When the DM and the Wizard get in an arms race, the Rogue gets caught in the crossfire.
Ah but rogues get skillmastery and UMD. The wizard needs more hands to use all of his crafted items.
A common tactic for Barbarian's is to get bigger from enlarge or another source. Also, if they are using a reach weapon, the reach just got larger. Due to this, they can easily hit enemies that are using reach tactics against them.
Also, rage cycling is easily obtained from the stubborn cord of resolve item without needing to dip into oracle.
Enlarge person is a good tactic, the reach weapon havethe weacknes of not threatening the adjacent squeare, and a barbarian hitting with armor spikes is less formidable than one hitting with a great sword.
Remmber that monster, like the balor, have natural reach so they can attack from afar and change the tactic at the moment the barbarian draw a polearm.
This is why I take Catch Off Guard on my pole-arm wielders. I just use the pole-arm as an improvised weapon when people get in my space. It's a dark good method for just beating the snot out of anyone stupid enough to think a trained combat killer is going to be unable to fight at close range with his spear.
I'm curious, why the concern about "over-powered" characters?
I ask because the DM wins in any contest. The DM decides the world, the monsters that show up, the frequency, the environment in which the fight occures and honesty, if the monsters "roll-well".
Is it because that some classes are more easily optimized than others and therefore are more often chosen by players who don't want to have to figure out an effective build but rather just want it to come easily? Is that a problem?
We all game for different reasons and I've noted very often that folks game so that they can enjoy some time in an identity where the limitations and frustrations of real-life aren't such a big deal. The person frustrated at their job likes the chance to be the big-wheel in a world where they are at effect on things rather than being effected by them.
Why not let folks be powerful? Why not simply make it work in the story?
+1
This is correct
My guess is that CWheezy is referring to the narrative/plot moving class powers granted to classes like Wizards and Oracles, but not granted to classes like Fighters or Monks.
That makes sense. It's true that more options by nature mean greater ability to interact with the world around you. It's also why I tend to play spellcasters (when I say spellcasters, that includes Paladins, Rangers, Bards, and Psychic Warriors, not just full casters by the way).
I tend to have way more fun with stuff to do. Even when that stuff includes cantrips. Simply being able to use mage hand fills me with more elation than having a +10 to hit at 1st level would.
Unfortunately I see no reasonable way to allow the kind of narrative power that magical effects lend you beyond giving everyone magic. I get bored quickly with non-ranger / non-paladin / non-psychic warriors in most cases, simply because there is less to do (barbarians can be the exception since they have a decent amount of skill points, but most of their options all involve raging).
Having magic to an extent gives more narrative power by default.
I would probably buff mundanes using skills, give them more skill points.
I would also consider giving wizards 0 skill points per level.
I am ok with wizards being the most powerful, actually. I would just like the gap to be closer, ie 4 tiers instead of 6, if that makes sense. Mostly nerfing spells is how that could be done, sadly I think that will never happen
I don't think skill points will really change anything. The rogue has tons of skill points, but it doesn't give her much narrative power. She can't really do a whole lot with those skills.
Reducing skill points is more of an inconvenience than anything else. It wouldn't change the innate narrative effects. I'd still play wizards even if I got -2 + Mods per level. It would just be irritating to actually try to flesh out the character, or actually aid the party by making Knowledge checks (since most of my skill ranks tend to go into Knowledge skills as a wizard; go figure).
It's not to say I don't dabble. I'm a big fan of skill dipping. My psion right now has a rank in Disable Device, and a couple of ranks in Linguistics, Survival (because she's a witch that lived in the snow covered forests of Irrisen and spends much of her time as an animal) and Stealth (for the same reason). The rest of the party tends to have much higher modifiers than I do, however (because 1 rank doesn't look that impressive at 7th level).
The narrative disparity comes in two forms.
1. Stuff to do (even if it's just cantrips)
2. Stuff that skills don't do (like scrying, traveling, etc)
If there's not a "raise dead" skill, then you will never have the same narrative power as a magician. It's just that simple.
