Broken? None as such, if you don't skip rules.
Most powerful? Used to be clerics in 3.5 (I had one among my players), in Pathfinder its the martial classes, while the divine got nerfed. Casters in general are weaker than they were before.
|
Is there even a d20 system where wizards are not horribly broken?
There is a somewhat unknown setting updated to D&D 3.0/3.5 called Midnight which really mixed up the power. Casters, except for clerics which are all worshipers of the evil god which has taken over the place, has been downgraded to having feat based spellcasting and with a single class called the Channeler. Not exactly d20 but still applicable, as it does much in balancing mundanes and casters. Also instead of the party carry an armory worth of magic items they have what is called a 'Heroic Path', which could be considered a plus.
Casters in 5e D&D are a lot more tame. Individual spells are really cool (in some ways stronger than PF/3.5 versions), but spell combo-ing is very difficult/non-existant.
Higher level slots are very limited, but lower level spells scale better.
The only serious complaints I have seen are about 9th level spells. Even then, I think most of those arguments fall through.
I've had great fun with my Hunter. Lead blades at level 1 is super nice for when you need to deal some damage.
they have great AC
They do?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most powerful? [...] in Pathfinder its the martial classes
6th level casters, automatically tier 3.
Summoner says hi!
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"
They are not automatically. But they can be. The right combo of race, school and spells allows a wizard to dominate games at level 1.
6th level casters, automatically tier 3.Summoner says hi!
I think there might have been an implicit "at least" somewhere in there.
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"
The tier list actually (tries to) put less weight on the extremely low levels and the extremely high levels. At level 20 even an adept is better than many martials. At extremely low levels power level is all over the place. Typically the tier list is pretty much correct by level 6. For members of highly optimised groups (e.g. heavens oracles, half-elf razmiran sorcerers and god wizards) the tier list is close to reality at level 1.
Remember, even at level 1, sleep and color spray can completely wreck encounters, and druids are slightly worse fighters than fighters that come with another pocket fighter and some decent battlefield control options.
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.
So far at level 7?
Makes our Antipaladin and Barbarian look like chumps.
Gonna wait and see if the kill train has brakes, but at this rate I can see my Hunter being ridiculous for levels to come!
Hunter and Animal companion both have at least +13 to hit while power attacking. On crits AoOs trigger from both. Broken wing gambit for funzies. Bark skin for extra AC and money saved. Money saved on belts using animal focus. I hit for 2d4+1d6+7+6+1 Wolfy for d8+d6+9+6+1 (precise strike+str+PA+enh bonus)
Getting a +4 flank bonus to trips makes wolfy pretty good at them too.
Next level my animal focus becomes +4 str and I get 2 foci!
Aside from that having access to the Druid and Ranger list gives me a lot of problem solving ability.
Hunters be cray cray despite their humble looks.
Are there actually real people browsing these forums who unironically believe that martial classes are anywhere near the power level of full casters?
If not, I can understand that. There are trolls everywhere all the time who love sparking flamewars whenever possible. That's normal. It's a reality of the Internet.
If they actually do believe that, then how do those people function in the real world? How did they make it through High school without failing all of their classes and dropping out? Or do they not actually function properly in the real world, and instead rely on other people to take care of them? I am genuinely curious about this, because it just boggles my mind that there could actually exist real human beings even slightly familiar with 3.5 or Pathfinder who believe that martials are comparable to full casters in those systems.
Are there actually real people browsing these forums who unironically believe that martial classes are anywhere near the power level of full casters?
If not, I can understand that. There are trolls everywhere all the time who love sparking flamewars whenever possible. That's normal. It's a reality of the Internet.
If they actually do believe that, then how do those people function in the real world? How did they make it through High school without failing all of their classes and dropping out? Or do they not actually function properly in the real world, and instead rely on other people to take care of them? I am genuinely curious about this, because it just boggles my mind that there could actually exist real human beings even slightly familiar with 3.5 or Pathfinder who believe that martials are comparable to full casters in those systems.
The poster in question has a real account with several real(not joke) post, so he was not kidding.
Many people also do things in the game to protect martials without realizing it and/or they play in games where tactics take a back seat without knowing it, so they really think the two are a lot closer than they really are.
Some may not have seen certain classes ran by a good player or built one. I did not know how strong a druid was despite the claims until I built one in 3.5, just before switching over to Pathfinder. It was so powerful I decided to not use it.
Are there actually real people browsing these forums who unironically believe that martial classes are anywhere near the power level of full casters?
If not, I can understand that. There are trolls everywhere all the time who love sparking flamewars whenever possible. That's normal. It's a reality of the Internet.
If they actually do believe that, then how do those people function in the real world? How did they make it through High school without failing all of their classes and dropping out? Or do they not actually function properly in the real world, and instead rely on other people to take care of them? I am genuinely curious about this, because it just boggles my mind that there could actually exist real human beings even slightly familiar with 3.5 or Pathfinder who believe that martials are comparable to full casters in those systems.
The poster in question has a real account with several real(not joke) post, so he was not kidding.
Many people also do things in the game to protect martials without realizing it and/or they play in games where tactics take a back seat without knowing it, so they really think the two are a lot closer than they really are.
Some may not have seen certain classes ran by a good player or built one. I did not know how strong a druid was despite the claims until I built one in 3.5, just before switching over to Pathfinder. It was so powerful I decided to not use it.
I think it's also worth mentioning that casters in general have a very low optimization floor. I've seen casters who were absolutely abysmal because the players running them clearly had no idea what they were doing and seemed to just be picking spells at random.
Martials tend to be a bit harder to mess up. It doesn't take an optimization genius to decide on playing an archer, then grab all the feats that make you better at archery.
