Most overpowered / underpowered ?

[Madred]

yeah.. taking hits is necessary..
but,
archer ranger got a very decent AC and HP close to the paladin (since the paladin is so stats dependent that he cannot afford constitution..)

But I agree. Battlerager w/ hammer and shield, iron vanguard works like a charm.

but most vanilla defenders (especially the PALADIN) are just crap compared to vanilla strikers.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I don't think that's a very good way to look at it. If you remove a character from any well coordinated party, you should lose more than 20% effectiveness because you are missing a key element.

Yeah, I already edited to adding someone to a balanced party.

The idea stands; the question is who brings the most to the table.

 

[Madred]

the idea is the same..

elf archer ranger is #1 best char.. an hardcore source of dmg that is barely never hindered by anything.

even a wimpy greatsword fighter or avenging paladin can dare to go in a fight knowing that the crazy archer behind them is going to down the enemies so quick that they won't have time to hit them

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

the idea is the same..

elf archer ranger is #1 best char.. an hardcore source of dmg that is barely never hindered by anything.

even a wimpy greatsword fighter or avenging paladin can dare to go in a fight knowing that the crazy archer behind them is going to down the enemies so quick that they won't have time to hit them

The melee ranger does almost as much damage and plays a significant secondary role in holding the line and relieving the pressure on the defender(s). Right there, the archer can't be #1 in my book.

Beside, every character does damage. If you have 5 players, you will have 5 PCs, whether there is an archer or not. In terms of damage, the archer's real contribution is not the entirety of his damage, but just the margin of damage he does above the damage another character would have provided.

Damage is the cheapest commodity, everybody does it.

Things like healing, bonuses to hit, free saving throws, stopping enemy movements... these thing have a higher value than damage IMO.

I'm not saying the archer suck because thankfully he brings more advantage to the team than just dealing damage. But he's not in the top 5 of my dream team. I'll take a melee rogue over him anyday. Deals even more damage and helps at the front. Also has more powers that move the enemies and can help set up good blast for the wizard.

Melee Rogue
Fighter or paladin
Warlord
Wizard
Warlock

That's a tough team. I could also swap the warlod for a laser cleric and the warlock for melee ranger. But always have at least 3 melee. To squeeze in the ranger, I'd have to replace the warlock, but I prefer the warlock for his hindering effect on the targets. I could also turn the wizard in a combat wizard (leather armor, defensive staff, toughness, lots of blast and defensive power) and then I could replace the rogue by the archer. Not my favorite, though.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Part of the reason the archer may feel overpowered is that he isn't relieving the preasure on the defenders except by killing things - instead, he's sitting back and letting the defenders take all the hits, which both a) makes the defenders seem weaker, and b) makes the ranger seem stronger. This seems to me a case of strength being measured not in how much the ranger helps the party, but how well the ranger seems to do compaired to the rest of the party. So, the apparent strength is actual an example of a party playing less well overall (as I imagine the defenders are running out of surges before the ranger), which in turn makes the character who is excelling at the expense of everyone else appear far better in comparison.

Not that the apparent strength complaint isn't valid - its just that a view of the actual effectiveness of each of the characters is somewhat beside the point as I imagine the complaint is more a result of party disfunction where that an analysis of the ideally functioning party is somewhat of a tangent.

As a related note, apparent strength may also depend on the personalities of the players. If the ranger is a loud and enthusiastic player who shoots "boooyah!" whenever he kills something, or if he puts down other players for never killing anything/not contributing, then that will obviously increase the apparent imbalance. Likewise, a highly effective character may not appear as such if the player is modest and doesn't take credit, or if the advantages he is giving are less obvious than pure damage.

My only suggestion is charge your tactics/encounter composition to encourage party cooperation. Have the ranger be the target of artillery monsters, particularly those with status effects such as slow or immobilize. Have him attacked by flanking brutes and melee skirmishers, such that the rest of the party gets to feel useful by coming to rescue him. Try to arrange it so that the ranged attackers shooting the ranger are better dealt with in melee (put them in superior cover, for example), so that the ranger has an incentive to shoot the melee ones tieing up his defenders/melee strikers rather than those that are doing damage to him.

Actually, I do have one other suggestion - if part of the problem is player dinamics, then may need to deal with that again. Play up the contributions of the less vocal members, and make sure everyone gets the praise they deserve for good ideas and tactics. Conversely, you may need to talk to the ranger about being a better team player.


Inquisitor Psychologis Ruminahui

 

[Nail]

This is worth saying again:

In 4e, doing damage is NOT the only thing to consider; its also how well you take damage.

If you've got a thin front line - perhaps only 2 melee PCs - then that front line will be taken down (or avoided) too easily. Your party needs more up in front, even if that means you loose a little bit of damage. Think of it this way: The DM is going give out damage --> if you allow him to spread it out, it's less likely someone dies.

