Most Well Designed Classes in 3.5?

[Troacctid]

Artificer - In my limited experience with the class, the infusion-heavy Artificer who doesn't make much stuff was still quite strong. UMD is a hell of a skill. In Eberron (where I saw an Artificer in play) it's also useful as a healer for Warforged PCs, which is a solid perk.

Indeed. The introductory paragraphs for the class talk about its role in the party and the advantages it can offer a group. Infusing allies' equipment to buff them and being able to utilize any magic item the party comes across are both mentioned more prominently than the crafting abilities.

And frankly, it doesn't take that much downtime to use to your craft reserve, especially at lower levels when you can drain it completely in a day or two. Worst comes to worst, you can sacrifice infusion slots to craft during the night while the other party members sleep.

[Doctor Awkward]

Your evidence is no less anecdotal;

Correct. The difference though is that you didn't even entertain the possibility that you could have at some point made mistakes in your build or gameplay. You just threw up your hands and declared it to be a bad class.

It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools.

Rules Compendium has no authority over the Primary Source Errata.

I want you to consider for a moment all of the possible implications of you attempting to run a game with that ruling.

That means that no book other than the Player's Handbook has any authority over any subject, as the errata specifically gives the PHB sole authority over "the rules of the game." (whatever the hell that means).

It means that the Draconomicon, Races of the Dragon, and countless other splats that within their rules text assert their primacy over older sources cannot do so, and thus everything they have to say on a given subject is meaningless.

If you are so single-minded that you cannot see the flaw in that approach, then you are clearly not interested in arriving at the truth of the matter. You are interested in "winning" an argument.

Cunning Strike specifies a single attack roll;

No it doesn't.
It says only "Starting at 4th level, you can spend 1 inspiration point to gain 1d6 points of sneak attack damage. You must spend the inspiration point to activate this ability before making the attack roll."
It does not specify what kind of an action it is to do so, which defaults it to a free action (or a standard action in your world), and lists no expiration, like every other Inspiration ability does. Thus in your games, in which Cunning Surge is a nonability because it takes a standard action to activate, any factotum can spend any round in which they do nothing else to use a standard action to "gain" a d6 of Sneak Attack that lasts forever. Then gain another and another in perpetuity, as Inspiration points refill at the start of every encounter.

Or would you like to reconsider your position yet?

All these option eat away at your action economy. Using True Strike, Sniper's Shot , Grave/Vine/Golem Strike all at once is impossible due to the duration of the spells. And that still leaves enemies with Fortification and, even more common, Uncanny Dodge immune to your ranged sneak attacks;
Bards need splat books (and that's debatable). Factotums need splats and also need the DM to babysit them and correct their dysfunctional rule set.

A Factotum above level 8 that really wants to put his mind to Nova a target with sneak attack has as many standard actions for as many spells as they need.

Neither Uncanny Dodge nor Improved Uncanny Dodge do anything against Sneak Attacks if you are flat-footed to the Factotum (by not being aware of it's presence). Uncanny Dodge does not make you immune to being flat-footed, you simply retain your Dexterity bonus when you are. Just reading the text of the feature tells you that the character can clearly still be caught flat-footed, viz., "even if he is caught flat-footed. Immunity to being flat-footed is an incredibly common misunderstanding of how that class feature works due to other book authors misreading the ability and suggesting in their own work that it does something it does not.

You're clearly so in love with the class you can't see its flaws.

I know exactly what a Factotum's flaws are.
Low amounts of available Inspiration points cause them to very quickly fall behind in encounters that last longer than a couple of rounds, necessitating several instances of the Font of Inspiration feat to give them any sort of staying power.
Their in-class arcane support is also very low. Given the level range most games are played, a factotum will only get about three to six spells per day. And even at 20 they only get up to 8th level spells. Additionally their options to metamagic those spells are very weak. This necessitates a collection of scrolls and wands, along with a prodigious use of UMD to adequately function in this area, which several other classes can also do. And like those other classes a factotum simply cannot effectively fill the role of a dedicated arcane caster.

I am well aware that the class is not perfect, and is a little underpowered without splat support. You, on the other hand, are so blinded by your bad experience playing them that you have to rewrite the Rules As Written to create a scenario where they are unplayable.

