I run a game where the 8th level Alchemist did 160 points of damage to a group of monsters because they missed their refelex saves. The point for the GM is the Alchemist is not even a spell caster and all he does is chuck bombs. That is fine but in order to hit his foes all he needs is to beat their touch AC. Touch AC is a joke against a ranged touch attacks when you have 14 bombs to throw every session. I have used undead monsters such as Ghosts (touch AC 17) so it is not a hit 100% of the time. I can't recall any character that hits 99% of the time and is not engaged in direct melee. Please don't use magic missle as an example, that does not do 160 points of damage. Also, if you can get the Alchemist in hand to hand combat they are toast.
Not sure how your 8th level Alchemist did 160 to all monsters in the blast range. Maybe 160 damage total, among all enemies.
To the OP. Listen to the advice given here. Compared to some of the people in your group, it is understandable that the others may appear weak by comparison but that doesn't mean that the classes you are talking about are overpowered. The important thing to remember is that mixing up tactics both gives the other people in the group time to shine and plays on weaknesses of the classes being discussed.
There are too many 1-2 combat days in Kingmaker! <shakes fist impotently> :pAlchemist bombs are nice, but honestly the damage isn't that great against the big beefcake monsters, and the number of bombs per day is VERY limited. You're aces for a couple rounds per day, then not so much.
The nastier alchemist bombs are being able to mix up damage with various kinds of status effects, but that's no different from casters and spells, except that you get far fewer of them.
Rakshasas happen to be a perfect monster for an alchemist (vs. other classes) - modest touch AC, big SR to screw spellcasters, big DR to screw meleers, but not great hp. Certain classes match up well with certain creatures. Against creatures with energy resistance, or against large numbers of enemies that are not tightly bunched for your convenience, the alchemist looks a lot wimpier.
As stated upthread, your DM needs to give you a longer work day. If you only have 1-2 combats per day, the alchemist will look great.
Way too many.
I think the other problem the OP has is they are starting at 8th level.
I think the other problem the OP has is they are starting at 8th level.
Not typically a problem unless people are new to the system or are unwilling to actually read their classes. That's a big thing, too. There can be a lot of misunderstandings caused by not reading.
The Alchemist isn't any more "overpowered" than any other class. Perhaps that player just put some time and thought into how he actually wanted to build his character instead of just throwing it together in 5 minutes. A good build can make any class seem overpowered.
I got an alchemist I'm playing now, he's basically the same thing. Once he hits 8th lvl, he'll go from tossing 1 bomb per round to 4. Big improvement there but there are drawbacks. Limited amount of bombs for one. Will save sucks, unless you put in a lot of resources to make up for it. And if he's a bomb chucker chances are he'll need help to survive in melee. Yeah he hits touch AC, and the higher lvl you are the easier it is it hit touch AC. Especially after you start buffing yourself before encounters. But it isn't overpowered. For one I think you'll find the Alchemist will have to get more creative with he gets to the higher levels, he may be able to toss a bunch of bombs but the damage he's putting out compared to what some other classes can do at the level is pretty small. Alchemist is good at throwing bombs....wizard is good at casting spells, no need to punish them for what they are built to be good at.
If you're at 9th level then you're at the peak of that classes effectiveness IMO. Low levels the alchemist is okay, high levels TBD but I think he'll get overtaken by other classes.
Do you know if this is the official ruling?
No SR for bombs. They aren't spells.
Yes and no.
Bombs ignore SR because they're supernatural, not because they aren't spells. Spell-like abilities aren't spells (some don't even emulate spells), and they have to overcome SR.
|
There are too many 1-2 combat days in Kingmaker! <shakes fist impotently> :pAlchemist bombs are nice, but honestly the damage isn't that great against the big beefcake monsters, and the number of bombs per day is VERY limited. You're aces for a couple rounds per day, then not so much.
The nastier alchemist bombs are being able to mix up damage with various kinds of status effects, but that's no different from casters and spells, except that you get far fewer of them.
Rakshasas happen to be a perfect monster for an alchemist (vs. other classes) - modest touch AC, big SR to screw spellcasters, big DR to screw meleers, but not great hp. Certain classes match up well with certain creatures. Against creatures with energy resistance, or against large numbers of enemies that are not tightly bunched for your convenience, the alchemist looks a lot wimpier.
