Most overpowered / underpowered ?

[Moon-Lancer]

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.

This is a major understatement. I have been in games where I knew i clearly had the strongest character with the highest ac, hit and damage + spells (3.5) but it was the other guy who bragged and was called the broken character (when he was only mediocre).

I like to be modest at times I am excelling. I think the opposite is true as well for others and sometimes even myself. People will blow their own horns to hid their own inadequacies.

So that's a hint to power gamers. If your going to do it, be modest and they might not even know.

PS: seemingly strange options also will commonly get tossed into the broken pile simply because its strange or doesn't follow a common formula

some times it is the weakest option as well.

 

[Mad Hamish]

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.

I don't really see few couple of points of initiative being a big thing for a melee combatant.

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.

For a start a twf Ranger has toughness for free, so that's going to give them better hit points than an archer ranger
He can probably do with hide armour for a few levels which gives him a couple of points less of AC than the archer ranger but not terrible.
initiative isn't a big deal for him.

Against that he provides (and can take advantage of) flanking spreads damage around a bit so that the party can go on longer and has more options in his attacks like several burst 1 abilities at lowish levels.

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)

Rangers are probably the highest damaging classes, but they provide a lot less in the way of control.

In my limited experience I'd agree with you that Archer rangers are probably the easiest class to play and contribute a significant amount of what they can potentially do for the party.
Whether the damage different of an archer ranger compared to another striker build is as useful to the party as the other options that the other striker provides is open to question (and the answer probably varies widely based on the encounter type)

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).

The great weapon fighter has his place, it places the tradeoff for damage versus control for a defender in a different place from the sword and board build.
I suspect that a greatweapon fighter is better with a Warlord in the party than without -> he also probably does a better job of focusing attacks on himself than the sword and board character because he's more of a damaging threat and he's easier to hit.

The strength based Paladin seems to have a few too few options (although I haven't had much of a look at one) to choose from. The splatbook will hopefully fix that.

I think the starpact warlock is the in-between option of the initial three pacts. Does more damage than the feylock and less than the infernal lock. Provides less control than they feylock but more than the infernal.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

For a start a twf Ranger has toughness for free, so that's going to give them better hit points than an archer ranger

an archer ranger can choose twf as well and get toughness for free. The only difference is one might not be able to take the paragon paths in player handbook. other then that everything else functions normally.

 

[Kzach]

The rogue definitely needs something more to help it survive melee. I'm honestly considering granting a bonus to AC as a class ability simply because the rogue is usually the most likely to be targeted and dropped first. Fighters can't mark everything and the rogue has to be in the thick of things in order to fulfil its role.

Archer rangers are by far the most 'broken'. I'm honestly thinking of making a longbow a d8 and simply not allowing the greatbow at all. And TWF rangers with 2x1d10/+3 weapons... fahgettabowtit. They can be happy with smaller weapons instead of this stupid dual-wielding of massive swords.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

The rogue definitely needs something more to help it survive melee. I'm honestly considering granting a bonus to AC as a class ability simply because the rogue is usually the most likely to be targeted and dropped first. Fighters can't mark everything and the rogue has to be in the thick of things in order to fulfil its role.

The current AC of the rogue is plenty if he opts for a mostly ranged approach, using stealth and deft strike to harass the enemy.

If you are a melee rogue, my favorite concept, you need to pump your AC a bit.

I designed a brutal scoundrel who spent 4 feat in the heroic tier to get hide armor, heavy shield and a rapier so by level 4 with DEX 19, he has the same AC as a sword and board fighter. In paragon level he keeps this up by taking shield and hide specialization.

He is basically a light armored, vicious fighter. By level 6, he has the utility powers adaptable flanker and ferret frailty that can give him 2 or 3 sneak attack option every fight without flanking. He gets a few more from powers like sly lunge and toppling strike + AP for a follow up.

The result is that by level 6 that character can sneak attack every round in melee witout needing to put himself in a difficult spot. He takes whatever dazed, prone etc. opportunity comes along and then use his tricks to drum himself up a sneak attack when his buddies can't do it for him. He typically just stand shoulder to shoulder with the defender.

I just love that character concept; I want to play it so bad...

 

[Caliban]

In paragon level he keeps this up by taking shield and hide specialization.

FYI, those two feats don't stack.

 

[Nail]

If there's one thing this thread should teach anyone that reads it: The term "overpowered" is meaningless without a huge explanitory paragraph by the person writing.

In my case, I think "overpowered" is best applied when comparing one PC in a party to another in that same party. Put another way "overpowered" might be better phrased as "spot-light hog". As Moon-Lancer said, no one notices how powerful a quiet person's PC is.

 

[Herschel]

there is no way the two-sword ranger can match that.. 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 ??

It really depends on the criteria. in a one-on-one battle on open terrain, the Archer Ranger is simply the most powerful character. But does power equal efficient? In this case I'd argue no for the same reasons many others have pointed out. Rogues need other characters to reach their full potential, but also blend better with the party concept. A rogue with a solid defender and leader working together is great. An Archer Ranger plays pretty much the same in every party but doesn't add much in efficiency besides damage. In other words, he doesn't make the rest of the party better by doing his thing, nor does he force the tough choices like a melee striker does.

 

[Herschel]

The rogue definitely needs something more to help it survive melee. I'm honestly considering granting a bonus to AC as a class ability simply because the rogue is usually the most likely to be targeted and dropped first. Fighters can't mark everything and the rogue has to be in the thick of things in order to fulfil its role.

Archer rangers are by far the most 'broken'. I'm honestly thinking of making a longbow a d8 and simply not allowing the greatbow at all. And TWF rangers with 2x1d10/+3 weapons... fahgettabowtit. They can be happy with smaller weapons instead of this stupid dual-wielding of massive swords.

For rogues to survive melee they do need something: fellow players with defenders and a clue. I love my Windsoul Genasi Swordmage with a rogue. A fighter is really nice too. If you add in a Warlord and improved initiative for the defender(s) it gets really good. Add a mage to take care of those pesky minions and it rounds out nicely.

Round 1 action:
1. Wizard blasts minion(s)
2. Defender(s) set up on a "big guy".
3. Rogue comes in for a big ol' swingathon.

I do dislike the concept of the Great Bow and dual-wielding big ol' meat cleavers and don't really think they're necessary nor flavorful.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Rogues survive just fine.
Level 1 rogues should be averaging at least 16.5 damage a hit: 2.5 weapon, 4 stat, 3 other stat (whether sly flourishing or brutal scoundrel with CA), 7 sneak attack.
Backstabber ups the average by 2, weapon focus by 1, 20 dex (for the char oppers) ups it by another 1, though their secondary stat's damage drops if they're not one-trick-ponying offense (such as a 20 dex 16 cha halfling)
Their hitroll is only matched by the fighter (or rangers who prime shot with CA), and they often massacre stuff before they can take two swings.

The idea with rogues is that fatal shankings = they can't hurt me back.