| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
*popcorn*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate the Magus' knowledge pool ability. Not for its mechanics so much for its fluff. why would you ever go out and seek arcane secrets if you can just sit there and write it into your spellbook by miraculous inspiration. Not too "arcane" if you ask me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues, fighters and monks all need mechanical overhauls. That's about it as far as imbalances go.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
none of course
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't feel classes are imbalanced, I feel optimization is imbalanced.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full casters in general have a tendency to kick anyone without some form of casting in the teeth while they're down at higher levels.
But that's an issue with the system as a whole. Which won't be changing soon (read: ever). Because "caster/martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas". Pff.
In particular, however, Monk, Rogue, and Fighter have more major issues when compared to any other class. Rogue, Monk, Fighter in order from least to most in need of an overhaul/buff.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yea i know about the sleep hex. But it kind of makes the witch a one trick pony.
Lackluster spell list, patrons being watered down sorcerer bloodlines, a lot of "cool but useless" witch only spells, lame stuff like destroying crops and creating sleeping poisons....this stuff doesn't work when you are adventuring to save the world. It's only good if you and your DM both want to re-enact sleeping beauty with the PC being the villain.
I don't think Sleeping Beauty incorporated Coup De Grace rules.
In defense of cavaliers, a small cavalier with the order of the sword outpaces other melee characters in damage fairly quickly and has no trouble indoors (and little trouble elsewhere with the beastrider archtype). The whole OP thing is pretty overblown. Casters have neat tricks, but there are several martial builds that can beat almost any wizard in one shot. Rogues are only truely nerfed because other classes can ape their best abilities, and monks have no real niche roll to fill but even they have some decent builds.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't get how you can derp a full caster that has heal, teleport, black testicles, raise dead and restoration (among others) in one spell list, something that's normally possible only if you take the long painful road of Mystic Theurge.
No, really, hexes are just icing on the cake. That's your cleric/wizard hybrid everybody ever wanted, one Witch gets you covered on all the critical utility/support spells, what's not to love?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
black testicles
That sounds extremely painful and disgusting. What is that, like next-stage blue balls?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its more imbalance of game time, but: any build which gives the player significantly more actions than usual (animal companions and so forth). We don't really care if one PC is more effective, but if one player takes twice as long as everyone else it's annoying.
I find that the group composition is more relevant than individual class power. Certain combinations are better than others, and other combinations make for a terribad party.
Then, you can further empower/gimp the party by playing to their strengths and weaknesses.
A party with a couple of god-tier DPR and a witch that sleeps and messes with everything will still suck against a creature that is immune to mind-affects and have high miss chance or ridiculous damage-mitigation, like incorporeal undead and such.
My Kingmaker group is easily among the most powerful groups I have ever GM'ed for. But against a group of ghost rogues, they got their butts handed to them.
I would say that Rogue and Monk need a little power-up, Fighters a little more utility, and Summoner's maybe toning down a tad.
Above standard: Summoner
Below standard: Rogue, Fighter
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And could use some tweaking?
To keep it simple I'm going to stick pretty much to core classes + expanded options (except archetypes because archetypes always give up something and unless the archetype is unbalanced - IE gives stuff better or worse than it takes - it doesn't matter anyway).
Rogue, Fighter, and Monk. Besides the Barbarian they are the three classes who don't get magic in some reasonably useable form, have poor resources, and are fighting an uphill battle against a system that hates them for existing.
For monks, this is the best fix I've found in practice.
Fighters just need to go back to the drawing board. The Tome of Battle would be a good place to begin looking for inspiration.
Rogues are just underwhelming in pretty much all fronts. They are shown up entirely by both Rangers and Bards at pretty much all roles. Rangers are better at fighting and skills that Rogues (because ranger spells also include stuff like pass without trace and nondetection and can craft a variety of useful tools, and have excellent combat ability; Bards rule party face and make a rogue look like a fighter when it comes to skill domination and can also support the party and fight well).
Rogues could potentially be saved by adding a lot of exceptionally powerful rogue talents, though it's an example of a power creep for good, I'd prefer to fix the class itself.
Otherwise I think the core is surprisingly well balanced. Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer and Wizard all have their pros and cons and are solid throughout pretty much all levels of play. Rarely should anyone be left out with these classes and they have a lot of ways to interact with their world.
I'd like to see more diversity in the magus class. A non-elemental archetype, focusing on casting more defensive and/or utility spells instead of offensive ones would be very welcome.
I agree the summoner in general needs to be toned down a notch, and the monk and rogue could use a little bit more love.
