The Core Class (3.5)

[PumpkinEater]

I'm just wondering, but... what are everyone's takes on the classes of the 3.5Player's Handbook? In general, I think Wizards are the best, but... I think Fighters are very fun to play :smallsmile:

[Flickerdart]

3 of the Big 5 are here: Wizard, Cleric and Druid. One of the most awful classes, the Monk, is also present. It's got a bit of everything!

[Olo Demonsbane]

What do you mean by "take"? Could you please restate the question?

[RS14]

What do you mean by "take"? Could you please restate the question?



Take: -Noun
...
99. an opinion or assessment: What's your take on the candidate?

What is your opinion of the core classes.

[RTGoodman]

Not gonna argue what's best, but the ones I like best are Barbarians, Monks, and Bards. Or, at least, those are the ones I've always had more fun playing. Wizards occasionally too, but I've never really been a Cleric or Rogue fan.

[Decoy Lockbox]

All of my favorite base classes are in the PHB: rogues, wizards and fighters. Of course, I prefer the fluff of fighter to the actual mechanics.

[Tempest Fennac]

I like Clerics best due to how they are the best healers. I'm not a big fan of Core Druids due to the companion needing to be managed. Barbarians, Rogues and Wizards aren't too bad either and Bards are fun.

[Salt_Crow]

I'm a huge fan of Druid class. I also admit being a bit partial toward sorcerers too ;)

[Kaiyanwang]

In the core classes , I love fighter and rogues because you built them in onehundred ways (even if you have to wander and wander OUTSIDE core to do it well) , and are very good in gestalt campaings together.

Said so, Druid fluff and versatility make it one of my favourite classes.

[Coidzor]

Why do people feel so strongly/strangely about the monk? I'm trying to work it out myself...

[Starscream]

I actually like all the core classes. They fit the broadest archetypes, and can be adapted to be almost any sort of character even without additional splatbooks.

And if you do use more books, they benefit more than other classes. Nearly every supplement has something designed for a druid or paladin in it.


Why do people feel so strongly/strangely about the monk? I'm trying to work it out myself...

Monk was actually my favorite class when I first started 3.5. They just seemed so freaking cool. You have all these wizards and dragons and things, and here comes Jet Li to pummel them with his bare hands! Freaking sweet!

But they just aren't very powerful. In fact, they are very probably the weakest of the core classes. So, cool concept, bad execution.

My advice is to either use a homebrewed fix for the class or (someone is legally required to say this whenever monks are brought up) play an unarmed Swordsage from ToB.

[Coidzor]

Monk was actually my favorite class when I first started 3.5. They just seemed so freaking cool. You have all these wizards and dragons and things, and here comes Jet Li to pummel them with his bare hands! Freaking sweet!
Yeah, what is it about them mechanically that gimps them? Other than their weaker BAB for a melee class and lack of extra damage dice from weapon enchantments. Or is it more that they're not actually hampered, they just don't have as much going on potentially as other classes?

[sonofzeal]

Barbarian
- solidly effective melee class in combat if played straight
- pretty narrow playstyle, but there's some interesting tactical variation possible (slingbarb, grapplebarb, etc)
- way too good as a dip class
- the fact that there's a 10 level gap before Rage even starts improving is a major problem
- easy to RP, but strangely compelling.

Bard
- total failure of a Jack-of-all-Trades
- still excellent in social situations
- minor non-social utility out of combat
- totally horrible in combat, without massive optimization
- totally overpowered in combat, with massive optimization.
- lot of RP potential, since that's most all of what you can do with the character anyway.

Cleric
- in core, a second-tier beatstick and only if you burn slots on quicken and waste rounds getting your better buffs going.
- outside of core, a nigh-unparalleled beatstick.
- good support class either way
- flexible due to domains
- usually not that interesting to RP (as most players seem to shy away from the actual religious aspects, strangely enough)

Druid
- overpowered at first level, due to Animal Companion, but that equalizes rapidly
- Wildshape is famously powerful, but only if the DM {a} allows the various tricks for getting full gear in animal form, and {b} isn't strict with the whole "must be familiar with the animal" thing. Balanced otherwise
- excellent spell list, great mix of utility, damage, buff, debuff, a little low on SoL, but strong on thematic connectivity.
- fun to RP, unless you spend all your time in Wildshape (something many recommend), in which case you can't talk ever.

Fighter
- flexible class, lot of good options
- linear in power growth, starts falling behind pretty early and is nigh-useless by end game
- excellent dip class, as a way for other martial characters to build up their specialty or cover their weaknesses.
- bit of a tabula rasa as far as built-in flavour and RP potential. Some find that good, some not.

