Most overpowered / underpowered ?

[SteveC]

On the issue of rogues: they are a class that's either very dependent on party makeup (they need defenders) or on player skill to get the heck out of the way.

I play a rogue in the RPGA's Forgotten Realms games, and I've found it to be much easier for me, as in the game is almost a no-brainer if the defender is doing his job.

I played in a recent event with no defender and only a level one leader, and it was brutal. I had made it to level 3 without ever using an at-will other than sly flourish, but I was very thankful for taking deft strike, since it let me move out from behind cover to get sneak attacks consistently. Even with that, I was hurt far worse than any of the other adventures I've played in.

As far as rangers go: having heavy armor is almost a must for a melee ranger: the game I run had a two-weapon ranger in hide armor, and he was always one step away from death until he improved his AC. I think before that he was running around at AC 17 when he was 4th level, and that meant he was always getting tagged by skirmishers and lurkers.

From my experience, the classes are a lot better balanced than most people give them credit for, but you don't always see some of their strengths or weaknesses based on your party composition or play style. I haven't seen something that I have a real problem with yet, and the closest thing to that has been the dwarven battlerager.

--Steve

 

[Danceofmasks]

Eww ... 17 AC at 4th is ... eww ... nonmagical light armour and +2 stat mod on a meleeist .. ? How else ..
I'm sorry, but that doesn't reflect on the class, it's pink ninja territory.

 

[robotsinmyhead]

This is a great thread. For instance, in my experience with 4e (20ish games in 4-5 campaigns) the rogues have always been bypassed by other strikers and other classes in damage (though they have their place from an RP standpoint) and just couldn't keep up in terms of survivability/utility like some other strikers.

Really this comes down to the DM's style and the particular build of the classes and I feel like the game has a reasonably good balance overall (Battlerager looks a little much, but again - DM style can change this).

Aside from the rogue, IME, the most underwhelming and disappointing class has -by far- been the Warlord and I guarantee someone will have a story that will be the polar opposite of my experiences with Warlords.

 

[Diirk]

Eww ... 17 AC at 4th is ... eww ... nonmagical light armour and +2 stat mod on a meleeist .. ? How else ..
I'm sorry, but that doesn't reflect on the class, it's pink ninja territory.

Sorry, but it very much does reflect on the poor class design. A melee ranger's primary stat is strength. You have 2 choices for your secondary stat: dexterity because it raises your armour class, or wisdom because it improves the effect of your powers. So you get to choose between having an average armour class, or having effective powers. Not many classes have to make that choice (in fact, pretty much none).

You'll notice all the new light armour classes in PHB2 have class features that let them use their secondary stats (str, con, cha etc) in place of dex/int for their armour class. This is a new design decision that the ranger could very much have benefitted from.

 

[Caliban]

So you get to choose between having an average armour class, or having effective powers. Not many classes have to make that choice (in fact, pretty much none).

Warlocks that focus on Con and Charisma (which are a lot of them) have the same problem.

And the answer is the same for both of them: Put a some stat points in Str/Con and invest in heavy armor.

 

[SteveC]

Eww ... 17 AC at 4th is ... eww ... nonmagical light armour and +2 stat mod on a meleeist .. ? How else ..
I'm sorry, but that doesn't reflect on the class, it's pink ninja territory.

Not at all. The character had two magic melee weapons and a neck item, and non-magic hide armor, along with a 14 Dex. Let's just say there was a serious underestimation on his part on what a 20 Str would get him. The character did fantastic damage, but I like running balanced combats, so the artillery and skirmishers struck him down immediately whenever they could.

When the character was retrained (he asked for a mercy ruling on my part and I let him swap two feats at 5th level) he ended up with scale armor (and it was +1 from his loot from the game) giving him AC 20. That still wasn't fantastic, but at least he was missed some of the time. Melee rangers really have some problems with AC unless they place a high priority on Dex, in which case all of those nifty class abilities based on Wisdom suffer. The class really is pretty well balanced.

--Steve

 

[Danceofmasks]

Or alternatively, if they intended to go with 20 str and heavy armour all along, dump dex aggressively and stick a 10 or even an 8 there.
The choice to play with low-ish dex and light armour is an error here.

I guess these types of glass cannons worked better in 3e, so maybe it's a leftover from there?

Much like paladins who invest in high str and cha .. they're going to end up underpowered.

The issue isn't so much that the class is underpowered, it's that the players pay a little too much heed to the class description's advice while buying stats.

 

[Gort]

Aside from the rogue, IME, the most underwhelming and disappointing class has -by far- been the Warlord and I guarantee someone will have a story that will be the polar opposite of my experiences with Warlords.

My warlord is going to be the greatest healer ever next session. I just levelled him up to 6th, and picked up Rousing Words (encounter power allowing the target to spend TWO healing surges) and that feat that lets me add my charisma bonus onto the healing done by Inspiring Word.

It's also nice that all my allies get 6 HP and a saving throw whenever they use an action point, have +2 initiative permanently, and I can stick powers on enemies that make them take 5 more damage from any attack they take that round, whereupon my entire party focuses on them and clobbers them.

Most of all, I'm a healer... AND I'M NOT A CLERIC.

 

[deleteme123456]

Rogues can be very powerful. Overpowered? Maybe. A rogue can easily abuse Stealth + Deft Strike to get CA every turn without working that hard, except in wide open terrain (which is usually boring for encounters). He was completely gimped when the tremorsense creature was completely unsurprised by his attack, and he wasn't willing to close to melee to flank, so that's something. Rogues have a very high attack roll but their damage output probably can't keep up with a stormwarden. Even by high heroic, where the ranger is getting 3[w] attacks more often, 3d10+1d8 vs 3d4+2d8 is in favor of the ranger (but of course, the rogue is more accurate).

Melee rangers are a pain for MAD. I'm playing a Minotaur (Dragon mag, not MM) one now, Level 5, and I went 18/16/14/8/14/10. DM gave us one bonus feat for good backstories, so my feats are Double Sword, Chain, TWF, TWD. Next level I'll get weapon focus. I could probalby have done without Chain for a while since Hide is effectively only -1 AC until I get +2 armor, but I also wanted Meliorating (AV) for +1 AC per milestone. I'm as hard to hit as a defender if the creature is marked, which is nice, but my damage suffers for it... I only get 1d8+3 or 1d8+2 (main/off hand) with my +2 weapon, and Level 5 is by no means guaranteed to get you a +2 weapon. At paragon, I plan to switch to double axe because deadly axe is tons of fun (our DM rarely provokes OAs because the encounters are typically full of smarter monsters, humanoids and the like, so HBO isn't as good).

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well built rogues are outdone on damage by well built fighters and well built rangers, even assuming that they get combat advantage every round according to the numbers.

If you're finding that the rogue is outdoing other classes, then you have a few possibilities:
1) Pure random chance is favouring the rogue
2) The rogue is built better than the other characters
3) The rogue is played better than the other characters
4) The DM is treating the rogue and other characters unevenly (ie - targeting the non-rogues when the rogue is actually the better target etc)
5) Your perceptions are being colored in some way: you're seeing the rogue's big hits and not noticing when, say, he does not get combat advantage, or the fact that he blows a daily and does pretty much the same damage as with an at-will. Or the non-rogue characters are accomplishing non-damage goals at the expense of damage.