|
All of that isn't the issue; large 30 strength eidilons with 4 attacks with AC in the 32 range post-Mage armor is the issue (10th level, with plenty of options left). I've built and had verified my eidilons; I know the rules. If you want a level I can probably list off stats. In the event he goes down (his hp and saves aren't amazing), you get to do what is arguably the most powerful effect in the game (summon) as a standard actionS. Then you can bring him back, augments, thanks to the Summon Eidilon spell.
And that's on top of a buffer spell list that puts a bard to shame (mostly thanks to inexplicable low-level access to some of the most powerful spells in the game). I play one in PFS, by all rules listed. The synths are a line to themselves; they are 60-point build combat monkeys (best in game), mega-buffers, and diplomats if properly built (this does assume the min-max "7 Str 7 Dex 20 Cha" builds of course).
PFS isn't the best way to judge power levels of a class. There's tons of things that a player knows will happen and can plan accordingly. A normal campaign has much more variables that present challenges to players. I think summoners are powerful, just not one of the most overpowered in the game.
And my analysis didn't care about the power levels for design. As long as it is not incredibly outlandish, it's good enough. A well designed class will things for the players to work with. But a summoner almost always has to go with a big bad eidiolon. There's really no other option. And then all the rules get into the way. And the limits on spells. Combat is important, but lots of utility spells and divinations are also important, and the summoner lacks those. Summon Monsters are powerful, but they still do not take care of everything.
|
Speaking only a straight-classes (i.e., those which are so good you play them without multiclassing "dabbling" to buff them any farther)"
Samurai -- the only version of cavalier that isn't a suboptimal PITA.
Their Resolve ability is so nice that I wish every class had it. Ditch the Japanese armor & crap unless you want it.
Ranger -- Quick Draw & TWF at 1st; Archery/Rapid Shot at 2nd = ultimate switch-hitter kicking butt out of the game. Own matched light weapons, a pole-arm and a composite bow. Play a dwarf with Steel Soul and waltz through anything.
Paladin -- weapon bond for maximum goodie-two-shoe butt-kicking.
Cleric -- so many sub-domain to choose from now.
Monk -- with UC, you can finally look forward to something other than being dead at 2nd level.
I like versatility, so the druid, ranger, and rogue are some of my favorites. I've only played a witch a little bit, but I like the combo of spellcasting and hexing. A spellchucker with more than a 15 minute adventuring day.
But in our main campaign, I play a 3.5 pathfinderized dragon shaman and a 3.5 pathfinderized ninja (with sudden strike--not sneak attack--but with a racial Hide in Plain Sight ability), so I haven't really had a chance to try the new versions of the classes. I think I would have a ton of fun with a half-elf paladin skill focusing Use Magic Device or any kind of barbarian.
I really like the classes that get something customizable at every even level, like the barbarian, fighter, rogue, witch, alchemist, etc.
One of the issues with judging a well designed spellcasting class is how well designed the spells are. Some are almost necessary, some are almost pointless, and choosing sub-optimal spells can affect the entire party.
But overall, I think the best designed classes are those that play well with others. One of the best features of role-playing games is that they're collaborative: players work together instead of competing against each other.
To me the best designed classes and the ones who should set the power curve are the Bard, Ranger and Witch.
Although I don't like the class much, I have to admit that the mechanics underlying the Bard concept makes for a pretty good class.
Some capability for melee/combat, some class specific stuff that attempts to define primary functions of the class, and some magic tossed in, but not the most extreme of anything, and the spell list is pretty much tailored just so. It's a good overall mix and approach to take power-wise.
In terms of balance for say achieving the goals of the classes premise? Paladin and Sorcerer all day long. The things that PF did with these classes, to ME, are the gold standard. Both classes, more than all others, just drip with flavor and fully emote the point and purpose of the class at pretty much every point. I could do without paladin casting entirely, but whatever. It's still done so, so, very well that it's not a problem that detracts too much for me.
I'm not sure if I've been playing PF long enough (1 year) to speak with authority on things like balance, but so far my favorite class is the alchemist. Decent, but not overpowerful BAB, great weapon hardwired into the class that you can make versatile with discoveries, lots of goodies like Mummification, lots of things like Tumor Familiar, tentacles, bottled ooze that are fairly unique to alchemists and yet don't seem terribly out of place in a tabletop RPG setting (I'm looking at you, gunslingers).