Mind you, narrative power is not the same thing as game balance. In a sense we could explore narrative balance, but there's a reason I feel that the core classes (sans fighter, rogue, monk) are pretty solidly balanced. Everyone does stuff, everyone is good. Most of the classes are well rounded with few one-trick ponies.
Some of the tactics and talents on The War Master can provide some narrative power. Being able to research something with a spell or with a class-granted network of informants has the same end result in a narrative sense.
At lower levels non-magical abilities to provide better direction and organization to reduce travel time can be a narrative power.
At higher levels, you need to get a bit more creative as to how to give the non-magical classes narrative powers on par with magical classes, and given the state of the skill system, giving more skill points is probably not the route you want to take, but it is possible.
To use an example from Kirthfinder, Fighters get a Grit pool (basically a recharging pool of hero points) that they can use in combat, but also to make a useful modification to the storyline (adding a useful detail to the layout of the location being described, finding a contact quickly, etc). Check it out. There's some good ideas in there as to what can be done with a non-magical class and still allow them to participate in the non-combat portions of the game at higher levels.
That is reasonable. It requires a lot of extra material though. Extra material I wouldn't mind seeing. This reminds me of something I was working on for a campaign I'm tentatively planning, which included options to allow you to do special things with skills.
One such option was basically an ability to call on contacts to help you out with things. By spending an amount of time similar to a gather info check, you could make a Diplomacy check to call on the aid of your contacts. Depending on what you were doing, you could opt for Diplomacy = Trained Knowledge check result, get free spellcasting services (with a value based on your check result), get free consumables (with value based on your check result), or borrow valuable non-consumables (again with the value based on your check result).
So if your guy was in town, once per session you could call on a favor to get some spells cast for you, or to get some potions or scrolls, or borrow a horse and buggy or something.
Mind you, narrative power is not the same thing as game balance. In a sense we could explore narrative balance, but there's a reason I feel that the core classes (sans fighter, rogue, monk) are pretty solidly balanced. Everyone does stuff, everyone is good. Most of the classes are well rounded with few one-trick ponies.Combatwise, it's true that the class balance in general isn't too horrible, but in a roleplaying game it would be nice if all the classes got something to do outside of combat as well as in combat.
That's more up to the GM than the class features.
How so? Classes such as wizard get abilities like Scry, Teleport, Charm, Glibness, Fabricate, fly, spider climb, to allow them to Investigate, Travel, participate in diplomacy/roleplaying, manufacture items, overcome obstacles. These abilities grant them additional options on top of their roleplay in non-combat situations. They can still roleplay, just like the non-magical classes, they just have a number of capabilities baked into their class that gives them things to do outside of combat that can affect the direction of the adventure.That's more up to the GM than the class features.Mind you, narrative power is not the same thing as game balance. In a sense we could explore narrative balance, but there's a reason I feel that the core classes (sans fighter, rogue, monk) are pretty solidly balanced. Everyone does stuff, everyone is good. Most of the classes are well rounded with few one-trick ponies.Combatwise, it's true that the class balance in general isn't too horrible, but in a roleplaying game it would be nice if all the classes got something to do outside of combat as well as in combat.
Most of roleplaying is the relationship PCs have with the NPCs. Classes having additional abilities on top of that doesn't diminish the dominance of that aspect.
NOTE: Glibness is a bard only spell.
Martials were really pushed up to being the most reliable source of damage while casters can focus on CC, BFC, and buffs.
Buffs to both power attack and the flat to-hit bonus is really important.
Rogue are still viable, but they are tough to pull off. A lot of that has to do with people's low expectations for the class (I'll only to decent damage when flanked in melee)
Caster spells were stealth nerfed. Many exploits were closed, but the biggest nerfs were to for clerics their spell that gave them full BAB, and for everyone else the nerfs to polymorph. This prevents casters (sans druid) from being better at melee combat than martials.
In 3.5 fullcasters where just better at everything than everyone. PF does a lot to prevent that.
(Emphasis mine)
How did a 3.5 wizard manage to be better at melee combat than martials ?
A 3.5 wizard using a polymorph aby object effect (8th level spell) to change into a dragon had, at level 15 less than 70hp, an AC of 21 (plus eventually Mage armor and other spells, but not magic items), a routine of attacks of +14/+14/+14/+9/+9/+9 for 2d6+7/1d8+3/1d8+3/1d6+3/1d6+3/1d8+10 (respectively). A fighter did more even without trying seriously.
