Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Darkview 08-08-05, 02:47 PM	The fighter is the AT (archetypal) warrior class. I've seen a lot of critique of him, especially compared to other classes. In my experience, having played many fighters (and other martial classes), occasional arcane casters, a druid, and being a DM of an effective combined campaigning time of 4 years, here's what I've discovered. Barbarians are incredibly solid choices all around, especially when mixed with a drop of multi-classing from another non-caster class to eliminate their innate disadvantages. Their incredibly high HP even before rage more than compensates for their slightly lower AC. Their increased movement lets them take best advantage of terrain, and unless you do dungeon crawls, this advantage is a dominating force. They deal out incredible amounts of damage in short time spans. They are the best of the combat oriented classes in the game for that purpose. Rage acts not only as damage, but also gives extra HP which helps to survive spells which are reflex based (one weakness), and gives a flat bonus to will saves (another weakness), and the CON bonus helps the fortitude. In the wilds, while not an advantage themselves, their skills help to remove a disadvantage they might receive from elusive foes. Bards are incredible social adepts, and as weak in every other way. Because of the way the game is set up, bards tend to have very low AC and damage, and as a result cannot and should not be involved in melee. A high dexterity helps immesurably, allowing them much needed AC and ranged capabilities, but they still tend to be pretty paltry at it. A bard wishing to be a combatant needs very high ability scores. Their spellcasting is awful. Their spells don't rival any class in terms of power or utility beyond their innate abilities with bardic music. The progression is interesting, but the spells themselves are weak, even though they take so long to get. I'd go so far as to say that paladin and ranger spells are better. Their saving grace is their skills and special abilities. Bardic knowledge is way too situational to be useful most of the time. Bardic music only really helps in social situations, outside of those the bonuses are for the most part too little to make an effective difference, and the compulsions are ineffectual. Countersong is weak because the few sonic spells that it would work against often don't offer acceptable saves anyway. The skills are varied, but there is little a rogue can't do and a bard can. Unless the campaign is heavily non-combat oriented, bards are the weakest choice. Clerics, in contrast, tend to be the strongest choice. Despite being less varied than arcane magic, divine magic can heal, and often deals similar damage to or can circumvent the same situations as arcane magic. Additionally, cleric's indirect spells are far superior (these being the 'buffs'). In melee or ranged combat, a cleric is no worse off than a fighter, and maybe only slightly than a barbarian. With divine power, or another buff spell, the cleric can easily match the raw survivability and accuracy of a fighter. Add healing to the mix, most clerics can match that of a barbarian as well. Their weak reflex save means even less than most with their ability to repair injury. They can use the heavy mace, which only averages about 1 less point per blow than the longsword, if that. A cleric, like a wizard, also has spells in their repetoire enough that with careful preparation they can circumvent many otherwise needed skill checks. Clerics are, hands down, the most powerful class. Druids are, sadly, a watered down version of a cleric. Druidic spells are even more limited, though their offense is availible earlier and their defense and healing later. They have some more unique magic and their wildshape is interesting, so they have some very intriguing options availible that keep their abilities on par despite their inability to use metal, heavy armor, or more effeective weaponry. I'd say until the later stages wild shape isn't potent enough to make them a strong combatant, by which point spells dominate anyway. Druids are strong, but much more situational in their power than clerics. Fighters are slightly underpowered, but incredibly versatile. They tend to amass large hit point totals, high AC, and good damage on any given swing of their weapon. Buffed properly, they are nigh unstoppable. They perform rather poorly compared to the cleric and barbarian however, even in their ballwick. The key with feats is not to go for the obvious. Specialization and Focus just don't cut it. Power Attack is a must, this feat alone lets them keep on par with almost any non-spell attack for damage, and with a two handed weapon, is devestating. Moreover, feats like improved sunder, disarm, trip, and the like are very underrated but incredibly valuable. A fighter goes from being the early damage dealer to being the disrupter once spells are the primary damage source. Sadly, there aren't enough of these techy feats out there, but if well picked, the fighter maintains