What I like is that they seem like the most fun to customize, and if you stick with a theme you probably won't get punished mechanically. I suppose fighters are pretty customizable, but it kind of all boils down to boosting AC and rolling attack damage, doesn't it? More "complex" classes like Wizard and Sorcerer start to seem like a complex math formula of saves, vulnerabilities, and metamagic to be solved. The alchemist doesn't have much of that. And if you hate the bombs, there are archetypes without it.
|
|
My favored classes tend to be spellcasters. Though I can take any class I wish and make it a headache for a GM I am best with wizards and sorcerers. The classes I have found the most interesting thus far are:
1)Magus: Resolves my constant multi-classing and limited spell list does
not bother me at all. I'm familiar enough to pick the really
good and most useful ones
2)Fighter: With all the new options I can make my favored fighting style
vicious. (I have always favored two-weapon fighting)
Those are my main two thus far. Though I am trying a cleric for the first time.
cleric - got downgraded from 3.5 but is still fun to play (not like the druid in my opinion)
except for familiar : witch
alchemist - even tough there is a risk of novaing if the GM doesn't do his job right
in comparison: worst design - summoner, there are so many extra rules that you think that he was not meant to be for this game.
My choices for best designed: Barbarian, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Inquisitor, Witch
My choice for worst designed: Cavalier
I'm surprised that so many people are in love with the design of the alchemist. While I love the idea of the alchemist, I'm disappointed with the game design.
- Mutagen - This is a great idea for a combat buff. Unfortunately, it's only usable once per day and takes a standard action to invoke, which makes it unreliable in the "I don't know if I should build my character to use this in combat or not" kind of way.
Also, a duration of 10 min/level is frustrating. As a GM running a campaign, it's now important how many minutes have passed between encounters.
GM: As you're making your way back to camp you hear an eerie howling coming from up ahead
Player: How long has it been since the trolls?
GM: An hour or two.
Player: One, or two?
GM: An hour and a half.
Player: Crap! My mutagen wore off ten minutes ago. . . - Poison - The rules for poison are some of the worst in the game, and here's a class written to use them. I'd probably feel much better about the alchemist if the APG had contained revised poison rules. Another route would have been to make a number of extracts that act like poisons, and a few metamagic feats or discoveries that effect those spells.
- Bombs - Actually, bombs are pretty well designed. The only thing I dislike about bombs is that they were made subject to TWF full attack rules, allowing a damage nova that can be unbalanced.
- Prestige Classes - Alchemist doesn't mix well (bad pun intended) with other classes, and a prestige class all to itself seems silly. Rather than making Master Chymist, why not make an archetype that focuses on mutagens?
- Archetypes - I find most of the alchemist archetypes inferior to the base class in critical ways. That's not terrible, or uncommon, but it is a little annoying.
You should actually read the Mutagen class feature, Blueluck. You'll be surprised.
You should actually read the Mutagen class feature, Blueluck. You'll be surprised.
I reread it here just before posting. I just reread it again, and I'm still not surprised.
What are you getting at? The fact that the whole party could stop for an hour periodically to let the alchemist brew a new mutagen, making it the only class in the game that needs one hour breaks in the middle of every adventuring day? The fact that many alchemists boost their dex to improve bomb throwing rather than using mutagens for melee combat?
Uhm yea. When you say it's "once per day", then you say later on that you knew that it's not "once per day", something's not right.
It's a very powerful ability thanks to some discoveries from the APG. I'm glad there's that hour recharge time.
I'm personally afraid to play a cleric because I know they will push me into the healer bot role if I try to play one.
I think that Inquisitor and Witch are the best designed overall, as their core mechanics (Judgement and Hexes respectively) scale well, are actually good and lend themselves to having to make interesting choices in play.
It is rather telling that in general, the APG, UC and UM added classes are better designed than the core classes left to us from 3.X.
I'm going to have to go with the cleric, it's a remarkably flexible class that allows to to make almost any type of fantasy priest, simple enough for a total newbie (which my 9 year old niece recently discovered), and 100% fun. There's a reason I have played a cleric in every edition of D&D.
As a player who absolutely adores customization, I'd say that my Top 3 best designed classes would be:
#1 - Oracle. I love how malleable the Mysteries are and the class itself is just oozing with flavor. I know a lot of people who don't like this class because the "Oracle" isn't any better at divinations then, say, a wizard unless he or she has a specific mystery, but those people probably haven't tried the class either. If Sorcerer's bloodlines worked more like mysteries, they'd have the #1 spot, though.
#2 - Alchemist. The discovery system is awesome, and despite not getting many class features, Alchemist consistently gets some of the best archetypes I've ever seen in terms of both flavor and mechanics.
