Are warriors & rogues required at high level?

[S'mon]

Heck, in a low wealth, high stat game a monk will simply be unbeatable. I can't how anyone would be able to compare (wouldn't hurt a Palladin too much either at that really).

buzzard

I haven't found that monks dominate play, even with very high stats. There's enough wealth that the fighters are much better in melee combat. No one IMC has ever played a Paladin, they seem pretty weak to me (in 3.0) & I'd think they'd need very high stats just to compare with a 25-pt Cleric.

 

[S'mon]

Their not dying is not highly rated because it simply doesn't bring much to a party.

I'd think it'd be highly rated by the Monk player, though! I guess EnWorlders are very group-oriented...

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Craig

Hey S'mon!

clearly the WotC designers do think it evens out.

Why would they then give the Wizard an extra four feats over the 20 levels though?

I'd say the Sorcerer was ahead at levels 1-4, behind at level 5 (the gaining of 3rd level spells is the biggest step in any arcane caster's carer, and totally changes the game IME), ahead at level 6 through to around 12, probably falling behind again at 13+. A high level group without a Wizard is likely worse off than one without a Sorcerer, unless high-level spell scrolls are readily available.

So Low-Mid Sorceror, High+ Wizard, gotcha. So over the 20 levels you would say it probably evens out?

Most ENWorlders seem to think the Wizard is better. Certainly the Sorcerer is much easier to play effectively, Wizard takes more thought.

The Wizard does get those extra feats, so all things being even (spellcasting*), the Wizard is better.

*Of course thats what I'm trying to work out.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

That's all I'm saying... Druids are not as strong as Wizards or Clerics, but they are a strong class nonetheless (among the top classes for sure)!

My intuitive placing of the top five core classes would be...

Low Level:

1. Barbarian
2. Fighter
3. Cleric
4. Druid or Wizard

Moderate Level:

1. Cleric
2. Wizard
3. Druid
4. Sorcerer

High Level:

1. Sorcerer
2. Wizard
3. Cleric
4. Druid

I'd never put the wizard anywhere on the most powerful list at low levels. There one of the weakest at low levels. Even with the high stats giving more spells there out of the game so fast its silly and with d4 hp and no armor there a bigger vulnerabiliy to the party than a help. This is even more prevailant in 3.5 which took the sleep spell out of reasonable playability. I forget if color spray was also destroyed. Still keeping the wizard alive at low elvels hurts the party more than the wizard helps with the couple spells he can bring into play.

And sor/wizards I'd only put at the top at high levels because of a couple high level standout spells like shapechange where I just wonder how that slipped by. I'd easily put them in the top 5 even without those spells but I'd normally keep the cleric on top from mid on.

 

[buzzard]

I haven't found that monks dominate play, even with very high stats. There's enough wealth that the fighters are much better in melee combat. No one IMC has ever played a Paladin, they seem pretty weak to me (in 3.0) & I'd think they'd need very high stats just to compare with a 25-pt Cleric.

I guess I need a definition of high stats and low money.
My home game is high stats and high money, and the monk is easily eclipsed. I guess it depends on how low that money really is.

Back when I DMed the home game, the monk we had was one of two to survive the (almost)TPK, but he never did amount to much in combat.

buzzard

 

[S'mon]

Hey S'mon!

So Low-Mid Sorceror, High+ Wizard, gotcha. So over the 20 levels you would say it probably evens out?

Probably - I don't think there's enough difference to justify the Wizard's extra Feats (or extra Skill points from higher Int), anyway. It depends a lot on the campaign. In a tightly focused military (or hack'n'slash) campaign, a Sorcerer would be better. In an urban intrigue game, the Wizard is far better. In a campaign with a wide variety of different scenarios, some will favour the Sorcerer but the Wizard is probably a bit ahead.
That said, I'd rather play a Sorcerer - I like to blow things up and not have to think too much.

 

[Thanee]

I'd never put the wizard anywhere on the most powerful list at low levels.

Not during the first levels, but I thought low level to be about the first third, that is up to level 7. And they are already quite potent at level 5 upwards. But nonetheless you might be right there, Rogues, for example, are also quite powerful at lower levels!

@reapersaurus/UK: About the linearity problem... Spell Levels are not linear in power, but CR is not linear either (+2 is twice as powerful IIRC), so it's ok. However, it's still difficult to compare with feats, which are pretty linear to me.

Bye
Thanee

 

[S'mon]

I guess I need a definition of high stats and low money.
My home game is high stats and high money, and the monk is easily eclipsed. I guess it depends on how low that money really is.

Back when I DMed the home game, the monk we had was one of two to survive the (almost)TPK, but he never did amount to much in combat.

buzzard

IMC characters start with wealth as if they were monsters of a CR equal to their level (see link in sig). So the 10th level PC starts with 5800gp. I did give one Fighter PC a major artifact weapon but he'll suffer for it.

High stats - I let them roll until they're happy. I think I once saw a (Monk) PC IMC with 69-point-buy equivalent, but 40-45 PB equivalent is probably typical.

As you might guess, this approach disfavours Fighters (and, somewhat, Wizards). Fighters however IMC have access to a wide range of special feats, prestige classes etc that keep them viable. And wealth gained in play is generally pretty close to book norms, so characters who play for a few months aren't too poor.

 

[Thanee]

Exactly - the Monk class is among the least synergistic with other classes. Also their not dying ability seems to be underrated by many, I think a lot of people play in campaigns where the threat of death is very low compared to what us 1e grognards are used to.

Funny enough, in our current campaign, the Monk is the one who died the most (most often by simple damage), maybe on par with the Fighter/Rogue. My Cleric is the only character that hasn't died yet (but only due to some very lucky Fortitude saves ), the Wizard died once (disintegrated in a very unlucky situation), as did the Psychic Warrior (slay living). In general there are plenty situations where PCs can die, and sometimes they do so.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

I think Wizards probably outstrip Sorcerers significantly at the highest levels (16+) due to their far greater flexibility in what they can cast. Using the standard spell research rules, high level Wizards can put pretty much every spell they want in their books at a moderate cost.

That's something I don't think... altho I have only played high level Wizards yet (Sorceress is only lowly 2nd level ), except for an NPC, I definitely feel the disadvantage of the Wizard class in high levels, as you often have the wrong spells prepared or just not enough of the right ones!

The Sorcerer, at a level where enough spells are known to have a decent repertoire, is so unbelievably flexible in their application, that a Wizard simply cannot compare. Especially when it comes to Metamagic!

Sure the Wizard does know the right spell for every situation, but is it prepared when needed?

Also, if you actually use the official scribing costs (we have cut them by factor 10), then Wizards have FAR less money for equipment, if they want a decent spell selection, which is a must to get the versatility they are known for.

Bye
Thanee