If the goal was to derail, it always succeeds. *wipes sweat off*
It's very hot outside today where I live. o_o
But yeah...I also think that in addition to fighter/rogue/monk, aristocrats are pretty meh. I mean why be an aristocrat when you could be a warrior, expert, or adept, I mean really?
If the goal was to derail, it always succeeds. *wipes sweat off*
It's very hot outside today where I live. o_o
But yeah...I also think that in addition to fighter/rogue/monk, aristocrats are pretty meh. I mean why be an aristocrat when you could be a warrior, expert, or adept, I mean really?
Aristocrat is the jack of all trades of the NPC classes
they don't get as many skills as an expert or the bab of a warrior, but they get the proficiencies of the warrior and slightly less skill points than the expert. they are the in between to warrior and expert.
but yeah, warrior. expert, and adept. are all superior
the commoner is the monk of the NPC classes. far worse than even the most useless of Racial Hit Dice.
the best "NPC class" is the outsider
2 good saves of your choice
proficiency in all simple and martial weapons
6+int modifier skill points
d10 hit dice
free darkvision
a possible bunch of racial immunities depending on subtype
If the goal was to derail, it always succeeds. *wipes sweat off*
It's very hot outside today where I live. o_o
But yeah...I also think that in addition to fighter/rogue/monk, aristocrats are pretty meh. I mean why be an aristocrat when you could be a warrior, expert, or adept, I mean really?
Aristocrat is the jack of all trades of the NPC classes
they don't get as many skills as an expert or the bab of a warrior, but they get the proficiencies of the warrior and slightly less skill points than the expert. they are the in between to warrior and expert.
but yeah, warrior. expert, and adept. are all superior
the commoner is the monk of the NPC classes. far worse than even the most useless of Racial Hit Dice.
the best "NPC class" is the outsider
2 good saves of your choice
proficiency in all simple and martial weapons
6+int modifier skill points
d10 hit dice
free darkvision
a possible bunch of racial immunities depending on subtype
The dragon HD makes a pretty good contender too. Possibly even scarier than the outsiders.
d12 Hit Die.
Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (fast progression).
Good Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves.
Skill points equal to 6 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for dragons: Appraise, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Diplomacy, Fly, Heal, Intimidate, Knowledge (all), Linguistics, Perception, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Stealth, Survival, Swim, and Use Magic Device.Traits: A dragon possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
Darkvision 60 feet and low-light vision.
Immunity to magic sleep effects and paralysis effects.
Proficient with its natural weapons only unless humanoid in form (or capable of assuming humanoid form), in which case proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
Proficient with no armor.
Dragons breathe, eat, and sleep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this thread yearns for the misericorde
Wait, no, I don't wanna take any more AP tests. Some of those things are grueling man.
I still have mini-nightmares about AP Chem and that was like 3 years ago.
But yeah I'd still be fine with playing another Adventure Path given a GM could run it. =p
If all else fails and we've got 2-3 people I could try and run one. Never done PbP but there's a first time for everything.
Why were the posts discussing the AP test stuff deleted? Rynjin was interested, anyone else? Any GM offers?
Because many of them were inseparable from the personal grandstanding and bickering going on. You're free to reopen the offer, but do it without any sniping.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of them.
Every single class is overpowered according to the forums.
Except for when they are under powered.
Because I have half a day off today, to test this claim I made lists from all the posts in this thread so far. I've done my best not to double count people but I probably made a few mistakes. Similarly I make no promises that if anyone has been secretly posting a dozen times on this thread under half a dozen aliases that I caught it. This is just a hand count, and tbh since I had to go to work between starting and finishing, and I've drunk a few beers now by the point of posting, probably a relatively bad one. Anyway...
So, here is a list of all classes and how many people here have felt they were overpowered or underpowered.
Overpowered:
Summoner 11
Wizard 5
Magus 3
Barbarian 2
Oracle 2
Paladin 2
Druid 2
Alchemist 1
Cleric 1
Witch 1
Sorcerer 1
Underpowered
Rogue 25
Monk 21
Fighter 18
Cavalier 4
Samurai 2
Inquisitor 1
Oracle 1
Ninja 1
Poor design/either OP or UP with no middle ground/internally unbalanced/don't like flavor/just plain bad/other complaint:
(I counted these with much less care than the fairly negligent standard I offered the other two, so, sue me)
Oracle 3
Gunslinger 2
Barbarian 2
Magus 1
Summoner 1
Witch 1
Paladin 1
Cavalier 1
Samurai 1
In closing I would like to say two things.