#3 - Rouge. I adore how the rouge came out. Its talent system really adds back the "rouges can be anyone" feeling that a lot of people forget that the class is supposed to have. Rouges CAN be finesse fighters, but they aren't ALWAYS finesse fighters, and it's only when you look at them as such that the class starts looking bad; just like Magus will probably look bad if you ignore its strengths (weapon and spells together) and only look at one aspect of the class; say, length of its spell list.
My cleric doesn't have that problem. He kills the enemies and heals everyone after.
Something feels inherently wrong about posting a link to a 3.5 cleric, the very class that shows that 3.5 is b0rked from the get-go, character sheet to prove something about clerics.
Also, skill focus?
I'm personally afraid to play a cleric because I know they will push me into the healer bot role if I try to play one.I try to avoid any class with CLW on their spell list, as picking such a class will force you to do nothing but heal the rest of the party. The healer/support is always first to die, because nobody heals/supports him.
I think probably the best way to avoid becoming the heal bot is to do something better than healing, explain why it was better than healing, and then be firm about your decisions.
It's surprising the number of people who don't realize that healbots suck. Gotta show'em the light is all. Not the healing light though. Save that for after the fight.
Of course you kind of have to have an idea of what you're doing for this.
Edit: how did this thread get revived :O
|
I think that some of the main aspects in good class design are
1.) some sort of improvement at nearly every level (at least 15 out of 20) <not including HP, BaB, Skills, Saves, new spells, or simple upgrading of dice like Channel or Sneak Attack>.
2.) class features that both develope over time and are added to, which especially with the addition of Archtypes, means that there are many possible options available, but also that the base class is more customizable and can fit multiple concepts. Also a really cool and powerul 20th level ability "capstone", should be a must for ALL classes.
3.) that the class can contribute to the party in multiple ways, combat, social, fun, etc. . .
4.) that there are plenty of <useful and meaningful> options through Prestigue Classes, Archtypes, and multiclassing/dipping, <in that order>.
5.) that the class has a good balance of needed moderate to high ability scores. I would say 1 high (16+, and 2 moderate (12-14+) is a good balance point all classes should look at.
Based on these general guidelines, I would say that Druid, Ranger, and Monk,<even if you live in the camp that says they are too underpowered>, Inquisitor, Bard, and few others are amongst the best designed classes, while Cleric is the absolute worst, failing almost all criteria. Cavalier, though it deos fit most of the criteria, is far too weak and limited in other ways.
Paladin and Sorcerer would be good, though I think that PF made them too strong.
Necromancers. Always necromancers.
Edit: how did this thread get revived :O
Necromancers are under powered man. They aren't versatile and stuff.
That and revive undead trolls.
Undead trolls can revive undead trolls. It's totally OP
I shall lead the troll army to attack raving dork because it's funny.
Cleric is my answer.*brofist**brofist ensues*
Go cleric Team! Citation needed.
*brofist continues*
For best designed I really like the ranger. A good selection of skills, a little bit of casting, a wide range of combat styles, and some really unique abilities.
For most fun, cleric.
Inquisitor.
I would say the expert of the NPC classes really.
Eh I can't help it if people need rules so they know when a PC can use the bathroom or how long it takes to do so. You can't help folks who "Need" rules for everything.
It depends on which end of the optimization spectrum we're focusing on. On the high end, I'll say the magus with a sizable gap to anyone else. A well optimized magus just about perfectly hits the ideal power level. He can put up good combat numbers while having a significant contributuon outside of combat. There are a few viable builds, but going from one build to another requires very significant trade-offs that come out close to parity. The top of the rest: monk, alchemist, bard, witch. The monks gap is two-fold, not quite enough stuff to do outside of combat and not quite good enough numbers in combat; what puts him up an optimized monk can start to get his abilities to gel together, only some tinkering is required to make him traverse the gap. The Alchemist is lacking in action economy mostly. He seems to lack the ability to pull off "cool tricks". The bard is lacking combat presence. His strength is too focused out of combat, leaving him in a support role which many find too unsatisfying. The witch needs two primary things. First the hexes need to work off some kind of resource. To keep it in line, it'd be a rapidly recharging, but depletable resource. Second is that there is not a variety of good options in combat. You can have all the hexes you will ever need in combat by level two if you're human. On a secondary note, she just has that NPC class feel. The issues with the rest should be fairly obvious, as they are common beefs against the classes.
