So you've got 3 3/4 BaB classes all multiclassed together, and you're using the Eidolon's BaB anyway which will be at a much lower level than it already would be.
Yeah it's "broken" alright. Downright unplayable most likely.
Alchemist is a broken class? That's a good one! :)
combine a synthisist,vivisectionist, sap master rogue and you've got a I dunno a 12 armed beast swinging saps with a 30+ strength thats doing like 2000 pts of non leathal per round with natual AC an dex buffs putting ac in like the 40s.
Under no circumstances would the vivisectionists vestigial arms give you extra attacks.
The alchemist is pretty powerful when built right. Especially with the mummification ability they can gain.
first it doesnt work against neutral summon creatures like elementals, and they can summon A LOT of elementals. second it means you can't attack back. this not to mention the summoner could cast dispel magic. the class is broken period (when used as intended), nothing you can do about it, i've seen it in three games, with other players who were all optimized, we were the pips, and i have yet to hear a single situation, where it just didnt completely dominate, everything once the summoner realizes the eidelon is just a hinderance. too much offense, too much defense, it can pretty much counter anything you throw, totally destroys the concept of action economy, it is literally a one man army, that can do just about anything.
I just want to be clear, the class, can be just fine, if the summoner keeps and uses his eidelon, but the minute he puts it away, it's done. And you can't really blame the player for making use of his best class ability and it's not the player's fault that his class has the ability to overcome pretty much any impedment, like the aforementioned circle of protection against,quite easily.
Fair enough. Let's extrapolate a bit at the low levels.
summon monster II (Sp) lets a master summoner summon one Small elemental per round. Those guys have a +4-+6 attack bonus 1/round for ~1d4+1 damage - average is 3.5 damage per hit. Against CR 3 encounters, they'll hit more or less half of the time. Against CR 5, they'll miss a lot more than they'll hit against an AC of 19+. CR monster hp varies wildy - anywhere from roughly where the elemental is (15ish) to more than double that (34 for a deinonychus). CR 5 monsters are quite a bit tougher than that (a cyclops, for example, has 65 hp).
At least at the first level where a summoner can start calling in the elemental troops they are not terribly effective until he unloads all of them in a swarm. This takes time, time likely interrupted by casting such things as haste on his party or somesuch.
Is it potentially powerful? Sure. Against the more typical encounter ranges (APL - APL+2), not so much.
I am fascinated that a master summoner could do what you are describing.
The alchemist is pretty powerful when built right. Especially with the mummification ability they can gain.
Pretty powerful = broken?
If built right, yes. Not exactly sure on the details, but alchemists can get to be broken with a good optimizer.
i disagree, i don't think even if you tried you could make a broken martial class.
Look up Dreamscarred Press' Soulknife Beta from when they were working the Psionics for Pathfinder upgrade. That was the nearest anyone has ever made to a brokenly good martial class.
For most spellcasters, you don't break the class, you break the spells.
For instance, Fighters are a very unbroken class because feats are generally suckage compared to, say, rage powers, inferior in every respect.
==Aelryinth
|
@Turin As a current player of a summoner (at mid level) I still use small elementals. Particularly earth. The base small earth elemental has +6 slam and does 1d6+4 dmg per hit. Once you can augment them, they have +8 to hit and deal 1d6 +6. They're hitting more than half the time and for more than minor damage.
Consider also that 99% of everything you fight at low levels and even mid levels is on the ground (and almost always touching earth) and the elementals receive an additional +1 to hit and +1 damage making it:
Slam +9, 1d6+7.
At the point where you can summon 1d3 of them you start single handedly killing bosses or cleaning up the battlefield. If you're a master summoner, then you are summoning 1d3+1 of them guaranteeing this is the case more often than not. They also come with 13 hp, which becomes 17 (enough to take a couple of low level hits or possibly survive a crit). They've got 17 ac as well. They're STILL my go-to summon...above all others. And casting haste on them is just amazing.
Right now I am a regular summoner and have to debate if summoning 1d4+2 small earth elementals (though lightning are fine, too with the +3 to hit on metal using foes and +10 on several combat maneuvers on metal foes as well as minor magic damage) is a better choice over a giant scorpion or a Hound Archon. It just depends on what the party needs. Don't underestimate those weakest of elementals. They're actually *really* good for a lot of the game.....(almost half of it).