As stated upthread, your DM needs to give you a longer work day. If you only have 1-2 combats per day, the alchemist will look great.
But then there are the nights. ;)
Thanks again everyone. I definately have enough feedback to be able to talk to my DM about it. I have a feeling he may not see my way but we will all talk about whats going on during the next session. The sad part is if the guy who maked the alchemist feels like hes getting screwed then he will make his old characters that would easilly outshine his alchemist and it would prove his point on the alchy not being OP. His old characters are a wizard or a twf fighter thats pretty much a quisinart. Thanks again guys ill keep everyone posted on how it went.
You alchemist's damage output is impressive when novaing, but you can see lvl 10 characters doing that fairly regularly. On standard array you can get level 10 characters in the 80+ DPR range, and that is factoring in an enemy's AC of ~25, instead of the near auto-hit of the alchemist. If you don't believe me, take a look at the DPR Olympics thread that happened a while back. Alchemist is nice, but doesn't have the durration of some of the others.
As for the gunslinger, their damage output is on par with bow-using fighters, provided you do not allow 1 thing: Flaming-Frosting-Thundering guns. The gunslinger will do less damage on average with normal guns than a bow-using fighter. If both add enhancement bonuses, the fighter stays ahead because the bonus to hit affects the fighter more. If the gunslinger finds ways to add more to his damage, like 1d6 damage magic enhanments, he starts pulling ahead, and can pull way ahead, but sacrifices range to do so.
The Magus has a few issues (note I haven't looked at the final version yet). He has the same MAD problems as other classes, and that really is a ballancing factor for the class more than others. If he rolled well or you are using a high point buy, it is a nice class. The class's ability to buff/debuff while attacking is significant, and it can use crowd control wile attacking. The class is a really solid replacement for an arcane spellcaster in a non-typical party and I personally think it is better than a sorceror through mid levels with more spontaneous casting ability and spells known and about the same spells per day.
More to the point, I think you are more disappointed by the other characters you have. 2 Rangers, which are perhaps the weakest of the full BAB classes in combat. Even against their favored enemies, by mid levels rangers are worse than fighters unless they pumped 1 FE more then everything else. Their big advantage is in non-combat utility, and with 2 of them you will likely see them stepping on eachother's toes and not really shining. The fighter-rogue will also be competing for the same spot in non-combat spotlight, and since he is built to a sub-optimal dex build, he could have issues.
More to the point, I think you are more disappointed by the other characters you have. 2 Rangers, which are perhaps the weakest of the full BAB classes in combat. Even against their favored enemies, by mid levels rangers are worse than fighters unless they pumped 1 FE more then everything else. Their big advantage is in non-combat utility, and with 2 of them you will likely see them stepping on eachother's toes and not really shining.
I think you are right, but if a ranger pumps up one of his favored enemies all of the time and selects the other ones wisely, is build right (ability scores and feats), has a good animal companion (that means small cat), and thanks the gods for the instant enemy spell, then he can put out good amounts of damage. Of course he would still be a nova (limited instant enemy) but when he did unleash himself he could dish a better damage than the paladin smiting (after errata).
Clarification: I am factoring the companion's damage when i am saying that the ranger might be able to outdamage a smiting paladin.
|
|
I love how the DM always gets the flak in these threads.
I suggest you play along with whatever changes he wants to make. Running a game is not a public service you or anyone else is entitled to.
I am, by no means, a 'the DM is always right' type of player but the DM is entitled to his fun just as much as the players are and if running encounters full of fire vulnerable giants is fun for him and bombs are ruining that the players should be flexible.
I love how the DM always gets the flak in these threads.
I suggest you play along with whatever changes he wants to make. Running a game is not a public service you or anyone else is entitled to.
I am, by no means, a 'the DM is always right' type of player but the DM is entitled to his fun just as much as the players are and if running encounters full of fire vulnerable giants is fun for him and bombs are ruining that the players should be flexible.
On that same note player's aren't forced to play in your game. Tit for tat, don't crap on someone else's fun just because you can't or won't adapt.
My player's started being able to outright murder frost giants in groups of 6 by level 8 with well placed spells and hefty buffing.