You needed Shapechange to start getting senses, breath weapon and other DR/SR/etc...
In Pathfinder, the same wizard using a 8th level slot have Form of the dragon III, which grant him +60hp (added to the one gained through his belt, for more than 200hp at level 15), gain DR, frightful presence, immunity to element, have more AC (+8 Natural armor that is added to your AC, including items instead of replacing AC for 21 and losing every bonuses from items), darkvision, blindsense, breath weapon, ...
Every polymorph spell in Pathfinder were boosted from the 3.5 version (or form available), with the only exception being Shapechange (and again, not that much).
Martials were really pushed up to being the most reliable source of damage while casters can focus on CC, BFC, and buffs.
Buffs to both power attack and the flat to-hit bonus is really important.
Rogue are still viable, but they are tough to pull off. A lot of that has to do with people's low expectations for the class (I'll only to decent damage when flanked in melee)
Caster spells were stealth nerfed. Many exploits were closed, but the biggest nerfs were to for clerics their spell that gave them full BAB, and for everyone else the nerfs to polymorph. This prevents casters (sans druid) from being better at melee combat than martials.
In 3.5 fullcasters where just better at everything than everyone. PF does a lot to prevent that.
(Emphasis mine)
How did a 3.5 wizard manage to be better at melee combat than martials ?
A 3.5 wizard using a polymorph aby object effect (8th level spell) to change into a dragon had, at level 15 less than 70hp, an AC of 21 (plus eventually Mage armor and other spells, but not magic items), a routine of attacks of +14/+14/+14/+9/+9/+9 for 2d6+7/1d8+3/1d8+3/1d6+3/1d6+3/1d8+10 (respectively). A fighter did more even without trying seriously.
You needed Shapechange to start getting senses, breath weapon and other DR/SR/etc...
In Pathfinder, the same wizard using a 8th level slot have Form of the dragon III, which grant him +60hp (added to the one gained through his belt, for more than 200hp at level 15), gain DR, frightful presence, immunity to element, have more AC (+8 Natural armor that is added to your AC, including items instead of replacing AC for 21 and losing every bonuses from items), darkvision, blindsense, breath weapon, ...
Every polymorph spell in Pathfinder were boosted from the 3.5 version (or form available), with the only exception being Shapechange (and again, not that much).
Dragons were weak options back in 3.5. You always looked for giants and others with really high strength scores. Throw in a few other buff spells and you were miles ahead of any fighter.
Polymorph any object was also more broken in 3.5 because 3.5 lacked the polymorph overwritting effect that PF has. In 3.5 polymorph spells changed your type and then other polymorph spells effected that creature type not the original one. Many GMs would house rule against this abuse because it could lead to using several castings of Polymorph any object to turn party member permanently into more powerful creatures.
Martials were really pushed up to being the most reliable source of damage while casters can focus on CC, BFC, and buffs.
Buffs to both power attack and the flat to-hit bonus is really important.
Rogue are still viable, but they are tough to pull off. A lot of that has to do with people's low expectations for the class (I'll only to decent damage when flanked in melee)
Caster spells were stealth nerfed. Many exploits were closed, but the biggest nerfs were to for clerics their spell that gave them full BAB, and for everyone else the nerfs to polymorph. This prevents casters (sans druid) from being better at melee combat than martials.
In 3.5 fullcasters where just better at everything than everyone. PF does a lot to prevent that.
(Emphasis mine)
How did a 3.5 wizard manage to be better at melee combat than martials ?
A 3.5 wizard using a polymorph aby object effect (8th level spell) to change into a dragon had, at level 15 less than 70hp, an AC of 21 (plus eventually Mage armor and other spells, but not magic items), a routine of attacks of +14/+14/+14/+9/+9/+9 for 2d6+7/1d8+3/1d8+3/1d6+3/1d6+3/1d8+10 (respectively). A fighter did more even without trying seriously.
You needed Shapechange to start getting senses, breath weapon and other DR/SR/etc...