--
I don't see monks or rogues as weak as people say.
Cavaliers are hands down superior to fighters in terms of versatility, as well. I'd rather have a reasonably optimized cavalier at my side than a beastly fighter. Nothing wrong with fighters- mind you, but a cavalier has a better mount than a rangers companion, and more and better class skills for non combat scenarios. They also come with a better non-combat stat to use and plenty of bonus feats to make them formidable combatants- combined with their mounts feats they get nearly as many (maybe more?) than a fighter. FURTHER, when a Cavalier is forced to take a teamwork feat (yes, the fighter can do the same) he actually pretends to be a bard and supports the whole party directly with that feat, the fighter has to hope someone else has it. I think cavaliers are just better in more situations than a fighter- but a fighter is better at fighting, as an individual, than most cavaliers could hope to be.
I could do this with several classes in relation to one another. It makes some of the arguing moot.
To that end I personally would devise a system that more accurately reflects what you get out of a class and then rank the value accordingly.
The precepts being how well you do what you do, how many things you can do, relevance of things you can do and whether what you can do is readily handled by others- and if so does it cost them to do it. There may be more but this is how I see things in my head.
The fighter fights amazingly well. +1
The fighter can do a single thing only. -1
The roll the fighter does is important. +1
Others can readily handle what a fighter does. -1
It may or may not come at cost for others to fill the roll. +0
Fighter Value +0
The Rogue tends to fight above average. +.5
The Rogue can do several things well. +1
The Rogue can can fill several important roles. +1
A given class may or may not be able to do what rogues do. +0
It almost always costs others to fill a rogues roll. +1
Rogue Value +3.5
The Monk fights above average. +.5
The Monk can do several things. +.5
The Monk can fill multiple party rolls. +.5
The monks role can be handled by others. +0
It generally does not cost others to do what monks do. +0
Monk Value +1.5
The Ranger fights well especially with companion. +1
The Ranger can do several things and some well. +.5
The Ranger fills very few roles but fills more than one. +.5
The Rangers role can usually be handled by others. +0
It generally does not cost others to do what rangers do. +0
Ranger Value +2
Wizards are potent combatants. +1
Wizards can do several things well. +1
Wizards fill some rolls but fill them very well. +1.
Wizards role can be handled by others. +0
It may or may not cost others to emulate what wizards do. +0
Wizard Value +3.
Druids are potent combatants especially with companions. +1
Druids can do several things well. +1
Druids fill multiple rolls and well. +1
Druids role can be handled only by some others. +.5
Some aspects of druidic roles are readily emulated. Some aren't. +0
Druid Value +3.5
Etc...
This is a rough guide. There were a few more values I didn't assign that spread things out a bit more, like spellcasting and not spellcasting, class durability and a few other things that are rather important.
The numbers DON'T represent power or even versatility..just how much value you're getting in whatever area you're looking at. You can see the relative value of a given class and use it to compare to others if you wish, but just because the fighter has no positive or negative value doesn't mean she is a bad choice...the fighter is the best in that specific are of the game. In this system you can sort of cherrypick what good things you'd want in a class and what the 'costs' or low value points are. The tier system is probably highly inaccurate no matter where you place anyone or how you define a tier.
A wizard isn't better than a fighter because the wizard uses spells and is more versatile. The wizard can't tank a demon. He also can't slice it in two. The fighter can do both. Is it preferential to sit back and banish the demon instead of fighting it? Absolutely, but those aren't always options. For the same reason a wizard would summon a monster to soak up damage, is the same reason (just enhanced) that a fighter is useful and darn powerful in their own right. No wizard wants to be in melee with a fighter and no fighter really wants to be at range against a wizard. And then everything in between.
I'll probably refine this system for others use at some point. I just think it is a far more adequate way to look at classes rather than trying to determine who is better 'overall'.
*end of long post*
@Turin As a current player of a summoner (at mid level) I still use small elementals. Particularly earth. The base small earth elemental has +6 slam and does 1d6+4 dmg per hit. Once you can augment them, they have +8 to hit and deal 1d6 +6. They're hitting more than half the time and for more than minor damage.