Than I started adding class levels, than I put them on Wooly Mammoth mounts.
The abject terror they felt when they realized that those frost giants they were murdering left and right were merely cannon fodder and commoners was plenty fun for me.
I love how the DM always gets the flak in these threads.
I suggest you play along with whatever changes he wants to make. Running a game is not a public service you or anyone else is entitled to.
I am, by no means, a 'the DM is always right' type of player but the DM is entitled to his fun just as much as the players are and if running encounters full of fire vulnerable giants is fun for him and bombs are ruining that the players should be flexible.
I agree in principle with you but let's be realistic here, both the magus and the alchemist class are very difficult to make changes and the most probable result is that the attempt is bothced (which means either very weak or very strong), if the DM wants to ban those classes from the game then this another matter. I haven't mentioned gunsliger because i don't know the class, but i seriously think that the DM should write down his concerns about the class and post them in the boards, that's the goal of playtest.
But i think that the issue boils down to good builded characters and not so good builded characters, so even if the DM bans those classes from the game and the players of those characters make other characters they still going to be superior to the other (the not so good builded) characters.
I love how the DM always gets the flak in these threads.
I suggest you play along with whatever changes he wants to make. Running a game is not a public service you or anyone else is entitled to.
I am, by no means, a 'the DM is always right' type of player but the DM is entitled to his fun just as much as the players are and if running encounters full of fire vulnerable giants is fun for him and bombs are ruining that the players should be flexible.
Warning: Those who find themselves allergic to gratuitous amounts of sarcasm and point-making hyperbole may wish to stop reading past the fourth paragraph after this one. Failure to do so may result in hives, nausea, upset stomach, swelling, death, or rational thought. You have been warned.
Man, as GM, I disagree with this post entirely. If I want to run encounters with monsters that are vulnerable to fire, well I shouldn't complain when the fire-lobbing party members are tearing them apart and putting them in a burning, boiling, incendiary blender. I knew they had fire vulnerability when I picked them.
If they (the monsters) are also stupid enough to run headlong into a group of hardened warriors and wizards without so much as drinking a potion of resist energy or having an allied spellcaster cast resist energy on them, they deserve what they get.
As a GM, I say we are in no ways entitled to that privilege. That's what GMing is. It's a privilege that I appreciate. I get my fun and enjoyment from running a game that everyone has fun in and remembers, not by throwing repetitive encounters at the party and then complaining that the encounters are being steamrolled because I'm playing them to the strengths that the party is expected to use.
It would be like throwing a bunch of brutes wearing little more than some studded leather into melee with a party full of Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers, who are just going to land every hit they throw out for huge power attack damage, and cleave through everything 'cause that's what they do.
Man, them Fighters and Rangers, it's disgusting how overpowered they are compared to those power alchemists who can't seem to deal any damage because of all those energy resistances and immunities. Poor things, yeah. That poor Alchemist didn't even get to do anything in that battle with the fire giant, but it seems like Fighters and their +5 swords of DR-Ignoring are slaughtering everything I throw at them - especially those lightly armored rogues who couldn't sneak attack them because the fighters had some concealment and some such.
I say we ban and nerf Fighters, for the good of all GMs, because GMing means we're awesome, and those Fighters are bad, and they should conform to our wishes and stop using swords and start flinging magic missiles around because we say so. For the good of all, and for the GMs!
|
One of the difficulties I see is that you have 9 players, two of which who likely have animal companions, and one of which (sorc) may be summoning creatures regularly. Thats a much larger party than standard.
Speaking as a GM of a 9-10 player regular size group, it is very difficult to threaten or get in the face of everyone there on a consistent basis during combat. This means any given combat, likely there are 2-3 players who get free reign to run about and wreak havoc untouched. However, there are drawbacks as well.
For instance, in my group there is only one primary healer, an oracle of life, with a druid and inquisitor who only heal if someone is dying. This means there if their opponents concentrate on the healer, they can make life very difficult for my group.
Additionally, I have a very strong player who optimizes and plays efficiently in the role of the alchemist, who usually lights up the bad guys quite effectively before anything happens(18+ dex with mutagen, improved initiative). This also causes him to be the focus of all the bad guys attacks for a couple rounds also, since no one likes getting blown up right away. After getting dropped negative a few times from archer fire or raging charging barbarians, he now is a bit more careful to put up defenses and position himself in the first round or so before unleashing his barrages.
