How much do different classes benefit from several high stats compared to all average stats? Assume all stats of 18 compared to all stats of 12 for the sake of discussion.
There are two things I think are relevant to the comparision, how well does a class fill its primary role with average stats and how does a class compare to other classes with all 18s (I've never seen anyone claim to have rolled all 18s, even with a generous 4d6/reroll 1s/drop the lowest, but it works for the discussion).
Pathfinder is better balanced than 3.5, but I suspect that some classes benefit more than others with all 18s (or several high stats in general). Monk, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, and Cleric seem to benefit from high stats in every attribute. Every character benefits from high stats, but those five can use all attributes as part of the role they typically fill. A Fighter with a high int and cha is more versatile than a Fighter with low int and cha, but the fighter with low int and cha can be the tank. The same is true of Barbarian. A Bard with a high strength and con has options that a Bard with low strength and con doesn't have, but the bard with low strength and con can still fill the role a Bard fills in the party.
I make the 3.5 reference because class balance fell apart in 3.5 in the all 18 hypothetical scenario. A fighter tends to shine in a low point buy or standard array campaign, since they are feat dependent. In 3.5 the ranger, paladin, and monk had difficulty (especially at low levels) in a low point buy campaign. This looks to be better in PF, but I haven't played enough PF to draw conclusions.
Generally the same thing holds true here. MAD (multiple attribute dependent) classes such as the Monk, Paladin, and Fighter (to a slightly lesser extent), just to name a few, suffer more in low point buy games. SAD (single attribute dependent) classes, such as the Wizard and other full progression spell caster, benefit less from a higher point buy.
Our group tries to move around this by eliminating the point buy system. We roll a standard array before the campaign starts and everyone uses the same standard array to build their characters. We feel like his promotes a better balance between martial and spell casting classes, but that's just our group.
I'd say monk probably benefits the most from more high stats. Paladin and ranger are probably next on the list. Other classes while not gaining more general power will gain more versatility, Bard, cleric, druid, fighter, well, just about everybody else. whether it's gaining more skillpoints that you usually wouldn't have or raising save dependent stats and whatnot.
Asta
PSY
The biggest benefit is probably to the full divine casters. They all want high physical stats so they can go into combat. They all benefit from int, though no more than anyone else. They all use charisma for something, though druids only use it for wild empathy and even clerics can afford to dump charisma and abandon any plans of channeling and still be good. Everybody can use wisdom because it governs perception checks and will saves, though oracles could dump it and still function just like clerics and druids with charisma.
Bard is probably next. He needs the physical stats for combat, charisma for casting and charisma based skills, wisdom for saves and perception checks, and int for skills. He doesn't need as high a casting stat as a full divine caster, though.
The rogue trails a little behind the bard because he needs charisma less, though he perhaps needs wisdom more. It's open to interpretation.
Next are the monk, inquisitor, and magus. These are like the bard, but can dump charisma.
After that are the pure martials. They can usually dump charisma hard and enjoy intelligence and wisdom, but don't need them more than moderate.
The paladin can focus on charisma and strength at the expense of nearly everything else, though moderate constitution for a larger hitpoint buffer is nice and moderate dexterity helps a little. They are no exception to everyone benefiting from intelligence either. Paladins can dump wisdom without repercussions and need constitution less than any other class.
The SADest classes are the full arcane casters. They can max their casting stats at fairly low point buy and beyond moderate constitution need nothing else, though most stats have some benefit. The witch and wizard are perhaps even SADer than the sorcerer in that dumping charisma hurts less than dumping intelligence.
Easy. The classes that would benefit the most from high attributes are the skill monkeys. Rogue, Inquisitor, Bard, etc.
The bonuses not only apply to skills, but also class features. Since skill monkeys have the most skills, it stands to reason higher attributes will help everything (with the exception of Constitution).
Monks benefit from high stats, but they're still monks, so don't do that.
The real benefactors of having many high stats are those who fight (thus needing Str, Dex, and Con) and have spells or other special abilities reliant on a mental stat. Paladins, Magi, Clerics, Druids, most Bards, Inquisitors, etc.
Ninja is the most MAD class, followed by Monk. After that, you've got rogue, bard, most melee noncasters and skill monkeys, str-based magus and alchemist..., after that cleric and druid. And the most SAD classes are yes, Wiz, Witch, and Sorc.
