Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[Shard O'Glase]

fixes for the classes.

Monk full bab, less flurry.

Rogue full bab, let all classes have the ability to find and remove real traps.

bard complete rewrite. Don't really know what but maybe something like this; remove the magic as written and give them entire new magic system, a song magic. Have the effects similar in power to ordinary spells ranging in 1st to 9th, but limited in delivery much more since there a song magic. Make them all concentration(must continue to perform basically) based spells, as they gain levels let them thread more songs into the main song so they can concentrate on multiple spell songs. Remove the normal bard perform abilities.

Cleric/druid reduce in power. Either increase there spell power a smidge so its fully on par with wiz/sor and reduce them to the d4 armorless brigade, or drastically reduce there spell power. Personally for clerics I'd strip there base lists down to some basic prayer style spells, maybe 3-4 a spell level and massivley increase domain lists. Not all clerics should have animate dead or slay living on there lists. It may of been more confusing but later 2e clerics worked better, virtually all spells should be god specific.

Druids I'd make them learn spells like wizards, they always felt more like nature mages to me than like nature god boys. I'd have to babs for the druid in wildshape form and out, in it would be almost fighter good, out it would be wizard good. I'd only give a select list of spells that can be cast in wildshape form.

Wiz/sor I don't care if there classics complety rewrite or remove the broken spells like shapechange or poly any object. You shouldn't have to rely upon the players not to abuse thins in order for them to be able to be used. Increase blasting spells, remove/reduce save or die spells.

 

[Thanee]

...or the Sorcerer or any other you feel might need it.

They don't need a power boost with their spellcasting, but it would be nice to add some skills and feats.

Kinda like THIS.

The monk would do good with full BAB, hitting is their biggest problem in combat.

The rogue could maybe need some more hit points, or some ability to increase AC, something to make them more stable in combat.

The bard is tough, they should probably get some more effective bardic music and their spellcasting could be turned up a notch, too. It's probably best to remake the spellcasting ability completely and more bardic with magical songs and such. Maybe more like the BoEM bard.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Merlion]

fixes for the classes.

Monk full bab, less flurry.

Rogue full bab, let all classes have the ability to find and remove real traps.

bard complete rewrite. Don't really know what but maybe something like this; remove the magic as written and give them entire new magic system, a song magic. Have the effects similar in power to ordinary spells ranging in 1st to 9th, but limited in delivery much more since there a song magic. Make them all concentration(must continue to perform basically) based spells, as they gain levels let them thread more songs into the main song so they can concentrate on multiple spell songs. Remove the normal bard perform abilities.

Cleric/druid reduce in power. Either increase there spell power a smidge so its fully on par with wiz/sor and reduce them to the d4 armorless brigade, or drastically reduce there spell power. Personally for clerics I'd strip there base lists down to some basic prayer style spells, maybe 3-4 a spell level and massivley increase domain lists. Not all clerics should have animate dead or slay living on there lists. It may of been more confusing but later 2e clerics worked better, virtually all spells should be god specific.

Druids I'd make them learn spells like wizards, they always felt more like nature mages to me than like nature god boys. I'd have to babs for the druid in wildshape form and out, in it would be almost fighter good, out it would be wizard good. I'd only give a select list of spells that can be cast in wildshape form.

Wiz/sor I don't care if there classics complety rewrite or remove the broken spells like shapechange or poly any object. You shouldn't have to rely upon the players not to abuse thins in order for them to be able to be used. Increase blasting spells, remove/reduce save or die spells.

Monk: I think I agree. They seem to be meant as more or less a primary, up front melee, and if there going to be that, they should have full BAB


Rogue: I'm not so sure about giving Rogue full BAB. They are not and have never been meant as front line combatants, and Sneak Attack even with its limits might be a bit much with full BAB. I think making them a little less fragile, and making sneak attack a little easier to use (probably through feats), might be a good idea.


Bard: This idea sounds good, but within D&D I'm not so sure. Creating a whole new form of non-spell based magic as a classes primary focus would be both a headache in general, and possibly very hard to really fit into and balance against the existing systems. I think I'd rather have a list of Bardic Music abilities that are scaling and all relatively similar in power, and then let the Bard pick one every so many levels...with maybe a few fixed ones at certain levels like Song of Freedom.

I'd also like to see the Bard get a few more sonic and mental offensive spells, and maybe a tiny bit more staying power in physical combat.


Cleric and Druid: First, speaking mechanically only: I agree with your first statement as a possible fix. Just make them pure casters without as much other stuff. However the second part I am less sure about. Even if you trimmed the more offensive spells from the Cleric list, they still dont need 9 levels of spells and a d8 hit die, and full armor, and medium BAB, and the 2 most important saves as good saves. Same goes for the Druid, but less so.

