Are warriors & rogues required at high level?

[S'mon]

Hello again Thanee!
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.

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. Sorcerers are really good at the mid levels ca 6-14 where they can pump out huge amounts of damage for far longer than any wizard. A Sorcerer & a Wizard working together is the strongest combination at any level (better than 2 Sorcs or 2 Wizzes), the artillery guy & the utility guy.

 

[S'mon]

Okay, the poll name says it all. Its for the worst 5th party member - not the weakest class.

Monks are by their very nature the class that balances all others; as such they offer little in the way of innovation but are strong in every area. Hence the reason they are perceived as a fifth wheel rather than as a viable fifth party member.

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. Eg IME the Barbarian Rage ability is a great way to get yourself killed, and stupid "Krusk smash" barbarians just die like flies. In games where PCs never or rarely die, the barbarian is a great class and the monk a weak one. But taken as an _individual character_, the monk is a powerful class - in fact it's probably the _best_ class for a solo game.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Morning all!

I actually went over every detail of the system and the core classes last night with a bit more thought; though I am still not happy with the relationship between Sorceror and Wizard spellcasting.

Hey Bauglir mate!

My personal favourite silly shapechange has to be the Dream Larva (ELH)

40 HD (so doable at 20th level)
Anyone seeing the dream larva must make a fort save (DC 46 iirc) or die instantly.

Yes, you think someone would have told them!?

On the monk topic I don't think that enchanted wrappings were part of the intended abilities of the class.

Agreed.

It's no coincidence that all of the monk weapons deal 1d6 damage. Also note that the monk's average unarmed attack damage scales roughly with the damage an appropriately levelled monk weapon does.

i.e At around the level the typical characters might be wielding a +1 weapon the unarmed damage becomes d8 (4.5 average = 3.5+1).
(Beyond 12th level, unarmed attack damage begins to creep ahead of armed attack damage. I suspect this was a deliberate attempt to offset the loss of attack bonus somewhat)

Unfortunately the Monk weapons generally do less base damage than most other characters so they are starting from a weaker position.

I made some logical changes to the system and the Monk became +0.851 ~ which is now the third worst. So from 3rd best to third worst.

The changes made take account of various class features which are not actually advantages but rather serve to keep parity; something I had perhaps overlooked in my initial outline of that class.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey reapersaurus mate!

Upper Krust, as usual when i read your systems, they read as very well thought out, but they miss just enough in execution as to mar the results.

The conclusions that your systems come up with I invariably disagree with, yet your mechanics seem fairly sound. It's funny, it's kinda like "It SHOULD work, but it doesn;t."

Thats why feedback (such as this thread) is invaluable. Its always possible I have missed one or two details in my haste and the devil is always in the details with these CR systems.

The main problem this time was myself taking the Monk class features at face value without putting them through the mill first as it were. Many of its class features only serve to bring parity rather than advantage.

So human error rather than system error is to blame.

My 2 opinions about oversights this time:
1) you rate wizard spellcasting levels as linear progression, but they are geometric, or at least weighted.

Having read the rest of your post I agree with everything you say, except this.

Many class elements are geometric: HD/Constitution; Wealth etc.

But the fundamental law is that 1 Class Level is (or at least should) equal 1 CR. Therefore such features must be rated linearly.

It's also underrated, since you place D12 HD at about the same level...

Funny you mention it when I went over spellcasting last night I came up with the following:

Wizard: +0.42
Cleric +0.38
Druid: +0.31
Bard: +0.185
Ranger: +0.06
Paladin: +0.05

I'm still not happy with the Sorceror.

2) Your estimate of skill points is WAY off, and that's why your rogue rating is way off.

Plausible, it could actually be double the listed figure, I haven't exactly been paralleling WotCs ideas on skill points, but rather a revision I made many months ago.

You have an 8 skill point class worth about as much as a paladin's spellcasting ability. Pld/Rgr spellcasting is a joke, taken singly. 8 skill points is not, and it's very versatile, unlike some spellcasting lists. BTW: did I miss where you gave points for a class's skills selection? You may have missed that benefit, which further would up the rogue.

I'll add that into the latest build.

My intuitive ratings are fairly close to Thanee's, but I'd put a rogue up there higher, due to their dominance in social arenas.

I'll run these figures through and then post the results later today.

Appreciate the feedback mate!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi S'mon!

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. Sorcerers are really good at the mid levels ca 6-14 where they can pump out huge amounts of damage for far longer than any wizard. A Sorcerer & a Wizard working together is the strongest combination at any level (better than 2 Sorcs or 2 Wizzes), the artillery guy & the utility guy.

One revised element I am not yet happy with is the relationship between Sorceror spellcasting and Wizard spellcasting.

Specifically Sorceror lack of versatility yet greater flexibility and vice versa.

Does this average out over the 20 levels I wonder, its a tricky thing to gauge.

I'll have it eventually though.

 

[Bauglir]

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. Eg IME the Barbarian Rage ability is a great way to get yourself killed, and stupid "Krusk smash" barbarians just die like flies. In games where PCs never or rarely die, the barbarian is a great class and the monk a weak one. But taken as an _individual character_, the monk is a powerful class - in fact it's probably the _best_ class for a solo game.

Their not dying is not highly rated because it simply doesn't bring much to a party. About the best use I've found for the monk in a group is to walk at the front of the party when there's no rogue. They have the best chance to avoid any traps that go off

 

[Voadam]

But taken as an _individual character_, the monk is a powerful class - in fact it's probably the _best_ class for a solo game.

For a single classed character I'd go ranger, they get stealth moderate fighting, and access to healing magic. It's a close call though.

And my rgr1 mnk1 wizX did just fine in a two person 3.0 banewarrens campaign. For his 3.5 conversion I'm considering dumping monk and just taking IUS.

The monk and sorcerer are best if you are worried about being imprisoned without your stuff.

 

[S'mon]

For a single classed character I'd go ranger, they get stealth moderate fighting, and access to healing magic.

The 3.5 Monk gets all that too, plus is independent of gear. I don't have experience of the 3.5 Ranger to say how it stacks up, though. My guess is that the 3.5 Ranger might be better in a standard-gear 25-pt buy game, but not in (my) low-wealth high-stat game.

 

[buzzard]

The 3.5 Monk gets all that too, plus is independent of gear. I don't have experience of the 3.5 Ranger to say how it stacks up, though. My guess is that the 3.5 Ranger might be better in a standard-gear 25-pt buy game, but not in (my) low-wealth high-stat game.

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

 

[S'mon]

Hi S'mon!

One revised element I am not yet happy with is the relationship between Sorceror spellcasting and Wizard spellcasting.

Specifically Sorceror lack of versatility yet greater flexibility and vice versa.

Does this average out over the 20 levels I wonder, its a tricky thing to gauge.

I'll have it eventually though.

Hi Craig - clearly the WotC designers do think it evens out. 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.

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