Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 3648109" data-attributes="member: 22882">As a GM or other player, I've seen:Akashic (Arcana Evolved)I want to say 'weak' because the character in question essentially couldn't fight.  But, he was the most effective skill monkey I've ever seen, one of the most fun characters I've ever seen in a game, and hugely influential in the campaign.  GREAT class for players who want to impact the game in ways other than doing damage.Genius (OGL Steampunk)Combat weak, generally a decent skill class.  Broken only because of getting Savant in a 20-level class; it was designed for a 10-level d20 Modern class, and at higher levels, it shows.  Restrict the Savant bonus to +10, or slow it down to +1/2 level, and this would be another fine skill user.Gun Mage (Iron Kingdoms Campaign Setting)Kind of weak, I think.  Most of the class's spells aren't hugely synergistic with its fighting abilities, so even though the spell and combat progressions are both good, the end result isn't.Ninja (both Rokugan and Complete Adventurer varieties)The Rokugan variety seemed more fighty than sneaky - the flip-out-and-kill-people '80s bad movie ninja, basically; it's balanced, albeit very much a glass cannon.  The Complete Adventurer version is just the opposite, being more sneaky than a rogue; it seemed very difficult to play well, and perhaps a bit weak.Psion (Expanded Psionics Handbook)Basically a spell point wizard.  Breaks earlier than the wizard, but never as badly.  Better designed than the core spellcasters, but I'd still prefer not to have them in my game.Psychic Warrior (Expanded Psionics Handbook)Probably the coolest of the XPH classes.  A very, very different fighting class that comes out about as strong as the core warrior types, possibly a bit better.  Well balanced and well designed, with interesting mechanics that seem easy to grasp.Samurai (Oriental Adventures)Better than the fighter because of 4 sp/level and good Will save.  Well designed class.Samurai (Complete Warrior)See Samurai (OA) above.  Remove all the positive commentary.  A *terrible* class.Scout (Complete Adventurer)An extremely popular class, though I can't quite figure out what they bring to the table.  They seemed weaker than rangers or rogues to me, but not a bad class.  In Saga, they would be really cool (because of the removed emphasis on iterative attacks) and perhaps a bit too strong, but in D&D they're on the weak side.  Still, I can't argue with their popularity.Warlock (Complete Arcane)Decent, reliable, played like an archer-fighter more than anything else.  Powerful against armored targets, weak against dexterity-based fighter types.  Surprisingly, did not seem like a glass cannon despite a d6 hit dice.Wilder (Expanded Psionics Handbook)Like the psion, but more random.  I've seen them go off MASSIVELY, arguably to the detriment of the game, but I've also seen them completely suck.  Probably balanced, but I'm not sure in a good way - they remind me of pre-3e druids who were awesome in wilderness but poor to awful indoors, a very up-and-down class.</blockquote>

Verification