What classes do you feel are imbalanced?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 940 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
crush them in AC at high levels.
How is that?

Rage cycling combined with things like rolling dodge that give a +6 bonus to AC. They'll last for several rounds, stack with everything else, go for touch AC (which Ghost rager also works on)and will overcome the difference between breastplate and fullplate.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

None.
I feel no class is out of balance, the players/GM are.

This is a co-op game and if the GM is not in touch with his player base or, is suprised by his players too often, then there has not been enough communication between the table, occasionally getting suprised is one thing.

Sure, some classes are not balanced to the math, but I've never thought of this game as hard lined math balanced in the first place. As a player or GM I'm not looking for balance. I'm looking for for balanced communication between party members and the Gm to tell a story through the use of the game mechanics.(and ignore them if it furthers the story)

The Avengers is the best example of this:
Hulk is OP
Iron man is OP, but not as much as the Hulk
Thor is OP, but not as much as Iron Man
Captain America is balanced
Black widow is the poor rogue
Hawkeye is the poor Zen archer?
... Nick Fury is the Gm ;)

They are able to work as a team both in game as characters and out of the game as players.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
crush them in AC at high levels.
How is that?
Rage cycling combined with things like rolling dodge that give a +6 bonus to AC.

uhm, rolling dodge is a move action and only work against ranged attack.


Nicos wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
crush them in AC at high levels.
How is that?
Rage cycling combined with things like rolling dodge that give a +6 bonus to AC.
uhm, rolling dodge is a move action and only work against ranged attack.

a move action that lasts your buffed con modifier in rounds. Thats going to be around 10 rounds or so. There's another one that does the exact same thing for melee attacks.


wait
black widow is the rogue?

this is the best day ever


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
crush them in AC at high levels.
How is that?
Rage cycling combined with things like rolling dodge that give a +6 bonus to AC.
uhm, rolling dodge is a move action and only work against ranged attack.
a move action that lasts your buffed con modifier in rounds. Thats going to be around 10 rounds or so. There's another one that does the exact same thing for melee attacks.

I see.


Nicos wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
crush them in AC at high levels.
How is that?
Rage cycling combined with things like rolling dodge that give a +6 bonus to AC.
uhm, rolling dodge is a move action and only work against ranged attack.
a move action that lasts your buffed con modifier in rounds. Thats going to be around 10 rounds or so. There's another one that does the exact same thing for melee attacks.
I see.

He also has an inbuilt natural armor bonus that goes 1 higher than is possible for the amulet.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
crush them in AC at high levels.
How is that?
Rage cycling combined with things like rolling dodge that give a +6 bonus to AC.
uhm, rolling dodge is a move action and only work against ranged attack.
a move action that lasts your buffed con modifier in rounds. Thats going to be around 10 rounds or so. There's another one that does the exact same thing for melee attacks.
I see.
He also has an inbuilt natural armor bonus that goes 1 higher than is possible for the amulet.

CAn you post an example*, lets say 15 level to compare agaisnt the figher AC?

* Not the entire build just a reasonable AC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
crush them in AC at high levels.
How is that?

I need to construct a premade post I can just copy/paste into these things, as I've had to explain this plenty of times. The gist of it is that at low levels barbarian and fighters wear similar armors with similar maximum dexterity scores. Everyone eventually shifts to mithral armor anyway (which is treated as medium armor and just costs the barbarian a feat if he wants AC), and barbarian rage powers can actually give a barbarian a positive AC.

One sec...

Ashiel wrote:

Depends on the build. The barbarian I mentioned was just talking Constitution. If if I wanted to go balls to the walls defense optimization I'd probably go with...

Base 14 Dexterity + 1 level increase + 6 enhancement + 5 inherent = +8 Dex.
Beast Totem = +5 natural
+5 Mithral Celestial Plate w/ Kilt = +15 armor
+5 heavy shield = +7 shield
+5 amulet of natural armor = +5 enhancement to natural armor
+5 ring of protection = +5 deflection to armor
-2 when Raging
Net result is AC 53 without fighting defensively or using combat expertise. Add Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge. Since I'm not counting feats, I could add Dodge & Shield Focus to up to AC 55 without fighting defensively. Using the extra skill points as a Barbarian I'd invest into Acrobatics to increase the bonus from fighting defensively and using a total defense to +3 and +6 respectively. The other skill points above the Fighter could be dumped into UMD to use magic items as needed.

Rage powers I think I'd take are Lesser Beast Totem, Beast Totem, Superstitious, No Escape, Eater of Magic, and that would leave 5 other rage powers to play around with (primarily for offensive options like the one that gives my level to a CMB each time I rage).

I'd trade Trapsense for Elemental Kin which can easily give me near unlimited rage at high levels since each time I take energy damage equal to my level or greater I would gain +6 rounds worth of rage.