[Zombulian]

Correct. The difference though is that you didn't even entertain the possibility that you could have at some point made mistakes in your build or gameplay. You just threw up your hands and declared it to be a bad class.

It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools.

But this is a thread about the quality of tools

I don't generally agree that full casters are more balanced just because you can scale them down. That seems to break with the intent of the thread, which is to talk about classes that don't need scaling up or down to balance at T3. I mean, if we include T1s because they can scale down, should we include T5s that can scale up? Seems to be counterproductive. We should be looking at "out of the box" build samples, maybe averaged with typical real builds that most commonly see play for classes that have goofy mechanics.

I think this is something good to keep in mind. At the same time though, I think it's interesting that this came from the same person arguing for Scout.

[Lans]

It’s well balanced, because it’s the only full 9 caster other than healer and warmage that really won’t outperform Tier 3s or well built tier 4s.

i think the shugenja fits that bill as well.

[Luccan]

i think the shugenja fits that bill as well.

Hurrah, more support for the Shugenja!

[Dimers]

It’s well balanced, because it’s the only full 9 caster other than healer and warmage that really won’t outperform Tier 3s or well built tier 4s.

It’s also badly balanced in that it is worse than Druid in every single imaginable way.

It’s horribly designed, in that it has access to a tier 1 spell list designed with Druid in mind, so that half the spells on its list are nearly unusable.

Gotta disagree with the first two points. A spirit shaman's class features are definitely helpful in sufficiently common situations -- like, fighting elementals or incorporeal undead. So not worse in every imaginable way. And I've played a spirit shaman and had to hold myself back for my fighter and psychic-warrior allies. Even wonky full casting is powerful.

[Quertus]

Exhibit A displaying a player restricting his wizard to preparing only evocation spells is playing the same class as Exhibit B, who has a player that chain-gates efreet. EDIT: Though you do have a point on restriction of spells, which is why beguiler and warmage are both considered balanced.

So, Wizard can play with party A, or party B. They are well designed to operate at a variety of balance points. How many classes can say that?

It is if they're in the same party with the casters but they -can't- play the game in the same way.

I thought the point of different classes was that they played the game different ways.

It's a strange sword & sorcery game that dispenses with the sword guys altogether.

Don't do that! Where would Quertus be without meat shields "sword guys"?

If the class -is- its spells, and the spells break the game, the class breaks the game.

That's an interesting position. There exist things - specific spells, specific feats, specific tactics - that break the game. If "spells" break the game, by this logic, that means feats and tactics break the game. So I'm pretty sure that the logic breaks at this point.

But the second half is much more interesting (IMO). Even if we agree that feats break the game, declaring that, by virtue of being about feats, a class is broken? Even when there are plenty of balanced feats to take?

the fact that picking a PrC is the default rather than an option strongly suggests they're just not well designed. They're nothing but low-level filler until you can reach your chosen PrC(s).

So, in another thread, we had someone claiming that Arcane Archer as a base class was indicative of bad design. So I'm a bit confused on just what criteria people are using.

Why is being good at qualifying for the prestige class you actually want indicative of bad class design?

Warblade, definitely. Swordsage and crusader are plagued by their refresh mechanics, which are basically a feat tax and RNG respectively.

What do you have against their refresh mechanics?

Swordsage, like many prestige classes, says that playing this class costs you a feat. Sounds fair.

Crusader has the advantage that playing the class, you get free chaos. Sounds fair.

Fixed-list casters are nice and what wizards and their like should've been like from the beginning - a concrete concept which has good tricks

Strongly disagree.

Wizards should have been what wizards were from the beginning - sages searching the ruins of fallen civilizations for scraps of arcane knowledge. None of this getting free spells as you level - or, worse, gain access to your entire fixed list - BS.

"craft everything" is not a well-designed premise for a class in 3.5.

I mean, "craft the entire party's WBL" was actually part of the concept for one of my characters, and it worked just fine.

But this is a thread about the quality of tools

Hahaha, true that.

However, one of my best 3e characters was created when another player tried a class, and declared it unplayable. Challenge accepted!

[Ignimortis]

What do you have against their refresh mechanics?