his influence until late. Monks are pathetic, both in concept, design, and execution. Their AC and attack bonus never measure up to the martial classes, even if their damage surpasses it. Their special abilities are very defensive, but also situational. They do not survive well versus warriors or larger creatures in combat, and their special abilities do not fix this. The trick to a monk is that their innate speed, raw damage, and unarmed bonus make them choice mage killers. A monk is useless against foes with ACs so high they never hit, but against the vulnerable mage, armed with stealth, diamond soul, excellent saves, and incredible grappling ability, they shine. Only this and scouting truly suit them. Any slugfests are best left to the other classes, and finesse opperations to the rogue. Paladins are interesting. They do almost as well as the fighter for the most part. I'd say that they're on par, except for one detail. Early on, they fill the same roll. Later on, the fighter must select feats that enable him to disrupt his enemies (once spells over 5th level show up, no weapon swings alone will do enough). The paladin instead maintains a minor roll as a tank, backup healer, and caster. However, in a fight with evil creatures, the paladin can deal damage on the same level with caster. The paladin has a very specific roll which contrasts nicely with the fighter. The paladin becomes the guard of the weaker party members, while the fighter disables foes directly. Rangers are likewise interesting. They do measure up almost in hit points and attack capacity to the fighter. However, their AC tends to be substantially lower. Their spells just don't really measure up to the benefits the feats present, and neither do their abilities. Even the combat styles are outshown. While the ranger's wilderness alertness is good, it's as easily shown by the barbarian, and their stealth and cunning are not paired with a speed advantage, thus they are undermined in this respect. Favored enemy is too situational to count. Rangers are, sadly, a weaker class in the fighting arts, skills, and casting. Rogues are one of few classes that do their job well. They have decent offensive capabilities relying on their skills to get into position for sneak attack, and they have enough skills to do it. Their tree is so versatile there is little beyond them. Even if this is all the rogue has going for them, it's a lot. They can do the ranger's job better than the ranger, and the bard's job, outside casting, better than the bard. They're a top quality class, ground up. Sorcerers are excellent casters in any situations they've selected for, and this is usually combat. A sorcerer with a well picked selection of offensive and general utility magic at his disposal will outshine his wizardly counterpart, and the druid just doesn't measure up in damage. A cleric does, however, and is more survivable to boot. Wizards are weaker than sorcerers in most respects. They cannot know the right ratios of spells and they have less power. Most wizards as a standard routine prepare less spell variety than sorcerer's know, meaning here the sorcerer has the advantage of versatility and capacity. However wizards do have an ultimate versatility advantage, and with some good divinations, foreplanning, and the like they may easily have an answer a sorcerer doesn't. They also make the best item craftsmen easily, with their limitless spells and crafting feats. Rank by Combat Ability 1. Barbarian 2. Cleric 3. Fighter 4. Paladin 5. Ranger 6. Rogue 7. Druid 8. Monk 9. Bard 10. Sorcerer 11. Wizard Rank by Magical Power 1. Cleric 2. Sorcerer 3. Wizard 4. Druid 5. Paladin 6. Bard 7. Ranger Ranked by Party Defenses 1. Fighter 2. Paladin 3. Cleric 4. Monk 5. Druid 6. Barbarian 7. Ranger 8. Rogue 9. Bard 10. Sorcerer 11. Wizard Ranked by Versatility 1. Wizard 2. Cleric 3. Rogue 4. Fighter 5. Ranger 6. Bard 7. Barbarian 8. Monk 9. Druid 10. Sorcerer 11. Paladin Ranked by Multiclass Effectiveness 1. Rogue 2. Fighter 3. Ranger 4. Paladin 5. Bard 6. Monk 7. Cleric 8. Barbarian 9. Druid 10. Wizard 11. Sorcerer Overall Rank 1. Cleric 2. Rogue 3. Fighter 4. Sorcerer 5. Barbarian 6. Wizard 7. Druid 8. Paladin 9. Monk 10. Ranger 11. Bard (1-5 are pretty close, and clearly the most powerful. 6-9 are also comparable, but not as powerful as their upper contemporaries. 10-11 are very interesting conceptually, but the way their design was executed was underpowered. Drastically.) This is just from what I have seen. No flaming please, I'd like to know how everyone else ranks the classes.
Torack 08-08-05, 03:21 PM	Most people will rank either the Druid or Cleric as the most powerfull class across the board. Being able to transform into a T-rex just isn't funny anymore.
Lina_Inverse 08-08-05, 03:28 PM	....how the hell is the rogue fighter sorcerer and barbarian generally better than wizard.much less how is druid not top of the fighting set and not in the top 2 overall. you do not understand the core classes capabilitys it seems. DEAR GOD you even think sorcerers are better casters than wizards?!?!?!!?!!?!?!?
