Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-too powerful?

[Nail]

Thanks for bringing up specific examples of where you have seen Clerics be "overpowered". It helps focus this discussion. As Bevear1024 and Gambrion have amply demonstrated, most of the "overpowered" charge comes if

• You allow clerics to take 5 to 10 different domains at the same time , or
• you don't apply the game's rules correctly (stacking bonuses that shouldn't, etc), or
• only talk about >= 17th level clerics casting Miracle, or,
• allow the Persistant Metamagic feat (one of THE most broken add-on rules of the game).

[Clerics are overpowered by]..... Buffing the entire party to be sigificantly stronger.

This is a reason Clerics are overpowered? They are overpowered because they can help others? Riiiiiiight........ Gotcha.

 

[Nail]

What I am talking about *is* a Rules discussion, not "house rules". "House rules" are how one has changed the game solely for the purposes of ones own campaign.

Nope.

House rules are changing the Rules As Written to Rules As I Write Them.

For example, you've proposed changing the Cleric's saves and armor proficiencies. Those are fine changes for your game, I'm sure. But those are not the generally agreed upon rules of the game. They are not published by WotC as rule variants. You won't find the Sage writing about your rules in his web articles. People can't look them up in the SRD. The rules you propose are just that: Your rules. Another term for "your rules"? => House Rules. Simple enough.

Is this Forum about House Rules?

You have given me a strong impression that you feel that nothing particularly useful or with any real accuracy is likely to come out of a thread like this...

You keep asserting that opinion about me. I suggest you re-think it.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This clerics discussion is interesting and all, but how about them druids. It's a freakin 20 level prestige class. A great spell list (competitive with the wizard for direct damage blasting with the lack of fireball being about the only advantage (flaming sphere, flame strike, fire seeds, firestorm, etc), healing (not quite as good as the cleric, but all the healing spells), and summoning (with early access to hipogriffs, dire wolves, and elementals)), spontaneous summoning, wild shape, an animal companion who is generally at least as effective as a similar level fighter (slows down a bit at high levels though unless he's buffed to the nines), wildshape, poison immunity, save bonuses, good skill points, and a good skill list. (Including spot, listen, spellcraft, and diplomacy). There's very little a druid can't do (except wear metal armor). And to top it all off, someone at WotC R&D must think druids are weak because the most certain way to pick the top tier spells (some would say broken) in any expansion is to look at what's on the druid list (the vigor spells, brambles, spikes, quill blast, brilliant aura, arc of lightning, etc).

 

[IcyCool]

This clerics discussion is interesting and all, but how about them druids. It's a freakin 20 level prestige class.

*chuckle* Yep, there it goes ... and here I thought beaver would be the one to start it.

 

[Nail]

And to top it all off, someone at WotC R&D must think druids are weak because the most certain way to pick the top tier spells (some would say broken) in any expansion is to look at what's on the druid list (the vigor spells, brambles, spikes, quill blast, brilliant aura, arc of lightning, etc).

Truth, Bro! You speak th' truth!

Miasma used to be my favorite example of this blatant over-the-top-ness in WotC supplements. Now Quill Blast has usurped it for the title of "They-were-smokin'-some-gooooood-stuff-when-they-wrote-this" Spell.

 

[Zimbel]

This is a reason Clerics are overpowered? They are overpowered because they can help others? Riiiiiiight........ Gotcha.

Yep. The same for the other major spellcasters. Any PC who, using a small fraction of their power typically multiplies the effectivess of the other PCs by more than 1/3 (in a 4-member party) is effectively nearly twice as powerful as the other PCs. In reality, at high levels, many of the major spellcasters can beat a 33% improvement in the other PCs easily.

Now, yes, the other PCs think "Wow! I'm surviving well! or Yay! I did 100 points of damage." They feel that their PC + buffs is their effectiveness. This is a nice psychological trick that largely works.

Conversely, if the removal of 1 PC in a 4 PC party reduces their power by far more than 1/4, that PC is substantially more powerful than the average PC in that party.

 

[Nail]

Yep. The same for the other major spellcasters. Any PC who, using a small fraction of their power typically multiplies the effectivess of the other PCs by more than 1/3 (in a 4-member party) is effectively nearly twice as powerful as the other PCs.

I disagree. Not only does such a definition of "overpowered" include the much-maligned Bard of overpowered classes , but it ignores any and all team synergy. It's simply too broad a definition to be useful.

 

[Zimbel]

I disagree. Not only does such a definition of "overpowered" include the much-maligned Bard of overpowered classes , but it ignores any and all team synergy. It's simply too broad a definition to be useful.

I'm oversimplfying; let me be a bit more explicit

Basically, my opinion of the power of class A at level X against class B at level X is the following:
Take 3 level X PCs of classes C,D,E. Call these the "control" PCs.
Create Party Alpha from the Control PCs + the character you created using class A.

Create Party Beta from the Control PCs + the character you created using class B.

Next, run party Alpha and party Beta through a number of encounters, roughly according to the book guidelines. Vary the encounters. Each party should run through the exact same encounters.

Now, in which party do the control PCs fare better (use less resources)? Assuming no excessive use of consumables (like potions/scrolls) by the non-control character, that suggests that the party was improved more by one class than the other.

Admittedly, this is not perfect; the worst portion of this is that you could have chosen "control" classes or made decisions for the control PCs that favored A over B (or vice versa). If you're suspicous, rinse & repeat, using a different set for C,D,E.

By these guidelines, I consider all 4 major spellcasting classes (C,D,S,W) to be "too powerful" at higher levels. My opinion is that a Bard simply dosen't get the spells/effects to do this sort of buffing often enough to have a consistant large impact on the party's power without dramatically reducing their own.

 

[Zimbel]

It's simply too broad a definition to be useful.

Out of curiosity, what's your definition?

 

[Nail]

I'm oversimplfying; let me be a bit more explicit

Basically, my opinion of the power of class A at level X against class B at level X is ....

Got it.

For the most part, I agree.


...and just to propose a real gaming example: Currently I play a Clr 19 in a group of 7 other players (1 DM, 6 PCs). The players share DMing duties, so when someone DMs, his/her player leaves the party (for a vacation, presumably ).

FACT: When I DM, the party is often in rough shape after just 1 encounter. When I play, we often squish challenges above our appropriate EL.

CONCLUSIONS: ???? Good question. Given what I've said above, can you really untangle all of the other potential reasons for the discrepancy from the class I play? I'd be happy to add other facts, should they become relevant.