As for the flavour aspects, I agree. a spellcasting "priest" class should mostly have spells that fit its deitiy or causes nature. However honestly, I dont really like the idea of any "priest" class much anyway. To me priest is a cultural role that could be played by any class that fits the religion. But the Cleric will probably always be in D&D...I just want to see it become mechanically balanced.


Druid: I think ALL classes should have to learn their spells, including Cleric. I also like your wildshape ideas, for the most part, although I dont really think Wildshape is especially overpowered anyway.


Wiz/Sor: Well, I dont really see that many "broken" spells personally. Some could use work though. I dont really have a problem with their being a lot of save or dies...except that as you say, damage needs to be made more viable so you can really choose between the two, without also choosing between viability, and less than viability. Also i feel the Wiz/Sor list should include some of the spells they've been denied...Spell Resistance, FoM, DW, Find the Path, others.

 

[Merlion]

They don't need a power boost with their spellcasting, but it would be nice to add some skills and feats.

Kinda like THIS.

The monk would do good with full BAB, hitting is their biggest problem in combat.

The rogue could maybe need some more hit points, or some ability to increase AC, something to make them more stable in combat.

The bard is tough, they should probably get some more effective bardic music and their spellcasting could be turned up a notch, too. It's probably best to remake the spellcasting ability completely and more bardic with magical songs and such. Maybe more like the BoEM bard.

Bye
Thanee

Sorcerer: Well, skills dont really enter into mechanical balance that much to me, honestly...I see them as mostly an RP aid, and a way to flesh out your character (obviously, there are exceptions such as UMD). However, largely because of this, I'd have no problem with all classes getting more skills.


Monk: Agreed.

Rogue: Agreed

Bard: I agree with the first part. The second part I love conceptually but seems to be harder than it looks..

Overall I agree though. The Sorcerer, if spellcasting is left mostly alone, needs some bonus feats or some other little thematic class abilities or something to make up for the massive lack of versatility. Also I would like to see them have a different spell list or lists from the Wizard at least slightly, to make them more distinct.

 

[KarinsDad]

Freedom of Movement is the counter for Evards.

Of course it is.

How many 7th level Clerics have Freedom of Movement ready?

How many NPCs or PCs or monsters?

Virtually no 7th level PCs or NPCs have a Ring of Freedom of Movement since it costs 40,000 GP. Following the 25% of wealth rule, most characters cannot afford a Ring of Freedom of Movement until 15th level.

It is extremely unlikely that you cast Evard's on a 7th level challenge group and more than one opponent will get out via Freedom of Movement. Most of the time, the opponents will have to rely on brute strength, escape artist, or other spells.

BTW clerics also can cast Evards

Most cannot.

 

[KarinsDad]

9 Con

...

HP ~80 ( This is low… yes… even the 40 from healing only brings it up to 120 )

Oh, this was so funny.

How EXACTLY does a Monk with 7 hit points at level one SURVIVE to level 20? He needs an army to protect him.

One Scorching Ray at level 3 (where Scorching Ray averages 14 points and the Monk averages 14 hit points) and he's toast.

This is the most ludicrous example of minmaxing to the point of non-survivability that I have ever seen.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yeah my maxed out standard array no magic weapon rogue. Using 4 of 5 or 6 feats for combat, cause he really needs those +2/+2 skill feats with his 8 skill points per level.

Opps. My bad. I did not notice that you did not give him a magic weapon, so I just used your numbers as is.

Now lets look at CR 13 monsters
Beholder AC 19
celestial charger(unicorn) Ac 24
Ghalee (eladrin) AC 25
Glabrezu (demon) AC 27
Giant, Storm Ac 27
Golem, iron AC 30(immune to sneak attacks)
Hydra 12 headed pryo,cyro AC 22
ice devil (gelugon) AC 32
lich human wizard AC 23(immune to sneak attack)
mummy lord AC 30 (immune to sneak attack)
Slaad, death AC 28

Yeah there just packed with 30+ ac's 26 was a low ac to show as your first exmaple. So when he's facing a few of the really high ac characters and isn't wieding magic weapons he's down to .5 sneak attacks. Now vs the majority of these guys since he will have some kind of magic swords by level 13 he's getting 2+ sneak attacks when in positon.

When in position.

He tumbles in, does a sneak attack against the Beholder. If he hits for sneak attack damage, the Beholder hits him with 3 or 4 rays on its next attack and he is toast.

Or the 12 headed Hydra that hits him at least half of the time with +17 to hit and does about 90 points of damage in one round to him (if 6 of the 12 attacks hit). Last I checked, most 13th level Rogues do not have 90 hit points. Even with a 16 CON, a 13th level Rogue averages 87 hit points.

