Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 6236349" data-attributes="member: 1165">Broken means "does not work". It does not have to mean overpowered. I would consider the monk, and 3.0's psion broken, even though they were both generally weak, plus that class (binder?) that used ridiculous skill DCs for spellcasting. I know it was possible to have an overpowered 3.0 psion too, so that class was basically broken in both directions. I'd say the same thing about the summoner and gunslinger for Pathfinder, although both of those are broken in the overpowered direction.Given 4e's emphasis on numerical balance, it's rather difficult to put out ridiculously overpowered material in 4e. At least you're not likely to have the equivalent of unstoppable save DCs. (Well, see Orb of Imposition, pre-errata...) But the math is tight, so anything that gives a substantial bonus is already pushing in the overpowered direction. (See avenger or monk, taking Unarmored Agility feat because they forgot to prevent that.)A lot of the books had weak options instead. The bladesinger, which I regard as actually broken (can't fill it's role, doesn't seem to know what it's role is) and the broken vampire class (you have a PC who only gets 2 healing surges, or 4 with the now required feat, and must use their blood-draining ability each fight, and also cannot walk around in the day due to the whole being a vampire thing), plus numerous classes (runepriest, seeker).Weak class variants (example grappling fighter) that are weak in their role and often miss out on the basics. (The grappling fighter doesn't seem to have an ability to stop an enemy from being slid out of your grasp, or anything to prevent the fighter from being slid away from whoever is being grappled, plus the calculations to give them an effective unarmed attack bonus don't make sense. I had one for a couple of sessions, and found I had to throw out their whole attack bonus system and come up with a sensible one.)Do you mean it was broken because it needed errata, or that the errata broke it?</blockquote>

Verification