Raise a glass for the underpowered

[jjpickar]

Is it just me or are the "underpowered" classes some of the most fun to play? My favorite class is the Warlock and according to this forum they are almost as useful as playing a commoner. But I always have fun with them.

This is not a thread to compare classes but for those of us that like to play as the weaker classes. It is more of a discussion of how people had fun with them despite their weaknesses.

[Ikkitosen]

As long as no-one else makes a real effort to be very powerful they're all fun :)

[DaMullet]

I don't own that book, so I don't know about the validity of the "Warlock = Commoner" argument, but I do know that it is a lot more fun to roleplay characters you had the bad luck to roll low on a stat with, like the 8 Wis Sorcerer who knows exactly enough to not hit his teammates with a Fireball and not much else.

Most of the classes aren't "underpowered" unless you compare them to level 20 Wizards.

[Jade_Tarem]

I'm going to beat several dozen people to the punch:

Roleplaying is as fun as you make it. Personal preference should dictate what class you play. One class is not "more fun" to play than another - at least not inherantly.

Even if wizards and sorcerers were terribly ineffective, I would still play them because I love those classes. I also play bards and odd core multiclassings alot because that's how I see a certain character working. A number of others also play like this.

and I think Warlock doesn't get enough credit on this forum. I showed how one could one-shot a balor and instead of a rebuttal I was basically told that I was high.

[Logos7]

Yes at a certain point it stops being that some classes are so terribly underpowered as some are overpowered. ( If by nothing else the large amount of spellage available to them )

No one really talks about Monk vs Fighter However

Logos

[jjpickar]

(I agree with you Jade_Tarem but I don't think a lot of other people do )

Anyway time to start of the reminiscing! (Raises glass and takes pull)

My first experience with Warlocks came when a friend of mine DMed his first game with me controlling a single party of four adventurers. I had decided to make the most absolutely ridiculous party possible (which was fitting since his first dungeon could only be entered by crawling down a toilet ). The party consisted of a water mephling cleric of Ollimdamara, a Githzerai Monk, a 5th level Avoral Gaurdinal( monster class levels), and a drow warlock. The adventure almost would have concluded with the first encounter (a mimic) if I had not decided to make the official policy of my warlock to blast everything that came into view (the ground, birds, treasure chest disguised mimics, etc.) I wish that had not been a one shot game.

[JaronK]

Warlocks aren't bad, they're just so caster-like that they get compared to the first tier casters, and look bad by comparison. They're perfectly good when compared to rogues and fighters.

Now try Samurai. That is an underpowered class.

JaronK

[Rarkasha]

I think of classes such as bards and warlocks as not being quite as useful mechanically in some areas, but there is almost always one place where they shine: looking cool.

I mean, that's one reason to play the game, isn't it? As long as you do something, I don't mind not being that effective if I get to fly around tossing eldritch blasts in a cape.

[Behold_the_Void]

I must see this Warlock one-shotting Balor build.

Anyway, I'm all for playing classes that aren't Wizards, Clerics or Druids, and I'm a staunch believer in that the classes aren't nearly as powerful as people make them out to be when played like actual characters and not mathematical equations.

Frankly, I'm all for playing an "underpowered" or "overpowered" class. I'll mechanically build them to the best of my ability within their concept, of course, but I like playing highly heroic and competent characters, but the same applies down the board from fighters to wizards. I want a class that's fun, and I can have fun with every class out there for different reasons.

[UglyPanda]

Look up in the sky! It's Eldritch-Man!

I love bards because of their extreme goofiness. Nearly any build you make using them is good for a laugh. My current favorite is the Divine Prankster "Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput."

[storybookknight]

Sure, definitely.

Personally I don't like warlocks because they're not very flexible as characters, they only get to do the same thing over and over again, but that's just my opinion.

Regardless of how effective they actually are, I love a good swashbuckler. "I know something you don't know - I'm not right handed either."

[Krellen]

I like Fighters. And Rogues. And Fighter/Rogues.

I do a lot of gimmicky builds; presently, I'm really wanting to try out an Invisible Blade/Master Thrower, for instance.