Monk
- weak, weak class at all levels
- possible to optimize moderately well, with a generous DM
- decent dip class, for Deflect Arrows, Improved Grapple, and saves
- cool flavour, but very restrictive RP

Paladin
- starts good but doesn't really go anywhere
- mount is great in some campaigns, but nigh-useless in buildings, caves, and dungeons.
- has trouble holding his own even against Fighters, at higher levels
- seriously restrictive Code
- rather specific flavour, which seriously limits RP variety

Ranger
- only archery-themed class in core
- doesn't do anything to fix the problems that archery faces
- doesn't give anything to make TWF actually viable as a style
- gets a nice pile of random things that are underwhelming individually and add up to something fairly decent
- good flavour, decent RP variety

....I gtg, may do the rest later.

[Dhavaer]

If I had to play a core only game, I'd probably play a Ranger. With more options but still limited to core classes, I might go for a wizard, sorcerer or bard.

[sonofzeal]

Yeah, what is it about them mechanically that gimps them? Other than their weaker BAB for a melee class and lack of extra damage dice from weapon enchantments. Or is it more that they're not actually hampered, they just don't have as much going on potentially as other classes?
A lot of attacks that all miss and don't do nearly enough when they hit.

Special defenses that are inferior to regular defenses.

Hodgepodge of random supernatural things which don't usually do much.

Not many good options out-of-Core either.

[Gnorman]

Yeah, what is it about them mechanically that gimps them? Other than their weaker BAB for a melee class and lack of extra damage dice from weapon enchantments. Or is it more that they're not actually hampered, they just don't have as much going on potentially as other classes?

Crazy MAD - you can really only dump charisma and intelligence.

Relatively flavorful yet useless abilities - sure, you may make more saves than anybody else, you may move slightly faster, you may have all these cool quivering palms and stunning strikes but you're still basically a melee class that can't kill a damn thing.

Weapons offer far more utility in reach, different types of damage, ACTUAL damage (yeah what a halfling monk starts out at 1d4 damage? Kind of pathetic).

I can go on.

[Starscream]

Yeah, what is it about them mechanically that gimps them? Other than their weaker BAB for a melee class and lack of extra damage dice from weapon enchantments. Or is it more that they're not actually hampered, they just don't have as much going on potentially as other classes?

Couple of things.

* Lousy BAB for a melee class, as you mentioned.
* Hit dice need to be bigger
* Unarmed strikes will never do as much damage as a nice weapon
* All the cool features happen late in the game, when everyone else has spells or items that are just as good or better
* Too MAD. You need high strength, dex, con and wisdom to be a good monk. Whereas a fighter or barbarian can get by on just good strength and con.

This stuff is all easily fixable, but by RAW the class sucks.

[Malacode]

Sorcs are a fun class that don't require too much effort. Just make sure that Charisma isn't your dump stat and that you take Alter Self as a spell and you're sweet. Fighters work well as a dip for a feat or two, but I never take more than 4 levels in the class. Barbarians are always fun too, as they rock without any effort required. Oh, and on the underpowered-ness of monks.. One of my mates has a monk character more powerful than the rest of his party combined. It's pretty impressive seeing exactly what the guy can do. Then again, he didn't roll anything under a 15 on stat generation, soooo...

[monty]

One of the main problems I always saw with monks is that two of their primary features - mobility and flurry - are contradictory. Flurry requires a full attack, which means all that extra movement is useless on any turn that you actually want to do anything. Also, the fact that their movement is an enhancement bonus means it's almost worthless for half the game when the wizard can just cast haste on the whole party for the same or greater benefit.

Two of my houserules go to fix this - the extra movement is untyped, so it stacks with haste et al, and I let monks get their extra flurry attack(s) on a single attack (like Snap Kick). I mean, it'd be easier to just tell them to play a swordsage than fix all this stuff, but some people are weird and like to see the word "monk" on their character sheet for some reason.

[Epinephrine]

I'll just say I like the rebalance that Pathfinder brings to the core classes.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Why do people feel so strongly/strangely about the monk? I'm trying to work it out myself...The Monk looks cool. You open the books for the first time, you can be a holy man, some dragon's illigitimate kid, or a teleporting, incredibly fast, supernatural fighter with no need for a weapon to beat up ogres. It comes with a large number of abilities that seem cool on paper, but end up being useless. And I at least learned how bad it really is through experience, which left a bad taste in my mouth with regards to the class.