I haven't really scratched my feats, so if I was really trying to push the AC thing, picking up Improved Unarmed Strike and Crane Style would be cute to get more AC by fighting defensively at all times (and for another +4 to AC that stacks with dodge & uncanny dodge, which would bring us to about AC 59); but since the high-end hit bonuses of enemies at 20th level generally cap out around +40 (+30 by the monster creation chart but I'm also accounting for buffs and bosses), and still that would give a lot of evasion, before counting evasive buffs like blur or displacement. I could get my AC to the mid 60s with a few more rage powers but since evasion is capped at 95%, there's not really much need. Better to emphasize offense now that I have an incredible physical and spell evasion.

EDIT: Eater of Magic and Elemental Kin is a fun combination as well since you get two saving throws versus spells, SLAs, and supernatural effects, gain temporary HP when if you fail then succeed, and then if you suffer energy damage of level+ then you get lots of extra rounds worth of rage to cycle. At this point your mages can carpet bomb the hell out of you and your enemies and you'll be standing in the middle of the smoking crater with a big glowing grin on your face.

EDIT 2: I also didn't list the damage reduction that I have as a defense, so there's that as well. DR 5/- is pretty significant over the course of lots of attacks.

All that being said, you really don't need to be this focused to do everything that you need to do. Honestly the thing about this that amuses me is that I've still got 4 level up bonuses to put into Strength, tons of HP, and enough Rage powers to make the fighter cry himself to sleep ('cause the Fighter wasted like 6+ feats trying to be good at combat maneuvers and I get to add my level to combat maneuvers every time I rage-cycle with one rage power).

And I haven't actually buffed yet...sooooo...you really don't need to get this extreme to be effective.


Nicos wrote:


CAn you post an example*, lets say 15 level to compare agaisnt the figher AC?

* Not the entire build just a reasonable AC.

Total Gold 240 k

11 Mithral Breastplate +5 (armor) 30k
3 Rolling Dodge/Guarded Stance (dodge)
4 Beast Totem (nat armor)
-2 Rage
4 Dex (w/ Belt of Physical perfection +4 and starting dex of 14 64k )
1 Boots of speed 12k
4 Ring of protection +4 32k
5 (10) Ghost Rager for touch only (as human)

Touch AC while Raging 25 (30)
AC while Raging 35

Total spent 138k
Total left 102k

Next level he'll gain one more 2 levels after that he'll gain one more, then at level 20 he'll gain another one. I specifically left a lot of gold unspecified here. Average AC of CR 15 is gonna be about 32 for the monsters.


Ashiel wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
crush them in AC at high levels.
How is that?

I need to construct a premade post I can just copy/paste into these things, as I've had to explain this plenty of times. The gist of it is that at low levels barbarian and fighters wear similar armors with similar maximum dexterity scores. Everyone eventually shifts to mithral armor anyway (which is treated as medium armor and just costs the barbarian a feat if he wants AC), and barbarian rage powers can actually give a barbarian a positive AC.

One sec...

Base 14 Dexterity + 1 level increase + 6 enhancement + 5 inherent = +8 Dex.
Beast Totem = +5 natural
+5 Mithral Celestial Plate w/ Kilt = +15 armor
+5 heavy shield = +7 shield
+5 amulet of natural armor = +5 enhancement to natural armor
+5 ring of protection = +5 deflection to armor
-2 when Raging
Net result is AC 53

How are you stacking the natural armor bonuses?


Part of the fighters armor bonus comes from being able to use a high dex, but this usually means he also has to sacrifice either con or strength (which is not usually what you want to do). In my experience, the fighter tends to have a slightly higher AC, but not unreasonable so. This is often due to a combination of Power Attack and Reckless Abandon, which is then countered with natural armor gained from Beast Totem.


Nicos wrote:
How are you stacking the natural armor bonuses?

Amulet of natural armor isn't actually a natural armor bonus. It gives an enhancement bonus to natural armor. It treats it as its own little subcategory so that you can put an enhancement bonus specifically on the natural armor, then you can put enhancement bonuses on armor separately, rather than just an enhancement bonus to AC.

Amulet of Natural Armor wrote:
This amulet, usually containing some type of magically preserved monster hide or other natural armor—such as bone, horn, carapace, or beast scales—toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet.

Amulet of natural armor


Quite a few folks mentioning that they believe fighters and rogues need some loving and some tweaks - but no mention of how that would be achieved. I have nothing to offer myself, but I'd like to see what others would suggest for those two classes, if they believe they need fixing.


Nicos wrote:
How are you stacking the natural armor bonuses?

EDIT: Ninjas everywhere! :D


Claxon wrote:
Part of the fighters armor bonus comes from being able to have a high dex, but this usually means he also has to sacrifice either con or strength (which is not usually what you want to do). In my experience, the fighter tends to have a slightly higher AC, but not unreasonable so. This is often due to a combination of Power Attack and Reckless Abandon, which is then countered with natural armor gained from Beast Totem.

The barbarian uses mithral breastplate and nearly closes the gap in dex bonus anyways. Any fighter that doesn't just go archer isn't going to be able to make full use of the +8 maximum with mithral fullplate.


Ashiel wrote:
Nicos wrote:
How are you stacking the natural armor bonuses?