[PaladinBoy]

Ah, yes. I think it's possible to have fun with any class depending on taste, and how much interesting roleplaying you get out of it.

Personally, I prefer the options a spellcaster has to a melee class's sword, but I also think that it is a lot of fun to roll 2d6 and say, "Alright, with my bonus that's 24 damage for my greatsword." (That happened with one player in our campaign...... his strength score is simply absurd.)

I also like rapiers. Even my current wizard character is carrying one. Despite the fact that hitting something is pretty much completely impossible, it's still fun to use it.

[Fax Celestis]

I'm a gigantic fan of the Spellthief (in particular, Spellthief Dromites). No one seems to like them besides me, though.

I also like Battle Sorcerors, Totemists, and the occasional Paladin/Monk.

[El Jaspero, the Pirate King]

Hear, hear! for the underpowered classes. It is, after all, a roleplaying game. Players should choose classes that fit their character concepts, not something that just adds up to a killer build. I myself am a big fan of bards, swashbucklers, and rangers, all of which tend to be "flavor" heavy.

[Bears With Lasers]

Players should choose classes that fit their character concepts

Classes are collections of mechanics, generally with some non-vital flavor attached (classes whose flavor affects their mechanics, like the Paladin, are a little different). If your character concept is "daring swashbuckler", you can model that in tons of different ways, from simple builds to complex, and from mechanically terrible ones to powerful ones.

Your character concept may be a swashuckler, but that doesn't mean it has to use the Swashbuckler class. It may be a bard, but that doesn't mean it has to use the Bard class (Beguiler with Perform, anyone? Arcane Trickster?). Using a class "for its flavor" makes very little sense, most of the time.

[Ramza00]

I seriously disagree with a lot of the above posters. You can have an optimized character and still have fun. Case in point is V, she/he is a typical 18 wizard (besides banning conjuration and not evocation). Regardless of V's always having the right spell out on hand, it would be so fun to roleplay such a character.

So many things passing over V's head (due to low wis and cha) its funny.

[AmberVael]

Hey now, guys, don't derail the thread. This is about having fun with underpowered characters, nothing else.

And yes, I agree with the general consensus. Warlocks are fun to play.
Going zappity zap all day long is entertaining, and you can have quite an interesting time RPing how they have gotten their abilities... from crazy magic experiments to demonic power.

[Ramza00]

Your character concept may be a swashuckler, but that doesn't mean it has to use the Swashbuckler class. It may be a bard, but that doesn't mean it has to use the Bard class (Beguiler with Perform, anyone? Arcane Trickster?). Using a class "for its flavor" makes very little sense, most of the time.

Case in point (one of the few times I agree with Miko
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0209.gif

(Wonders would it be okay with the Admins to post the image itself instead of the link, it may be too large...)

[Ramza00]

Warlocks are fun to play for they are simple and elegant. Very little bookwark. I don't feel bad if I do X, or Y. I have always been one of those people in electronic RPGs who hoards items instead of using them when I should for I fear it is only going to get worse.

[Saithis Bladewing]

My current favorite is the Divine Prankster "Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput."

You win the thread.

Warlocks aren't that underpowered - their weakness is exaggerated and they're amazing in a situation that requires endurance i.e. when you won't have much time to rest and regain spells or health.

Bards may be underpowered, but they are really really fun. My favourite bard was a semi-persian-style ex-noblewoman who had disguised herself as a performer to escape marriage and eventually wound up finding her way to cooler lands where the adventure took place. Specialised almost entirely in dance with a little flute, but no song.

[Diggorian]

Cheers here for the warlock.

Mine only did one thing a round besides blasting while flying ... describing how the blast looked: vomitting hot ash, cyclops style eyebeams, blowing clouds of voracious shadow fleas onto to foes.

Outside combat, beguiled NPCs into adding 10-25% more to our fees, discounting 10-25% off prices, and defending us from theocractic charges of heresy.

Then I got Voracious Dispeling ... and our DM decided he "didnt like how we played."