That said, it does take more flak than it deserves. It's pretty bad for a PC, but makes an excellent Dragon or Recurring Villian NPC.

[Telonius]

Barbarian: Nice and slow power progression. Probably one of the best-balanced classes in Core. Plus, Thog smash.

Bard: Love to play 'em, but I love playing charismatic characters in general. Not that useful if you're fighting things that are immune to mind-affecting effects (which is a lot of things).

Cleric: Should have been Cloistered all along, and some spells should be War Domain-only. Too powerful, even in Core.

Druid: Too powerful. Anyone class that lets characters overshadow the rest of the party by accident needs a fix. That said, the bookkeeping is prohibitive for beginning players.

Fighter: Great as a dip class, bad to 20. Its biggest problem (apart from Casters reigning supreme) is the nature of feats. It gets tons of them. That means that you use all the best ones first.

Monk: I so, so want to like this class. But its abilities are a mishmash, its damage is awful (absent mega-cheese or pretending to be a wizard through UMD), and it looks a lot shinier than it is. It's easy to fix, but as is, it's terrible.

Paladin: Front-loaded, too many empty levels, and a Code that is the bane of RPers everywhere. Play it right, and you have a very rewarding experience. Play it Miko, and the rest of the group wants to strangle you.

Ranger: Front-loaded. You can take a couple of Fighter levels for the feats and get a better character than staying in until 20. But, it's flavorful, and the favored enemies are interesting.

Rogue: IMO, the best designed class in Core.... except for level 20. Rogue19/Anything But Commoner1 is a better choice. Aside from that, it's very customizable, decent damage output, interesting abilities... not much not to like about it.

Sorcerer and Wizard: I would have switched this a little - given Sorc the bonus metamagic feats, and Wiz the Item Creation feats. Wizard is arguably the most powerful class in the game, even in core. Spells that make entire classes obsolete, spells that make themselves nigh-invincible, spells that trap you no matter what... Given enough preparation, a high-level Wizard will cause earthly powers to shake in their boots, slay armies, command cosmic forces that would drive lesser minds mad, and warp the nature of reality itself. The problem here is the number of spells available. The Wizard simply has far more options than any other core class, and it gets worse beyond core. Sorcerer is Wizard Lite. Great for beginning players who want to chuck fireballs around.

[Tempest Fennac]

Telonius, would you say normal Clerics would be that bad if the self buffs were banned? I never saw those as a problem without DMM due to them taking up spell slots which could be used for spells which could be more useful to be honest.

[Telonius]

Divine Power is really the biggest offender. Move that into War Domain only, and it's not nearly as bad. (Yeah, I know, Enlarge Person; but that's not nearly as bad over the course of the game). The main problem with that spell is that it steps all over the Fighter's territory. Even if they don't have it Persisted, the duration for Divine Power is rounds/level. Most encounters don't last for more than five rounds or so, and Clerics get the spell at level 7. So you turn into a melee machine for what amounts to an entire encounter. (War Clerics really ought to be able to cast something like that; other Clerics, not so much). By level 13, you can throw four of those around every day, more if your WIS is 18 or higher (which, by 13, it ought to be). So even in Core, you get what's basically full BAB for your average four-encounters-per-day by level 13 at the latest. But if the spell is moved to a Domain spell only, you only get it once a day in Core - and even then, only if you worship a War God. Which I'd say is about right.

(It's still open to Wand and other magic item abuse, but that's a little bit easier to avoid. Clerics of a War God might not want their ammunition being used by anybody but members of the faith, etc).

[Tempest Fennac]

I'd probably end up using a lot of my level 4 spell slots for healing when I first got access to them (I've found that in-combat healing is often essential). Also, if it's not Persisted and you're using Divine Power in every fight, it would still need 1 round to use, which would delay the Cleric as far as attacking things went slightly (especially if they need to cast other spells, such as Death Ward).

[Lycanthromancer]

I'd probably end up using a lot of my level 4 spell slots for healing when I first got access to them (I've found that in-combat healing is often essential). Also, if it's not Persisted and you're using Divine Power in every fight, it would still need 1 round to use, which would delay the Cleric as far as attacking things went slightly (especially if they need to cast other spells, such as Death Ward).

If you're having to heal in combat (except for heal), you're sooooo doing it wrong. The amount that cure spells heal is less than an enemy can hit for, which only gets worse at higher levels, meaning a single attack (not even a full attack, which is loads worse) is enough to undo what you just spent your last turn doing, and more. Prevent damage, or soak it up; never cure during a fight - use heal or the mass version if you must (since they actually heal enough to be worthwhile), but you'd be better off doing nearly anything else.

