totemist, Lurk, Ardent, Psychic Rogue, all of the classes from Bo9S, and Spirit Shaman. Now, many people dissagree with certain classes that you have posted. These include (but probably aren't limited to) the Fighter, Sorcerer, and Spelltheif. You even speak about the concept of versatility, of which those 3 are known by some to lack. Sorcerers have a very limited number of spells known (though scrolls can help) and no class features to help fill gap in power. This leaves them without the versatility needed to be always useful. Spelltheives are limited to being useful in very specific cercumstances. They help eliminate spellcasters and can be marginally useful in other situations. They are probably as useful in the average campaign that a normal Rogue would be useful in an undead campaign. Fighters are hard to build well, but even built well, they lack versatility. They can do one or two tricks really well, but even then, they lack versatility. In most situations, the classes from the Bo9S or even a Barbarian would be preferable. Hope to hear your reply.
Witch 12-28-06, 11:43 AM	I'm sure Joe the Epic Fighter would care to disagree with that statement. Joe the Epic Fighter wouldn't be wearing fullplate.
mkill 12-28-06, 12:25 PM	It might be easier to have this discussion with well defined perameters. I don't exactly know what your definition of core is. Adding to that, I didn't get what his definition of "suck" in relation to classes is and I also didn't get what a "tactical point of view" is. I also don't know why he assumes a game where every character is barred from multiclassing and entering PrCs, since he totally left that out of consideration. I think, what he wants to say is "in the end, no class sucks, but every class has it's strength and weaknesses." But maybe this thread should just be closed.
DarkRhystar 12-28-06, 01:31 PM	Joe the Epic Fighter wouldn't be wearing fullplate. Joe the Epic Fighter wouldn't bother traveling by ship either.
philnicau 12-28-06, 01:47 PM	At sea, on a ship. Your fighter in his heavy platemail +5 is pushed overboard. Goodbye sinky person. Try to get out of that armor mate. Though no fighter would be so stupid as to wear heavy armor on a ship. 16th lvl Half-Orc fighter with 19 ranks in Swim, a strength of 24 plus skill focus swim, could have swimming of 19+(str)7+(Skill Focus) +3=29 (less armour check -12) Swimming skill of +17, i don't think he'd have any problems swimming in full plate.
Manyfist 12-28-06, 01:54 PM	Core= PHB + DMG + MM I + (Conserversial) XPH. I would say that the following classes don't suck: Psion, Erudite, Ardent, Lurk, Psychic Warrior, Psychic Rogue, Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Swordsage, Crusader, Warblade, Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, Warlock, Wilder, Artificer. The rest I say suck, but hey I got diffrent views so you may and may not agree. :P
Crimson_Concerto 12-28-06, 02:04 PM	The only two classes I think really suck are Soulblade and Healer, though I have yet to see either in action, so it may be that they look worse on paper to me than they actually are. Marshal and Bard are close, but they can still serve their purpose well if you know what you're doing, Bard especially. Really, I know that the Clerics, Druids, Archivists, and Artifacers are where the power really is, but a party of a Fighter, Ninja, Sorcerer, and Favored Soul could very easily get by, I think. It's my belief that these power curves we're always talking about on these boards are very exaggerated and really only come up when one is actively trying to break something.