The first is that I curse the name of Ciretose. Dang it, like half the thread is some pointless discussion of a year old wand ruling. Why you gotta bring that up? The presence of that sprawling discussion throughout three quarters of the thread immeasurably added to the drudgery of counting.
The second is that there seems to be a surprisingly strong consensus of opinion on display in this thread so far. I was not expecting to discover nearly such strong overall agreement. Both in the numbers in each field, and also in the observation that the leaders in each category all have zero votes in the other category.
In fact it would appear that the oracle is the only class considered both over and underpowered by the forums, as represented in this thread, so far.
A few surprising results as well, particularly in the "what is overpowered" field. Personally I wasn't expecting summoners to place so far above wizards.
okay now my post at the top of this page is not only looking completely sketchy by itself without context, but now it is not even true
I would type a sadface emote but that would mean I would actually have to use a sadface emote and that is just like a line that I will not cross
I would type a sadface emote but that would mean I would actually have to use a sadface emote and that is just like a line that I will not cross
With that sentence, you have crossed that line.
how dare you
"And that is just like a line that i will not cross"
Emphasis mine
okay now my post at the top of this page is not only looking completely sketchy by itself without context, but now it is not even true
I would type a sadface emote but that would mean I would actually have to use a sadface emote and that is just like a line that I will not cross
Sorry, dude, it made me chuckle and I forgot to nuke it. :-) It's gone now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
that is it, writer
you roll up a fighter
I will roll up a rogue
we will duel at dawn
actually we will not because once we roll them up they will be laughed at and theorycrafted into the ground in this thread until we both run away sobbing
I mean like a drink-a-beer-in-the-shower-while-crying kind of sobbing
and thank you jessica price for removing the post that when taken out of context from all the others made me look like a total creeper
now people can forever wonder what was said as this gleaming gem of a thread stands the test of time
The second is that there seems to be a surprisingly strong consensus of opinion on display in this thread so far. I was not expecting to discover nearly such strong overall agreement. Both in the numbers in each field, and also in the observation that the leaders in each category all have zero votes in the other category.
I agree. I think from this it seems that Paizo successfully nerfed CoDzilla in the opinion of many, as Clerics and Druids do not get as many overpowered votes. Wizards are still pretty strong, and Summoners are overpowered - specifically, their Eidolon is too flexible and powerful. In fact, flexibility seems to have more bearing on weak or strong than DPR, saves, or any other measure.
In terms of weak classes Rogue, Monk, and Fighter are definitely considered weak with little or no disagreement. Why they are weak is equally interesting:
Rogues are weak not because they cannot do what they do, but because other classes can do what they do just as well, and other stuff as well, and all without the rogues weaknesses. Rogues need to be not just better at what they do, but able to do a few other things better too, and plug a gap or two in their defences.
Fighters are similar. They are very good at what they do, but they have zero utility out of that, and what they do is very limited, and they still have weaknesses. Fighters do not need to be better at combat, but they do need to be better at a few other things, and stop up some holes in their defences.
The monk...well, unlike the other two he can't even do what he's meant to do. Also unlike the other two, though, he doesn't have so many glaring weaknesses in his defences. Monk's don't need to have better defences, but they do need something they can do that other classes cannot other than run fast - preferably something that makes them better offensively.
|
Whoa, this thread doubled today! And with posts being deleted!
I'd just like to say to any new players who might be browsing along because they've come from an MMO background and are looking to pass on the class that received the monthly nerf-bat and has been rendered unplayable for progression raiding. (Don't lie, you are out there!)
In a good tabletop, don't be afraid of fighters, rogues and monks.
They will not feel underpowered in your hands.
In fact, they may even be overpowered in your hands!
Because, hey. You might only adventure from level 1 to 4 before this next character retires. And the only way for you to do get all those feats will be going fighter or monk!