In Pathfinder, the same wizard using a 8th level slot have Form of the dragon III, which grant him +60hp (added to the one gained through his belt, for more than 200hp at level 15), gain DR, frightful presence, immunity to element, have more AC (+8 Natural armor that is added to your AC, including items instead of replacing AC for 21 and losing every bonuses from items), darkvision, blindsense, breath weapon, ...
Every polymorph spell in Pathfinder were boosted from the 3.5 version (or form available), with the only exception being Shapechange (and again, not that much).
If a level 15 3.5 Wizard has only 70 HP... they have done something terribly terribly wrong. And while in 3.5 A Fighter *could* deal more damage (assuming they got off a full attack or somehow got a Leaping Power Attack Pounce Routine), a Wizard built for damage ala the Mailman would still win a damage off. Casters got many abilities while shapechanged, which allowed them to be more then effective at combat. Also, while not usually seen Wizard (but very possible to get on them) Divine Power actually gave you full BAB making the caster better than a martial in pretty much every way possible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Opens Thread*
*Looks Around*
Nope. Not worth it.
*Closes Thread*
Perhaps it's just me, but I fail to see how Come and Get Me corresponds to that many extra attacks. It seems like a smart group of enemies would just fall back, and rain down arrow-y death on the now-easy target, as soon as their first friend gets turned into hamburger. Sure in an All-melee fight, it might be an issue, but start adding in ranged combatants, and suddenly the Barb is a pincushion. And this is all assuming the enemies aren't familiar enough with Barbarians to make a retreat/remain in hiding until the Barb goes out of rage, and they can beat the now fatigued and unable to rage Barbarian.I have played 2 barbarians, at the same time in 2 different games, one of which was for 2.5 yrs. (ended at level 14)., and I can say that barbarians, when even built sloppily are extremely powerful and effective characters.
-Insane damage
-Spell sunder - enough said
-CAGM for even more attacks
-Superstition for insane saves
-High DR/-
-Good amount of skill points - only really need perception, acrobatics, and possibly survival, intimidate if for that kind of build
-Can also be very effective at tripping and disarm due to high sunder CMB score.
-extra speedThey can scout, frontline, take down the big bad almost by themselves or handle the lowly wizard with all his spells while still taking loads of damage.
I say make Barbarian's at least Tier 3 minimum.
It's the combination. If an archer tries to reign down arrows, a barbarian pounces and kills them one a round.
If a level 15 3.5 Wizard has only 70 HP... they have done something terribly terribly wrong. And while in 3.5 A Fighter *could* deal more damage (assuming they got off a full attack or somehow got a Leaping Power Attack Pounce Routine), a Wizard built for damage ala the Mailman would still win a damage off. Casters got many abilities while shapechanged, which allowed them to be more then effective at combat. Also, while not usually seen Wizard (but very possible to get on them) Divine Power actually gave you full BAB making the caster better than a martial in pretty much every way possible.
Remember that in 3.5, you lost your items' bonuses when shifting (yes, even that +INT, +CON bonus, +AC bonuses and +saves bonus, things that most people forgot).
That means that the wizard only had his HD + normal CON bonus (not the new form CON, as HP is not gained by the wizard when shifting).
Even a wizard with 14 CON would have 39 [HD : 4+14*2,5] + 30 [CON] = 69 HP.
A standard fighter with the same starting CON would have more than 160 HP (thanks to his item of CON that he can use), 20 to 30 more AC (combat feats, items for AC, magical armor, ...), and deals much more damage (much more to-hit bonuses, with greater damage for each one, even if he has less attacks).
With shapechange at level 20, a wizard didn't have more than 100 HP (well... not without using another spell, supposing he took the feat to ignore material components with less than 1gp value).
And without shapechange, you didn't get all the "defense" abilities that could increase your survivability, such as DR, SR, immunities, etheral form, ...
I repeat : the Pathfinder version of Polymorph and variants is much more powerful than the 3.5 version. The only exception is shapechange. And even then, I believe Pathfinder's Shapechange is still not that far behind.
