Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[Shard O'Glase]

Well, how many of the feats really make someone better at straight up melee? the Weapon Focus and Specializations...Power Attack, Expertise..(probably a few others I can remember)...but overall many of them are specialized...and yea being able to attack at range to is nice...but how useful is mounted combat day to day?

as oposed to Rage which adds to Str and Con...and is therefore useful in pretty much any combat. Or even Smite Evil, given that in the bulk of campaigns your going to fight a lot of evil stuff..

what do you consider straight up melee, cause for me these are great: weapon focus, spec, comnbat reflexes, improved trip, expertise, improved disarm, power attack, cleave, greater focus, greter spec, improved sunder, improved bull rush. All by level 12. In 3.0 I'd say imprved crit as well, but they got hit by the stuipid stick and no longer allow it to stack with keen. I'd rather take the cheap enchant than waste a feat even when i got 19 of them by 20.

By 20 I could also take iron will, lightning reflexes, and 5 other feats, round out with archery or grapple stuff maybe.

 

[Slobber Monster]

I have seen a very effective Bard in play with a group of 8-9 PCs. At that group size the Bard is a tremendous force multiplier, and probably most responsible for the group's overall effectiveness. Needless to say, Inspire Courage adds up to quite a few extra hits and extra damage with that many people. The fact that the Bard is there to cast spells like Haste and Invisibility Sphere leaves the Clerics and arcane casters free to spend their actions attacking the enemy or self-buffing. On top of that the Bard is invaluable as a focused social front-man. At least in my campaign, there are occasional overwhelming EL encounters which can be diffused with the right allies, clever lying, or compromise through neogtiation.

 

[Merlion]

Actually, at 20th level the fighter is at one of his weakest points for saves. Before then, the relative value of things like Iron Will is higher (since spell levels are lower, and opponent's casting ability scores won't be as high). Most fighter's should have pretty good saves for most of their career, assuming they don't ignore that aspect of their character for cool looking flashy things.

I've never really heard anyone speak of Fighters as having good saves, other than Fortitude. I mean yes they can compensate for the other two being poor catagories to a point, but their still not very likely to make saves in their poor catagories (as is the case for everyone).

And when you contrast this with other melee classes...Paladins get Cha to saves, plus get more good out of a high Wis thus helping Will saves as well...Monks have all Good saves, and Rangers still have the Will weakness (although less so than the Fighter, since a Ranger is going to have a deccent or even good Wis for skills and spells), but has good Reflex.

Weapon Focus and the subsequent feats in that chain are useful in just about every combat, almost offsetting the barbarian's rage bonuses. Climbing the two-weapon fighting chain can pack a punch

These two are generally useful, although the TWF has some weaknesses (lower attack bonuses, lower AC, and you cant usualy really get the good out of it till at least the second round of combat).

As I have shown, a high level fighter can afford to be good at three, and maybe four different "combat modes". The other big combat types can usually only be good at one. If you get a high level barbarian or paladin out of his combat "sweet spot" he's far less effective, the fighter can usually switch to something else and continue being effective.

I dont think the Barbarian really has a "sweet spot". Thats part of my problem. Their abilities tend to be equally effective in pretty much any combat.

And the other classes abilities are use limited - even a 20th level barbarian can only rage 6 times per day, and a 20th level paladin can omly smite evil 5 times per day. What do you do if you need to fight more often than that?

How often are you likely to need too? Doesnt the system assume like 3 or 4 encounters per day?



Now note I dont feel the Fighter is drastically underpowered. I just think it lags a little with the other melees, and needs a little more reason to actually go to higher levels.

 

[Faradon]

Oh yea... Merlion... since you guys were talking about a fighter's save it reminds me that clerics get 2 good saves to the wizard's 1... just another straw to break the camel's back.

 

[Merlion]

Oh yea... Merlion... since you guys were talking about a fighter's save it reminds me that clerics get 2 good saves to the wizard's 1... just another straw to break the camel's back.

Thats one of the biggest things to me, as its a major contributor to one of the big problems of the Cleric. They have the two most important saves in the game as Good catagories. This makes them highly resistant to many of the most powerful and often used offensive spells. Plus Spell Resistance, Death Ward and Freedom of Movement if they have time and a little foreknowledge

 

[Storm Raven]

I've never really heard anyone speak of Fighters as having good saves, other than Fortitude. I mean yes they can compensate for the other two being poor catagories to a point, but their still not very likely to make saves in their poor catagories (as is the case for everyone).

And when you contrast this with other melee classes...Paladins get Cha to saves, plus get more good out of a high Wis thus helping Will saves as well...Monks have all Good saves, and Rangers still have the Will weakness (although less so than the Fighter, since a Ranger is going to have a deccent or even good Wis for skills and spells), but has good Reflex.

