Are warriors & rogues required at high level?

[Thanee]

1st: Druid
2nd: Cleric
3rd: Monk
4th: Barbarian
5th: Wizard

This system is obviously flawed!

Druids are a strong class, but surely not on top of clerics or wizards/sorcerers.

But it's hard to make up numbers like this, as so much depends on outside influences.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Bauglir]

Back in the days of 3.0 I took a fairly average 5th level monk, and went through each CR5 monster in the MM, working out the chance for a stunning fist to affect each one (factoring in the chance for the blow to land, and the chance for the save to be failed)

It turned out that on average the stunning fist ability had around a 13% chance of affecting an even CR monster.

I find in play that many of the monk's abilities are like that.. "All talk and no trousers" to quote a movie I saw recently.

Monks are hard to hurt (in theory at least) but at the same time they don't really have the tools to deal out pain, and in practice this means they don't bring much to a party. (Enemies with any intelligence will just ignore the monk and go for the real threat)

On the wondrous items/armour issue, the table in that section of the srd only includes slots for WIs, and no slots for armour/weapons. Similarly the phrasing of that passage refers to Wondrous Items specifically. I'm fairly confident that slot affinity applies only to WIs. (Can you tell I'm a rules forum regular?)

All the factors were considered (and then the results were rounded). Of course the accuracy is somewhat subjective I admit but I think I must be fairly close...? What do you think?

Clerical spells lack the flashbang of arcane spells, but I don't know if I'd consider them to be less powerful; just focussed in a different area. While the wizard flies around throwing fireballs, the cleric buffs up himself and his allies, hinders enemies, and of course heals. (Spells like Divine Power and Righteous Might for example are very powerful)

BTW Kweezil is also technically Scottish so I guess that just leaves us

 

[hong]

Back in the days of 3.0 I took a fairly average 5th level monk, and went through each CR5 monster in the MM, working out the chance for a stunning fist to affect each one (factoring in the chance for the blow to land, and the chance for the save to be failed)

Well, as they say, everyone should have a hobby.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi S'mon!

Monks are certainly a strong class IMC (PCs have higher stats & generally less magic items than standard). I can see 2 reasons why Monks are often rated a poor class:

1. Monks are very stat dependent. They need high STR, DEX, WIS, CON, and INT never hurts. Many other classes can get by with 2 high stats. This means that in a 25-point-buy (or even 30-point buy) game, Monks can't cover all their bases well, and look weak. Monks gain the least benefit from having lots of magic items, also (as Fighters gain the most) so high-magic disfavours monks.

2. Monks are survivors, they are _Excellent_ at not dying. Taken as individual characters, they look very powerful. However their abilities are not very synergistic with other party members - and if everyone else dies, the Monk usually lacks the ability either to resurrect them or the offensive power to trash the baddies and recover the bodies. That said, the high-level Monk in my current game (StalkingBlue's Monk-10) has certainly proven very effective as a party member in an 8-person party (6 PC 2 cohorts); her 60' movement has run down and eliminated several fleeing foes (I find the PCs previously had lots of trouble preventing defeated NPCs escaping); and her high Will save enabled her to disbelieve an illusionary pit fiend that would otherwise have killed the party's two Fighters.

In all, I think your rating of the Monk as one of the stronger classes is reasonable, given the above.

Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.

I think you've rated Clerics too low though, their spontaneous healing makes their spellcasting pretty much as good as the Wizard,

DOH! Okay, I must admit I forgot to incorporate the spontaneous spellcasting element. Human error rather than system error.

plus they're vastly tougher & better at fighting.

That was catered for.

A 3.0 party with lots of Clerics really demonstrates this - it's a ridiculously powerful combination class.

I think d6 hit points (for both Cleric and Druid) would go some way to alleviating the discrepancy.

Edit: Off-hand I'd say a Cleric in 3.5 was roughly worth a Fighter 1 level higher, which under the CR system implies they're around 50% more powerful! In 3.0 before the nerfing of the Buff spells I'd have said the Cleric was worth a Fighter 2 levels higher, ie around 100% more powerful. However if you surprise and attack an NPC Cleric in a dungeon, they're no better than an NPC Fighter of similar level, so that's one way to justify the equivalent CR rating.

Well it looks as if, on average, Clerics and Druids are going to both be close to +20% better per level (by comparison the Mystic Theurge is over +30%!)

So a 5th-level Cleric is equal to a 6th-level Fighter (20th-level Cleric = 24th-level Fighter).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Thanee!