EDIT: Ninjas everywhere! :D

uhm I see, it seems legal but do not the armored kilt have a maximun dex bonus of +6?


Aziza Plumbockett wrote:
Quite a few folks mentioning that they believe fighters and rogues need some loving and some tweaks - but no mention of how that would be achieved. I have nothing to offer myself, but I'd like to see what others would suggest for those two classes, if they believe they need fixing.

I've been meaning to get around to fixing them for a while. Without actually going into any major theories the fighter needs some sort of special combat abilities to make up for his lack of magic (Tome of Battle from 3.5 did very well with this, as does the Pathfinder Barbarian).

Rogue is dead in the water right now. It could probably be defibulated with some excessively powerful rogue talents but I'd rather fix the class. If I was going to fix it and require it to remain "mundane" like the fighter then I'd probably recommend boosting it to a full BAB class and giving it various strong Ex abilities and a pool of class features to draw upon to build it up as you desire.

Actually I'd probably make it and the Fighter similar in mechanics (with the class features pool) with the rogue being a skill-finesse character and the fighter being the tankier of the two (similar to the paladin/ranger dynamics).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Nicos wrote:
How are you stacking the natural armor bonuses?

EDIT: Ninjas everywhere! :D

uhm I see, it seems legal but do not the armored kilt have a maximun dex bonus of +6?

When worn as an individual armor yes. Not sure about when you attach it to another armor (it doesn't mention any special stacking beyond the weight category increase) but I guess if you were really concerned about it you could get it made out of mithral (I think armored kilts are metal plated) for really cheap (it's a light armor so it'd only cost you a tiny bit).

But honestly it's not really critical. You don't need armored kilts to have a good AC, it's just a nice touch. Generally speaking I assume that anything that one class can obtain another can as well (so I'd expect the fighter to be using a similar loadout), which doesn't matter beause the real AC difference comes from the class features.

Barbarian tanks also have the benefit of having much more HP than fighters and are like unbreakable meatwalls at high levels (you have to carve through AC, DR, and then a massive HP pool, and due to their saves CC'ing or one-shotting them with a save or die is a desperate attempt at best).


Aziza Plumbockett wrote:
Quite a few folks mentioning that they believe fighters and rogues need some loving and some tweaks - but no mention of how that would be achieved. I have nothing to offer myself, but I'd like to see what others would suggest for those two classes, if they believe they need fixing.

specialized fighter only feats that allow them to:

a feat to overcome any DR for a single attack per round
a feat increace ac for a limited time
a feat for taunt
a feat to use athletics roll to fight gargantuan and collosal monsters (like kratos)

special rogue only feats that focus on:
a feat for 'rogue only' weapons to get full warrior bab
a feat that allows them to use stealth to prompt at least one sneak attack every round
a feat tree that allows for instant poision effects
a feat that tricks magic items/weapons/armor/wand/staff to work without issue without use magic device for a single item/weapon/armor/wand/staff. this feat should stack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aziza Plumbockett wrote:
Quite a few folks mentioning that they believe fighters and rogues need some loving and some tweaks - but no mention of how that would be achieved. I have nothing to offer myself, but I'd like to see what others would suggest for those two classes, if they believe they need fixing.

Quick and dirty fix?

Combine the two. Rename it Tactician or something. Perhaps give a choice at first level between Weapon Training or Sneak Attack and a level by level option between a Rogue Talent and a Feat.

The Fighter's main issue is being useful out of combat. Gaining access to the Rogue's skills per level (or hell, even 4-6+Int) fixes that somewhat, allowing for a Fighter to be a credible "Glorious Leader", "Tactician", etc. people always claim they're supposed to be, and have the skills to back it up to go with their combat prowess.

The Rogue's main issue is that A.) He sucks IN combat and B.) His out of combat niche can be filled credibly by classes that fight a lot better. No longer. With the Fighter's access to full BaB, higher hit dice, and better weapons his increasingly marginalized out of combat niche is made less of a factor, since he can still hold his own in combat. While his niche is still largely unnecessary, he can still fill it and it's no longer his ONLY purpose for existing, since he can now hold his own in battle and doesn't just muddle through and hope he survives to the next locked door. Which will probably just be opened by the Sorcerer, Ranger, Alchemist, etc. anyway.

Minor balance issue might come up between the Ranger and Fighter but they could be easily smoothed over with some more in-depth tweaking.

Net result: There's one less class on the list to choose from, but the one that's replaced it/them is better all around.


Ashiel wrote:

Rogue is dead in the water right now. It could probably be defibulated with some excessively powerful rogue talents but I'd rather fix the class. If I was going to fix it and require it to remain "mundane" like the fighter then I'd probably recommend boosting it to a full BAB class and giving it various strong Ex abilities and a pool of class features to draw upon to build it up as you desire.

Actually I'd probably make it and the Fighter similar in mechanics (with the class features pool) with the rogue being a skill-finesse character and the fighter being the tankier of the two (similar to the paladin/ranger dynamics).

