Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-Underpowered

[Storm Raven]

(Add +40 damage/hit from power attack - it won't affect the fighter's to-hit chance anyway. And a scythe would be a better weapon.)

Good idea on Power Attack. Doing that reduces the "turtled" fight to 13 rounds, and the fighter ends the fight with 168 hit points remaining.

As to the scythe, I didn't put in material for critical hits in my calculation, just because the math would get more complicated than I wanted to bother with. It works out to the advantage of the monk to leave that out anyway, since including critical hits would be to the fighter's benefit in this fight.

 

[Nail]

As to the scythe, I didn't put in material for critical hits in my calculation, just because the math would get more complicated than I wanted to bother with.

If you give me attack routines, it's trivial thing for me to "do the math". I'd be happy to.

 

[Storm Raven]

If you give me attack routines, it's trivial thing for me to "do the math". I'd be happy to.

Well, for the hypothetical as printed (falchion wielding fighter vs. unarmed flurrying monk), the numbers are as follows:

Note: In all options the monk has 70 hit points, and can take a standard action to heal himself for 40 more. The fighter has 210 hit points.

Option One (fighter "turtles" with Combat Expertise and Power Attacks)

Fighter:

AC 56 (using combat expertise and defending property)
Attacks: +19/+19/+14/+9/+4 (after making deductions for combat expertise and defending property)
Damage per hit 2d4+70
Critical threat range 16-20
Critical multiplier x2

Monk:

AC 55 (using dodge and boots of haste, AC goes down by 1 after 10 rounds)
Attacks (while hasted, 10 rounds maximum): +30/+30/+30/+30/+25/+20
Attacks (while not hasted): +30/+30/+30/+25/+20
Damage per hit 2d8+3
Critical threat range 20
Critical multiplier x2

Option Two (fighter cuts loose and uses full BAB for attacks)

AC 46
Attacks: +39/+39/+34/+29/+25
Damage per hit 2d4+30
Critical threat range 16-20
Critical multiplier x2

Monk:

AC 55 (using dodge and boots of haste, AC goes down by 1 after 10 rounds)
Attacks (while hasted, 10 rounds maximum): +30/+30/+30/+30/+25/+20
Attacks (while not hasted): +30/+30/+30/+25/+20
Damage per hit 2d8+3
Critical threat range 20
Critical multiplier x2

Option Three (fighter is instead a scythe specialist, with all applicable weapon feats shifted to the scythe, fighter also uses full Combat Expertise and Power Attack)

AC 56 (using combat expertise and defending property).
Attacks: +19/+19/+14/+9/+4 (after making deductions for combat expertise and defending property)
Damage per hit 2d4+70
Critical threat range 19-20
Critical multiplier x4

Monk:

AC 55 (using dodge and boots of haste, AC goes down by 1 after 10 rounds)
Attacks (while hasted, 10 rounds maximum): +30/+30/+30/+30/+25/+20
Attacks (while not hasted): +30/+30/+30/+25/+20
Damage per hit 2d8+3
Critical threat range 20
Critical multiplier x2

Okay, there's the relevant numbers. Churn 'em out!

 

[Eloi]

This turned into: "Why Monks (don't?) Reek" so I just wanted to steer us back to "perceptions of being a less desirable character".

People are averse to playing a Cleric: I co-ran a game where I provided a pool of pregen characters, average level of 2-3 with one exception, and even was willing to allow one character to be generated on the spot, if they so chose (but that one would be level 1 with a few advantages.) The one exception? A level 9 Priestess. My co-GM thought it might be nice to make it really fun to play the Cleric, and I was on the same page.

People made their selections, and what was left for the last choosing: the Priestess and the grow-your-own. The last two players to pick wanted _nothing_ to do with playing a Cleric, even though it was (by far) the most powerful option - they argued, and ended up generating two Swashbucklers, brothers, who refused to swash. *sigh*

So the whole group turned down being a 9th level Cleric, because they didn't want to play a Cleric.

I ended up recruiting my co-GM to play the character, since they did need a healer (and she agreed, thankfully). But it was very clear that, for whatever reason, Cleric was just not something people wanted to play - even with a 6 level advantage.

 

[Merlion]

This turned into: "Why Monks (don't?) Reek" so I just wanted to steer us back to "perceptions of being a less desirable character".

People are averse to playing a Cleric: I co-ran a game where I provided a pool of pregen characters, average level of 2-3 with one exception, and even was willing to allow one character to be generated on the spot, if they so chose (but that one would be level 1 with a few advantages.) The one exception? A level 9 Priestess. My co-GM thought it might be nice to make it really fun to play the Cleric, and I was on the same page.

People made their selections, and what was left for the last choosing: the Priestess and the grow-your-own. The last two players to pick wanted _nothing_ to do with playing a Cleric, even though it was (by far) the most powerful option - they argued, and ended up generating two Swashbucklers, brothers, who refused to swash. *sigh*

So the whole group turned down being a 9th level Cleric, because they didn't want to play a Cleric.

I ended up recruiting my co-GM to play the character, since they did need a healer (and she agreed, thankfully). But it was very clear that, for whatever reason, Cleric was just not something people wanted to play - even with a 6 level advantage.