Your GM might decide this is the mini-campaign where you'll be doing a lot of nonlethal damage or there's going to be a lot of neutral ruffians and completely botch any thoughts of going paladin.
Or it might be the campaign where there's tons of deadly traps as you square off with a guild of rogues and you thank Cayden you have the trap spotter talent.
Or your GM might finally be running surprise rounds like he's supposed to and you'll find yourself more often ambushed than not, and maybe don't want to factor having to pre-buff into your power level.
Or this might be the campaign where instead of 8 combats a day, you're doing 12-13 combats a day without resting.
The Monk/Rogue/Fighter won't fare any better in 12-13 combats a day than any other class.
If the Fighter/Monk/Rogue aren't pre-buffed they're a lot worse off than many other classes.
A Rogue MIGHT be good there. Or just an Archaeologist Bard who just says "I'm searching for traps".
A Paladin in a game with a bunch of neutral foes still has amazing saves, good immunities, Full BaB/d10 HD, and an "Enchant on demand" weapon among other things. The Monk also does not have the market cornered on non-lethal damage.
If your games are only running 1-4 I'd still rather have a Ranger than any of those 3 classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, Fighters are really strong up to 4th~6th level... Then they start to lag behind more and and more.
Rogues and Monk are never very good, but at very low levels they ain't too bad either.
It's not my intention to tell players, new or old, what they should play, but I'll speak what I think about each class them. If I were new to a game, I'd like if people told me the pros and cons of each option instead of sugarcoating to fool me into thinking the classes are balanced.
|
|
The Monk/Rogue/Fighter won't fare any better in 12-13 combats a day than any other class.
Depends on the level, the make-up of those 12 fights and the GM's style.
Say the GM isn't that imaginative - there's really no opportunity to sneak around, you picked undead as your favored enemy since he's hinted that you'll see a lot of that in the "meat" of his campaign, and now he's about to unleash 12 back-to-back combats of six goblin+goblin dog groups upon your party.
If you were mulling a ranged archer concept, you might feel like a Fighter/1 with Rapid Shot will outperform a Ranger/1 without it.
Then, this GM might decide he doesn't really want to GM anymore and he calls it quits. I'd wager this happens a lot to folks.
This is where tabletop theorycrafting really had issues. We're not talking about which class selection will be best at putting out DPS in a known raid dungeon with known encounters. We're talking about the whims of GMs and adventures.
This is why balance discussions, to truly be useful, should be in context of the questions of likely level for the campaign, the GMs style and tendencies, and the actual campaign (organized play or home game).
Fighter really is a solid class for the right player in the right situation.
Me personally? Yes, I play rangers. :) I need my skills! Plus, I know that rooftop chase is waiting, and I want to be the guy jumping across them...
Yeah, I'm currently pre-debuffed. =(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, Fighters are really strong up to 4th~6th level... Then they start to lag behind more and and more.
Rogues and Monk are never very good, but at very low levels they ain't too bad either.
Lemmy that is the dang point I have been trying to impress upon threads like this for quite awhile
all I am imploring you guys to do when talking in-depth about the classes is to at the very least quantify your statements in a rough level range
many of the problems that you guys bring to the forefront are simply going to be either marginal or non-existant below level 6 or so
there is a strong grouping of the player base that will certainly play more often at or below those levels, than they will above them
At low level I would say the dice are more important than your builds. As such, classes with comparative weaknesses don't exhibit those weaknesses yet.
So for a 1-4, yes a rogue, monk, or fighter will be peachy. Get to around 10, and the former two are going to show weaknesses (though if you twink a monk enough with style feats, you can at least pull some nice tricks, even if you really don't do damage). The fighter will still be a valid combatant, but will be relied upon purely for wenching when combat ends (though depending on the opposition, he will be lagging the other martials due to his poor saves).
|
Going back to the Ranger vs Fighter debate, I found what looked a bit off to me.
Against one type of enemy.Wrote up a nice long post, then discovered I'd been ninja'd by Ashiel.
