The balance centering point: the class others should aim to emulate balance-wise

[Thealtruistorc]

Now, I am aware that this is highly subjective, but I personally want to know what you folks see as the optimally balanced class in 3.5 and Pathfinder. What class do you guys think that others should be measured against to be considered over- or underpowered? What class is, in your opinion, the goldilocks zone?

For me, the two I would cite would be the binder and the psychic warrior. Both can handle a variety of situations quite well, but rarely outdo the entire party. They have a good variety of things that you can do with them, but have a concrete role in the grand scheme of things. Overall, they contribute a great deal to the game and are rather independent without ever stepping on anybody else's toes.

[OldTrees1]

Well in general I consider strong Tier 3 to be the golden zone. However there is no class that hits that golden zone exactly.

Martial combat in general has many structural flaws so it is not one of them. Swordsage or Psychic Warrior get the closest but still less than the ideal.

Caster classes tend to either have at least 1 unbalancing spell(Dread Necromancer) on their list or be weak(Healer). I think Beguiler or Dread Necromancer get even closer than the martials above but they have a couple of problem spells(Lesser Planar Binding).

So aim 2/3rds of the way from Swordsage towards Dread Necromancer and you will hit gold.

[Troacctid]

For me, in 3.5, it's actually the Warmage. Now, I wouldn't say the class is perfectly balanced--it has a couple minor kinks that could be worked out--but as far as damage-dealing classes go, I consider it to be my par. If you can outdamage a Warmage, your damage output is above par. If not, your damage output is below par.

My other litmus test for power level is the Warlock. Any time I'm dealing with a class that gets at-will magical abilities, I compare it with a Warlock of the same level and see how well it holds up.

[Ssalarn]

In Pathfinder, I think the Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Investigator, Paladin, Psychic Warrior, and several others all fall into that optimal balance point. Basically that Tier 3 range, however the class accomplishes it. The Bard is probably the epitome of that, since he's a fully capable and versatile class all on his own, but he also makes the rest of his group better just by doing his thing.

3.5 is a little bit harder since there were so many options and so much discrepancy in class power. I actually think that if all casters were specialty casters like the Beguiler, Healer, or Warmage, you'd have a pretty good game. The Incarnate and Dragon Shaman most closely matched the power levels and versatility I like playing with.

[atemu1234]

In 3.5 I favor the ToB classes, especially warblade.

[ryu]

I enjoy the general high tier 1 zone on the assumption that the enemies are similarly competent and the party is at this general level. Why? Multiple ways of solving a given problem is great. In a world where this level of power and versatility is common the people who win fights tend to be the creative, and intelligent ones who use resources well. This also tends to lead to a wider array of hilariously awesome solutions to problems by dint of more tools to work with.

It also means that no one will ever be completely useless in any situation, and will usually have several effective methods of contributing.

[anti-ninja]

For casters i think the closest to the Goldilocks zone is bard,just here me out here its a class that a)has some fun spells while still not overshadowing the rest of the party,b)some decent class features that make it stand out and c)in almost any situation the bard can contribute .Now is there some insane TO trick im missing here that makes bard insanely powerfully probably ,but i don't care sinced those builds will never see actual play.

[Daedroth]

Duskblade, Warmage, Warlock, Bard, Wildshape Ranger, Beguiler...

Flavorful, balanced and at ñleast a bit of a caster without being an "I can do all things" type of a caster.



3.5 is a little bit harder since there were so many options and so much discrepancy in class power. I actually think that if all casters we're specialty casters like the Beguiler, Healer, or Warmage, you'd have a pretty good game. The Incarnate and Dragon Shaman most closely matched the power levels and versatility I like playing with.

+1

[Elandris Kajar]

Monk:smallbiggrin:
Seriously though, I'll second Incarnate, Warlock and add Ranger. I guess this means low T3 to mid-high T4. These classes have cool abilities, but require you to work with other party members in most cases and are not overly powered. Teamwork is an integral part of this game.

[danzibr]

I've always considered Warblade to be the golden standard.

[Flickerdart]

I'd say bard in 3.5 - the unfortunate fluff implications aside, it's very hard to find yourself in a situation where you cannot possibly contribute (and thus aren't having fun) and yet the class doesn't give you many tools that can trivialize or otherwise overpower encounters (and thus make your fellow players not have fun). Even when the bard is in a party with super-powerful guys, he can always fill a niche none of the others have covered.

[Brova]

Probably somewhere in the level of Rogues or Wizards. Both are reasonably able to contribute to an adventure from level one to level twenty, but Wizards are probably slightly better by virtue of having interesting powers. Even the broken things Wizards do are interesting in moderation. A game benefits from having planar binding in it, even if the actual implementation is nuts.

[anti-ninja]

the unfortunate fluff implications aside,unfortunate fluff implications?,I'm curious to know what those are,or do you just find the way the get there magic ridiculous .

[ComaVision]

I think Tier 3 is the place to be. I agree that Bard is a great example.