Those sound like sound solutions to me. :)


Rynjin wrote:
Aziza Plumbockett wrote:
Quite a few folks mentioning that they believe fighters and rogues need some loving and some tweaks - but no mention of how that would be achieved. I have nothing to offer myself, but I'd like to see what others would suggest for those two classes, if they believe they need fixing.

Quick and dirty fix?

Combine the two. Rename it Tactician or something. Perhaps give a choice at first level between Weapon Training or Sneak Attack and a level by level option between a Rogue Talent and a Feat.

The Fighter's main issue is being useful out of combat. Gaining access to the Rogue's skills per level (or hell, even 4-6+Int) fixes that somewhat, allowing for a Fighter to be a credible "Glorious Leader", "Tactician", etc. people always claim they're supposed to be, and have the skills to back it up to go with their combat prowess.

The Rogue's main issue is that A.) He sucks IN combat and B.) His out of combat niche can be filled credibly by classes that fight a lot better. No longer. With the Fighter's access to full BaB, higher hit dice, and better weapons his increasingly marginalized out of combat niche is made less of a factor, since he can still hold his own in combat. While his niche is still largely unnecessary, he can still fill it and it's no longer his ONLY purpose for existing, since he can now hold his own in battle and doesn't just muddle through and hope he survives to the next locked door. Which will probably just be opened by the Sorcerer, Ranger, Alchemist, etc. anyway.

Minor balance issue might come up between the Ranger and Fighter but they could be easily smoothed over with some more in-depth tweaking.

Net result: There's one less class on the list to choose from, but the one that's replaced it/them is better all around.

That's... I actually like that. :)

Your Tactician idea, scrapping Fighter and Rogue, would provide a new class that would have slightly sub-par skill options to the Bard but with a significant in combat boost. When compared to the Ranger, skill selection might be similar but the Ranger gets spells and an animal companion whereas the Fighter gets the expanded feat selection, armor training and other typical Fighter goodies.

It will, of course, never happen in a million years but I like the idea on the surface. :)


Rynjin wrote:
Combine the two. Rename it Tactician or something. Perhaps give a choice at first level between Weapon Training or Sneak Attack and a level by level option between a Rogue Talent and a Feat...
Rynjin wrote:
Net result: There's one less class on the list to choose from, but the one that's replaced it/them is better all around.

I'd been thinking of something like that as a possibility too, but I hadn't tried to work it out in my head. I think that would be a very good solution; however it would be kind of a shame to see two of the original core classes go by the wayside... progress is a harsh mistress.


Aziza Plumbockett wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Rogue is dead in the water right now. It could probably be defibulated with some excessively powerful rogue talents but I'd rather fix the class. If I was going to fix it and require it to remain "mundane" like the fighter then I'd probably recommend boosting it to a full BAB class and giving it various strong Ex abilities and a pool of class features to draw upon to build it up as you desire.

Actually I'd probably make it and the Fighter similar in mechanics (with the class features pool) with the rogue being a skill-finesse character and the fighter being the tankier of the two (similar to the paladin/ranger dynamics).

Those sound like sound solutions to me. :)

It's something I think of from time to time. See, contrary to popular opinion I'm not just some jerkass on the forums. I'm a jerkass who cares about people and their experiences (there's a slight difference you see :P), and when people are having mechanical woes with their games I try to help. So when I see something isn't working I try to offer solutions ("try class X instead as it does what you want without so much trouble") while figuring out ways to resolve problems with the source material. Unfortunately my time is often spread thinner than I'd like so I don't always have a moment to really sit down and tackle some of the repair-jobs I'd like to. Fighter and Rogue are two examples of classes on the to-do list, but I seem to spend more time dispelling myths about them as they are now.

I guess if people were insistent I'd try to move it up to the front or at least hammer out a prototype. I just know that when I sit down to work on them I don't want to half-ass it, so I'd like to at least get a good solid foothold on how the classes would work out both on paper and in-play (when I build a class I usually begin with how I want it to play on the table and then construct that in the mechanics, or if I imagine a mechanic beforehand I then think about how it would work in play, and then I usually try to think of a few different types of "styles" that you could use by default with the class).


I've been trying to remember how people played thieves back in the old days (1E/2E). They were even less useful in combat then, though everyone else was down a step as well.
Was there a big fuss about how unbalanced they were then? Or was the game just less combat and balance focused? Was there usually more for them to do outside of fights?

It's also possible most thieves were played as multiclass. The only one that really stands out that I played was a magic-user/thief.

I wish there was a way to make rogues more useful/interesting without just making them better at fighting.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I've been trying to remember how people played thieves back in the old days (1E/2E). They were even less useful in combat then, though everyone else was down a step as well...

Well, part of it was that every other class was permanently set at - in modern terms - 0 ranks in Climb, Disable Device, Linguistics, Perception, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth. So the thief got a little bit of shine simply by being the only character that could do things that are now routine for most PF characters.