I think theres several things. I think some people feel they will be chained to using all of their resources on healing everyone else. I think some people dislike the whole concept of the "priest" archtype. Either they see it as a goody two shoes, or they dislike the idea of a character who has all this power, but none of it comes from them...the Clerics powers are basically just given to them (I know diferent people play this differently, but some see it that way and I think thats why they decide not to play Clerics.)

I think that a lot of people who want to play spellcasters basically want to play Wizards, because mechanics aside the Wizard is the closest fit to most literary and Movie/TV magic users. When most people think magic they think hurling lightning bolts and wearing robes and turning people into frogs. And I think people like the fact that Wizards and Sorcerers and the like have their own power, either from study or birth...it isnt "loaner power" from another source thats being channelled through them

 

[Kilroy]

Tough melee is best at low levels, casters are better at high levels, and classes that are neither are always third rate. I think Clerics, Druids & Wizards are at the top of the pile at high levels, and Fighters, Pallies and Rangers scale from decent to not too bad (though all three also suffer from the "great 2 level prestige class" effect.)

A level 20 Bard makes an excellent level 10 cohort. Bards would make a great addition to the list of NPC classes. I've never played in a game that's heavily dependant on social skills, to the point where another character with a good Charisma couldn't fake it well enough to get to the other 95% of the module. For flexibility, bards aren't even close to clerics, wizards or druids due to their very few known spells. It's sad that a class whos only out-of-tavern claim to fame is being a jack of all trades isn't even third best at it. Being the best waterboy/barfly isn't something for a PC class to be proud of.

Monks are a great class for the first two levels. Then switch to cleric. If you can't replicate a high level monk's abilities with spells 10 times over and then some, consider reading the second half of the Player's Handbook.

Sorcs are wizards with slower spell progression, a few more spells a day, no feats and no flexibility. They can do specific things very well, but I don't understand why they don't get feats like wizards do and then some. An extra 20% sustainability isn't worth a 500% loss in flexibility, even without the feats. On the other hand, they're great for monster-of-the-week games.

Rogues are a great class for the first two levels. Sneak attack builds still suck compared to casters and have less combat utility than fighters, and rogues don't have the scouting advantage they really should. A level or two at first/second level is great to cherry pick Evasion, Traps and a pile of starting skills, but they quickly fall behind other melee classes at melee things, and once casters have enough spell slots to not have to make so many hard choices, they're relegated to the sidelines more than anyone else. (Other than Bards, a class for people who like the sidelines.)

I think Clerics, Druids & Wizards are at the top of the pile at high levels, and Barbarians, Fighters, Pallies and Rangers scale from decent to not too bad (though all three also suffer from the "great 2 level prestige class" effect.) Even at high levels, melee fighters are fairly required to mop up mooks and keep the casters busy for a couple rounds while they kill all the BBGs.

 

[UmbraLux]

Most of the choices for 'underpowered' (including my own choices of bard and fighter) seem to be classes where strategic choices in progression are limited. The only choices a bard can make are spells, which are outclassed by pure casters. Monks don't get many choices at all. Sorcerers have a very limited list of known spells. And while fighters can choose between a variety of feats to tailor how they are going to beat an opponent down, they can do little outside of combat.

How much do the limitations on progression have to do with the perception of weakness?

 

[Nail]

Option One (fighter "turtles" with Combat Expertise and Power Attacks)........

Ftr does 19.7 hp of damage per round of full attacks to the Mnk......on average. However, given the size of that PA, my numbers really, really, really don't predict how long the combat will last.

Mnk does 3.8 hp damage per round of full attacks on the Ftr, on average. Interestingly enough, the Ftr could lower his AC by seven and the monk would still do the same average damage. But since the Monk's AC is so high, the extra attack score the Ftr could get from that doesn't make a difference on average....but since all the fighter has to do is hit our poor monk once, increasing the chance that the highest attack score connects is worth it.

Option Two (fighter cuts loose and uses full BAB for attacks).

Ftr does 27.4 hp of damage, on average, etc.

The Monk does 13.9 hp of damage per average full round attack.

Option Three (fighter is instead a scythe specialist, with all applicable weapon feats shifted to the scythe, fighter also uses full Combat Expertise and Power Attack)....

Ftr does 21.6 hp damage, (full attack, average, etc)

Mnk does 3.8 hp of damage, etc.

How's that? (Sorry that was so slow....I had to wait until after I gave my lectures to carve out a few minutes of free time.)

 

[Thanee]

The fighter deals 30 damage on average when he hits.

More like 50 with Power Attack.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Merlion]

Ok I think its pretty safe to say the Monk is going to have some issues. Anyone care to comment on how that might be fixed? Same for the Bard or Fighter itself, or the Sorcerer or any other you feel might need it.


I really think the Class Defense Bonus and Armor as DR variants tend to give a nice boost to all the melee classes, and maybe especially to those at the lower end...the Monks and Bards and Rogues.

I think perhaps a core feat or feats for Rogues, with some pretty hefty prerequisites to let them at least have a chance to sneak attack some of the many sneak attack immune foes might be nice