Swordsage, like many prestige classes, says that playing this class costs you a feat. Sounds fair.

Crusader has the advantage that playing the class, you get free chaos. Sounds fair.

Swordsage is not a prestige class. I like PoW's recharge mechanics better, because, like Warblade, you get resources back for doing things you should be doing. Harbinger gets a maneuver back for claiming enemies, which is important and supported by class features, Warder gets maneuvers back for using Defensive Focus, which improves tanking capabilities, which is what Warders do, Warlords regain maneuvers for using Gambits, etc. Warblade gets maneuvers for hitting people, which is a bit too easy, but also synergizes with his purpose.

Meanwhile a Swordsage...has to stand still and focus, which is counterproductive for a mobile striker archetype, and a Crusader just has to hope he gets some good stuff (yes, I could've made a joke about "having faith", but I won't).

Strongly disagree.

Wizards should have been what wizards were from the beginning - sages searching the ruins of fallen civilizations for scraps of arcane knowledge. None of this getting free spells as you level - or, worse, gain access to your entire fixed list - BS.

I prefer my casters to be thematic. It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but I strongly dislike wizard's "master of all arcane arts conceivable" theme. Clerics are harder to bring in line, although domains might've helped there, but wizards...eh. I like classes that have features besides "you get spells, all of the spells".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I prefer my casters to be thematic. It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but I strongly dislike wizard's "master of all arcane arts conceivable" theme. Clerics are harder to bring in line, although domains might've helped there, but wizards...eh. I like classes that have features besides "you get spells, all of the spells".

I express no opinion on the rest of the discussion, but I strongly agree here. If wizards are supposed to be arcane researchers, then it's even more important that they have limited focus (from a broad set of possible foci). Because real researchers are incredibly narrowly specialized.

As a quantum chemistry PhD, I was an expert in one particular method of simulating scattering events between certain molecules at a narrow range of energies. I could talk reasonably at the "general graduate student level" in a small range of other fields, and could do the basics of any physics and most chemistry fields.

In game terms, I'd probably be able to learn any 1-3rd level spell, some 4-6 level spells, and 7-9th level spells from a very narrow range of themes (not even spell-schools, those are too wide). I have no idea how you'd actually implement that, but it's how a researcher should look. Wide shallow base, incredibly narrow but deep focus.

Being an expert in everything simultaneously means that the topics aren't very well understood. It was much easier being a polymath back when we really didn't know much.

[Komatik]

I prefer my casters to be thematic. It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but I strongly dislike wizard's "master of all arcane arts conceivable" theme. Clerics are harder to bring in line, although domains might've helped there, but wizards...eh. I like classes that have features besides "you get spells, all of the spells".

Soo... Death Master? :>

[Ignimortis]

Soo... Death Master? :>

A different Dread Necromancer, from what I see? Kinda okay-ish at first glance, too. A bit fiddly with "can cast stuff in armor but only by using blood of sentient creatures", but w/e. In general, yes, this is close to what I'm talking about.

[Komatik]

A different Dread Necromancer, from what I see? Kinda okay-ish at first glance, too. A bit fiddly with "can cast stuff in armor but only by using blood of sentient creatures", but w/e. In general, yes, this is close to what I'm talking about.

I'm mostly themegasming about the spell list. DM's is a bit sparse in comparison.

[Ignimortis]

I'm mostly themegasming about the spell list. DM's is a bit sparse in comparison.

True enough, the spell-list is slightly better from thematic point of view. Might look into it, didn't really bother with DragComp classes before...

[heavyfuel]

...

I apply the Primary Source Errata rule when there are clear contradictions between rules. If the core books say an (Ex) ability is a standard action, and RC say it's a free one, then I'm sticking to the core books.

And even if Cunning Surge let you stack as many standard actions as needed, you still couldn't cast two Swift Action spells in the round. And you don't have as many standard actions as needed. At lv 8 you get 5 IP, so that's a single extra action. Two if you've spent a feat in Font of Inspiration.

Flat-footed doesn't allow Sneak Attacks. Being Dex denied or flanked do. Flat-footed is just a very common way of getting people to be Dex denied, and Uncanny Dodge foils it. Reversely, a character with Uncanny Dodge can still be struck by a Iaijutsu Focus attack, since the condition there is the opponent being flat-footed.