And could use some tweaking?To keep it simple I'm going to stick pretty much to core classes + expanded options (except archetypes because archetypes always give up something and unless the archetype is unbalanced - IE gives stuff better or worse than it takes - it doesn't matter anyway).
Rogue, Fighter, and Monk. Besides the Barbarian they are the three classes who don't get magic in some reasonably useable form, have poor resources, and are fighting an uphill battle against a system that hates them for existing.
For monks, this is the best fix I've found in practice.
Just curious - What ist he source of this Monk Class description? What are the main differences between this and what is in the PF rule books?
| 33 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance (noun)
The state of a campaign in play where all players feel that their character is contributing, and the opposition is perceived as a challenge suitable to that group's style-of-play.
You're welcome, forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious - What ist he source of this Monk Class description? What are the main differences between this and what is in the PF rule books?And could use some tweaking?To keep it simple I'm going to stick pretty much to core classes + expanded options (except archetypes because archetypes always give up something and unless the archetype is unbalanced - IE gives stuff better or worse than it takes - it doesn't matter anyway).
Rogue, Fighter, and Monk. Besides the Barbarian they are the three classes who don't get magic in some reasonably useable form, have poor resources, and are fighting an uphill battle against a system that hates them for existing.
For monks, this is the best fix I've found in practice.
This monk does not have a pseudo-BAB, and so your to-hit doesn't constantly change depending on whether you are moving or not (pseudo-BAB on flurry was clunky and doesn't lend itself well to newbies). Instead it has a 3/4 BAB and gains additional attacks as level progresses (it can even benefit from actual two-weapon fighting if you don't mind the accuracy loss).
Its unarmed strike damage does not increase in die-size. Instead monks get a scaling bonus to hit and damage (if you check the math this increases average damage at the same pace as the monks unarmed did but gives them a better minimum damage) with unarmed strikes and monk weapons (so now you can go unarmed happily or use monk weapons). There's a few options for treating certain non-monk weapons as monk weapons as well (this is ideal for those who want a shaolin-style spearfighter or a ninja-esque monk or an archery monk). The scaling bonus to hit also mitigates their lower BAB at higher levels and creates a nice situation where monks are strongest unarmed or with monk weapons.
Instead of predetermined class features the monk gets secrets (student and master secrets, most similar to rogue talents and advanced rogue talents). These secrets can be chosen to customize your class. Pretty much all the traditional monk abilities are available as secrets. Some are improved as needed (the monk's self healing was basically worthless in core, but is replaced by a useful power).
Instead of a Ki pool and a tiny bit of predetermined ki-powers the monk gets powers from the psychic warrior power list and power points to spend on them as shown on the table in the book (they get bonus power points equal to their wisdom modifier divided by 2 per level, so a monk with a 14 wisdom gets +1 power point each level, a monk with a 16 wisdom gets +1.5 every level, etc). By selecting powers you want you can customize your monk to the most minute detail, which gives plenty of room to create different orders of monks with different mystical styles.
This monk has no alignment restriction (which is nice because sometimes people might want to make a crazed monkey-hermit or some other theme that's not fitting ofr a lawful alignment, and it allows you to use the class for mystical assassins for chaotic evil creatures or organizations).
It solves many of the issues that monks have in core. Many of the selectable psionic powers can do things like allow monks to preform non-combat mysticism (such as fading into their environment). A few selectable powers ensure the monk can be mobile and still use their flurries (hustle allows you to take an extra move action during your turn, so you can move into range and flurry for example).
It reduces the multiple ability dependency of the class and solidifies Wisdom as its key statistic. While other statistics are good to have, Wisdom determines how much energy you have to spend which can be used to augment your other aspects. It is entirely possible to make Strength or Dexterity monks work, and you can even (successfully) play old aged monks who have terrible physical stats but strong mental stats and make them good (one of the prototype builds was an old-aged hermit who had a 7 Strength and a high Wisdom, who fought in melee).
The rules use the 3.5/Pathfinder psionics system that is available for free on the d20pfsrd.com, and you can get it in pdf, hardcopy, or bundled if you want. The rules are slick, well made, and very well balanced (the psionics system from 3.5 was more balanced than core magic and not much has changed in that regard).
If you have further questions just lemme know and I'll try to explain in a Q & A format.
All of them.
Every single class is overpowered according to the forums.
Especially when compared to the monk and the rogue :)
Not referring to purely overpowered classes. IMHO most of the core classes were pretty well designed, but the base classes have a lot of "this looks cool on paper but is useless in reality" features.Really? I find that more often in the core classes than the base classes.