The fighter is about as versatile with his weapons as the ranger is with his enemies (without the ranger using a spell. With the spell the ranger wins.)Which is not to mention that the Ranger's favored enemy bonus caps out at more than double what weapon training does, and also includes a ton of useful skill bonuses as well. On top of that, the ranger either gets an animal companion they can share their favored enemy bonus with, or the ability to share half their favored enemy bonus with the entire party.
THIS is the real balancing reason.
From 1st till 5th level, a Ranger will enjoy his favored bonus against only one type of enemy. That makes between 5 to 25 % of the opponents he will face.
Meanwhile, the Fighter will be using his preferred weapon against almost every opponent (I would say 75-90 %).
Saying that the Ranger's benefits are head and shoulders above those of the Fighter ignores this kind of game facts.
That is the reason why I feel people should never compare classes based on 20th level characters only (as is regrettably the trend on the tier thread too)
I've said it before, but a class that starts off strong, and gets comparatively weaker as levels increase, is working directly contrary to the whole concept behind a level-based game system.
|
|
You changed your icon. I almost didn't recognize you!
Lemmy that is the dang point I have been trying to impress upon threads like this for quite awhileI think we could do that, with a poll. Which class do you think is well/poorly-designed, and at which level range. (Also, people who don't want to fight a year-old war could just vote on a poll and/or look at the results.)
I have advocated in the tier thread having people highlight, with explanations based on real experience and not theorycrafting, what they enjoy and dislike when playing such or such class/archetype.
This way, newcomers can better understand the true aspects of playing this or that class and whether it suits them or not.
|
|
I've said it before, but a class that starts off strong, and gets comparatively weaker as levels increase, is working directly contrary to the whole concept behind a level-based game system.
And to be clear, I don't think you are wrong Kirth.
I think the problem is that you aren't going to get change unless you actually do analyisis rather than just having people make proclaimations without evidence, talking to anyone who disagrees with the assertion like they are mentally challenged.
The reason the monk got any kind of bump was specifically because people actually did the work of demonstrating the issue through level by level build out discussions, including all of the positive and negative aspects of the class.
What happens far to often is discussions devolve into corner case attacks on what such and such "can't" do vs what such and such "could potentially" do, which serves absolutely no purpose.
Monks got a bump to AoMF when it was shown it made mechanical sense, holisitcally.
The only way to show this is to actually present examples and discuss them, rather than shout down discussions as "traps" for fear that what is asserted as fact might not be completely accurate.
When Dabbler and others took the time to demonstrate, through builds, the limitations of the monk, that was when it went from navel gazing to actually legitimate discussion.
And the reason is they started not from trying to prove they were right, but rather demonstrating it was impossible to disprove they were wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is that you aren't going to get change unless you actually do analyisis rather than just having people make proclaimations without evidence, talking to anyone who disagrees with the assertion like they are mentally challenged.
There are two types of analysis that are needed, however, and this is where people end up talking past each other.
1. The "playtest" people scoff at "theorycraft" as worthless and insist that only impressions from playing is valid. Sadly, those impressions are qualitative, idiosyncratic, and dependent on a whole host of variables other than just the classes in question. Also, obvious broken combinations get totally overlooked if the "build" in question doesn't happen to show them. In short, taken by themselves, "builds" and playtests are anecdotes, not data.
2. The "look at the mechanics" people scoff at playtesting for those reasons and want to look at the math behind the classes (and, yes, anyone who claims that 2 > 2+2+1 is mentally challenged; no playtesting is needed for that). Sadly, however, without playtesting it's a lot harder to spot things that look good/bad, but which in fact come up so seldomly (or are used so seldomly) that they may as well be discounted. Also, you don't get the "dampening" effect of a live DM who works against the rules in order to minimize imbalances (which most do, consciously or unconsciously). Finally, you risk getting the much-dreaded "Shroedinger Effect" that is so derided by the playtesters.
Only by examining the raw mechanics in light of rigorous, controlled playtesting, and then looking at the playtest results through the lens of how the mechanics actually worked, can we start to get a real handle on the issues.
As long as we remain divided into two camps, as long as "theorycraft" and "Schroedinger" get thrown around as insults, and as long as playtesting and mechanical analyses are considered as somehow antithetical rather than complimentary, then getting a good picture is never going to happen.
|
|
@Kirth - Where I disagree with you is that if there is a broken combination, the easiest way to determine if it is actually broken is to look at the build and see what the trade off is.