To Warlocks!! *gulp*

[ocato]

Bards aren't really underpowered in my opinion. They add +1 to the CR of a group. Also they're awesome to the max.

That's just as good as a valid point.

[Stevenson]

Ah, yes. See, unlike here, everyone in my group detests divine casters. Well, not druids.

Likewise, they're my favorite class-the first time I played one, they all said I was "taking the bullet". But I love 'em.

Also, just any "underpowered" class. Marshal and Swashbuckler are two of my other favorite classes. "Underpowered"-and underestimated-can work to your advantage.

And to me, playing underpowered just means not being a math major in character building. I play 'em as I sees 'em-I don't really agonize over feats or spell choices-I do what I like. It's not a bloody math class, it's a game.

[Ramza00]

That was one thing I was hoping they would do in Complete Scoundrel. Make some marshal multiclassing feats such as Marshal/Swashbuckler.

[Lord Tataraus]

Personally, I like players who play so called 'underpowered classes' as long as they are good roleplayers. I actually prefer my players to have underpowered classes rather than overly optimized ones.

[Brauron]

What's wrong with the Samurai in Complete Warrior? I'm considering playing one as my next character.

[Bears With Lasers]

What's wrong with the Samurai in Complete Warrior? I'm considering playing one as my next character.

Everything.

It is the single worst base PC class in D&D, bar none.

To elaborate:
-They get TWF bonus feats, which are either wasted or lock them into a single fighting style which actually makes them *worse* (since THF is superior to TWF unless you have bonus damage on each hit, which the Samurai lacks).
-They also get some initimdate abilities, which totally suck. Not only do they suck, but they can be almost entirely replicated by a couple of feats in the Complete Warrior. Oh, and in addition to that, they'll almost never work on anything, since any appropriate-CR monster is pretty much guaranteed to have more hit dice than you after the first few levels.

Basically, nothing they get is useful. They're only a tiny bit better than a Warrior. Just play a Fighter or a Knight and call yourself a Samurai.

[storybookknight]

Also their smite ability is less useful and usable less frequently than that of a Paladin, except perhaps at very low levels.

Sadly to say, it just wasn't done very well. The 3.0 Oriental Adventures Samurai is a touch better, if you absolutely must have a *samurai* class. In all honesty, though, play a fighter - or if you have Tome of Battle, a Warblade.

[Ramza00]

What's wrong with the Samurai in Complete Warrior? I'm considering playing one as my next character.

There isn't anything "Bad" about the samuri there is just barely anything "good"

A samaurai 20 is about as effective as this build mechanically.

NPC Warrior Class 14/Fighter 6

Fighter 1 Two Weapon Fighting
Fighter 2 Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Fighter 4 Greater Two Weapon Fighting
Fighter 6 Improved Initative

The only other ability that Samurai gets is Kiai smite which is similar the Paladin Smite (can be anybody not just evil yet the paladin smite occurs 1 more times per day and scales better damage wise)

The frightful presence doesn't work for by the time you get it you are fighting monsters who are five CR+ higher than the monsters it would work on. That ship has passed, thus the ability might as well never existed.
--------------------------------

I rather play a Fighter 4/Paladin 16 it would be so much better than the Samurai. Take the Frightful Prescence feat from the Draconomicon to replicate the Samurai's ability but unlike the samurai's ability it actually works. If you don't want to do Paladin play a knight or some other PRC. I aint evening mentioning ToB

Frightful Presence

Type: General
Sources: Draconomicon
Ghostwalk
Like a dragon, your mere presence can terrify those around you.
Prerequisite: Cha 15, Intimidate 9 ranks.
Benefit: You gain the use of the frightful presence ability. Whenever you attack or charge, all opponents within a radius of 30 feet who have fewer levels or Hit Dice than you become shaken for a number of rounds equal to 1d6 + your Cha modifier. The effect is negated by a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Cha modifier).
A successful save indicates that the opponent is immune to your frightful presence for 24 hours. This ability can't affect creatures with an Intelligence of 3 or lower, nor does it have any effect on dragons.
http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-...ul_Presence,Dr