I didn't say "good", I said "pretty good". It is still a weakness, but it isn't that much of a liability, and it can be helped, provided you take the right feats and make sure you don't ignore vital items.

These two are generally useful, although the TWF has some weaknesses (lower attack bonuses, lower AC, and you cant usualy really get the good out of it till at least the second round of combat).

With an animated shield you can overcome the two-weapon fighting limitations on AC. Heck, using the Improved Shield Bash feat can do that too. The lowered attack bonuses are made up for by more attacks, and the fact that most fighters have enough punch behind their hits to hit most things anyway.

I dont think the Barbarian really has a "sweet spot". Thats part of my problem. Their abilities tend to be equally effective in pretty much any combat.

How effective are they in combat against foes that must be fought at range (for example)? If an opponent with Improved Combat Expertise simply outlasts their rage, how good are they? How good are they if their chosen combat tree isn't that useful?

How often are you likely to need too? Doesnt the system assume like 3 or 4 encounters per day?

You might be surprised. The smites are a per attack thing too, so they will get used up quickly.

 

[KarinsDad]

It isn't the Rogue's job to buff the party, however. By changing the focus to buffs and calmly stating that buffs can do more damage eventually than a flat-out attack (and they can, you're right), you are implicitly requiring the comparison to cleric.

No, I am not. You are. The Bard buffs stack with the Buffs of others.

Stay on topic. Bard versus Rogue.

I do like how you chose level 14 to make your comparison instead of, say, level 13. At level 13, the Rogue will do over 100 damage per round if he can hit consistently, perhaps 50, then, if he's having trouble hitting. The Bard gives the whole party +2 to attack and damage. Does it eventually add up to more? Sure. Do the other classes have morale boosting buffs that would have been a fine substitute? Yup.

You forget that the other buffs would have been a fine addition, not a substitute.

With regard to the 13th level Rogue, how exactly does he do over 100 points of damage per round?

1D8 + 7D6 +4 magic weapon +2 Strength = 35 points if he hits, 70 if he criticals

Typically, a 13th level Rogue will not get a second Sneak Attack in during the same round (often, he will not get in any sneak attack). He might max out around 100+ on a very special round (70 for critical sneak attack plus 35 for second critical sneak attack because of magic or something), but that would be very rare.

Sure, he could have a bunch of feats/items that allow him to make more attacks per round and possibly even more sneak attacks per round, but still, most of them will not be sneak attacks most combats and most rounds.

The other PC combatants will also have feats/items that allow them to make more attacks per round, making Inspire Courage even MORE useful.

Even so, comparing the Bard's buffs to the Rogue's attacks is like comparing those buffs to the Monk's attacks or the Fighter's attacks. Yes, the buffs are useful, but if you don't have someone who can make use of those buffs, then not so much.

Same with the Rogue. Many sneak attacks are done via flank. No flankers, fewer sneak attacks.

The Bard can summon multiple creatures and inspire them all (in addition to himself).

The Rogue cannot summon flankers.

Without that Rogue, there's one less person who wants the attack buffs. If my party consists of a Wizard, the Bard, a Psion, and a Barbarian, how much is the song helping now?

Weak argument. If my party consists of a Wizard, the Rogue, a Psion, and a Barbarian, how many flank attacks will the Rogue get without becoming a target and dead?

If the Barbarian is the "front line" and protecting the Psion and Wizard from attacks, the Rogue has to go "into the enemy formation" in order to flank with the Barbarian.

Btw, in our games, the psions are some of the best fighters around. So in our game, the Bard would be helping the Bard, the Barbarian, AND the psion (plus touch spells of the Wizard plus Summon spells of the Wizard plus Summon spells of the Bard plus Astra Constructs of the Psion).

the key is that your analysis makes a lot of assumptions. You were right to point out that the Rogue's combat skill can become useless in certain situations. For Bards, certain parties make them incredibly useless, and short battles make them less so too (If the Sneak Attacking Rogue can ambush the opponents and with the help of the Wizard and Barbarian take all the baddies out in three rounds, the Inspire Courage wouldn't have been preferable.

I am not the one making assumptions.

It is pure math.

+1 to hit plus +1 damage times 2 or 3 or more combatants (including the Bard) most rounds is greater than +1D6 or +2D6 damage occasionally.