In the CoDzilla days, he finally was run off the boards when his posted "God Wizard" was shown to be a complete glass cannon. He wasn't wrong that the combination he espoused was offensively powerful in a certain context, but the trade offs to get to that point were glossed over when discussed without the context of actually making all of those choices happen.
The the look at the math approach is fine, so long as it is examined in the context of and entire build along with discussion of strengths and weaknesses, and also what may or may not be allowed at different tables. If your assumptions are based on a GM that allows things many other GMs don't allow, that also gets to be part of the discussion.
In the monk example, the Devs were loathe to add offense to what they viewed as a potential defensive juggernaut class until it was shown that the addition wouldn't step on the toes of other classes.
Similarly, I think a lot of people were surprised at what could actually be done with a monk built in ways they had not considered, with regards to synergies of abilities and defense.
If the rogue and fighter need a boost, and (I do think the rogue probably does, and agree with you about making feats level along with the class) the way to demonstrate this is not by ranting on and on about tiers and corner case rules interpretations, but in actually producing builds to scrutinize, tweek, discuss, etc...to see what a) What can be accomplished by the community "brain" and then determining if that is or isn't comparable to what other classes of the same level can accomplish.
But unfortunatly too many people seem to come to the thread to get people to tell them how smart they are, rather than to actually try to problem indentify/solve. And they tend to derail threads with "look at me" posts about corner case rulings, rather than digging into whatever issue is actually at hand and doing the heavy lifting of testing.
To be fair, Fighters are really strong up to 4th~6th level... Then they start to lag behind more and and more.
Rogues and Monk are never very good, but at very low levels they ain't too bad either.Lemmy that is the dang point I have been trying to impress upon threads like this for quite awhile
all I am imploring you guys to do when talking in-depth about the classes is to at the very least quantify your statements in a rough level range
many of the problems that you guys bring to the forefront are simply going to be either marginal or non-existant below level 6 or so
there is a strong grouping of the player base that will certainly play more often at or below those levels, than they will above them
I never disputed that Fighters are okay at very low levels. Or that Rogues are not that bad by then.
That said, even at lowish levels, Rogues are not very good... They are not as weak as they are above 6th level or so,as Reflex saves are still really important, and their lack of BAB doesn't hurt too much, but they aren't exactly superstars either.
Fighters are strong at those levels because martial classes are strong at those levels. But Fighters are still less useful than Rangers and Paladins, IMO.
I never said that Fighters, Rogues or even Monks are unplayable or useless. From my very first post, all I've said is that they are just not as good as classes with similar roles/abilities.
I think the problem is that you aren't going to get change unless you actually do analyisis rather than just having people make proclaimations without evidence, talking to anyone who disagrees with the assertion like they are mentally challenged.
TBH, ciretose, the reason I don't bother with build comparisons anymore is not because I'm afraid I might be proven wrong, as you insist is the case for anyone who shares my indisposition.
The reason is that it never worked.
You never agreed to any test other than "let's spend weeks/months playing an official AP and see how each class fares". Most of us simply have no time or patience for that. And nothing like that was necessary for Monks to get their errata.
You disregard mathematical analysis, calling it "theorycraft", but we all have real experience with the game and its classes. It's not impossible (or even difficult) to see classes in a real game and find them to be lacking.
Why were the posts discussing the AP test stuff deleted? Rynjin was interested, anyone else? Any GM offers?
I'd be interested too.
In the monk example, the Devs were loathe to add offense to what they viewed as a potential defensive juggernaut class until it was shown that the addition wouldn't step on the toes of other classes.
Well to be honest they didn't give the monk much of a boost (he can now bypass DR/silver or DR/cold iron at 7th level) so much as they reduced the cost of the AoMF slightly (which was only one of that item's issues).
As for the monk being a defensive juggernaut, have you read the paladin? He beats the monk hands down on all defences save touch AC (and movement if you count running away as defensive - no wait, he can have a mount, he doesn't need to run fast personally). By far and away the paladin is the "defensive juggernaut" of the game.