Nephlite 08-08-05, 03:50 PM	I disagree partially: no flaming agreed. 1. Barbarians are good at combast. They even have many abilities useful outside combat like listening or is it spot. THey have ability to survive in wild, etc. There extra hps at least a first few levels (before Fighter can afford full plate) helps them look much stronger than Fighters who have similar Ac (till full plate). I agree, "Their increased movement lets them take best advantage of terrain, and unless you do dungeon crawls, this advantage is a dominating force. They deal out incredible amounts of damage in short time spans. " Never a problem withthem until Barbnarians forget the hps are temporary, but additional. Additional is added lasts. Temporary is added first and lost first. If you lose your hps + 10 not counting rage hps and rage ends, you die. If it was temporary, it would be a lot stronger but I guess it protects them from Power Word spells do to extra health. 2. Bards are great fun. They are great at social skills, have a some moderate fighting ability like Rogues though less damage, and have some spells that greatly increase their skills like Glibness. Personally, a divine bard would be the stronger of the two because it could wear heavier armor and better AC. They can Use Magic Device if they have money and skill points. Their bardic powers like Fascinate before a battle can turn the tide once they can suggest to others. It is almost like dominate though weaker. 3. Clerics aren't walking ban-aids. People try to say they are so they can be balanced, but that talk won't balance them. Clerics don't even have to worship a god so they power is not restricted unless you want it to be. They have great buffs + can heal as well as kill the enemy with spells. Clerics can spontanously cast either cure or inflict spells (if cure than never need to prepare a single cure). THey can turn/destroy the undead and if evil or worshopping Wee Jas can rebuke/control undead. One of the strongest classes. 4. Druids are a mix bag. At first their healing looks subpar to a Cleric, but they can summon Nature's ally. And when they can summon Unicorns they meet/exceed a cleric in healing. Despite their inability to use metal, heavy armor, or more effeective weaponry, they can be incredible combatants. Wild Shape means they never need physical scores higher than 8 (if point buy). Wild Shape is best feature than usually overpowers a Druid. Unlike Clerics, Druid are restricted by most revere nature and can't teach their language to non-druids. 5. Fighters are versatile and are great at multi-classing. Though as a base 20 class, taken to level 20, they are far less powerful. Fighters have little reason similar to Sorcerors to go straight level 20 in their class after a point. They have lower health,but higher AC than a Barb. Most Fighters confuse daamage dealer with tank, but still they make good tanks and average damage dealers (Barbs make great DD's). After level 12, his list of feats is very thin and loses most of his potencial. 6. Monks are a quandry. In Point buy their stats are usually too low. When rolling dice for stats they can be incredible combatants due to MAD. Until around level 4 or 5 (when fighter gets Full plate), a Monk will have similar AC on average. Abilities like Stunning Fist are highly useful as well as deflecting ranged attackjs. Best part about deflect arrow is it only is activated if they would have hit (even can block a critical). They don't survive in one on one fights and need to use their heads and use tactics. Their unarmed strikes are highly strong and hps around same as a Clerics. 6. Paladins are great at roleplay and divine tank. They have AC like a Fighter with same hps. They deal good damage against evil and get a mount to help them fight. They can heal others/ themselves if neccesary. They alsop gain many immunities like Disease, bonus against fear, and more. 7. Rangers are nature warriors. They have hps like Cleric/monk, but Bab of a Fighter. They usually wear lower armor types like light due to combat styles. Favored Enemy bonus can be nigh unstoppable but it depends on what you fight. Great skills and with books like Combat Adventurer they gain better spells. 8. Rogues are good at skills and dealing damage. Really good at staying alive and can get lots of skills. They can hide or move silently better than anyone as well as do other skills. Like Bards can USE Magic Device to mimic spells. 9. Sorcerers are like Fighters water-down and no reason to stay straight 20. They have little class abilities to lose when Prc. Sorc have to be careful with the spells they choose since they have a finite number. Wizards have far more versatility, but Sorc don't need to prepare for a damage if they have the right spell (again make spell choices carefully). 10. Wizards are stronger than sorcerors in many aspects. They have more power, but less impromtu casting. They have to guess each day what they need, but can always leave a few slots open and prepare in 15 minutes for that day at a later time according to PHB. Wizards can be prepared for anything, but don't always know what to prepare for. Wizards get bonus feats which can allow them to be craftsman of magical items or get Spell Mastery and prepare spells wthout a spellbook. Sometimes your spellbook could be in trouble and Limited/Wish can solve that problem if you are willing to use up EXP. Rank by (Melee/Ranged not spells) Combat Ability 1. Druid 2. Barbarian 3. Cleric 4. Fighter 5. Monk 6. Paladin 7. Ranger 8. Rogue 9. Bard 10. Sorcerer 11. Wizard Overall Rank 1. Cleric 2. Druid 3. Wizard 4. Fighter 5. Bard 6. Barbarian 7. Sorcerer/Rogue 8. Ranger 9. Paladin 10. Monk Overall, I find Clerics, Wizards, and Druid as strongest. Fighter, Bard, and Barbarian are strong combatants. Fighter is versatile, Bards good at boosting others and skill/outsuide battle, and Barbs good at damagers. Sorcerors need a boost, but Paladins, Rogues, and Rangers are good in some situations. but limited in others.(favored enemy/Evil/Sneak attack Monks have too much MAD, but are enjoyable otherwise.