Notice that while not perfect, the order is basically the opposite of "what are the most powerful classes?"
The single most noticeable and easy effect you can enact to help ameliorate class imbalance is to use extremely high ability scores for all PCs.
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Notice that while not perfect, the order is basically the opposite of "what are the most powerful classes?"
The single most noticeable and easy effect you can enact to help ameliorate class imbalance is to use extremely high ability scores for all PCs.
Yeesh. Don't start that up. I could not care less about brute force, nor an unassailable fortress of feats which can be toppled easily once the character hits something it wasn't planned for.
gotta say... a barbarian withh only a 12 in strength and constitution isn't gonna do well. My barbarian actually utilizes an astounding 21 strength and 22 con(gm said 32 point buy then add 2 to all skills and the race he had for me has a +2 to strength and since we start at level 6 i took a +1 to strength from the level 4 increase.)
There are two parts to the question I'm asking, how do classes compare balance-wise with a very high point buy, and how can classes fill their role with a lot point buy compared to a high point buy?
Given the all 18 scenario (just for the sake of discussion), the barbarian does well. A barbarian benefits greatly from strength, dex, and con, uses skill points as part of his role (stealth, perception, knowledge(nature), etc) so uses a high int as part of his role, several skills that are a part of that role are based on int. The barbarian only has intimidate as a cha-based class skill off the top of my head, so benefits from a high charisma less than a sorcerer, paladin, cleric, rogue, bard, druid, or ranger but as much as a fighter and more than a wizard (as far as role in party goes, by my estimation).
Sticking to martial classes, the paladin benefits as much as a barbarian from the mythical all 18 stat scenario. The paladin relies on strength, dex, and con as much as any martial character. The paladin uses several skills as part of their role of holy tank and part-time diplomat of the party, but I think uses skills slightly less than a barbarian or ranger. The paladin only has sense motive as a wisdom-based class skill and is less likely to be a scout than a ranger or barbarian. The paladin gets a lot out of a high charisma, so I'm calling it even between barbarian and paladin in the all 18 scenario.
Ranger benefits as much or more from all 18s than a barbarian or paladin in my estimation. The ranger might get a little more out of very high dex and con scores because they are less likely to use a shield. The ranger uses skills as part of the tank/scout/wild empathy guy, so benefits more from a high int. The ranger has several skills based on wisdom. The ranger benefits from high charisma with wild empathy, so benefits from a high cha more than a barbarian and less than a paladin.
The fighter is least dependent on high stats of the martial classes (and probably any class). The fighter benefits from high str, dex, and con. The fighter's role is mainly tank, so benefits from high int, wis, and cha but doesn't need them to be a tank. The fighter shines in a low point buy campaign, because most other classes are MAD to a greater extent. (It looks like MAD and SAD classes have been discussed on the boards in detail and I don't think I have anything new to add to that discussion).
The ranger has the most difficulty filling its role of tank/scout/wild empathy in a low point buy campaign. A ranger ideally needs above average stats in everything. Average or below average str, dex, and con hinder combat ability, average or below average int hinders scouting and nature-related skills, a ranger needs a wis of 14 to cast 4th level spells, and a ranger with a low cha has trouble utilizing wild empathy.
That said, the class balance with high attributes is better in PF than in 3.5. Class balance fell apart in a big way in 3.5 with very high stats. There is still disparity, but all of the classes have better designed class features and are less attribute dependent. A 15 point buy ranger has solid favored enemy and favored terrain class features in PF.
StreamOfTheSky wrote: Ninja is the most MAD class, followed by Monk. After that, you've got rogue, bard, most melee noncasters and skill monkeys, str-based magus and alchemist..., after that cleric and druid. And the most SAD classes are yes, Wiz, Witch, and Sorc.
Notice that while not perfect, the order is basically the opposite of "what are the most powerful classes?"
The single most noticeable and easy effect you can enact to help ameliorate class imbalance is to use extremely high ability scores for all PCs.
This is surprisingly true... sometime I'd like to try running a short campaign where all base stats are set to 18 before racial modifiers just to see how it played out. It's not like Full Casters don't start with at least an 18 (usually 20) anyway.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