Even if he survives the first round of a Hydra, is a 13th level Rogue REALLY going to stick around for round two?

Your Rogue can dish out a lot of damage, but he cannot take it. And that is the crucial flaw of Rogues. Low AC. Low hit points. Lousy Fort and Will saves. The full round attack of most of these opponents will kill a 13th level Rogue in one round.

Also note, many of these creatures have damage reduction or regeneration or other forms of defense that make combat damage against them less effective. For example, the Death Slaad has Damage Reduction 10 Lawful. Most Rogues will probably not be carrying Lawful weapons.

Plus, some have offensive spells that a Rogue just cannot stand up against.

The problem with the Rogue using his uber sneak attack is that he has to get in close and most of these creatures will turn a Rogue into jelly.

And with tumble he likey can get in positon every round. Add in cripling strike at 10th or 13th level and every sneak attack is also causeing 2 str damage, if lucky in a couple rounds they can drastically weaken a foes melee capabilities. And oportunist gives +1 attack in quite a fee rounds, and definetly every time the rogue is flanking someone with a competent fighter type. Adding in even more sneak attacking and cripling goodness.

Unless your stacking foes against sneak attacking rogues the rogues damage output will vastly out perform the bards buff even at +3/+3. And this is just pure combat effecitveness, the rogue is suppsoed to be mainly a skill monkey and he provides that well, and is also (due to poor design IMO) the only pc capable of finding and removing traps.

Yup.

You can do more damage with a Rogue. IF the Rogue survives.

In order to do this mega-damage, the Rogue has to get in close. The Bard does not.

THAT is the difference between Rogues and Bards. You tweeked out the Rogue and he is still dead by 3rd level.

Bards are still more effective overall.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Opps. My bad. I did not notice that you did not give him a magic weapon, so I just used your numbers as is.



When in position.

He tumbles in, does a sneak attack against the Beholder. If he hits for sneak attack damage, the Beholder hits him with 3 or 4 rays on its next attack and he is toast.

Or the 12 headed Hydra that hits him at least half of the time with +17 to hit and does about 90 points of damage in one round to him (if 6 of the 12 attacks hit). Last I checked, most 13th level Rogues do not have 90 hit points. Even with a 16 CON, a 13th level Rogue averages 87 hit points.

Even if he survives the first round of a Hydra, is a 13th level Rogue REALLY going to stick around for round two?

Your Rogue can dish out a lot of damage, but he cannot take it. And that is the crucial flaw of Rogues. Low AC. Low hit points. Lousy Fort and Will saves. The full round attack of most of these opponents will kill a 13th level Rogue in one round.

Also note, many of these creatures have damage reduction or regeneration or other forms of defense that make combat damage against them less effective. For example, the Death Slaad has Damage Reduction 10 Lawful. Most Rogues will probably not be carrying Lawful weapons.

Plus, some have offensive spells that a Rogue just cannot stand up against.

The problem with the Rogue using his uber sneak attack is that he has to get in close and most of these creatures will turn a Rogue into jelly.



Yup.

You can do more damage with a Rogue. IF the Rogue survives.

In order to do this mega-damage, the Rogue has to get in close. The Bard does not.

THAT is the difference between Rogues and Bards. You tweeked out the Rogue and he is still dead by 3rd level.

Bards are still more effective overall.

No class survies if all attacks are focussed on them. The Ac of a rogue is about the same as any other class considering how armor works. The rogue will likely have a mithral chain shirt and get +10 to AC from armor without enhancement, the fighter if he gets up to a 16 dex will have a +11 in mithral full plate, not much of a diference. The fighter may have a shield but lots of fighters focus on the big sword style.(though they both can have a animated mithral shield at no penalty) The fighter with a 16 con has 115 HP and is almost dead form the hydra as well, the fighter is likely more dead than the rogue from the beholder since the rogue probably has the 2nd best(monk is better) touch AC. Virtually any class can be killed in one round using apropriate challenge level monsters. Sure the rogue is more fragile in HP, but not by too large of a margin. By 13th level its about 30 HP diference between them and a fighter or about 1 to 2 hits less than a fighter can take. I'm really not that impressed by any classes durability at the 10+levels. The GM's have to go out of there way not to slaughter every class in a single round. The rogue maybe they have to coddle a bit more, but not as much a speople make out.

IMO in combat rogues are better than bards, who delivers more to the party overall maybe the bard with a single level of rogue so he can get past traps. While you think people are underestimating buffs, I think you are underestimating the power of large amounts of directed damage. The ability to move in with conjunciton with the fighter and drop many foes in a single round shouldn't be underestimated. Also the rogue benefits from spells like improved invis on an absurd level or a ring of blinking, not only will they gain an absurd level of protection they'll also become sneak attack machines. So while the bards buffs are useless without a group, it important also to note how being in a gorup helps the rogue, it aint just flanking.