Darkview 08-08-05, 03:58 PM	Lina, first off, you're objection could have been stated more calmly and politely. Allow me to explain why I think sorcerers are more powerful than wizards. Sorcerers and wizards have a distinct parity on most levels, in their skills being slightly to the wizard, weapons slightly to the sorcerer, and so forth. The fact is that most campaigns which are heavily combat based will see it come down to who's offensive arsenal is better, and the fact is wizards generally prepare (if they are not expecting something specific), a couple of defensive spells, buffs, and several instances of multiple offensive spells. This usually amounts to at most 3-4 spells that usually comprise the bulk of daily preparation. Since a sorcerer can just pick these spells for their routine, they have a twofold advantage: they can now pick any arrangement of castings for their magic, and they can cast more times overall. Wizard's only real redeemer here is metamagic, and metamagic feats just don't measure up to the base damage and increased save DC of the higher level spell. Wizards however, and I did say this, have distinct advantages. Their wider spell array allows them to, if they're well in formed, pick even better spells than their sorcerous counterparts. They can also scribe scrolls to keep these at a ready. And their numerous bonus feats and spell variety allows them to be greater craftsman than sorcerers by a wide margin. The fact is though, in most campaigns, with combat comprising the bulk, and items available to whoever has the gold, the wizard's versatility just doesn't beat the sorcerer's power. That being said, I prefer wizards myself simply on a role playing and item crafting standpoint. Secondly, there is a reason druids are not ranked up top in my system. Druidic abilities take a long time to manifest completely, and at earlier levels they are outshined largely by other classes in melee. Later on I will not argue, they are incredibly powerful, but nearly all casters are. Overall they may rank above a wizard. Like I said, this is what I've noted. Most of my games don't see lvl17. Finally, the fact is that the reason for the wizard's low rank is because its task is easily fulfilled by other classes in most cases. The ones that made it to the top ranking were best in doing their ATs job, most survivable, and worked best in teams.
Kolo 08-08-05, 04:07 PM	Druid... a watered down version of the cleric? :OMG! :rofl: :rimshot: That's the best one I've heard this week. I'd like you to say that when the wildshaped druid in dire tiger form pounces on you after some minimal buffing, or even without. The druid is a beast if you know you animal forms well enough. Let me compare; -The barbarian is predominantly a melee class whose specialty is to deal damage and lots of it. -The cleric is a healer, blaster or self-buffer depending on your type. sometimes all three at once. -The ranger is a wilderness survival specialist who has an animal companion to help out in scouting and in combat. In contrast; -The druid is a melee monster who can deal massive amounts of damage, who can heal, self-buff, and blast, is a survival specialist and has an animal companion who can help with scouting and in combat while being stronger than the ranger's companion. Hell, he is a monster at range too. Think about that comparison for a second. The only thing these classes have that the druid can't get from wildshaping (assuming he doesn't have it already) is turning undead and favoured enemies! (He can even gain damage reduction, faster speed, the ability to track by scent, and to top that the disguise of being a freakin' animal which to most people aren't exactly a threat. A mouse can go listen in on conversations where others might not easily enough...) Note that I'm not even touching on his elemental forms, which in and of themselves are pretty good for their immunities, nor have I mentioned the (core) feat that allows spellcasting while wildshaped. Let it suffice that your experience with the druid differs wildly from mine. I'm not even gonna tear into your wizard/sorcerer analysis or the monk, though I see plenty of material. If you want me to, I can, but it's all been discussed to death on these boards already. Again, I'll let it suffice to say that I completely and utterly disagree on pretty much every account. (for one thing, you're playing the monk as a toe-to-toe melee fighter, which he most certainly isn't equipped to handle at all.) My ranking of the classes would be; Overall ranking (power, versitality, effectiveness, party contribution) 1.Druid (Even optimizers agree; a druid 20 is the strongest guy you can find) 2.Cleric 3.Wizard 4.Sorcerer (notice a trend here yet? all full spellcasters...) 5.Rogue 6.Bard (Calm down, Calm down, Calm down the raging monster...) 7.Monk (who is a tactical skirmisher, dammit, not a pure meleeist) 8.Barbarian 9.Paladin 10.Ranger (who tries to do his stuff but ends up being a rogue who hates somebody next to the druid) 11.Fighter (who also tries but doesn't compare to the top FOUR)
Darkview 08-08-05, 04:13 PM	I'd like to ask this to stop being based on just lvl20+s. I agree with all of you, casters past lvl15 trump all. But I'm trying to base this on an overall progression through the 20 levels, with the focus on 8-11.