On the low-op end, I'll say the Druid is the best designed with the cleric and barbarian up there as well. The most important thing for low-op design is that the simple option should be a good option; not necessarily the best option, but it needs to be a viable option. For example, a low-op barbarian will likely pick up power attack because that seems like something barbarians do and they won't be punished for it. Concept meets crunch without difficulty.
Now the real goal would be to make a class that gets on both lists.
It depends on which end of the optimization spectrum we're focusing on. On the high end, I'll say the magus with a sizable gap to anyone else. A well optimized magus just about perfectly hits the ideal power level. He can put up good combat numbers while having a significant contributuon outside of combat. There are a few viable builds, but going from one build to another requires very significant trade-offs that come out close to parity. The top of the rest: monk, alchemist, bard, witch. The monks gap is two-fold, not quite enough stuff to do outside of combat and not quite good enough numbers in combat; what puts him up an optimized monk can start to get his abilities to gel together, only some tinkering is required to make him traverse the gap. The Alchemist is lacking in action economy mostly. He seems to lack the ability to pull off "cool tricks". The bard is lacking combat presence. His strength is too focused out of combat, leaving him in a support role which many find too unsatisfying. The witch needs two primary things. First the hexes need to work off some kind of resource. To keep it in line, it'd be a rapidly recharging, but depletable resource. Second is that there is not a variety of good options in combat. You can have all the hexes you will ever need in combat by level two if you're human. On a secondary note, she just has that NPC class feel. The issues with the rest should be fairly obvious, as they are common beefs against the classes.
On the low-op end, I'll say the Druid is the best designed with the cleric and barbarian up there as well. The most important thing for low-op design is that the simple option should be a good option; not necessarily the best option, but it needs to be a viable option. For example, a low-op barbarian will likely pick up power attack because that seems like something barbarians do and they won't be punished for it. Concept meets crunch without difficulty.
Now the real goal would be to make a class that gets on both lists.
Twitch twitch
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, makes sense.
Lessee...
Low end (where someone who Doesn't know how to abuse rules will come out "fine")
Good - Barbarian, Druid, Cleric, Bard Bad - Alchemist, Rogue, Monk
In this case, it's not that the bad are bad classes per-se, but the out-of-the-box variant will make them feel weak)
Of these, I agree it's hard to mess up a Barbarian or Druid
High end (They will abuse any rules they can, but like options and want a useful party member that doesn't overwhelm)
Good - Monk, Magus, Cleric, Bard, Inquisitor.
Bad - Alchemist, Summoner, Druid, Witch
In this case, the classes, exploited properly, are going to overwhelm tables and make things less fun for other players who aren't also power gamers. Of these, I think Inquisitor is actually my number 1 "useful, pretty powerful, but very hard to exploit into abusiveness" class, with Bard and cleric tied for second.
Speaking of bard and cleric, they are the only overlap of good classes; easy enough for a beginner to pick up, enough non-abusable options to be a fun choice for power gamers. So I'm going with Bard and Cleric as the best designed classes.
It kinda makes me sad seeing people using the cleric and druid as "benchmarks" of a well balanced class.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the cleric is far less exploitable on spell list than most class; but even played by a first timer can move around and heal and cast bless every now and again. On the high end of the power it can get a bit abusive with summon monsters and great domain powers, but even then will generally not overwhelm tables like well-played Druids, summoners, and mages.
The out of the box Druid is very powerful, but played by beginners Will not overwhelm tables. Now I do consider them the 2nd most powerful class after summoners overall; so I don't consider them a good "benchmark", but they are easy to understand so serve as a simplicity benchmark (though like the cleric and bard, can be very deep, but like alchemist can be deep enough to be considered abusive if someone wants to break the system).
I have to throw my hat in with the Alchemist, Inquisitor, and Bard.
They are all solid in almost any combat role while having significant abilities to assist outside of combat. They are all versatile but also have difficulty exceeding other classes more focused in a field.
Rogues would also make the list because I like their progression, but they have problems with their power level. They would easily compete with others, but I feel that their tallents are severely underpowered, to the point where after ~4 levels everyone I know who starts their character wanting to play a rogue is looking to multiclass because they feel they will be more versatile.
Monks I think are well designed, but I find people's expectations for them does not match what they are designed for.
It kinda makes me sad seeing people using the cleric and druid as "benchmarks" of a well balanced class.This thread is talking about how well designed a class is, not most balanced. Clerics are extremely well designed. They happen to be powerful as well.
Over powerful is not a sign I would use to describe "well designed". If it is underpowered it is not well designed and if it is over powered it is also not well designed.