As a final note, I do find I have to use swarms, lots of minions, terrain and tactics to make encounters challenging and fun for a party that size. Not all certainly, but the ones that shouldn't be a walk-over.
On a side note, I sat down with my alchemist and talked over a couple of bomb issues that concerned me, and we agreed to make adjustments and then see how it went (since neither of us has seen higher level alchemists in play). I adjusted force bombs (not available atm) and dispelling bombs (cost x2 bomb slots) that I feel might unbalance our game in a 10 man group. Its not that his class is too powerful btw, its that in his hands, it is likely to be a bit overpowering, so we worked out adequate adjustments for the things we reduced as well.
Actually, that alchemist multibomb thing could instead allow a double strength bomb at +6 BAB, and a triple strength at +11 BAB (as a full round action). That would eliminate the stacking with haste and Rapid Shot, and overall reduce the impact on resources and feats, but also reduce the impact of the nova.
In my games, the PCs are often able to call the shots or resting. I track time, and the bad guys have their own agenda, but the cosmic odds that they HAVE to press forward and have four encounters that day, most days, are simply too low. A nova-built character appears pretty powerful in such an organic interpretation, even if the result is that they feel less useful when the day has a BUNCH of encounters.
Keep in mind that if you do this, it is going to result in a stronger alchemist versus creatures with fire resistances. As I noted in a previous post, energy resistance - natural or via potion or spell - hoses alchemist bombs pretty hard. They may not allow spell resistance, but a 5d6 bomb at 9th level has an average of 17.5 damage, which is 7.5 damage after the basic resist energy, and 0 damage after resist energy 7th caster level, while a double strength bomb has an average damage of 35, or 25 damage after basic resist energy and 15 damage after resist energy 7th caster level.
This also allows the alchemist to get far more bang for his buck on a per-bomb basis, so spamming bombs is no longer nearly as much of a limitation, as now you can get the benefits of 2 bombs for the price of 1 bomb, and be able to penetrate energy resistances far more readily (without even factoring in their Intelligence bonus).
This means that an alchemist with 12 bombs per day could toss one bomb per round for 10d6 + (let's say 6) points of damage every round for 12 rounds, bringing his average damage vs a hit target to 41 damage per bomb, and 41 damage to creatures in splash radius w/save for half.
I'm not sure this would help the "problem". In fact, it probably would make it more effective vs the one thing it's pretty weak to (and that's resistances).
One of the difficulties I see is that you have 9 players, two of which who likely have animal companions, and one of which (sorc) may be summoning creatures regularly. Thats a much larger party than standard.
The party size is actually more like 5 or 6 charactrers. We rotate a bit as different players are able to make it to the game or not. Neither of the rangers have animal companions (one of the problems they have with their characters, in my opinion) and the sorceror focuses most of his spells on inflicting damage and doesn't use summoning spells at all.
The main issue with the game in question isn't the GM coming up with viable threats....as many have pointed out, the party is a blast heavy group, designed around inflicting damage. That leaves the group vulnerable in a few ways. He's run a couple of encounters that made this very obvious....a couple of hags using illusions and charms and the party was basically at each others' throats.
The main issue is that some of the players feel their characters are outclassed compared to some of the others. The OP and myself feel this has more to do with how they built their characters (for instance, neither of the rangers choosing to utilize an animal companion gives you an idea of what we're dealing with).
The GM is reacting to complaints from a couple of the other players more than he is complaining himself about the party's strength. He agrees with their concerns a bit....especially about the alchemist....but it's much more in reaction to the other players.
I know when I'm in a group and it seems my character isn't holding his own compared to the other party members, I usually try to figure out a way to improve my character....not complain and have the others weakened till they're as effective (or ineffective) as mine.