So yeah. Terrible class design. Needs to beg the DM to allow a bunch of things to maybe nova a single opponent once per combat. If you disagree with it, fine. Doesn't make the class less poorly designed.

[gkathellar]

Totemist is a great piece of design, with enough moving parts for the experienced player but numerous ways to build a totally viable punchbot or other simple build. It has a cool aesthetic (the best art in MoI is easily for the totemist, including some or Wayne Reynolds' most restrained, sensible work), unique toys, very little ability score dependency, and compelling reasons both to multiclass and to take the class all the way to 20.

[Ignimortis]

I apply the Primary Source Errata rule when there are clear contradictions between rules. If the core books say an (Ex) ability is a standard action, and RC say it's a free one, then I'm sticking to the core books.

And even if Cunning Surge let you stack as many standard actions as needed, you still couldn't cast two Swift Action spells in the round. And you don't have as many standard actions as needed. At lv 8 you get 5 IP, so that's a single extra action. Two if you've spent a feat in Font of Inspiration.

Flat-footed doesn't allow Sneak Attacks. Being Dex denied or flanked do. Flat-footed is just a very common way of getting people to be Dex denied, and Uncanny Dodge foils it. Reversely, a character with Uncanny Dodge can still be struck by a Iaijutsu Focus attack, since the condition there is the opponent being flat-footed.

So yeah. Terrible class design. Needs to beg the DM to allow a bunch of things to maybe nova a single opponent once per combat. If you disagree with it, fine. Doesn't make the class less poorly designed.

Uh, Factotums are good at many things. Damage is their weakness, and the only point in which they distinctly lose to rogues. They're an extremely good skill-monkey, can whip out magic when it's needed, and even can break action economy a little bit if they want. They have no damage, but that's not why people pick them.

The only bad part about factotums is their IC justification. They're basically pulling tricks out of their butt by being so very clever.

[heavyfuel]

Uh, Factotums are good at many things. Damage is their weakness, and the only point in which they distinctly lose to rogues. They're an extremely good skill-monkey, can whip out magic when it's needed, and even can break action economy a little bit if they want. They have no damage, but that's not why people pick them.

The only bad part about factotums is their IC justification. They're basically pulling tricks out of their butt by being so very clever.

While I do think Factotums are sub-par in many situations - combat being one of them - my main argument is that they were not well designed, which is the entire point of this thread.

They require multiple rulings by DMs to work, and that's a terrible way to design something. I understand that on a game with infinite options such as D&D, DMs will have to make rulings at some point, but this thing that should be an eventuality is a constant with the Factotum.

What action is Cunning Surge? Can you use it more than once a round? How long does Cunning Strike last? Can I apply more than 1d6 damage to Cunning Strike? What is an encounter? What happens to my remaining IP after the encounter? Do I get IP when out of combat? What the hell a "spell resistance check" even is?

Even if they are decent skill monkeys, they have horrific design. The fact they also suck at combat just compounds their problems.

[Troacctid]

I apply the Primary Source Errata rule when there are clear contradictions between rules. If the core books say an (Ex) ability is a standard action, and RC say it's a free one, then I'm sticking to the core books.

I see you don't apply it when there's a contradiction in the primary source rules.

[n00b17]

I mean, "craft the entire party's WBL" was actually part of the concept for one of my characters, and it worked just fine.

I think you misunderstand me. It's a bad premise because a) the artificer can craft everything off every list two levels earlier than a full caster can. b) Full casters already break the game, and an artificer can do all the same stuff, just earlier. c) Crafting armor, weapons, etc for the party is fine. That doesn't usually break the game. And if you didn't break the game in your case, great! But consumables can quite easily break the game if you're not careful, even if it didn't happen in your case

[Cosi]

Can you explain that to someone not familiar with the class? It sounds like you said they, say, gain spell points every day, with no limit to max spell points.

The relevant text is this:

At the beginning of each encounter, he gains a number of inspiration points determined by his level.

It specifies when you gain the points, and how many you gain, but not any expiration or limit. So by RAW, you can bag-of-rats your way to infinite actions. That alone disqualifies the class from "well designed".