Lina_Inverse 08-08-05, 04:20 PM	Lina, first off, you're objection could have been stated more calmly and politely. Allow me to explain why I think sorcerers are more powerful than wizards. some things just shock people.like saying druids cant maul people in melee.its just ridiculous.onto a more usefull post.im going to copy paste my points on why sorcs are in almost all ways magically inferior to wizards. Sorcerer has more spells per day-only partially true,let me enlighten you. At lvl5 a wizard has 2lvl3,3lvl2 and 4lvl1 plus bonus spells.Sorcerers have have 0lvl3 4lvl2 and 6lvl1 plus bonus lvl1 and 2 spells.Assumeing a 16 cast stat at this point(bare minium)that gives an additional 1 per level.12 vs 12,and personally i want my 3rd level spells. At 6th level both sorcerers and wizards will have 3 3rd level spells,the sorcerer barely has more spells per day now. At 11th level the wizard has 2 6th,35th and 43rd.the sorcerer has 06th 45th and 63rd.Again the same amount but the wizard has a higher max level.What about 2nd and 1st level spells you say?what about them,im pretty sure i can fit all my day long utilitys into 5 of each.and if you do need to dip into those something is wrong,arent you a good enough caster to help your party finish encounters with 3-4 spells? Sorcerer have versitility-Only with the spells he knows,which may i remind you.Sorcerers only know ONE or TWO spells of your highest tier,and when you do learn that second one wizards are tossing around a higher level of spells.A wizard could literally replicate the sorcerers casting of his highest level when he gets it by only preping one spell.Oh joys above you spont cast.Haha what a joke. So why play a sorc?Wizards are almost strictly better.Espilly when your smart and pack a scroll of every spell you know that works well in scrolls.Which its importent to remember a sorc cant MAKE scrolls of something he couldnt cast right then anyways. Secondly, there is a reason druids are not ranked up top in my system. Druidic abilities take a long time to manifest completely, and at earlier levels they are outshined largely by other classes in melee. Later on I will not argue, they are incredibly powerful, but nearly all casters are. Overall they may rank above a wizard. Like I said, this is what I've noted. Most of my games don't see lvl17. animal companion is better than a fighter at low levels.ever notice that?additionally although most of your games dont see 20,the intent of the designers is that games do.look how easy they supposbly made getting to 20(my party finds it harder...but hey we abused the gold for xp and class based exp rules)therefore all comparisons need to be over 20 levels or there not valid. Finally, the fact is that the reason for the wizard's low rank is because its task is easily fulfilled by other classes in most cases. The ones that made it to the top ranking were best in doing their ATs job, most survivable, and worked best in teams. yet it can do all those things,but more and better.additionally wizards are the games only decent crafters which is a ridiculous advantege.
Jell_Moo 08-08-05, 04:27 PM	Dude, seriously... Try actually playing a class before ranking it. Let's take a look, shall we? Barbarian: Theri "incredibly high hit points" amoounts to an average of 21 or so more than the Fighter or Paladin at 20th level. Woo. Don't get me wrong, the Barbarian is a fine class, but list the bad with the good. Rage gives extra hit points, sure, but those hit points vanish at the end of the Rage. At 20th level, that's 80 hit points. What do you think happens when your Rage ends and you have 60 hit points left? Bard: I am firmly convinced that you have never played a Bard. Why does a Bard have a very low AC? Because they wear light armor? A Bard's AC will not be much lower than anyone else's. It will likely be higher than that of someone like the Barbarian and Ranger, and the Bard has spells to make it even better. A Bard wishing to deal damage does not need incredible stats, just the right combo of Music and Spells. Their spellcasting is far from awful bud. It just isn't flashy. If you want Fireballs and Lightning Bolt's, look elsewhere. If you want amazing Buff spells, and great mind effecting spells, look here. If you doubt the strength of Bardic casting, I have one word for you. Glibness. Saying that Bardic Music is weak outside of social situations is ludicrous. A +4 to hit and damage for the whole party is amazing. Try having a bad guy make the save against Fascinate when the DC is in the 50's. Cleric: Making no mention of Domains is just plain wrong. In a Core game, it's the Domains that give the Cleric their amazing ability. Without their Domains, or even with poorly chosen ones, the Cleric is much less versatile. Also note that the best of the Cleric "buff" spells only work on himself, so there is a limiting factor there. With many spells having a duration lasting only rounds, the Cleric cannot spend the first 3-4 rounds of combat buffing himself up as his party gets decimated. And the comparison between the Mace and Longsword is flawed. On an average strike there is a point difference in damage, but you also have to take into account the fact that the Longsword will produce a critical threat twice as often. Druid: In a Core only game, Druids eat Clerics for breakfast unless the Cleric is perfectly min/maxed. Wild Shape is godly. There is no other way to describe it. At 5th level, the Druid is ablack bear. At 8th a Polar Bear. At 12th a Dire BEar. Check out those stats. At early levels, the Druid has his animal companion which is like having another party member with you. At late levels they have a spell called Shapechange, which is so damn good it just isn't funny. Fighter: You mention Power Attack like it's a Fighter feature. It is a feat with no pre reqs. Barbarians use it much better. Heck, even Paladins can make