Consider also that 99% of everything you fight at low levels and even mid levels is on the ground (and almost always touching earth) and the elementals receive an additional +1 to hit and +1 damage making it:
Slam +9, 1d6+7.At the point where you can summon 1d3 of them you start single handedly killing bosses or cleaning up the battlefield. If you're a master summoner, then you are summoning 1d3+1 of them guaranteeing this is the case more often than not. They also come with 13 hp, which becomes 17 (enough to take a couple of low level hits or possibly survive a crit). They've got 17 ac as well. They're STILL my go-to summon...above all others. And casting haste on them is just amazing.
Right now I am a regular summoner and have to debate if summoning 1d4+2 small earth elementals (though lightning are fine, too with the +3 to hit on metal using foes and +10 on several combat maneuvers on metal foes as well as minor magic damage) is a better choice over a giant scorpion or a Hound Archon. It just depends on what the party needs. Don't underestimate those weakest of elementals. They're actually *really* good for a lot of the game.....(almost half of it).
--
Hrm, so adding in two feats (Augmented Summoning + prereq) is well timed for a 3rd level Summoner/Master Summoner, even 1 at a time at that juncture. haste is the shiznit, no question, especially at 4th level. Vewwwy intewesting, Mr. Rabbit, veewwwy intewesting...
Dark Immortal, care to explain what all these things Rogues are doing that Rangers can't are, that make a Rogue worth 2 more points than a Ranger outside of combat (in a point system where entire classes aren't worth more than 3.5 points)? You also say that Rogues and Monks fight "above-average" - care to point out which 9 of the 18 classes are less useful in combat than a Rogue or Monk?
The results are in, the magus with his two melee attacks and a spell at second level, is the most OP/broken character in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Rogue tends to fight above average. +.5
define "above average"
The Rogue can can fill several important roles. +1
that are all typically better filled with a bard
A given class may or may not be able to do what rogues do. +0
a bard just about removes the need for them entirely, especially if there is a barb is in the party
It almost always costs others to fill a rogues roll. +1
...I think I made where I stand clear
edit:hmm I think I made a good point, but i apologize for how rude it may appear to be.
The results are in, the magus with his two melee attacks and a spell at second level, is the most OP/broken character in the game.
...yeah like twice a day, and lord help you if the target lives(or has a buddy), because the term "glass cannon" is not in any way a joke.
Some people claim I did with a homebrew Fighter :Pi disagree, i don't think even if you tried you could make a broken martial class.Look up Dreamscarred Press' Soulknife Beta from when they were working the Psionics for Pathfinder upgrade. That was the nearest anyone has ever made to a brokenly good martial class.
I think you took it too far, making other combat classes redundant. In fact your fighter is pretty much on a par with the SKB, in many ways, except he also got a no-cost super-flexible weapon.
Dark Immortal, care to explain what all these things Rogues are doing that Rangers can't are, that make a Rogue worth 2 more points than a Ranger outside of combat (in a point system where entire classes aren't worth more than 3.5 points)? You also say that Rogues and Monks fight "above-average" - care to point out which 9 of the 18 classes are less useful in combat than a Rogue or Monk?
I have to agree here....few classes save the wizard and sorcerer fight worse than the rogue and the monk. Clerics, bards, druids, all fight better than the monk and rogue because they can self-buff. The rogue is situationally good if he can flank, the monk doesn't even do that well.
The results are in, the magus with his two melee attacks and a spell at second level, is the most OP/broken character in the game....yeah like twice a day, and lord help you if the target lives(or has a buddy), because the term "glass cannon" is not in any way a joke.
Well, multiple times if you are using Arcane Mark or Light
Well, multiple times if you are using Arcane Mark or LightThe results are in, the magus with his two melee attacks and a spell at second level, is the most OP/broken character in the game....yeah like twice a day, and lord help you if the target lives(or has a buddy), because the term "glass cannon" is not in any way a joke.
light does that?
|
|
I was using a general guideline. If I wanted to determine the average combat ability of a character, I'd have been thorough with that last and not provided any numbers and opened up further definitions to describe character features then given a rating.