People I think might need some help:
Monk
Rogue
Ninja a tad bitI have yet to hear anything bad about the base classes except maybe the cavelier who suffers from MUST HAVE MOUNT, when mounts don't really fit into traditional underground dungeon crawls or any indoor settings due to size.
"Most of the core classes" could easily mean all except Monk and Rogue...which is what you said. Where is the disagreement here?
Seems to me that the common three classes that people want improved are Rogue, Monk and Fighter. FWIW, here are my thoughts on them:
Rogue. Not at the same standard in combat as any other class unless they can consistently backstab. Can make up for it at lower levels with Tanglefoot bags, alchemists fire, caltrops and smokesticks. Perhaps expanding these so that there are higher level versions would increase the rogues utility. Better yet, give the rogue bonuses in using these that increase with level (so larger area, bigger splash, more damage, higher dcs etc.) This would make them a class ability that really brings flavour to the class, though there is the possibilty of it overlapping with the alchemists bomb ability. Alternatively, copy the alchemists bomb ability into the class, tweaking it to make it more rogue flavoursome (less about damage, more about causing chaos and confusion).
Also, give rogues options to make combat maneouvres a good choice, e.g. perhaps a bonus to trip (or free inproved trip), similarly sunder, disarm, etc. This fits with the "skilled" aspect of Rogue and would make them a viable alternative to Fighter without making them a damage monster.
Monk. Has always been a MAD class, but been viable until now. Now it lacks the ac (bonuses do not make up for loss of heavy armour and Fighters now can maneouvre in armour ok). Perhaps allow Monks to add damage bonus from a Stat other than Str will reduce their MAD status a little? Also suffers from not being able to do as much damage as a fighter, but should be looked at as a class for combat maneouvres (like trip) rather than a pure damage class, expand their capabilities to make trips and their defense against them (Perhaps make BAB = Level rather than 3/4)
Fighter. Always suffered at higher levels (Less so now), but made up for it with higher survivability at lower levels. Nothing has changed in that regard, IMHO this is balanced, if you play a fighter you expect to shine up to level 5, hold your own from 5-10 and slowly fall behind from 11-20. This merely means that you role changes from being the nain means to deliver damage at low levels to being a meat shield at higher levels, capable of holding up an enemy and preventing them getting to the glass cannons in the rear. Perhaps give them more options to hold multiple enemies at bay at higher levels, but this can probably be done via feats rather than changing the actual class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
• Maneuver training (since the full BAB makes it redundant) would make it so monks only suffer AoO for attempting maneuvers if they fail the maneuver. The feats would thusly still be quite nice to have, but monks would be more encouraged to attempt maneuvers. (props to my gaming group for that idea :D)
• When a monk's improved unarmed damage increases, they may choose between going up to the higher damage, or increasing their unarmed attack's threat range by 1.
• Create a two feat chain that lets monks substitute their wisdom bonus for their strength bonus for unarmed attacks and maneuvers. This would be one for attacks, and one for damage. This would help PCs attempting to do stunning fist builds, and create a hard style/soft style divide. Crazy old man hermit style FTW!
Now this doesn't address a monk's attack bonus deficit (as other classes MAD fighter types get situational attack bonuses, such as favored enemy and smite), but a monk's many attacks technically increase their chance to hit. Maybe not a lot, and maybe it contributes to the whole "monk can't do damage" thing, as it seems like they miss all the time, but hopefully the extra attacks (with ki, and feats) even out.
Of all the classes, the Rogue takes the most work on the GM's part to make it balanced (as per my definition above).
The Summoner, in my experience, can be a bit of a show-stealer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think imbalance is more about group then anything else. In my group there are a couple categories of players. The players that have the best system mastery usually have the strongest characters, regardless of whether or not they are playing an 'overpowered' class.
The only class I think is imbalanced on the strong side is the summoner, and that is more because it doesnt have enough restrictions on what you can take. It is too modular, and thus more easily optimized then say a barbarian, who cant ditch fast movement for something that lets him hit harder.
I wish there were animal companion like templates for the summoner's eidolon, with just a handful of evolution points to modify them. Then I dont think it would have been an issue with it in the first place.
On the low side, monk and rogue. They are just too divided in their focus and they dont have enough extra stuff to make up for the split. The bard, inquisitor and alchemist probably get as much 'stuff' from class abilities as the rogue and monk, but they get spell casting to boot. I think the monk and rogue probably need a lot more, and maybe even should just be full BAB D10 classes.