Right now every party needs a rogue just for that one function of getting past traps so overall a rogue is more needed, its dumb and a DM can certianly remove traps form the game, but it the standard campaign you need a rogue to advance past traps. Unless you want to make an absurd amount of noise and let summoned monsters set off all your traps. I guess you can summon monsters and use a silence spell to open every chest and door but that doesn't seem practical.

 

[KarinsDad]

No class survies if all attacks are focussed on them. The Ac of a rogue is about the same as any other class considering how armor works. The rogue will likely have a mithral chain shirt and get +10 to AC from armor without enhancement, the fighter if he gets up to a 16 dex will have a +11 in mithral full plate, not much of a diference. The fighter may have a shield but lots of fighters focus on the big sword style.(though they both can have a animated mithral shield at no penalty) The fighter with a 16 con has 115 HP and is almost dead form the hydra as well, the fighter is likely more dead than the rogue from the beholder since the rogue probably has the 2nd best(monk is better) touch AC. Virtually any class can be killed in one round using apropriate challenge level monsters. Sure the rogue is more fragile in HP, but not by too large of a margin. By 13th level its about 30 HP diference between them and a fighter or about 1 to 2 hits less than a fighter can take. I'm really not that impressed by any classes durability at the 10+levels. The GM's have to go out of there way not to slaughter every class in a single round. The rogue maybe they have to coddle a bit more, but not as much a speople make out.

The point you missed is that IF the Rogue tumbles in and does a sneak attack (especially with two weapons in hand), MOST monsters will be afraid of them and purposely focus on them.

The difference between a monster totally focusing on the Rogue and totally focusing on the Fighter is:

1) The Rogue does more damage in a single attack, hence, he is a HUGE target once discovered. He becomes the biggest threat.

2) A lucky series of attacks on the Rogue will definitely kill him. A lucky series of attacks on the Fighter and the Fighter might still be alive due to having 30 extra hit points.

3) The Rogue is still a one trick pony. The Fighter can possibly trip or grapple. The Rogue, probably not.

IMO in combat rogues are better than bards, who delivers more to the party overall maybe the bard with a single level of rogue so he can get past traps. While you think people are underestimating buffs, I think you are underestimating the power of large amounts of directed damage. The ability to move in with conjunciton with the fighter and drop many foes in a single round shouldn't be underestimated. Also the rogue benefits from spells like improved invis on an absurd level or a ring of blinking, not only will they gain an absurd level of protection they'll also become sneak attack machines. So while the bards buffs are useless without a group, it important also to note how being in a gorup helps the rogue, it aint just flanking.

Rogues CAN become killing machines.

If they do not die first.

Right now every party needs a rogue just for that one function of getting past traps so overall a rogue is more needed, its dumb and a DM can certianly remove traps form the game, but it the standard campaign you need a rogue to advance past traps. Unless you want to make an absurd amount of noise and let summoned monsters set off all your traps. I guess you can summon monsters and use a silence spell to open every chest and door but that doesn't seem practical.

Actually, what is dumb is having a campaign with a lot of locations which have traps.

The NPCs and monsters LIVING in such locations would sooner or later spring their own traps.

Traps should be rare, instead, some DMs (evidently) make tham a staple of a campaign.

Why?

I'm not sure.

It's like having a dungeon without a latrine. It is totally nonsensical to have a lot of traps, just so that having a Rogue is required.

Having traps on some entrances? Sure. Having a lot of traps within a location with creatures in it? Stupidity and beyond the suspension of belief.

 

[Jack Simth]

Depends greatly on the nature of the trap and the nature of the trap-maker; a powerful Sorceror who routinely gets around via Teleport isn't significanly harmed if there's 15 different traps on the way in to his stronghold - he never walks past them anyway; they keep tresspassers out, and he can port anyone he wants in. Add a Permanent Private Sanctum to the stronghold, and nobody can port in without having been there (or having talked to someone who has - assuming they don't risk a blind Dimension Door, of course).

A Wizard who keeps an Overland Flight spell up continuously might have lots of pit traps for similar reasons - he just flys over them, and they don't touch him.

Many of the Symbols automatically never harm their creator (and they can be made Permanent).

The Cleric has access to spells that set up traps which ignore things of particular alignments, or permit passwords - the Cleric who sets such up has no difficulties bypassing them each and every time, potentially with friends.

It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that magic traps might be built to ignore certain people.

Mind you, many of the mechanical traps would be rough on the builder.... except for those designed specifically for the person not putting the key in the lock....