The other half was that the thief went up levels very, very quickly. By the time other characters hit 8th level, the thief would be 10th or 11th. As you might imagine, that helped.


Question wrote:

Its a class with 3/4th bab, medium armor, limited access to melee martial weapons but full access to the best ranged weapon (longbow) and a class ability that grants bonuses to attack/damage rolls that favor more attacks.

I honestly can't see why you would want to go melee when you can rapid shot arrows with judgement/bane bonuses from round one.

By the logic of the bolded part all classes should focus on ranged combat.

Choice of deity and domain influence this class heavily. An inquisitor of Gorum or Sarenrae is likely to favor melee.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

I've been trying to remember how people played thieves back in the old days (1E/2E). They were even less useful in combat then, though everyone else was down a step as well.

Was there a big fuss about how unbalanced they were then? Or was the game just less combat and balance focused? Was there usually more for them to do outside of fights?

No - but they were the only ones that could do it, period. So they were invaluable as the only ones that could do their role.

3.X kind of continued this, with cross-class skills. Patfinder unlocked skills, which makes the rogue even better...but...it enables other classes to do the rogues role. And those other classes can also do things the rogue cannot.

Rogues can still do what they always did, it's just not essential to have a rogue to do it any more.

So what rogues need is either more ways to do what they do, or more abilities to do other things.


Dabbler wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I've been trying to remember how people played thieves back in the old days (1E/2E). They were even less useful in combat then, though everyone else was down a step as well.

Was there a big fuss about how unbalanced they were then? Or was the game just less combat and balance focused? Was there usually more for them to do outside of fights?

No - but they were the only ones that could do it, period. So they were invaluable as the only ones that could do their role.

3.X kind of continued this, with cross-class skills. Patfinder unlocked skills, which makes the rogue even better...but...it enables other classes to do the rogues role. And those other classes can also do things the rogue cannot.

Rogues can still do what they always did, it's just not essential to have a rogue to do it any more.

So what rogues need is either more ways to do what they do, or more abilities to do other things.

Possible. It's been a long time.

But that puts them in the position of the healbot cleric: You need one, but they're no fun to play, so no one wants to do it. I remember that for the cleric, but not for the thief.
I suspect a combination of them being the go-to multiclass option and leveling faster, possibly with a bit of not being focused so much on combat balance. None of which really helps PF out.


Looking at it, rogues and fighters are the ones who don't get super powers and magic. Why not just shove them together, keep the best of hp/saves/skills etc make talents start at 3rd level and take the feat ones out. You might have to mess with sneak attack a bit but otherwise it gives them a lot more use and you're not losing much by getting rid of two of the problem classes.


Journ-O-LST-3 wrote:
Looking at it, rogues and fighters are the ones who don't get super powers and magic. Why not just shove them together, keep the best of hp/saves/skills etc make talents start at 3rd level and take the feat ones out. You might have to mess with sneak attack a bit but otherwise it gives them a lot more use and you're not losing much by getting rid of two of the problem classes.

If I was going to do that, I'd probably say reduce the sneak attack damage to 1d6 * 1/4 levels but apply it to any light-weapon or finesse-weapon and double that when sneak attack would normally occur (so you'd get +Xd6 on attacks with the light weapons or +X*2d6 when making sneak attacks). I'd probably then them talents every even level (and remove the restriction that the combat feat talent cannot be taken more than once). Pretty much anything else would be some shuffling for aesthetics.


Gavmania wrote:
Anburaid wrote:

If I was going to modify monks to address the problems discussed in the forums, I might do the following:

• d10 HD. No matter how you slice it, monks are meant to fight toe to toe with enemies. People who want to play frontline fighters need to have the HP to do it.

• Full BAB. Monks would fight at 3/4 BAB when using non-monk weapons. This includes feat prereqs. Feats with a high bab requirement cease functioning as long as the monk is using non monk weapons, if the 3/4 bab doesn't meet them. Forcing monks to stand in place to get the best chance of hitting makes no sense to me.

I quite like this idea, but how would it stack with PA? since PA would be available at 1st level now, is it only useable with Monk weapons until your BAB goes up at level2? similarly when you get the increases in PA damage...

Indeed, that is the intent. I would probably include it in a flurry rewrite, or perhaps relabel it "martial arts" and flurry would be an action that martial arts provides. If the monk picks up a short sword and wants to fight with it, they get saddled with the lower BAB, and in your example, would not be able to PA at 1st level. Basically that short sword is not ideal for their martial arts style.

All that said, there are certainly feats that could be made to allow certain weapons to be Martial Arts weapons. I could see a hwandudaedo/longsword/rapier feat for swordfighting monks, or spear feat for jet-li inspired spear monks. Those would be special exceptions (thus the feats).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Possible. It's been a long time.

But that puts them in the position of the healbot cleric: You need one, but they're no fun to play, so no one wants to do it. I remember that for the cleric, but not for the thief.
I suspect a combination of them being the go-to multiclass option and leveling faster, possibly with a bit of not being focused so much on combat balance. None of which really helps PF out.