Out of the core classes, the break down of melee/ranged attacks versus spells is:

Barbarian, Monk, Rogue and Fighter (practically 100%)
Paladin and Ranger (about 100% at low level, maybe 80%+ at mid to higher level)
Cleric, Bard, and Druid (maybe 50%, maybe higher, especially for Bards and Druids)
Sorcerer and Wizard (about 0%)

So, 6 out of 13 classes are almost exclusively combatant types and 3 out of 13 do it probably half of the time or more. If my percentages here are semi-accurate (and they are probably not that far off) the Bard is helping virtually everyone out in the combat except Sorcerers and Wizards (and he EVEN helps them out for touch spells) and he is doing this almost every round.

The Bard effectively raises the overall level of the ENTIRE party with regard to combat by one (or two at higher levels) every combat.

The Rogue is targeting one or two NPCs at most with offensive (if he is able) maybe a handful of times within an entire combat.

No comparison.

Replace the standard Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard party with a Fighter, Cleric, Bard, Wizard party and the second party typically has a better chance of survival.

Not only that, but the Rogue cannot heal anyone. The Rogue cannot go invisible without an item. The Rogue cannot cast Mirror Image (which is real helpful in combat). The Rogue cannot wear as good armor. The Rogue has worse Will saves.

The Rogue has one good defense which sometimes comes into play. Evasion.

The Rogue has one good offense which sometimes comes into play. Sneak Attack.

The Bard has many good defenses and offenses compared to the Rogue.

A Rogue needs to get away, you hope he can Hide. In addition to hiding, the Bard could cast Expeditious Retreat or Phantom Steed or Dimension Door. Bye bye.

The Rogue hides. The Bard casts Invisibility Sphere and everyone in the group is hidden.

The Rogue gets one or two attacks per round until real high level. The Bard can cast Haste at 8th level and get 3 attacks per round (2 at max to hit) and the additional attack for other PCs.

At first level, the Bard can Fascinate opponents. The Rogue gets eaten.

Like I said, no comparison.

 

[Rystil Arden]

No, I am not. You are. The Bard buffs stack with the Buffs of others.

No, they don't. Read Bless again. And yes, you are conflating the argument of Bard vs Rogue with the argument of magical buffs vs meleers, support vs action, an argument against which I'm not willing to argue because I agree with the latter half. It's one reason why I always like to play magic-using classes. The point is that what you are really comparing here is the mathematical utility of buffing over attacking, which is an interesting argument in its own right and depends on group dynamics and the way they like to fight, particularly quick strikes with few allies vs a long protracted battle with many allies.

My main point is this: The Rogue and the Bard have different jobs. The Bard doesn't need to keep up with the Rogue or compare to it, just like she doesn't need to compare herself to the Barbarian--she needs to keep up with the other classes that are more similar to the Bard's buffing support role, the Cleric and Druid, and perhaps Wizard too. The Bard is weak because it is eclipsed in its role as party support by superior classes.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I am not the one making assumptions.

It is pure math.

+1 to hit plus +1 damage times 2 or 3 or more combatants (including the Bard) most rounds is greater than +1D6 or +2D6 damage occasionally.

I don't know if your players hate to set up flanks, or you have crappy rogues, or you always fight undead, but occasioanlly get a +1 or +2d6. Huh!!!! The rogue can easily get it every round he hits, frequently multiple times in a round. And really the +1 to hit portion only helps when you miss but would of hit if you had rolled 1 higher. How often does that come up in a fight. The + to damage helps, but you need 3.5 hits by the party for every +1d6 of successful sneak attack.

And at 13th level a rogue can easily have 4 attacks per round at a reasonble to hit. Lets say a rogue with a 22 dex after mods(15 base 3 level booosts and a +4 item), two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fihgting weapon finesse short sword, weapon focis short sword. He gets +13/+13/+8/+8. Fantasitc no, but he's likely to get 2 sneak attacks off every round and can potentially get 4(or 0) at 2 per round he's doing an additional 49 points of damage a round, it going to take a lot of successful attacks(24.5 of them) at +2 to damage to equal that, though at a +2 to hit a little bit more often the + to hit makes a miss a hit and that helps.

 

[Merlion]

I do agree with Mr. Big Glowing Green Eye in that a direct comparison between Bard and Rogue isnt going to really do a lot of good because they are very different classes with different roles.

However, I feel that both classes have balance issues. I think the Bard is mostly ok in terms of support...mainly he just needs access to some more bonus types so he can stack better, also some better defensive spells would be nice.

However I also dont think the Bard should be as limited to that role as it is, especially within core. A few more directly offensive spells, and/or a slight bump in melee ability would I think be nice.

The rogue is tough to say for me. Maybe something...a feat or a class ability, to let them use their sneak attack a limited number of times per day without conditions. Perhaps some other more offensive special abilities that are easier to trigger. Also I'd say Rogues are probably the most fragile class that regularly engages in combat...I mean they have even less HP than the Monk, and probably less AC to...