better use of it. You don't make any mention of Ranged feats, which is also important, nor do you mention the fact that the Fighter's biggest advantage is mastering multiple feat lines. Improves Sunder, Disamr, and Trip and are all great feats. At lower level. At higher levels, they are unlikely to be all that useful as your enemies get bigger, stronger, and have at least as high a BAB as you do. Monk: Monks cannot go toe to toe with enemies the way the other melee classes do. What they can do, is own the battlefield through movement, using harrier attacks, jumping in and out of combat. They compliment other classes rather well because of this. They are also hard to kill. Where a Fighter is just waiting for the next Will save spell to take him out, the Monk is much better suited at handling them. Paladin: Against an evil enemy, the Paladin will be top dog when it comes to damage. Against a non evil enemy, he won't be. The Paladin has a number of interesting advantages that you forgot to mention. Because of Divine Grace he has much better saves than the Fighter will, and that makes him suited to target casters. He also has his mount, which allow the Paladin great battlefield mobility as well as increased damage potential. Ranger: Barbarians do not have Spot as a class skill, nor do they have Track as a bonus feat. They do not gain the camouflage or Hide in Plain Sight abilities either. How on earth is the Barbarian even remotely as good a scout of Wilderness Person as the Ranger is? A 10ft difference in speed? There's a spell called Longstrider which removes this difference.A weaker class at fighting, skills and casting? Compared to whom? Rogue: They do the Ranger's job better than the Ranger? How? They do not have Survival as a class skill, Knowledge Nature as a class skill, and they do not have Track as a bonus feat? How are they doing it better? Better than a Bard at it's job? They do not have Bardic Music to make Suggestions, they do not have spells like Glibness or Detect Thoughts, they do not have the knowledge catch all that is Bardic Lore. How are they better? Sorcerer: And if the Sorcerer does not have the appropriate spell known? Ok... Step one. Ignore spells that involve direct damage. They suck. There are much better options than these. The Sorcerer excels in more general situations. Situations that are not incredibly niche, since in a more generic situation they are more likely to have the appropriate spell known. Wizard: Nice situations. They handle situations that Arocerers cannot, because of niche spells that see seldom use, but are vital when needed. All in all, I think you missed the mark on almost every class. Do not judge a class until you've at least tried it out (and for at least a little while). Read the boards a little more. Take a look at the Character Optimization board if you think a class is weak or whatever. You may learn a thing or two.
Darkview 08-08-05, 04:28 PM	Your arguement is valid Lina, I think you undervalue the lower level spells however. I'd like to argue the issue of making lvl20 comparison. The classes are not balanced at any one low level or high level. The only levels where all characters are in their ballwick and able to do as their class abilities dictate are the only levels to bother comparing. Thus casters being pathetic up through 5-6 and warriors over 15 makes those levels invalid. We either have to rate them at all levels and average them, or find a good level to represent all. I think that can be done at lvls 8-11. If you disagree, I respect that. I think you will find though, that if you rate all classes honestly for 20 levels and average it out, you will find your lvl20 based analysis to be pretty off the mark.
Kintara 08-08-05, 04:35 PM	In what environment is this ranking taking place? Core only? Core + Completes? Any, and all? Is this 3.5? If not, then I can see why you might think Bards and Rangers are underpowered. The Bard is a class that needs to be played right to be played well. I think it's interesting that you think Inspire Heroics and Inspire Courage can be ignored so completely as to be not even worth mention. Inspire Greatness gives you temporary hit dice, which can be very useful in a pinch. Also, you underestimate their spellcasting ability, as Bards get access to many spells at a much lower spell level. Complete Adventurer, in particular, has some really neat spells that I think are pretty cool. Even without that, they have a decent selection of spells that they can use in a variety of situations. If you dump everything in one area, like Enchantments, though, then the Bard's spellcasting is going to feel annoyingly stifling. Bards need to have as different a selection of spells as possible, so that he always cast something useful. As for combat, that also needs to be handled with some skill. Bards get proficiency in the whip, and they make good disarmers if you pick up Improved Disarm. A Bard with decent Strength could also make good use of Improved Trip. Archery is another option that gives a Bard something useful to do after he's buffed up. A Bard with Inspire Courage, Haste, and a couple other buffs can make a pretty good archer as a finishing flourish to his contribution to combat. Also, Fascinate can make for a very good way to give a party time to prepare for a battle. The only trick is to catch your potential enemy before they have a chance to become hostile. It's certainly possible. And Suggestion is free, and can end a fight before it begins, after you've Fascinated them. Most people miss or dismiss these abilities too quickly, or fail to utilize them enough when they actually play. And Druids are so not watered down versions of anything. If you think that, someone got an F in min/maxing. (Edit: I'm not saying it's you, but whoever played a Druid in your game wasn't doing it right, if you're doing this on personal experience.)