The Healbot cleric was 'fixed' by making channelling an ability, so the cleric player could take other spells than cures.

The rogue as a class can be fixed with more and better rogue talents. I'd also give them a talent at 1st level as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The (too) good
Wizard: Familiars, especially wand users, break action economy. Bonded item wizards are fine as long as they don't use quicken metamagic rods or quicken with the spell mastery feat.
Magus: Spell combat breaks action economy.
Druid: Pets break action economy. Domain druids are fine. Except with lucky rolled stats or high point buy anyways.
Summoner: Eidolons break action economy. Synthesists break the polymorph rules. The spammable standard action summons of the Master Summoner break action economy. And that's to say nothing about the early entry spells.
Barbarian: AC, saves, and dispel magic with spell sunder are all potentially out of band and can all be out of band at the same time. And then there's rage cycling. The rage powers are horribly balanced against each other and in some cases horribly balanced in a vacuum. Bringing the fighter, ranger, cavalier, and samurai up to the barbarian's level might be better than nerfing the barbarian down, but one way or the other there's an imbalance, and I'm absolutely adamant that spell sunder adding a stat and CMB bonuses to dispel checks is completely unacceptable.

The bad
Fighter: The feat list is a mess of overlong chains and terrible prerequisites. Fighters are all about feats.
Monk: We're MAD as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. Sorry, had to be said. But, yeah, they have serious stat distribution, DC, and mobility issues. And a ki pool that a dwarf hamster couldn't drown in.
Rogue: They're not the best at their job. Their job is a job that makes the game in general worse just by existing. They're not much good at anything else.

The ugly
Paladin: The code is just terrible.
Oracle: Doesn't do the job it's supposed to do because of delayed spell access and spell known limits. Lame curse permits rage cycling.
Cavalier: They have a mount. No way to swap the mount out. Too many abilities that rely on them riding the mount. Mounted combat is broken. Which direction it's broken in varies with the environment, but it's always broken.
Samurai: Sword Saint is okay, but without it you're a mounted archer. Mounted archery on suitable terrain is just as hax in the game as in reality.
Gunslinger: The firearm rules contain a fumble rule. Fumble rules are never good. Fumble rules with no confirmation are even worse. Then there's the touch AC thing and the lack of firearms that don't have massively swingy criticals. Too much luck means fights will randomly be difficult or cakewalks and a balanced fight will be a vanishingly rare treasure and no amount of GM skill will change that unless the gunslinger is an NPC and he's fudging his rolls.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Call me weird, but I feel like the problem with Rogues and Fighters (and to some extent Monks) is not the classes themselves, but the course that the game rules as a whole have taken.

Skills have diminished in importance since the game came out. Magic has gotten consistent upgrades, and while the fighter has gotten all sorts of cool stuff, the magic classes have gotten more cool stuff with less expenditure of finite resources (spell slots vs. feat slots).

I don't know if patching the classes is the solution, so much as patching the rules around the classes. I try to do this through house rules, and the good news is it really doesn't take that much! Well, not much to diminish the problem to within acceptable levels.

A lot of groups will settle for that, rather than a total rules overhaul, just so they don't have to re-learn the whole game.

Scarab Sages

The funny thing about monks.

Everybody claims they are weak, right up until the DM tries to kill one at mid to high level. Suddenly complaints start cropping up about monks being overpowered.

Rogues are the one class I've never heard any complaints about being overpowered.

Rogues could use some love.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is the deal.

Some people believe casters are overpowered because they have GM's that think "creative" is better that "rational" and that is fine. In their games they are correct.

Some people believe they have found ways to create broken builds because they are able to use odd cheese machinations with the GM they play with, and that is fine. In their games they are correct.

However most tables work fine for most classes in most campaigns. And the baseline campaigns for the publishers are...well...the published campaigns.

Invariably in these discussions, the people who claim the game is unbalanced reveal themselves as playing in hyper house ruled games that allow things most GMs would not allow. See Always Pre-Buff, 15 minute day, Infinite Wish Machine, etc...

If you have a GM who allows these things, it is no surprise the game gets out of control in the same way that if you add nitrous, the car can either go faster or blow up.

You don't blame the engineer of the car when you add nitrous and blow up your car.

So YMMV.

My experience is if you all start at low levels and have to advance level by level together as a group, overpowered is rarely a problem given each class having strengths and weaknesses. Some classes have the potential to be absolutely dominant at times, but those classes also have the most potential to be absolutely fail in the same adventure day.

As a rule, if someone won't put up a build they are here for attention and not discussion.

Liberty's Edge

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Call me weird, but I feel like the problem with Rogues and Fighters (and to some extent Monks) is not the classes themselves, but the course that the game rules as a whole have taken.

Skills have diminished in importance since the game came out. Magic has gotten consistent upgrades, and while the fighter has gotten all sorts of cool stuff, the magic classes have gotten more cool stuff with less expenditure of finite resources (spell slots vs. feat slots).