Now, if you're trying to say that they require dumpster diving to hit an acceptable floor (for some definition of "acceptable"), then I can see the argument.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I... might be tempted to call this "well designed", actually. It's the class for players who get great joy out of dumpster diving for the character creation minigame, and who would be OP AF with a more traditional caster.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it means that you are creating classes that (if you have done your job with concept), will appeal to a variety of players, but ensured that most of them will not be able to play them effectively.

Care to explain this one?

Artificers are real bad at low levels because their options are "use abilities with 10 minute casting times" and "try to make a UMD check to use a scroll". Neither of those things are conducive to effective action at low levels. At high levels they can do whatever arbitrary stuff they want. People look at "break the game any way you want" and confuse it with "do useful things that are effective".

Even if we're basing the classes (mind you, not the players) off of balance, Exhibit A displaying a player restricting his wizard to preparing only evocation spells is playing the same class as Exhibit B, who has a player that chain-gates efreet. EDIT: Though you do have a point on restriction of spells, which is why beguiler and warmage are both considered balanced.

Blaming "Wizards" for Chain Binding is stupid. If you are allowed to do that, anyone can break the game because you can just buy Candles of Invocation. The biggest mistake people make when discussing power is looking at infinite loops and assuming they matter at all.

It’s well balanced, because it’s the only full 9 caster other than healer and warmage that really won’t outperform Tier 3s or well built tier 4s.

Why does "balanced" mean "Tier Three"?

It's a strange sword & sorcery game that dispenses with the sword guys altogether.

Sure, but it's hardly the caster's fault that Fighters don't get any class features that matter. Deciding if the Wizard is good should be done on the Wizard's terms.

[Doctor Awkward]

I apply the Primary Source Errata rule when there are clear contradictions between rules. If the core books say an (Ex) ability is a standard action, and RC say it's a free one, then I'm sticking to the core books.

Then you're doing it wrong.
If a book asserts it's own primacy over a given subject, then it has primacy.
The Rules As Written do not care about your feelings.

And even if Cunning Surge let you stack as many standard actions as needed, you still couldn't cast two Swift Action spells in the round. And you don't have as many standard actions as needed. At lv 8 you get 5 IP, so that's a single extra action. Two if you've spent a feat in Font of Inspiration.

So even with the least favorable interpretation possible of Cunning Surge (one extra standard action per round tops), a naked Factotum can still do something such as dropping Cloudkill and Solid Fog on a group of enemies, effectively removing them from combat (likely until they are dead).

What can a naked Rogue do in that same round?

Flat-footed doesn't allow Sneak Attacks. Being Dex denied or flanked do. Flat-footed is just a very common way of getting people to be Dex denied, and Uncanny Dodge foils it. Reversely, a character with Uncanny Dodge can still be struck by a Iaijutsu Focus attack, since the condition there is the opponent being flat-footed.

Apparently so.
Though once again, this makes him worse than a rogue how?

So yeah. Terrible class design. Needs to beg the DM to allow a bunch of things to maybe nova a single opponent once per combat. If you disagree with it, fine. Doesn't make the class less poorly designed.

You are free to disagree with me as well.
After all, I cannot force you to be correct.

What you aren't free to do is push your unsubstantiated opinion on a public forum as fact and not expect someone to point out your mistakes.


@Cosi

The singular biggest problem in this thread right now is that everyone is posting opinions for or against particular classes based solely on what fits their own personal definition "well-designed".

Rather than what it actually means, which is, "artistically or skillfully planned, especially for a particular purpose", we are running the gamut from
-"meets it's stated design goals", to,
-"performs beyond normal expectations", to,
-"is too complicated and difficult to comprehend", to,
-"I don't like it".

We are never going to reach any kind of a consensus unless we agree to work from the same starting point.

[Nifft]

So even with the least favorable interpretation possible of Cunning Surge (one extra standard action per round tops), a naked Factotum

Point of order: as already mentioned in this thread, the least favorable interpretation possible of Cunning Surge is that it costs a standard action to activate, which means that under the least favorable interpretation possible it's dysfunctional and does literally nothing except cost you 4 points.

Good luck putting lipstick on that pig.