Lina_Inverse 08-08-05, 04:38 PM	Your arguement is valid Lina, I think you undervalue the lower level spells however. oh i value them.for out of encounter utility(i refuse to say combat anymore because i always get yelled at.therefore i shall say encounter).for an encounter to actully be challengeing enough to warrant exp low level spells just shouldnt be cutting it.if they are the encounter CLEARLY wasnt challengeing enough.and most encounters shouldnt require 3-4 spells,the wizard may not always know the right spell,but he prolly has it on a scroll.a sorcerer however is stuck out of luck if he doesnt have the best spell for the situtation. I'd like to argue the issue of making lvl20 comparison. The classes are not balanced at any one low level or high level. The only levels where all characters are in their ballwick and able to do as their class abilities dictate are the only levels to bother comparing. Thus casters being pathetic up through 5-6 and warriors over 15 makes those levels invalid. We either have to rate them at all levels and average them, or find a good level to represent all. I think that can be done at lvls 8-11. at levels 7-12 druids have all day wildshape makeing them by definition strictly better at physical combat than all other classes.
Kolo 08-08-05, 04:41 PM	I'd like to ask this to stop being based on just lvl20+s. I agree with all of you, casters past lvl15 trump all. But I'm trying to base this on an overall progression through the 20 levels, with the focus on 8-11. Aye, there's the rub. That's what I'm doing too. Druid still kicks large amounts of rear at level one, and a wizard with 25 gp (i.e. starting cash) can go buy a dog that will tear the fighter's throat out until he's level 3, at which point he starts getting some more survivability and can simply charm the fighter into submission. Or he can use the Mount spell, that works too in a pinch. I factor in equipment (which is an inherent part of class balance), reliance on said equipent, what the class contributes to a four-man party (again, a baseline to which D&D is balanced) and what roles the class can cover in case another class is missing from the party or has gone down in combat when I make my comparisons. Druids win on pretty much every count. they don't rely on heavy amounts of equipment, they have skills to survive on their own, they contribute summoned allies and healing to the party as well as survival, and they can cover the positions of tanking meleeist, sideline fighter, forward scout, healer, damage dealing blaster, tracker (which is usually atttributed to the ranger) and battlefield controller and do all of them well and with competence and often many of them at the same time. The missing roles, which he can technically also cover, are the roles of Party Face (bards-but hey, druids get a Charisma boosting spell at lvl 3), know-it-all (wizard-the only role the druid doesn't get to emulate except with divinations) and trap detector (rogue-but whaddya know, the druid can summon things to spring traps for him). This is all at levels 6 onwards, and even earlier for the player who knows what he's doing. The druid also has additional benefits; he doesn't rely on his physical stats at all-indeed, the only stat truly important to him is Wisdom-which frees up his choices a lot, he can help evade encounters with animals by making them his friends, is never hindered by natural terrain and cannot be tracked by enemies (in case scouting goes wrong), can alter self at will at level 13 (way to make the disguise skill useless, WotC) and then gets some other nifty RP benefits like non-aging and a secret language. This is all in addition to the powers mentioned in the last paragraph. Is there any other class that can accomplish all of this without severely limiting other areas? The cleric comes close, but not to this level. So yeah, I've thought this out and reached this conclusion. Sorry, mate, but I still disagree.
Kintara 08-08-05, 04:41 PM	Druids are great at low levels because they have animal buddies. They have a decent animal companion (like a wolf), and they can spontaneously cast more. If you use non-Core material, or just take Augment Summoning, then Druids own the low levels just as much as the mid or high levels.
Ioreck 08-08-05, 05:17 PM	just....wow.... Have you ever thought of playing DnD for RP, and not just metagaming? Who cares if one class is a bit better than the other, just do justice to teh character! btw, i like Dark Paladins. A LE variation. Evil campaigns rock.
Darkview 08-08-05, 05:33 PM	Actually, I play D&D to RP first and foremost. My favorite D&D campaign is an evil one I'm running, which has averaged over its two years maybe 1 fight per session if that. I'm discussing the core classes strictly from a power perspective. I think a lvl7 fighter, properly built, dominates most 7HD forms available to a druid. Keep in mind, most fighters are not properly built. Even at lvl1, a fighter should have a 14+ AC, and 11+ HP, plenty to kill a dog or wolf. If not, you're doing something wrong.