This system is obviously flawed!

Thats rather a sweeping conjecture!

Druids are a strong class, but surely not on top of clerics or wizards/sorcerers.

I think this could certainly be a popular misconception:

Druids are at best, peripheral classes. They are not as widely played as Sorcerors/Wizards or even Clerics. The effect of this is twofold; firstly less people are made aware of their power; secondly there are less attempts to exploit it so many of the classes nuances are not as well reported, or as obvious, as say the Wizard for instance.

Most of the people I have spoken too that play Druids have commented that they are one of the stronger classes. You yourself said they were a strong class.

As to whether they are more powerful than the Cleric thats something I will have to review in light of my spontaneous spellcasting oversight.

But it's hard to make up numbers like this, as so much depends on outside influences.

I try to avoid simply 'making up numbers'. All my conclusions were derived from a logical basis.

I am only rating the facts as they stand in the rulebooks. If after that a certain campaign sees Monks as notably weaker than my figures, then thats okay, because almost certainly other campaigns will see them as stronger than my figures. What I am looking for is the median line; the typical average for all campaigns.

Clearly these figures are meant to be seen as guidelines; and only sweeping gulfs should be noted as potentially problematic or imbalancing.

Of course its up to people to decide exactly where the gulf is:

Is it the +10% the Wizard has over the Fighter Class?
Is it the near +20% the Cleric has over the Fighter Class?
Is it the greater than +30% the Mystic Theurge has over the Fighter Class?

Bye
Thanee

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Thanee]

Thats rather a sweeping conjecture!

Most of the people I have spoken too that play Druids have commented that they are one of the stronger classes. You yourself said they were a strong class.

As to whether they are more powerful than the Cleric thats something I will have to review in light of my spontaneous spellcasting oversight.

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 try to avoid simply 'making up numbers'. All my conclusions were derived from a logical basis.

Ok, sorry, that's not what I meant. Let me rephrase that...

I think it's hard to judge class abilities by simple numbers (i.e. every feat is the same, every spell level is the same), because there are too many influences and dependencies not covered. Some feats might be completely broken under the right circumstances (and by that I mean campaign-covering not situational circumstances), while in other situations they are just useless. Also having a huge number of feats gives diminishing returns, as the "good" feats are used up at some point. Spells are the other way around... the more spell levels you gain the more powerful your spells get overall. You can hardly give the same points for the 1st spell level as for the 9th!

Hmm... did you take into account how easy it is to "disable" a class feature (i.e. sneak attack is far easier to disable then spellcasting)?

I am only rating the facts as they stand in the rulebooks. If after that a certain campaign sees Monks as notably weaker than my figures, then thats okay, because almost certainly other campaigns will see them as stronger than my figures. What I am looking for is the median line; the typical average for all campaigns.

Concerning Monks... look at the poll for worst party members... that's hardly even close to your result and the votes are often derived from "real play" situations!

Can't be that the 3rd-strongest class comes out last in 90% of the campaigns... they can't be that hard to utilize!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Grishnak]

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



Ok, sorry, that's not what I meant. Let me rephrase that...

I think it's hard to judge class abilities by simple numbers (i.e. every feat is the same, every spell level is the same), because there are too many influences and dependencies not covered. Some feats might be completely broken under the right circumstances (and by that I mean campaign-covering not situational circumstances), while in other situations they are just useless. Also having a huge number of feats gives diminishing returns, as the "good" feats are used up at some point. Spells are the other way around... the more spell levels you gain the more powerful your spells get overall. You can hardly give the same points for the 1st spell level as for the 9th!

Hmm... did you take into account how easy it is to "disable" a class feature (i.e. sneak attack is far easier to disable then spellcasting)?



Concerning Monks... look at the poll for worst party members... that's hardly even close to your result and the votes are often derived from "real play" situations!

Can't be that the 3rd-strongest class comes out last in 90% of the campaigns... they can't be that hard to utilize!

Bye
Thanee

In our campaign we've only had 1 monk who didn't last that long due to the player not liking it. It's contribution to the game was when he became an npc was under mind control and killed my wizard with a coup de grace while I slept.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Bauglir mate!

Back in the days of 3.0 I took a fairly average 5th level monk, and went through each CR5 monster in the MM, working out the chance for a stunning fist to affect each one (factoring in the chance for the blow to land, and the chance for the save to be failed)

It turned out that on average the stunning fist ability had around a 13% chance of affecting an even CR monster.