I don't know if patching the classes is the solution, so much as patching the rules around the classes. I try to do this through house rules, and the good news is it really doesn't take that much! Well, not much to diminish the problem to within acceptable levels.

A lot of groups will settle for that, rather than a total rules overhaul, just so they don't have to re-learn the whole game.

Rogues got both the biggest bump and biggest nerf in the transition to Pathfinder, in that they can now sneak attack more things, but at these, same time the reduction in the number of skills and addition of more skill classes makes skills less valuable.

I think giving rogues some stealth abilities to enhance it's utility with sneak attack would fix a lot of the concerns and fit with regards to flavor.

Fighters need more counters to magic users in some ways at higher levels, but I think the fighter problems are much exaggerated by people who don't play fighters.

Don't get me wrong, I am firmly in the "We are ready for Pathfinder 1.5" camp, but I don't think the conceptual chassis is unworkable.

Some people will always try to find ways to abuse spells by reading more into benefits and denying any limitations. And some GMs will handwave limitations and not exploit weaknesses of some classes while going right for the jugular of others. And if they are happy at their table, that is fine. But I find that to be the greater cause of any imbalance than actual design.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

You don't give Monks a d10 HD. They aren't supposed to be main-liners. Rangers are d8, as are Rogues, and fit the monk combat role as a skirmisher better.

Wizards, and indeed any other spellcasters, are imbalanced by the power of SPELLS. You don't fix the primary caster classes...they are fine. You have to address the spells.

Fighters: Need more skill points, a better list, and being so weapon dependent. Also, need something to get around the tyranny of the full attack restriction. There is no way a highly trained fighter, the Olympian of melee combatants, has fewer skill points then a Barbarian.
But the big thing is that Feats need to be overhauled. Feats are at the present equal to half a class feature. 'Extra Rage Power' is more powerful then ANY FEAT a Fighter can take. That is just WRONG.
Fighters should get more out of feats then any other class...feats are their powers. Feats taken by a fighter should auto-scale with Fighter levels, the exact same way Bravery, Weapon Training and Armor Training do.

Rogues: Need to once again have exclusive access to some skills or abilities that no other class has. This includes full Sneak Attack. They need to focus within their role...perhaps full BAB with finesse attacks would help their combat ability.
Note: In the old days, the combination of exclusive access to crucial skills and lower monster AC/hp kept theives relevant, and that opening suprise attack could be pretty lethal.
Also, multi-classing removed pretty much all weaknesses of the class.
Rogues are the skill monkeys, and should be able to do things with skills and sneak attack that no other class could do, and which they would dearly love to do.

Monk: I think the Monk should represent the pinnacle of self-training, and simply gain more and better stat advances then every other class...then MAD becomes a self-fixing problem. Improved Skirmishing ability is neccessary for the ideal of the class. A scaling TH/Dmg bonus as Ashiel advocates with monk weapons would probably be an excellent solution for any combat weakness.
I also like the idea of Monastic Traditions based around the school of martial arts they advocate. This was used in 1E, and the powerful martial arts are those with a lot of skills and powers attached to them. Being a Monk of the Mad Monkey got you a lot of stuff to work with!

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Rangers are d8

That's actually incorrect. Barbarians are the only ones to break the HD/BAB combo.

And obviously, I feel the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue are imbalanced.


ciretose wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I am firmly in the "We are ready for Pathfinder 1.5" camp, but I don't think the conceptual chassis is unworkable.

No. No more decimal point editions.

Pathfinder Revised.

But yes, it is fast approaching time to fix things like skills, rather than tampering with the classes over and over again.

You can make 1000 feats that "fix" the issues, but there will always be a limited number of feat slots. It's not sustainable.


'Imbalance' is a noun. 'Imbalanced' is not a word.

An imbalance exists between the power levels of certain classes in regards to other classes. Thus, certain classes are unbalanced.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
I think the fighter problems are much exaggerated by people who don't play fighters.

Which would be false. Most of us have played fighters, and monks, and rogues. We've been at this a very long time throughout multiple iterations of the system and have a working knowledge of the game. As a general rule I don't think those discussing the classes for their failures are inexperienced with those classes.

Quote:
As a rule, if someone won't put up a build they are here for attention and not discussion.

An unsubstantiated rule. This discussion has been going on for a long time (pre-Pathfinder in fact) and the Paizo boards are particularly volatile (unlike forums like Giant in the Playground which are much kinder and more heavily modded). We've done the whole build thing. It just creates fights. It has not once, ever, resulted in any sort of agreement. It's just a waste of time and a form of mechanical masturbation as people try to doctor up their statblock to be a shimmering as possible with certain racial combinations or highly specific archetypes and the like.

Or someone whines about someone's build and infers that it's not how they play even when the rules say it's fine. Or leads to people whining about DPR threads until their faces is blue, starting Roleplay vs Rollplay fights and more.

There are plenty - and I do mean plenty - of posters on these boards who have noted a problem with X or Y class that do not post builds. TriOmegaZero is a wonderful poster and someone who is more than passingly familiar with the issues in the game. Same with Kirth Girsen but I haven't seen a build.