If a level 15 3.5 Wizard has only 70 HP... they have done something terribly terribly wrong. And while in 3.5 A Fighter *could* deal more damage (assuming they got off a full attack or somehow got a Leaping Power Attack Pounce Routine), a Wizard built for damage ala the Mailman would still win a damage off. Casters got many abilities while shapechanged, which allowed them to be more then effective at combat. Also, while not usually seen Wizard (but very possible to get on them) Divine Power actually gave you full BAB making the caster better than a martial in pretty much every way possible.Remember that in 3.5, you lost your items' bonuses when shifting (yes, even that +INT, +CON bonus, +AC bonuses and +saves bonus, things that most people forgot).
That means that the wizard only had his HD + normal CON bonus (not the new form CON, as HP is not gained by the wizard when shifting).
Even a wizard with 14 CON would have 39 [HD : 4+14*2,5] + 30 [CON] = 69 HP.
A standard fighter with the same starting CON would have more than 160 HP (thanks to his item of CON that he can use), 20 to 30 more AC (combat feats, items for AC, magical armor, ...), and deals much more damage (much more to-hit bonuses, with greater damage for each one, even if he has less attacks).With shapechange at level 20, a wizard didn't have more than 100 HP (well... not without using another spell, supposing he took the feat to ignore material components with less than 1gp value).
And without shapechange, you didn't get all the "defense" abilities that could increase your survivability, such as DR, SR, immunities, etheral form, ...I repeat : the Pathfinder version of Polymorph and variants is much more powerful than the 3.5 version. The only exception is shapechange. And even then, I believe Pathfinder's Shapechange is still not that far behind.
You do realize that monsters have items slots and you can just... take off the amulet (3.5), *then* shapechange and then but the amulet back on right? And I'm not sure you are completely read up on 3.5 polymorph, since you absolutely got some defensive abilities (namely Ex stuff) so provided you knew what forms to choose you could get some excellent defenses.
You do realize that monsters have items slots and you can just... take off the amulet (3.5), *then* shapechange and then but the amulet back on right? And I'm not sure you are completely read up on 3.5 polymorph, since you absolutely got some defensive abilities (namely Ex stuff) so provided you knew what forms to choose you could get some excellent defenses.
First : your new form would have to be able to actually wear that item.
It is easy if you shift from a human to an elf, but much more difficult when you shift from human to fly/ant/cat, or from human to giants/dragons and the like.Second : you gained Ext attacks, not all Ext powers. You didn't gain SR, DR, immunities, senses, or anything like that. You gained grab, pounce, rake and the like.
You do realize that monsters have items slots and you can just... take off the amulet (3.5), *then* shapechange and then but the amulet back on right? And I'm not sure you are completely read up on 3.5 polymorph, since you absolutely got some defensive abilities (namely Ex stuff) so provided you knew what forms to choose you could get some excellent defenses.First : your new form would have to be able to actually wear that item.
It is easy if you shift from a human to an elf, but much more difficult when you shift from human to fly/ant/cat, or from human to giants/dragons and the like.Second : you gained Ext attacks, not all Ext powers. You didn't gain SR, DR, immunities, senses, or anything like that. You gained grab, pounce, rake and the like.
Fair enough on the second, I should have more phrased it as those Ex abilities make them superior combatants. But as to the first, what forms do you think would not have an amulet slot? Giants and Dragons certainly do.
Fair enough on the second, I should have more phrased it as those Ex abilities make them superior combatants. But as to the first, what forms do you think would not have an amulet slot? Giants and Dragons certainly do.You do realize that monsters have items slots and you can just... take off the amulet (3.5), *then* shapechange and then but the amulet back on right? And I'm not sure you are completely read up on 3.5 polymorph, since you absolutely got some defensive abilities (namely Ex stuff) so provided you knew what forms to choose you could get some excellent defenses.First : your new form would have to be able to actually wear that item.
It is easy if you shift from a human to an elf, but much more difficult when you shift from human to fly/ant/cat, or from human to giants/dragons and the like.Second : you gained Ext attacks, not all Ext powers. You didn't gain SR, DR, immunities, senses, or anything like that. You gained grab, pounce, rake and the like.