Also, why is your Factotum naked? I get that this is a fantasy game but usually it's not that kind of fantasy.

[Doctor Awkward]

Point of order: as already mentioned in this thread, the least favorable interpretation possible of Cunning Surge is that it costs a standard action to activate, which means that under the least favorable interpretation possible it's dysfunctional and does literally nothing except cost you 4 points.

Good luck putting lipstick on that pig.

Also, why is your Factotum naked? I get that this is a fantasy game but usually it's not that kind of fantasy.

Sorry. The least favorable correct interpretation of Cunning Surge.

And naked means gear-less. Grow up.

[ZamielVanWeber]

i think the shugenja fits that bill as well.

Shugenja is, sadly, atrociously designed. It has no class features beyond spells after level one and is eventually required to learn spells that do not exist. The number of 0th spells a shugenja knows eventually exceeds the number on their spell list. I bought Magic of Rokugan just to give them some love (and love they got).

Out of the PHB the only one I feel wad generally well designed was druid. It had class features all the way up beyond spell casting that generally kept relevant and the features did a good job at evoking the class's theme.
Honorable mention to bard: it's design kept getting in its way so you often end up with this jack-of-all-trades feeling but they really took a good stab at it.

[Nifft]

Sorry. The least favorable correct interpretation of Cunning Surge.

And naked means gear-less. Grow up.

Solid Fog has a (M)aterial component, and Factotums need to provide those -- so without any gear you ain't casting that spell.

Sorry, even in your absurdly favorable scenario, the Factotum fails to deliver because you're wrong about the rules. Again.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Solid Fog has a (M)aterial component, and Factotums need to provide those -- so without any gear you ain't casting that spell.

Dubious, but only because factotum is often poorly written. To that end I would vote it as poorly designed: very cool conceptually but it just drowns under it's poor editing. The class runs far too heavily on "you know what I meant."

[Nifft]

Dubious, but only because factotum is often poorly written. To that end I would vote it as poorly designed: very cool conceptually but it just drowns under it's poor editing. The class runs far too heavily on "you know what I meant."

Remember that this is assuming the least favorable interpretation possible for the Factotum, per @Tonymitsu's post.

So if there are two possible interpretations, use the least favorable one for this example.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Remember that this is assuming the least favorable interpretation possible for the Factotum, per @Tonymitsu's post.

So if there are two possible interpretations, use the least favorable one for this example.

Under that qualifier I am not confident the class is playable. Several features do not work properly, or at all, and you just sacrificed the ability to make pedantic arguments that inspiration points stack up forever. It is just insanely poorly written.

If you clean up the writing and just bring in the RAW the writer seemed ignorant of the class is pretty solid. By far weakest at combat though: if you do not use iajustsu focus and a way of triggering it at least once a round if not every attack then be prepared to be doing hilariously pathetic damage or be ready to be on UMD duty. I use them and martial adept at enemies a lot since if they nova it is with /enounter instead of /day resources so players tend to get less annoyed.

[Goaty14]

Blaming "Wizards" for Chain Binding is stupid. If you are allowed to do that, anyone can break the game because you can just buy Candles of Invocation. The biggest mistake people make when discussing power is looking at infinite loops and assuming they matter at all.

I am not blaming wizards for chain-gating. I'm using two different examples of how stupidly OP a wizard can be (definitely beyond chain-gating), and how weak a wizard can be.

[Doctor Awkward]

Solid Fog has a (M)aterial component, and Factotums need to provide those -- so without any gear you ain't casting that spell.

Gosh if only there was a feat for that...

Sorry, even in your absurdly favorable scenario...

The irony here, of course, is that Factotums consistently under-perform only in universes where every opponent they might ever face has Uncanny Dodge or Mindsight or Freedom of Movement, or immunity to level drain or ability drain or death effects or mind-affecting effects or illusions in general.

I suppose that means only classes that can deal huge amounts of non-precision damage in a single round are well-designed in the whole of D&D.

the Factotum fails to deliver because you're wrong about the rules. Again. when I change the Rules As Written and hope that no one notices in order to prove that my point.

Fixed that for you.


The only thing you have proven is that Factotum is a bad class if you have no idea how to build one. Again.