What's really funny is that the overall "equalization" of the classes and what they can do in 4th edition was what our group found dissatisfying about that system and made us decide to go with Pathfinder. And now we're dealing with this...hahahaha
|
|
When I look at threads like this I wonder, what is the reference point for the "overpowered" view. What is being compared? Take the alchemist in the OP example. What does he do better than all the other classes? Is his DPS far greater? Does he have greater defensive capabilities? Does he have more utility that all the other classes? All classes have a niche that make it not reasonable to compare them to one another.
|
|
This happened in one of our games in the past...and while I can't speak for your group, usually this is due to player skill. The solution our GM came up with was to swap everyones characters around, making sure that the strongest optimizers (or the character who is thought of as OP) goes to the weakest player skillwise (or the player doing the most complaining). Run them through a module or average length adventure, and see what happens.
If the hierarchy or strength or power stays the same, then perhaps the original complaint is valid. If it is shaken up and the alchemist and gunslinger (in your group) become just regular contributors, then perhaps player skill plays a larger role.
In our group it was clearly revealed to be player skill (and overall luck at dice rolling if you believe in that), and the same player(s) were the most dominant, regardless of the change. After that the grumbling stopped, since basically it would be grumbling about their own skills as a player.
In my current group, I know I have a player I feel sure I could give an NPC class to and he would dominate our group. Hes just that focused and efficient in character design and combat play.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
This happened in one of our games in the past...and while I can't speak for your group, usually this is due to player skill. The solution our GM came up with was to swap everyones characters around, making sure that the strongest optimizers (or the character who is thought of as OP) goes to the weakest player skillwise (or the player doing the most complaining). Run them through a module or average length adventure, and see what happens.
If the hierarchy or strength or power stays the same, then perhaps the original complaint is valid. If it is shaken up and the alchemist and gunslinger (in your group) become just regular contributors, then perhaps player skill plays a larger role.
In our group it was clearly revealed to be player skill (and overall luck at dice rolling if you believe in that), and the same player(s) were the most dominant, regardless of the change. After that the grumbling stopped, since basically it would be grumbling about their own skills as a player.
This reminds me of a quote attributed to Paul 'Bear' Bryant, the hall of fame college football coach, when he was asked what defined a good coach.
"A great coach can take his'n and beat your'n, or he can take your'n and beat his'n."
A 9th level pure alchemist will be doing 5d6+Int modifier damage per round. +1 if using Point Blank Shot. I'm guessing he has an int of 22, and PBS, which gives +7 damage. This means the average damage per bomb is 24.5 damage. Given Haste, he'll be able to make 4 attacks per round, if he uses Rapid Shot as well. But that'll drain 4 bombs from him, and he will have Class Level + Int Modifier + (times taken Extra Bombs * 2). Assuming he's taken that feat once, he'll have 17 bombs a day. And he just used up one fourth of his available bombs in that one round. That's a pretty good tradeoff if you ask me.
Remind the DM that he can spread out enemies, and not just have one enemy, and the alchemist will be a lot less effective. Assuming three accounters, he can only go "nova" (use 4 bombs a round) just over once per encounter.
Imagine the damage that would happen if your sorcerer used 1/4th of his spells all in one round. That's basically the same thing the alchemist is doing.
Yeah but with the number of damage focused characters in that group, how many fights are going beyond one round? Seems like the real problem here is that with 9 players, their is a very high chance of the PC's going through most encounters like a hot knife through butter.
|
There are no overpowered classes.
Someone hasn't seen the Lightning Warrior. Or, well, any Tome classes.
Only overpowered players.
Yeah, I hate when I get a player with a +20 BAB. How do I balance encounters around him?
|
|
Someone hasn't seen the Lightning Warrior. Or, well, any Tome classes.
That looks more like a fanfic than a class. :-D
|
|
The biggest mistake is to nerf rules that have been vetted to work well.
I agree with this. Really the strongest thing the alchemist has going for him power-wise as far as damage goes is his bombs, sort of like a summoner and his eidolon. Take that away, and hes almost an NPC class.
There are lots of other things an alchemist can do, but it would be like a barbarian without raging or a monk without ki. Yes they are functional, but also crippled compared to how they were originally balanced. Especially if your alchemist is like the one in my game, who chose the class so he could be a "mad bomber". Nerfing the alchemist may risk losing a player just like ignoring the complaints that started this discussion could risk losing a player.
I can't speak to the gunslinger since I have not had a chance to peruse my copy of Ultimate Magic yet.
Yeah, I hate when I get a player with a +20 BAB. How do I balance encounters around him?