And you can use potions/scrolls/wands, rather than spell slots, if need be (barring things like Persisted lesser vigor).

[Decoy Lockbox]

Why do people feel so strongly/strangely about the monk? I'm trying to work it out myself...

There are a number of camps on this issue. Some people feel like the monk doesn't fit in with the rest of the core classes, since most of them have origins in European history or myth. Some people think their abilities are too anime-esque, and so hate on them for that. Others (like myself) think the idea behind monks is really cool, but that the execution was done horribly. Still others insist that there is nothing wrong with monks.

Honestly, given what I've seen in other threads and forums, I'm surprised this thread hasn't devolved into a pro-monk/anti-monk flamewar yet.

One fundamental flaw in the monk's design was the overvaluing of dice size in terms of damage. A lot of people see the level 20 monk's unarmed damage and go "oh boy, 2d10! Thats more damage than any weapon in the game!". Of course, what they fail to realize is that 1) a lot of your attacks are going to be missing at that level due to poor BaB and the inability to enchant your fists, and 2) the damage done by a high-level melee character rarely has anything to do with the dice size of his weapon, but with the static modifiers attached to it. If a fighter does +50 damage per hit, it isn't terribly important if the dice size of his weapon is 2d6, 1d12, 1d10, etc. I suspect that this kind of thinking might be a relic of 2e/1e, where static bonuses were few and far between (for example, a 17 strength only gave you +1 to damage), and the dice size of your weapon was somewhat of a sticking point.

Another problem with monks is that they are supposed to be the class which is least beholden to magic items, but with their reliance on multiple stat-uppers, natural armor/deflection boosters and insanely overcosted amulets of mighty fists, they end up being the most gear-dependent class in core. Its true that a monk can out-AC a fighter, but he is going to spend a lot of money doing that, which is completely at odds with the monk's flavor as a wandering ascetic that so many people find cool.

The multiple attribute dependency (MAD) is pretty nasty as well. A monk needs good wisdom and dexterity to increase his armor class, which is very important as a melee-focused character. However, unless he spends a feat on weapon finesse, he cannot use his high dexterity for attack rolls. In addition, the monk must increase his strength in order to up the damage his attacks do, and must up his constitution to compensate for his lower hit die size.

The class also gets a wide array of wierd 'n' whacky class abilities, some of which I've never seen used, such as the ability to speak to any living thing (I think they get this around level 14 or so). I've also never seen a situation where slow fall would come in handy. Quivering palm is nifty, but they only get it once a week, and the DC is often too low to be of any meaningful use, especially at a level where casters have multiple save-or-dies, with much higher DCs.

Altogether, the class is just a giant mess. Not only is the 3.5 monk a mess, but the 3.0, 2e and 1e monk were all uniformly horrible. Its like there is/was a conspiracy at TSR/WotC to gimp the monk for all time. I just pray that the 4e monk will at least be decent; I have a friend who loves playing monks, and I don't want him to be stuck waiting for 5th edition to not suck :smallbiggrin:

[Starscream]

I can think of at least a few situations where monks come in handy.

If you are running a campaign in which magic items are rare, then a Monk with Vow of Poverty can be pretty sweet (though a druid can also seriously benefit from that feat, and isn't weak to begin with).

In a Gestalt campaign, monks work well with just about any class of lawful alignment. Three good saves, fantastic speed, AC bonus helps both divine casters (who have great wisdom) and arcane ones (who can't wear armor). Combined with a rogue you'd get an awesome ninja (flurry of Sneak Attacks FTW). Depending on how you interpret the rules, you might be able to keep a lot of your powers while Wild Shaped.

But yeah, these are the exceptions, not the rule. In most cases there are better ways to accomplish everything a monk can do.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

If you are running a campaign in which magic items are rare, then a Monk with Vow of Poverty can be pretty sweet (though a druid can also seriously benefit from that feat, and isn't weak to begin with).Actually, Monks are seriously nerfed in any low-wealth campaign. VoP is OP in those circumstances, but that says more about the setting-dependance of VoP than Monks. A Monk without multiple stat boosters has serious AC, HP, AB, and damage issues, without stacking AC bonuses is very vulnerable, and without something to apply weapon enchants(Necklace or Amulet generally) has even more issues with enemies.
In a Gestalt campaign, monks work well with just about any class of lawful alignment. Three good saves, fantastic speed, AC bonus helps both divine casters (who have great wisdom) and arcane ones (who can't wear armor). Combined with a rogue you'd get an awesome ninja (flurry of Sneak Attacks FTW). Depending on how you interpret the rules, you might be able to keep a lot of your powers while Wild Shaped.I've never called Monks useless. Passive abilities classes like that are much better in Gestalt(look at how great Fighter is for 6-10 levels Gestalted with a Rogue or Cleric), and as I said earlier, Monks make great NPCs. It just is majorly weak in most campaigns as a PC.