Amulets wouldn't pose that much of a problem. Some shapes would have trouble wearing a cloak, a belt, a pair of boots, circlets, gloves, vest, rings or handling wands, scrolls, material components, ...
Yes, a giant can use most of them, assuming that magic items change 2 sizes instantaneously (certainly possible with RAW, as no time is indicated). But most forms won't have those possibilities.
Amulets wouldn't pose that much of a problem. Some shapes would have trouble wearing a cloak, a belt, a pair of boots, circlets, gloves, vest, rings or handling wands, scrolls, material components, ...
Yes, a giant can use most of them, assuming that magic items change 2 sizes instantaneously (certainly possible with RAW, as no time is indicated). But most forms won't have those possibilities.
Actually it was RAW that wondrous items change sizes to fit their wearers. That's why you don't find sized wondrous items. Same with rings and such. Anzyr is right, you just reloaded on your magic items. If you are turning into a giant, you don't even have to worry because:
When the change occurs, your equipment, if any, either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional.
Which means that when you turned into a Fire Giant, you got to keep all your cool magic items like your amulets, bracers, boots, belts, rings. You didn't get to keep your armor (because armor doesn't resize itself) and your weapons didn't get any bigger. Now you're enjoying a +8 natural armor bonus (stacks with the amulet), a 31 strength pre-buffs, a 21 Con pre-buffs, a 40 ft. base speed, a 10 ft. base reach, and you can still cast spells and stuff. You also gained the rock catching and rock throwing abilities.
Dragons are also called out as being able to use traditional items, cast spells, make fine manipulation of items, and so forth. According to the draconomicon, dragon's can happily enjoy their wondrous items.
Outsiders are much the same. If you polymorph any object yourself into a pit fiend, twice, you're permanently a pit-fiend-wizard, complete with the 37 Str, 27 Dex, 27 Con, +23 natural armor, damage reduction and other ex-abilities, natural attacks, regeneration, grab, constrict, immunity to fire and poison, and poison. That's before buffs and magic items which the new form is capable of using.
Heck, in one of my longer running 3.5 games, my brother played a kobold sorcerer who spent most of his combat time at high levels as a dragon with much success. He had an alternate class feature that gave him a breath weapon that scaled with his level (1d6 / 2 levels, usable every 5 rounds) that basically allowed him all the joys of playing a dragon while also being a kobold and without having to deal with weird level adjustments.
I have been GMing 3.5 and Pathfinder for several years now and I will tell you what classes have seen that seemed the most unbalanced in my games.
1st: archer fighters. They always get all of their attacks in a round, have more attacks per round than any other class (except monks), deal as much damage as most other fighters, have high AC and HP, have high Dex that protects them against many spells, and if an enemy approaches them they just need to take a 5 foot step back to continuing their arrow volley.
2nd: 3.5 druids. Between summoning a stream of powerful monsters and polymorphing into strong melee combatants, druids from 3.5 were able to easily sub for melee combatants while still being ok spell casters. But polymorph is much weaker is Pathfinder so I don't have so much trouble with druids anymore.
3nd: two-handed fighters. They deal huge damage with multiple attacks that rarely miss, have high AC and HP, and a huge number of feats that can make them incredibly dangerous (if the feats are used sensibly). I have seen an entire party get wiped out when their two-handed fighter got dominated and the rest of the party was unable to subdue the fighter.
In my experience, sorcerers and wizards often KOed as many enemies as fighters, but their low AC and HP along with their threatening magic makes them preferred targets for enemies, making them the most likely characters to be KOed by enemies. Therefore I feel that wizards/sorcerers are glass cannons that balance out their offence with the lack of a good defense.
I have NEVER suspected my players' rogues, bards, or clerics of being overpowered.
That is just my experience with my players.
Class: Reason for being broken
Summoner: worst spotlight grabbers ever, too strong
Fighter: Next to useless out of combat, too weak
Rogue: Too little options to increase to hit, too squishy, bad talents: too weak
Apart from that there are power groups that mostly relate to max spell level the class can get.
9th level casters>6th level casters>4th level casters>non casters
The exeptions from this rule are the summoner (really a 9th level caster) and the barbarian/bloodrager who have a power level at least one step higher than the spell they can cast. Perhaps even two steps.