I mean, I could probably run through and provide a reasonably fair assessment of the 'on paper' merits of a given class to determine what a baseline for 'average' is. In which case, I might be forced to concede that the rogue is a below average combatant or just an average one. I dunno. I'd have to disregard optimism because everyone here is capable of taking a classless lemure and making into a combat deity with save DC's on spell like abilities that require the roll of a natural 20 to make.
So optimization isn't the guideline to follow. Any class can be made to perform ridiculously well in any given area they can get their hands on.
The point system didn't argue that values capped at 3.5 It was an arbitrary example. Values look like they could go as high as 5, or perhaps more. The END result of this type of point system, if done properly, is that you should be able to look at a given range of values to determine how many features, how versatile, and how good in a given area, a give class of that range is. Not that a range determines that much since a character can be good at a lot of things and bad at a lot of things and stuck in a low range (or low tier) and it's placement then does nothing to help you determine if it is 'top tier' or not.
The individual values associated with a class would tell you if it is more or less a stronger selection in that area or not.
Maybe monks and rogues will end up having -10k in each category since many people argue that they are the worst classes in every respect and have no value. Maybe those two classes won't get such a harsh value in given areas because maybe they actually are useful for performing some sort of task in the game. I personally think that they aren't as beyond abysmal as everyone keeps claiming them to be- even when there is a caster in the party. But I have not 'done the math' of just what features rogues get and then how many classes have easy access to the exact same features and how many of those features they get. I do know that I have played a lot or seen a lot of classes in play, and have read many classes and scenarios and guides, just as you all have. My opinion, while not as thorough (and possibly quite wrong) seems to hold weight until I can definitely prove that a rogue or a monk (or any given class) is completely, overshadowed in virtually every way by offering to the table nothing that cannot be readily emulated by others and done as well or better by those emulating it.
Honestly, I don't care which classes are better- But I do think that it would be easier to weigh their merits if a better system than the tier system were used.
Saying that the rogue, for instance, is a terrible combatant that every last class next to the monk is superior to confuses players who read the DPR olympics threads and hear about the twf sneak attacking god rogues with high str and double slice and two weapon rend. That's incredibly difficult damage to keep up with for other melee classes (I imagine- I'd have to actually run the numbers and be sure but +xd6 per hit can easily be a lot).
Measuring the value of a pet, and coming up with an appropriate and reasonable numerical value system for each aspect and the proper things to measure is another task, somewhat daunting but one I am curious about now. I suspect that once I get to it, I'll be surprised with the results (and probably disappointed with others).
Apparently anyone that takes crafting feats is OP... or so a friend of mine insists in how he enforces WBL based on market value even for crafters, and no amount of proof that the rules state otherwise will sway him... look for my recent thread "Would you play with this GM?" for more details.
light does that?Well, multiple times if you are using Arcane Mark or LightThe results are in, the magus with his two melee attacks and a spell at second level, is the most OP/broken character in the game....yeah like twice a day, and lord help you if the target lives(or has a buddy), because the term "glass cannon" is not in any way a joke.
Yeah, it is a touch effect.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/l/lightIt works better when Sundering if DM argues you can only aim at objects (although 1E and 2E AD&D you could cast it on creatures).
The results are in, the magus with his two melee attacks and a spell at second level, is the most OP/broken character in the game.
Please tell me you're kidding
Because that is pretty lulz worthy.
Hmmm, I'm going to go with either Godling or Divine Channeler.
Godlings basically have the ability to cherry-pick access to spells as SLA, channeling, Oracle abilities, wizard or sorcerer class abilities, combine that with potentially sick stats, a full BAB, great hitpoints and other abilities.
Third party material exists that is overpowered and that no DM in their right mind should allow? I am shocked. Shocked, I say.
As for "overpowered" classes, I'm much less concerned about that than underpowered classes. While it is true that there are some classes which are overpowered, the issue I face, more often, is classes which are so weak that not only can they be shown up in their main role by other classes, but can hardly fill that role at all (or in the case of the Rogue, have a niche that doesn't really matter anymore), but while some overpowered classes can be used as examples as to why an underpowered class like the Rogue or Monk are underpowered, it's not the presence of these classes that causes this underpoweredness. Really, the only classes I'd argue are underpowered are the Rogue and Monk. The fighter has problems, but it can fill it's role very well. It can't do hardly anything outside that role, but that's more a function of narrowness than underpoweredness.