[Southern Cross]

Again that's due to bad game design...
Logically,a monk should have the same hit dice as a barbarian,Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat,the same BAB as a fighter,and appropriate special abilities for someone who beats up monsters with their bare hands.

[Ixahinon]

Crazy MAD - you can really only dump charisma and intelligence.

Relatively flavorful yet useless abilities - sure, you may make more saves than anybody else, you may move slightly faster, you may have all these cool quivering palms and stunning strikes but you're still basically a melee class that can't kill a damn thing.

Weapons offer far more utility in reach, different types of damage, ACTUAL damage (yeah what a halfling monk starts out at 1d4 damage? Kind of pathetic).

I can go on.

I always thought this was the point of monks. They are more or less the makeshift scout of the D&D world, of course, rangers and thieves are better..but monks work. They aren't there to beat down enemies on their own, though they are there to assist in damage whenever possible.

Their increase in speed makes them suitable to into and out of sticky situations. I'd agree that their hit dice should be d12, but it works nonetheless.

Monks also make a decent 'tank' if you get high dex and wisdom, coupled with Combat Expertise, and later on, Improved Combat Expertise. Makes for a really easy AC early in the game..and a sustanded AC as the game progresses.

I don't play monks myself...but I don't see where I would go out of my way to avoid them.

[Zeta Kai]

Well, I can't really express how much I love the Rogue. Rogues have been my favorite class since 2E, & the 3.5E version is awesome stuff. My only two issues with the class are:

It has no capstone. It gets a dead level for level 20. Seriously, guys? This is just inexcusable. However, I always pay with the no-dead-level variant (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a), which grants Skilled Saboteur at 20th level. Problem Solved.
Other than Complete Scoundrel, there is almost no supplemental material for Rogues. It's almost like WotC set them free & let them fend for themselves in the wild, while every other class got to come back & feed from the back door. Even some prestige classes got more later love in non-Core books.

I also love the alternative-alignment Paladins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny) from Unearthed Arcana, which are much more interesting than your run-of-the-mill Paladin of Honor. Monks are fun, but only if they're optimized all to hell. Bards & Sorcerers can be a lot of fun, too.

I normally stay away from playing overpowered classes, like Wizards & Druids. I'll only play one of those if my stand-in DM won't let me play a Bio-Mage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2487790#post2487790). I've played pwn-casters before, & dominating a campaign & outshining my fellow players gets old after a while. Once, I even voluntarily got nerfed, just so the game would be fun again.

I also eschew Rangers, as I've just never found them all that interesting. Aragorn-the-Class just doesn't appeal to me that much, & they tend to be underpowered for their level, but less worth twinking-out, like a Monk is.

[Zhalath]

I like the core for establishing the game, and giving others stuff to work on.
From the book itself, I love rangers and rogues, as well as clerics and druids.

On the monk issue, monks have always functioned well in my games, and people in my party like the class. I just loosened the alignment restrictions, and gave it Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat (in exchange for something). It seems to work well. Then again, my group isn't made up of powergamers (they optimize, but often just roll with what looks cool).

[Tempest Fennac]

Lycanthromancer, I've often been in situations at low levels where I've needed to heal people because they were KOed. Regarding the idea that killing or de-buffing enemies is better, I'd personally say using a Cure Moderate Wounds spell to keep an ally fighting is better then risking trying to Blind an enemy who may make the Fort save (or trying to hit them when you may miss). Also, preventing damage in itself is a gambit due to how the enemy may get lucky or find away around whatever spells you'd be using for that purpose.

[Optimystik]

Core is core. It's like asking people's opinion on bread.

They're balanced (somewhat), easy for new players to grasp, and thankfully we're not stuck with them all the way to 20.

[Lycanthromancer]

Core is core. It's like asking people's opinion on bread.

They're the worst balanced books in the game (somewhat), easy for new players to grasp, and thankfully we're not stuck with them all the way to 20.

Fixed.

The Player's Handbook contains three of the uberbroken Big Five, and two of the weakest classes in the entire game (I'll let you figure out which are which).

There's no decent balance to be found in core. Sorry.