Playing in a campaign with a warpreist right we are only level 4 but he seems a little on the op side to me.
I have been GMing 3.5 and Pathfinder for several years now and I will tell you what classes have seen that seemed the most unbalanced in my games.
1st: archer fighters. They always get all of their attacks in a round, have more attacks per round than any other class (except monks), deal as much damage as most other fighters, have high AC and HP, have high Dex that protects them against many spells, and if an enemy approaches them they just need to take a 5 foot step back to continuing their arrow volley.
2nd: 3.5 druids. Between summoning a stream of powerful monsters and polymorphing into strong melee combatants, druids from 3.5 were able to easily sub for melee combatants while still being ok spell casters. But polymorph is much weaker is Pathfinder so I don't have so much trouble with druids anymore.
3nd: two-handed fighters. They deal huge damage with multiple attacks that rarely miss, have high AC and HP, and a huge number of feats that can make them incredibly dangerous (if the feats are used sensibly). I have seen an entire party get wiped out when their two-handed fighter got dominated and the rest of the party was unable to subdue the fighter.
In my experience, sorcerers and wizards often KOed as many enemies as fighters, but their low AC and HP along with their threatening magic makes them preferred targets for enemies, making them the most likely characters to be KOed by enemies. Therefore I feel that wizards/sorcerers are glass cannons that balance out their offence with the lack of a good defense.
I have NEVER suspected my players' rogues, bards, or clerics of being overpowered.
That is just my experience with my players.
I find your experience VERY interesting... In my games it's the casters that outshine the martials.
Granted, an archer seems better than melee, but are they better than someone who can invisibly fly over the combat and spam fireballs?
In high level games, I find casters to be the biggest problem.
Low levels, martials.
All levels, druids. Always. Haven't seen Summoners even allowed in the game at all, so... that says something?
I find your experience VERY interesting... In my games it's the casters that outshine the martials.
Granted, an archer seems better than melee, but are they better than someone who can invisibly fly over the combat and spam fireballs?
In high level games, I find casters to be the biggest problem.
Low levels,
...
Some of the difference between the characters we have observed as unbalanced is probably because of player style differences and GMing style difference. For example, my players' wizards/sorcerers rarely spend the first two rounds of combat casting buffs; they tend to open by throwing their most aggressive spells, unless the fight doesn't warrant that much firepower. And I usually have my NPCs attack the most vulnerable looking PCs and those that pose the greatest threat, quickly attracting enemies to the most aggressive spell casters.
It has been a long time since I have been in a high level game, so it is very possible that the dynamics between martial and magical classes reserves at some point and I just haven't seen it recently.
Talking to my players, one of the toughest fights they could recall was when I put them against four fighters (2 switch hitters, 1 two-handed, and 1 duel wielder). They thought that their opponents were some sort of supernatural bad-asses, since they could run in heavy armor, shrug off heavy blows, almost always hit, and hit for a lot of damage. But they were just sensibly built fighters with standard feats and equipment.
I haven't played with a summoner yet, so I don't have any first hand experience on how overpowered they may be.
OP = Caster.
Broken = Non-Caster.
Because I like chaos:
|
The answer of "the DM will scale difficulty to match" is an interesting one, but what about a Society game, where it's all pre-made?
Also, I get the feeling these "tiers" many have created are for high level versions of these characters. What about tiers at different levels?
Surely, at low levels, unarmored spellchuckers aren't "tier 1"
Where does the hunter fit in with this? I haven't seen much discussion about it so I'm kind of assuming general opinion is that it isn't very good. The sharing teamwork feats with the mount kind of makes me think it might make for one of the better lancer style melee.
I think I don't get all the Monk hate. A human monk gets 5 feats at 1st level (including the bonus feats), they get the Ki pool for versatility, they have great AC, and their fists go through many forms of DR as they level. They're not as good as some others, sure, and Wizards seem to be universally the favorite "best" class. However, making a spellcaster in this game is actually pretty difficult to start with; Monks are easy to make.
Are Monks really that bad?
There are threads on this. If we really go into this it will derail this and take it way off topic.