Hrm, so adding in two feats (Augmented Summoning + prereq) is well timed for a 3rd level Summoner/Master Summoner, even 1 at a time at that juncture. haste is the shiznit, no question, especially at 4th level. Vewwwy intewesting, Mr. Rabbit, veewwwy intewesting...
Master Summoners get Augmented Summoning for free at 2nd level. Just sayin...
Most OP. Hands down goes to druid. Strong offense, Strong Defense, Strong Utility from 1-20
Most broken goes to master summoner. Here's why. He has an eidolon that 90% of his class features are based around. He never wants to use his eidolon. So he has a basically useless feature that is only good for either making a travel mount or a skill monkey. This should gimp the class. His spell list is very limited. Granted it is 9th lvl casting condensed into 6, but the slots are still very limited.
Sounds awful right? NOPE! His SLA is so strong that is makes up for all other shortcomings. The master summoner ends up being strong from 1-20 because of 1 class feature.
Just as a thought experiment strip the master summoner of his spellcasting and eidolon, leaving just his SLA. You know what? The class is still playable and even good.
Now in terms of power Druid > master summoner. Master summoner is just the most broken because his 6th level casting is nice but superfluous.
|
The most powerful or broken class I have found is the witch. After all, at first level, they are Uniquely Game-Changing.
However, the most optimal class I have found to be the magus, due to my own personal
After all, at first level, they are Uniquely Game-Changing.
I hate that thread so much.
|
|
After all, at first level, they are Uniquely Game-Changing.I hate that thread so much.
I probably would, but I find it too funny to hate it.
lol that thread is the epitome of moving goal-posts and the collection of people who are too stubborn to admit that they may be wrong...
The absolute most powerful (potentially) class in Pathfinder is the Oracle hands down. Specifically, a level 11+ Half-Elf (or Human/Aasimar pretending to be Half-Elf) Oracle, thanks to Paragon Surge getting them quite literally the entire Cleric and Sorcerer/Wizard spell list (not all at once but still...)
If I had to tack a mystery on to that I'd have to say Lunar is my favorite mystery at the moment, thanks to the free animal companion that can scale super fast with favored class bonus and of course benefit from Celestial Servant if going the Aasimar pretending to be a half-elf route, along with CHA to AC and Ref, and other druid-lite powers. Furthermore, their 20th level ability is one of the few ways to get Immunity to Mind-Affecting which is an extremely handy defense. Dual-Cursed should be utilized for its additional mysteries as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most overpowered class is the one you enjoy the most. the true way to win dnd is to walk away from the end of the game with fond memories and a story to tell. that being said... I've seen people all of the classes in equal measure and while I think some classes could use a boost in versatility (Fighters with a grit pool type thing and 2 more skill points would be awesome!), they are all capable of greatness.
Most OP. Hands down goes to druid. Strong offense, Strong Defense, Strong Utility from 1-20That makes it playable. Every class should have strong offense, strong defense, and strong utility.
Druid is one of the two best gishes simply because it doesn't have to struggle under the fundamentally flawed martial action economy, but it's still not stronger than the other full prepared casters.
Not true. A wizard may find ways to be more powerful at the highest levels, but for the first half of the game the druid wins no contest. Clerics are never more powerful than druids.
Of course at the highest level the druid and his AC are flying around as dragons decimating any foes that catch their ire with a mixture of spells, devastating melee, and summons.
IMO: I prefer the druid spell list to the cleric and wizard spell list.
IMO classes can be considered OP/Broken, only when compared to each other ,and even then, under certain circumstances.
There are, for sure,the better all-around-classes that can hold their own from 1 to 20, like the druid and the summoner for example, but when it comes to actual gameplay, many things are dependent on the nature of the campaign/scenario/theme of the story.