Other then that, I think the classes sit in a pretty neat range in the middle somewhere depending on play style and levels of optimization.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Scissors is fine, nerf paper." - Rock
But seriously, there a plenty of mechanics in game that I don't care for, that feel overpowered and can be abused by players. Whether it is frustrating for a GM or other players, it always sucks to have one player and one action overwhelm an encounter.
winning is the new one-trick pony
I think Eidolons are only strong if you go for the "as many natural attacks as possible" route.
Getting a Eidolon to wear armor and wield a sword is not going to be very effective due to feat requirements and the lack of greater magic weapon on the summoner spell list. Also quite a few of the evolutions make you go "uh, what?".
Right, the problem with the summoner is not any individual thing it can do, or even how much 'umph' it gets. Its that the player is overwhelmingly free to choose it all. And thus they can put it all into smashing things, or being impossible to hit, or what ever take their fancy, thus making the eidolon better at this then most classes can acheive without some hyper optimization. If summoners had to take things like scent, and darvision for their eidolon in addition to combat or magical prowess, the class wouldn't be a problem.
I think Eidolons are only strong if you go for the "as many natural attacks as possible" route.
Getting a Eidolon to wear armor and wield a sword is not going to be very effective due to feat requirements and the lack of greater magic weapon on the summoner spell list. Also quite a few of the evolutions make you go "uh, what?".
As a summoner player who didn't intend to optimize at all, I can say that they make it a little too easy to go that route. Sure, a player can deliberately sabotage their eidolon with other choices, but it is a giant, obvious tactic baked right in to every quadruped eidolon.
I expect them to even out at higher levels as attack bonus fails to keep pace, but in the early levels it is just a little too trivial to dominate without even really trying. Heaven forfend I should have tried to make him a combat god.
If summoners had to take things like scent, and darvision for their eidolon in addition to combat or magical prowess, the class wouldn't be a problem.
Most Rogues would be jealous. Especially if they put +8 in stealth and perception - and even disable device (If they've got hands). Now we have a creature that can outfight the fighter AND outscout the rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
• Maneuver training (since the full BAB makes it redundant) would make it so monks only suffer AoO for attempting maneuvers if they fail the maneuver. The feats would thusly still be quite nice to have, but monks would be more encouraged to attempt maneuvers. (props to my gaming group for that idea :D)
.
Another good idea. I would also make this available to Rogues (maybe as a talent) so that we could have maneouvre build rogues
• When a monk's improved unarmed damage increases, they may choose between going up to the higher damage, or increasing their unarmed attack's threat range by 1.
.
Not so sure about this one unless you limit the threat range in some way, otherwise you could have automatic crits for double damage. Perhaps make a nod to this in hard style by allowing hard style to have a higher crit threat range?
• Create a two feat chain that lets monks substitute their wisdom bonus for their strength bonus for unarmed attacks and maneuvers. This would be one for attacks, and one for damage. This would help PCs attempting to do stunning fist builds, and create a hard style/soft style divide. Crazy old man hermit style FTW!
.
Like this but not at the cost of feats. It would simply reduce the amount of feats that a monk has. Would prefer to have each monk choose at say 3rd level which style (Hard or Soft) they use, with Soft adding WIS bonus to damage instead of STR, getting better Stun etc. and Hard getting higher crit threat range.
Was originally going to suggest DEX, but with DEX giving you attack Bonus via a Feat it comes too close to SAD. Yours works better.
Now this doesn't address a monk's attack bonus deficit (as other classes MAD fighter types get situational attack bonuses, such as favored enemy and smite), but a monk's many attacks technically increase their chance to hit. Maybe not a lot, and maybe it contributes to the whole "monk can't do damage" thing, as it seems like they miss all the time, but hopefully the extra attacks (with ki, and feats) even out.
Overall a bunch of good ideas that can be built upon. Thankyou.
Numerous archetypes are probably broken. I count the armored barbarian (or some similar name) as an example. One of the few weaknesses a barbarian has compared to a fighter is their lower AC. Well, that's much less of an issue with this archetype.
This is a myth by the way. At low levels a barbarian has - usually - around a 2 point AC disadvantage but if you want to build your barbarian to be resilient they actually outpace fighters in AC by mid levels and crush them in AC at high levels.
If summoners had to take things like scent, and darvision for their eidolon in addition to combat or magical prowess, the class wouldn't be a problem.Most Rogues would be jealous. Especially if they put +8 in stealth and perception - and even disable device (If they've got hands). Now we have a creature that can outfight the fighter AND outscout the rogue.
If he was spending evolution points on out scouting the rogue, he wouldnt be able to still outfight the fighter.