I'm reminded of a story of a fellow gamer, running a PC through KotS. He and his party could not make it past Irontooth. They tried twice, with all-new PCs! Eventually they just gave up, and said that it was the fault of 4e. They never understood that having 4 ranged PCs and only 1 melee PC meant the quick death of the melee guy, and the sure destruction of the front line-less ranged PCs.

Poor suckers.

Back to the OP:

There are no overpowered classes in 4e. There *might* be some over-powered class options in 4e.

Rogue as overpowe4red? <chuckle> Not really.

 

[Madred]

to come back on the archer ranger thing..

i find it quite 'strong' that he can get TO HIT + DMG + AC only using his main stats.
+ he can use twin strike with greatbow doing d12+d12..

there is no way the two-sword ranger can match that.. since he needs strength, it will probably leave his dexterity lower and thus, his AC will be lower AND he needs to be in melee.. AND he'll never do d12+d12.
lets not even talk about his hps..
so.. from my point of view.. archer ranger owns because he is 'single stat dependent' and thus allowed more versatility with his other stats (either hps, or wis, or whatever e wants..)

is there something i'm not understanding ??

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

to come back on the archer ranger thing..

i find it quite 'strong' that he can get TO HIT + DMG + AC only using his main stats.
+ he can use twin strike with greatbow doing d12+d12..

there is no way the two-sword ranger can match that.. since he needs strength, it will probably leave his dexterity lower and thus, his AC will be lower AND he needs to be in melee.. AND he'll never do d12+d12.
lets not even talk about his hps..
so.. from my point of view.. archer ranger owns because he is 'single stat dependent' and thus allowed more versatility with his other stats (either hps, or wis, or whatever e wants..)

is there something i'm not understanding ??

A lot, apparently.

For one thing, most melee rangers take an heavy armor feat and thus get rid of the need to pump dex. They end up pumping STR and WIS just like the archer pumps DEX and WIS. They can also use two war axes just as easily as the archer can pick up a great bow, so yes they can do D12.

You also keep overestimating the value of the damage the archer is dealing. His overall damage output isn't head and shoulders above the other strikers. And the others tend to provide more valuable services in compensation for a slightly lower damage output.

I feel the archer looks particularly weak compared to the melee rogue because they both do comparable damage but the rogue isn't selfishly letting the fighter take all the heat and so is a better asset to the team.

Your choice of words betray your point of view; You say the Archer owns. Who cares if a PC owns? The party has to win. The only consideration is how much a PC contribute to victory. That's the only valid measure of success. And IMO I can build a more powerful party without the archer ranger than with him.

I think the archer ranger is a large party luxury item. In a 6+ team, the Archer ranger can settle in his niche and be a real asset. In fact, if you have 6 PC and just one leader, it's a good thing to have the sixth be an out-of-harm's-way ranger since he won't put additional strain on the leader's healing capabilities. On a short team of 4 though, he's not the first guy I'd pick.

 

[Madred]

ok then, agree that with some feats, 2 to be exact (probably chain then scale) the twf ranger will compensate for his low AC, but, still wont compensate for his lack of initiative.
all in all, lets say that at paragon levels the twf ranger will be on par with the archer ranger. just have to go thru a few level with a somewhat bad AC, or bad hps, or bad weapons, or bad ini, or whatever else he needs feats to boost.

but don't get me wrong, I am not an ardent 'archer ranger' fan. I just think that its probably the easiest, strongest, simplest, 'out of the box', and a tad on the overpowered side, build. (hence the reason for posting in this thread)

I still think the ranger archer and battlerager are being the 2 strongest guys right now.
BUT,
I am "not" saying the others characters are not necessary. (aside from greatweapon fighter and straladin and maybe starpact wlock).
+ in the end, what matters is that everyone is having fun with their chars.
though, if you happen to have either the battlerager or ranger archer in a team, well, some other chars that focus on the same things as them might feel slightly.. overshadowed.
Not as much as being totally useless, but just not, as edgy.

 

[babinro]

I'll concede to the fact that I associated this overpowered and underpowered as meaning, which character can a PC play with the best chance of overall survival...rather than, which PC is most beneficial towards the team's overall goals.

I do feel that melee characters are still underpowered though because they can only tank for a brief period unless they have other melee support...or a leader providing them with healing. Warlords can easily fill the roll of a fighter and be more beneficial to the team. They seem far too dependent on a team keeping them in check. In addition, they add little to the field beyond some damage and minor attack roll manipulation via marks.

As for the remarks based on environment, that would change the answer for overpowered and underpowered completely. As a wizard becomes horrible in close quarters when his spells are likely to effect as many of his allies as his enemies. An archer ranger is still solid simply based on the fact that they can fire at someone, then move behind a wall/door for total cover.