Lemmy was on board with the build Bandwagon and he loves building stuff (he even has a very nice thread for martial builds), but even he has acknowledged that posting builds is a fairly futile waste of time.


Aelryinth wrote:

You don't give Monks a d10 HD. They aren't supposed to be main-liners. Rangers are d8, as are Rogues, and fit the monk combat role as a skirmisher better.

On this, you and I will have to disagree. They way I see it, they are defined by their combat style. Perhaps you might think of them as holistic fighters. Fighters fight with weapons, monks fight with their bodies and farm implements, but in both cases they are defined by how they fight. They are (as written) not even good skirmishers because they cannot normally flurry while taking move actions/spring attacking. Perhaps you meant good flank partner? If, so then Hell Yes, considering their movement rating and acrobatics.

TOZ covered the d8 thing. Actually TOZ mentions the barbarian breaking the BAB-Hp standard, and I think monks should have also done this when they were pathfinderized. Monks are on the path to becoming specimens of physical perfection (so much so that they ignore poison and disease, they don't suffer aging penalties, and eventually become outsiders). Seems like that might be justification for a better HD even if the whole Full BAB didn't come with it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
FirstLevelFighter wrote:
'Imbalance' is a noun. 'Imbalanced' is not a word.

If you understood what they meant, it is a word.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I am firmly in the "We are ready for Pathfinder 1.5" camp, but I don't think the conceptual chassis is unworkable.

No. No more decimal point editions.

Pathfinder Revised.

But yes, it is fast approaching time to fix things like skills, rather than tampering with the classes over and over again.

I personally LIKE the way skills in Pathfinder work. It's superior for building the character you want to play. It favors those who can't do everything through magic IMHO. In every d20 game I've ran since Pathfinder came out I have used the Pathfinder mechanics for skills.

On a side note, spellcasters were NERFED in Pathfinder. Not made more powerful. If anything Pathfinder is an incredibly step in the right direction. Do you realize that out of the core classes in Pathfinder, only 3 of them are problematic? Fighter, Rogue, Monk. That leaves Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard as being really good classes. 8/11 core classes well balanced. That is HUGE as an improvement.

In 3.5, it was more like Bard and Ranger. Everyone else was either over or under the curve by a large margin. Even on respected tier lists, most of the bottom tier is found in the player's handbook as is most of the top tier.

Pathfinder has HUGELY improved the game, reduced imbalance and broken mechanics by a truly impressive margin, while opening up character options through free multiclassing and more forgiving cross-class skill rules.

It actually irks me to see people talking about how critically important it is to have a Pathfinder Revised or PF 1.5 or whatever because 3 classes in core suck. Humorously two of the three classes also see the most redundancy due to overlap with other classes in their roles and themes.

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I think the fighter problems are much exaggerated by people who don't play fighters.

Which would be false. Most of us have played fighters, and monks, and rogues. We've been at this a very long time throughout multiple iterations of the system and have a working knowledge of the game. As a general rule I don't think those discussing the classes for their failures are inexperienced with those classes.

Quote:
As a rule, if someone won't put up a build they are here for attention and not discussion.

An unsubstantiated rule. This discussion has been going on for a long time (pre-Pathfinder in fact) and the Paizo boards are particularly volatile (unlike forums like Giant in the Playground which are much kinder and more heavily modded). We've done the whole build thing. It just creates fights. It has not once, ever, resulted in any sort of agreement. It's just a waste of time and a form of mechanical masturbation as people try to doctor up their statblock to be a shimmering as possible with certain racial combinations or highly specific archetypes and the like.

Or someone whines about someone's build and infers that it's not how they play even when the rules say it's fine. Or leads to people whining about DPR threads until their faces is blue, starting Roleplay vs Rollplay fights and more.

There are plenty - and I do mean plenty - of posters on these boards who have noted a problem with X or Y class that do not post builds. TriOmegaZero is a wonderful poster and someone who is more than passingly familiar with the issues in the game. Same with Kirth Girsen but I haven't seen a build.

Lemmy was on board with the build Bandwagon and he loves building stuff (he even has a very nice thread for martial builds), but even he has acknowledged that posting builds is a fairly futile waste of time.

Lemmy also said your partially filled wands to get around WBL were fine.

Kirth plays Kirthfinder and Toz plays PFS, so he has lots of builds. Also Toz is here to make people laugh, not generally to be taken seriously. Citing Toz as an example of someone involved in the debates is like citing Richard Pryor as a Civil Rights leader. Sure, he was present, but that wasn't really the point.

Playing a fighter in a nitrous game and playing a fighter are different things.

If you won't post a build, you aren't interested in a serious discussion for one simple reason.

Every PC is, at root, a build entered into a campaign.

Many people don't want to post a build because it exposes their campaign, such as when you posted partially filled wands to get around WBL. That says a lot about what is allowed in your game and in your philosophy on gaming.

What it says is up to each person who reads the build to decide.

51 to 100 of 940 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What classes do you feel are imbalanced? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.