I believe that when you expect balance between role-play and roll-play in a campaign/story, you can "shine" regardless of the class you've chosen.
even if the synthesist had the ability to benefit from cure spells. it would still be inferior to the baseline summoner. which is highly limited in spell versatility to battlefield control and buffing.But not survivality.
baseline summoner has the same, possibly better survivability
synthesist fuses the health pools?
the summoner as a baseline, already kinda blurs the health pools, the eidolon is a lot easier to heal, and while they might share item slots. they have better action economy
action economy contributes more to survivability than 1 fused abomination. it's the issue with magic changed monsters in Disgaea 4. they maximize 1 humanoid unit's offensive and defensive power, but decrease the number of enemy units and make it easier to gang up on that one big foe.
yeah, that useless prinny might transform into a super bow for your archer. but it is easier to kill an archer with a super bow, then an archer and a prinny.
even if the synthesist had the ability to benefit from cure spells. it would still be inferior to the baseline summoner. which is highly limited in spell versatility to battlefield control and buffing.But not survivality.baseline summoner has the same, possibly better survivability
synthesist fuses the health pools?
the summoner as a baseline, already kinda blurs the health pools, the eidolon is a lot easier to heal, and while they might share item slots. they have better action economy
action economy contributes more to survivability than 1 fused abomination. it's the issue with magic changed monsters in Disgaea 4. they maximize 1 humanoid unit's offensive and defensive power, but decrease the number of enemy units and make it easier to gang up on that one big foe.
yeah, that useless prinny might transform into a super bow for your archer. but it is easier to kill an archer with a super bow, then an archer and a prinny.
The thing you have too look at is just HOW MUCH of a buff being fused is though. Yes, it is easier to kill 1 guy than it is to kill 2. But when that 1 guy has a rediculously higher AC, Higher Saves, A LOT more HP, and MUCH better stats across the board then that actually puts that in question. Synthesists tend to be much harder to kill than either the baseline summoner AND the Eidolon because they can "stack" magical items (i.e. since you are the Eidolon, you can wear magical items and the "both of you" benefit from it) allowing you to do things like pump up your Eidolon AC with things like Ring of Prot and Bracers of Armor while also benefiting from the now rediculous AC.
Let me see. I'm assuming the question is "What classes do I find most difficult to deal with as a DM?"
1. Invulnerable Rager Barbarian with Superstition and Greater Beast Totem: This class grows more and more difficult to challenge as he rises in level. Once he gets Come and Get Me, he annihilates most encounters that aren't specifically built to challenge this build.
DR #/-, great saves, pouncing full attack (with fly if buffed), great damage with 2 handed weapon and high str, tons of hit points, and a bunch of extra attacks with Come and Get Me once they get it (it's pretty easy to get reach with buffs or minor magic items). This class is really hard to slow down or threaten while not killing the other party members.
2. Magus: Spellstrike overshadows a lot of other character abilities in raw damage. Most Magus can take shocking grasp and turn it into a death strike ability where they annihilate everything that can't specifically resist the type of energy they use. They usually go very quickly due to Dex builds being common. Their utility spells make their defenses very strong. On top of that a Dex build with a good Fort and Will save eliminates even a weak Ref save as well as AC. It's a very tough class to deal with. They don't have mobility issues either due to the fly spell, so you can't slow them down with difficult terrain like you can a paladin or fighter.
3. Wizard/Sorcerer: At about level 9 to 13 depending on system master and allowed books, this class starts to render all major encounters not specifically built to challenge their capabilities trivial. If you run things by the book in a party environment, the wizard/sorcerer can make an opponent so weak that it can't put up a worthwhile fight.
If I were not a DM with a great deal of experience in challenging casters in a party environment, I would find this class far more annoying than I do. wall of force for dividing battlefields into easily killable chunks. Enervate or Prediction of Failure to make enemies easily affected by player abilities. A spell to attack whichever opponent save is weakest. Hard to attack due to spells that provide near constant flight keeping them from the battlefield.
If they weren't so squishy, they would be much harder to deal with. You can set up a wizard to get hammered pretty easy. When you do, the player usually freaks out.
4. Witch: Slumber/Evil Eye/Misfortune/Cackle can turn a lot of encounters into child's play. Misfortune is probably the worst hex of the bunch. Once it lands the opponent is pretty much done. It affects anything and can be kept active indefinitely with Cackle.
Those are the five classes that give me the hardest time. Prior to the addition of fickle winds, I would have added archer. Fickle Winds makes being an archer miserable.