Depends, if he’s easy going you balance normally, otherwise have you ever seen star wars, where C3PO and Chewy are playing a game like chess? Let the wookie win ;P
Sorry, I couldn’t resist xP
On Topic:
In my experience, when new classes come out, it simply takes a little bit of time for a GM to get the hang of them. So while at first they might seems a little overpowered once a GM has had a little time to identify their individual strengths and weakness it stops being much of an issue.
As a GM myself I read over the specs for any new class carefully before allowing it my game. If something is blatantly overpowered I’ll house rule it and then allow it to be played with the changes I made unless a player give me a convincing argument as to why I should let it stand as is.
For anything that I think might be over powered but am even a little uncertain of I’ll let a player pick the class but inform them up front about the perceived potential problem. That way they can decide if they want to risk playing a class that could get altered in mid game. Of course if this happens I try to make as little of a change as needed.
If the GM hasn’t already he should really spend some time looking over the new classes paying particular attention to weaknesses he can exploit if and when needed and spend a couple sessions adapting his tactics. If he still finds them to strong I’d recommend first checking the boards for advice on handling them, then talking with the player uses that character about his concerns and brainstorm a possible solution. Only after trying all of this would I even consider banning a class that had already been allowed.
If you have a Battle Oracle and they feel overshadowed in combat I don't even know what to say.
Also you can give alchemists unlimited bombs (I sure as hell have) and they still aren't anywhere close to being "overpowered."
The sick side of me recommends you make a full core wizard with no optional anythings and then still turn the entire game into your own personal playground. Then ask them if they want to go back to the Magus / Gunslinger / Alchemist.
A plain-vanilla BAB6 ranger with Improved Precise Shot will gun that alchemist down every time.
(Have you ever been so embarrassed from killing every opponent before anyone else in the party did anything that you retired the character?)
I once made a character, then retired him before I even played him because of how powerful he'd be compared to everyone else.
|
Seems to me that one of the bigger issues is simplicity to build. If you want to build an effective alchemist bomber you need to worry about getting a high INT and a moderate DEX and that's about it. A few well chosen feats and discoveries along the way help but ultimately it's very easy to put one together that works well.
Many of the 'classic' classes from the Core book and even classes like Oracle require much more attention be paid to feat selection and tactics in game to really shine. (For example an archer's power is pretty solidly tied to Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, Many Shot, etc...)
If you take a group of players who don't have a lot of experience and stumble around picking feats the player who chose the alchemist is going to shine a bit until the other players find the 'good' combinations of feats that make their characters golden.
I think a lot of people underestimate how long it takes to really master playing this game.
Yeah but with the number of damage focused characters in that group, how many fights are going beyond one round? Seems like the real problem here is that with 9 players, their is a very high chance of the PC's going through most encounters like a hot knife through butter.
I'm in the same game as the OP and there aren't 9 players. There are 9 characters, but we only usually have 5 or 6 in play for any single session because some players can't make it every time. So a couple of the guys who make it to every session have a second character they run to make up for those who are missing and so on.
The GM isn't having too much trouble coming up with challenging encounters. The major issue is some of the other players think the alchemist outshines their characters. He does....but not because the class is inherently more powerful than another, it's because he spent more time crafting his character.
I think a lot of people underestimate how long it takes to really master playing this game.
Yeah....I think you summarized the way I feel and a lot of what the others have said on this thread. I really think it's a case of experience character building versus inexperienced.
The most overpowered PC I ever had to deal with a Charismatic Hero in a d20 Firefly campaign. We only got to 6th or 8th level, but he was able to add his level several times to manipulation rolls (Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Info, Intimidate), so he was unbeatable at getting people to do what he wants.
Ok so my Dm texted me today to say that the classes he has allowed are going to get an overhaul because they are too overpowered with no drawbacks. He is talking about my magus, my friends gunslinger and an alchemist. His biggest gripe is they have good +to hits and against touch ac. I think alchy is his biggest gripe because he can throw his stuff and not hit any allies but hits enemies touch ac. Please give your opinion of the biggest drawbacks or weaknesses to magus alchy gunslinger classes so i can help point them out to him. Thanks guys for any feedback.
If he's not nerfing the wizard, cleric, and druid, he has no idea what an overpowered class is.