I find in play that many of the monk's abilities are like that.. "All talk and no trousers" to quote a movie I saw recently.

Monks are hard to hurt (in theory at least) but at the same time they don't really have the tools to deal out pain, and in practice this means they don't bring much to a party. (Enemies with any intelligence will just ignore the monk and go for the real threat)

Individually their powers may not be earth shattering (Stunning Fist is only a feat after all ~ and was rated accordingly) but they do roll together into an impressive package.

On the wondrous items/armour issue, the table in that section of the srd only includes slots for WIs, and no slots for armour/weapons. Similarly the phrasing of that passage refers to Wondrous Items specifically. I'm fairly confident that slot affinity applies only to WIs.

Take any Ring of Energy Resistance.

eg. Energy Resistance,
Minor (10 points) Market Price 12,000 GP.
Major (20 points) Market Price 28,000 GP.
Greater (30 points) Market Price 44,000 GP.

Looking at the Armour Table.

[Energy] Resistance 10 = +18,000 GP.
[Energy] Resistance 20 = +42,000 GP.
[Energy] Resistance 30 = +66,000 GP.

All clearly x1.5; and the only x1.5 modifier in the Item Creation Tables is the Uncustomary Space Limitation modifier - ie. Body Slot Affinities.

Therefore the rule clearly functions outside Wondrous Items.

(Can you tell I'm a rules forum regular?)

I eat rules forum regulars for breakfast.

Clerical spells lack the flashbang of arcane spells, but I don't know if I'd consider them to be less powerful; just focussed in a different area. While the wizard flies around throwing fireballs, the cleric buffs up himself and his allies, hinders enemies, and of course heals. (Spells like Divine Power and Righteous Might for example are very powerful)

Sorceror/Wizard spells are slightly better level for level on average. Also the Sorceror/Wizards have a larger list to choose from which cancels out the more restricted access.

I think if I remember correctly I was getting something like 0.31 for Clerical spells and 0.345 for Sorceror/Wizards which were rounded to 0.3 and 0.35 respectively.

BTW Kweezil is also technically Scottish so I guess that just leaves us

So Kweezils an imposter eh!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again Thanee!

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)!

Thats certainly possible, but not something borne out by the facts I might add.

: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

Interesting that the Cleric and Druid are the only classes that stay in the top four throughout.

I am also curious how and where this paradigm shift between Sorcerors/Wizards and Clerics/Druids occurs? Not saying I disagree with you, because many people look to Sorcerors/Wizards as the superior class at high levels.

Ok, sorry, that's not what I meant. Let me rephrase that...

No apologies necessary mate.

I think it's hard to judge class abilities by simple numbers (i.e. every feat is the same, every spell level is the same),

Hard yes, impossible no.

because there are too many influences and dependencies not covered. Some feats might be completely broken under the right circumstances (and by that I mean campaign-covering not situational circumstances), while in other situations they are just useless. Also having a huge number of feats gives diminishing returns, as the "good" feats are used up at some point. Spells are the other way around... the more spell levels you gain the more powerful your spells get overall. You can hardly give the same points for the 1st spell level as for the 9th!

I don't agree. Surely feats that add bonuses or provide advantages are not necessarily 'used up' at any point.

Hmm... did you take into account how easy it is to "disable" a class feature (i.e. sneak attack is far easier to disable then spellcasting)?

I rate the worth of the ability itself.

A single level of Sorceror spells is equal to 1.75 feats under my auspices.

Concerning Monks... look at the poll for worst party members...

Where is this poll? I went five pages back and couldn't find it. Is it recent?

that's hardly even close to your result and the votes are often derived from "real play" situations!

I'll certainly be interested in seeing the results of said poll before dismissing these people as not knowing what they are talking about.

...only joking.

Can't be that the 3rd-strongest class comes out last in 90% of the campaigns... they can't be that hard to utilize!

I must admit that would surprise me.

Bye
Thanee

Thanks again.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Grishnak!

In our campaign we've only had 1 monk who didn't last that long due to the player not liking it.

Player apathy is probably the reason why that poll is stacked against the monk.

I mean have these philistines not seen Crouching Tiger; Iron Monkey or Hero!?

It's contribution to the game was when he became an npc was under mind control and killed my wizard with a coup de grace while I slept.

LOL - You see, in the rights hands (The DMs in this case) the Monk is deadly!