Do you think the classes are balanced?

Remove all ads!

I am wondering if you think that the character classes in 3ed D&D are well balanced? Are there any you think are way too weak or any you think are alot too powerful? Feel free to take up prestige classes as well.
Were there even a will from WotC to balance the classes?
I am asking all these questions as I dont seem to be able to make up my mind. But I have developed a slight dislike for mages as I think that their strenghts arent really in proportion to their weaknesses. Sure they may have AC 10 and 8hp but it really doesnt matter as they have access to extremely devastating spells right from the start that can take out anything that isnt several hitdice above them.
But I am still not completely assured that they are overpowered it is just that they dont fit with how I see mages (which is completely helpless at lower levels after they have cast their one magic missile and even at higher levels as toast if they dont have a huge meatwall in front of them. For some reason I have this idea that mages are the class that are very good in a party but worthless alone.)
I have heard that some people find the clerics to be horrendously overpowered, more or less as powerful spells as the mage but alot better bab and ability to carry almost any armour.

Oh well what are your thoughts?

 

agreeable the cleric holds a lot of power, but they still have a lower hit die and more need for many different stats to use all their abilities well.

I find all the classes balanced, except for the ranger that I find a little under the balance.
8hp mage? The only reason you think them powerful is because you think duel mode, 1 on 1 and you play a fighter. That's an easy deal for a mage. Had it been a monk, elven ranger etc. the mage would be dead in a second.
Since it doesn't require a concentration check to make an attack, but does when casting a spell, mages are quickly dead without a meat shield.

Prestige classes are more powerful, but before it goes to ones head they should check out the prerequisites that can be rather heavy.

 

All the class are really fairly balanced, but I agree with Lokken that the ranger is slightly under balanced. I can see how some might saythat the monks might be a little too powqerful, but basically most of the classes are fairly balanced.

 

Well, the sorcerer seems a bit unbalanced. Sure, they are really powerful in the starting levels, but come more powerful spells, there are only so many to choose from - and sticking to it. Plus duelling could be a slight probably from the penalties. I find the penalties are a bit unbalanced, because it discourges powerplaying from multying every class possible, but risking XP loss at a high level to gain some more power to keep up with the rest of your group is a bit unfair.

Likewise, wizard is really weak at the start and people would find sense in multying at an early level, but then when wizards/[whatever class] gets higher, wizards get a bit unbalanced from the lack of spell levels at a higher level because he's taken levels in [whatever class].

 

I think all the classes are useful and worth playing. But balanced is not even feasible, much less a reality. Balanced for *what*, anyway? To play in an arena? Not even close. But for adventuring in a party? I think its pretty close, but depends entirely on how the DM runs the game.

As for rangers, I don't think they are underpowered, just overly restrictive. Again, it comes down to the DM. The ranger's main advantage is in their skills. 4 pts per level and 19 class skills. If they are given an opportunity to use those skills, they are fine. But if you play a pure dungeoncrawling game, that advantage is largely lost.