I think it's also worth mentioning that casters in general have a very low optimization floor. I've seen casters who were absolutely abysmal because the players running them clearly had no idea what they were doing and seemed to just be picking spells at random.Martials tend to be a bit harder to mess up. It doesn't take an optimization genius to decide on playing an archer, then grab all the feats that make you better at archery.
In my experience it's the opposite way round. Can't do much wrong as a caster. Nearly every caster player I know of takes some basics that alone make you viable.
Martials on the other hand... I've seen lots of "archers" without point-blank + precise shot. A lot of sword and board types without TWF. Such kinds of PCs.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy playing martial characters. It's a lot of fun to make and play Paladins, Slayers, and Barbarians, just to name a few. I almost always have a good time when I make those sorts of characters; but you will never, ever catch me even thinking that my character is anywhere near as powerful as the party Wizard is capable of being. In fact, that's part of the reason why I don't like playing full casters. I just don't enjoy playing broken characters, it makes the game too boring for me.
I think it's also worth mentioning that casters in general have a very low optimization floor. I've seen casters who were absolutely abysmal because the players running them clearly had no idea what they were doing and seemed to just be picking spells at random.Martials tend to be a bit harder to mess up. It doesn't take an optimization genius to decide on playing an archer, then grab all the feats that make you better at archery.
In my experience it's the opposite way round. Can't do much wrong as a caster. Nearly every caster player I know of takes some basics that alone make you viable.
Martials on the other hand... I've seen lots of "archers" without point-blank + precise shot. A lot of sword and board types without TWF. Such kinds of PCs.
a wizard with the wrong spells can really stay not shine. I have a caster who's first 2nd level spell was spider whip and tries to use it way to often. 10 str too. hasn't bought scrolls to give him more choices to prepare either.
I'm seeing a lot of iter lists placing the Barbarian underneath the Paladin and Ranger. I'm assuming it's because they both have viable Archer builds on top of some modicroum of spell casting, but really, I just can't see it.
Utilizing only class features, the Barbarian has access to Pounce, Flight (60 ft), Come and Get Me, Spell Sunder, Blindsight, and even a form of true seeing that isn't blocked by Mind Blank. He even gets access to enhanced saves and abilities to reroll failed saves. Most importantly, he now can get access to all of them simultaneously. In a format dominated by casters, he's the martial most equipped to deal with them.
Sure I can see how a Paladin's sheer survivability and outright immunities can put him ahead of the game, but the Barbarian should at least be better than the Ranger, IMHO. The Ranger has a spell list of decent utility, but he can't sunder spells, fly on his own power, or see through illusions/concealment automatically. The Ranger doesn't have ways to boost his saves, or ways to get rerolls for failed saves. For all his utility, he's no less vulnerable than a fighter to most spells.
I get that, but to me, the Ranger's spell list seems a little...lackluster, IMO. Can somebody explain to me some of the important and useful spells she gets that are better than Flight, Pounce, Spell Sunder, etc. etc.?
I'm seeing a lot of iter lists placing the Barbarian underneath the Paladin and Ranger. I'm assuming it's because they both have viable Archer builds on top of some modicroum of spell casting, but really, I just can't see it.
Utilizing only class features, the Barbarian has access to Pounce, Flight (60 ft), Come and Get Me, Spell Sunder, Blindsight, and even a form of true seeing that isn't blocked by Mind Blank. He even gets access to enhanced saves and abilities to reroll failed saves. Most importantly, he now can get access to all of them simultaneously. In a format dominated by casters, he's the martial most equipped to deal with them.
I would imagine part of it also has to do with when the tier list was made/which books were included. Most of those options you listed weren't in a Core Rulebook, and a couple of them are from relatively recent publications like the ACG.
The barbarian is more powerful abilities but the ranger seems to ne more versatile. He can use his animal companion as a spy. He has some battlefield control with the entangle spell. He can use clw wands if needed. IIRC he can summon which admittedly wont be good in combat. They have other decent spells but I'm not home.
P.S. I still prefer barbarians for melee combat.
1.) Why is this in Conversions?
2.) Fighter. It's been proven to me that Fighter can do anything. All you need is the right traits, a good amount of Feats and ranks in UMD and you can fight better than any martial and cast spells better than a caster.
I feel like this is one of those things I need to quote back to Rynjin just to annoy him. That probably means it's one of my innate kobold "deathwish fantasies", along with "run at that adventurer" and "harness trained weasels to firebombs".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The barbarian is more powerful abilities but the ranger seems to ne more versatile. He can use his animal companion as a spy. He has some battlefield control with the entangle spell. He can use clw wands if needed. IIRC he can summon which admittedly wont be good in combat. They have other decent spells but I'm not home.
P.S. I still prefer barbarians for melee combat.
I think the Ranger spell list is a bit under-appreciated, really. Any martial is going to appreciate being able to cast Barkskin to save money and free up their amulet slot, Instant Enemy is just all kinds of handy, and they have some very nice buffs for both themselves and their animal companion. Not a lot of jaw-droppingly powerful spells, but plenty of useful ones.
I think the Ranger spell list is a bit under-appreciated, really. Any martial is going to appreciate being able to cast Barkskin to save money and free up their amulet slot, Instant Enemy is just all kinds of handy, and they have some very nice buffs for both themselves and their animal companion. Not a lot of jaw-droppingly powerful spells, but plenty of useful ones.The barbarian is more powerful abilities but the ranger seems to ne more versatile. He can use his animal companion as a spy. He has some battlefield control with the entangle spell. He can use clw wands if needed. IIRC he can summon which admittedly wont be good in combat. They have other decent spells but I'm not home.
P.S. I still prefer barbarians for melee combat.
I agree. I got good use out of the spells, but that was so longed since I played a ranger that I can't remember which spells helped me the most.