Kolo 08-08-05, 05:35 PM	just....wow.... Have you ever thought of playing DnD for RP, and not just metagaming? Who cares if one class is a bit better than the other, just do justice to teh character! btw, i like Dark Paladins. A LE variation. Evil campaigns rock. Aye. Unfortunately, ever since I looked at the mechanics, I've played several melee fighters who combined had fever levels in fighter than I have fingers on my hands, and I'm neither an amputee or an aberrant but medically interesting specimen. And yet, they were all "fighters". Am I metagaming when I do this, or am I making sure the mechanics stand up to my RP expectations? I think a lvl7 fighter, properly built, dominates most 7HD forms available to a druid. Keep in mind, most fighters are not properly built. Even at lvl1, a fighter should have a 14+ AC, and 11+ HP, plenty to kill a dog or wolf. If not, you're doing something wrong. Ooh, so now we're generalizing. How exaclty do you know (or can prove) that most fighters are "not properly built"? Indeed, how do you define "proper"? Would you consider a fighter who didn't take archery feats "improper", to name a random example? I call Elitist Crap on this. There simply is no way you can claim that it's "better" or more "proper" to build a fighter the way you think he should be built over how, say, Lina Inverse would do it. And what the heck makes you think AC and HP are the only deciding factors on wether a wolf or dog dies quickly or not? Let's not forget that a fighting dog has AC 16, 13 HP, equal base attack and the equivalent of the Improved trip feat, except they (and wolves) get it as a free action. Not so cocky now, fighter boy... fight the wolf animal companion and end up with a summoned critter by a spell to do battle with as well and another wolf, who is the druid in wildshape form. Let's see you survive that barrage at level 1.
Kintara 08-08-05, 07:13 PM	I think a lvl7 fighter, properly built, dominates most 7HD forms available to a druid. Keep in mind, most fighters are not properly built. Even at lvl1, a fighter should have a 14+ AC, and 11+ HP, plenty to kill a dog or wolf. If not, you're doing something wrong.Well, except that a Druid would still be standing there, afterwords. Heck, he might even join in and flank you, or summon another wolf to do it. If the wolf hits, you stand a good chance of being tripped, and the Druid can smack you down with his melee weapon. As for a Druid in animal form, keep in mind that all he needs to do is take Natural Spell to cast spells while Wildshaped, and he gets some nice buffs, and even attack spells. Oh, and he can heal, too. And he still has his animal companion buddy with him, and possibly a summoned buddy. I'm not saying well-made Fighter doesn't have a chance, but a Druid is hardly a watered down Cleric. Not by a long shot. I'm just arguing placement. Also, again, what's the environment? Many people tend to argue either from non-setting specific 3.5 material as the basis for comparison, or Core only. If you use 3.0, and, say, two random supplements, or a campaign book, then we're not arguing about the same thing.
Harkanshar 08-08-05, 07:15 PM	As someone who played a lot of low level stories/ campaigns with role-playing instead of roleplaying I think I can say the next. (note this is mostly based on low-level and not much of extra non-core stuff) - Barbarian: archetypical- bloody strong meleeist with his high damage output and decent saves in rage. Drawback is that he can't rage often and is bad in social environments. - Bard: a decent ranged role (bardic music) and his bardic knowledge rocks through the roof. His low level spells are decent (charm person, cure light wounds and Tasha's hideous laughter) and as social person he gets many advantages in a campaign which supports roleplaying (free stays and meals at inns, getting contact with nobles easily, discount at shops (diplomacy for negotiations)) - Cleric: Yes they are strong, very strong. Even at low level. They get too much good stuff. - Druid: At low level the physical ability scores do matter. They excell in nature (DUH!!!) with good skills, abilities and spells (calm animal, charm animal, speak with animal). At low level though they are pretty weak when the creatures can't be summoned anymore and he also has too fullfill a healing role in the party. His greatest strenght (summoning) costs 2 feats too bump and take long (1 round) to cast. Whith a cleric in the party he can focus more on his strong spells. At lvl3 he gets a big bump with decent spells. All in all I have mixed feeling with this guy (not counting wild shape at lvl 5 and his great offensive spells at higher lvl). - Fighter: Wow, I love the feats! In combat he's a king next to the barbarian. It's all in the choice of the player. Unfortunatly he's not good in social or natural environments. With a poor will save he sleeps or becomes charmed often, not too mention what grease does to him. His skill-list is sucky making it difficult in the social settings, certainly in line with cha being chosen as dumpstat very often. - Monk: I haven't seen them often, but when I saw them they varied. In the hands of a good player it's a decent class with nice combat tricks (trip, grapple, stunning fist, spokesperson due to diplomacy, listen and spot as class-skills), in the hands of bad player it sucks enormously (front line fighter). The amount of point-buy is too important for this guy. Monks are difficult to hit with both spells and punches, wich make them nice as extra-fighters. With a nice amount of skills they are versatile and can be communicative char's, next to that they have nice combat tricks. - Paladin: They have a lot of nice bonusses and add a lot of flavor to the game. With a decent cha and both diplomacy and know: nob&roy in their class skill, they are very good spokepersons for the party. Besides that they are decent combat characters. Against evil adversaries they get bumps, but only a little (2x smite evil). Overall, I believe a fighter is better as meleeist, but a paladin has better saves which makes them better in arcane-heavy campaigns. - Ranger: They are not undressed rogues at all! The archery-tree is best of course, but in the dense forests I prefer 2 weapon fighting, because cover and shooting in melee can be a pain. They are decent in melee, but when they face they're favourite enemies they rock in melee, with extra attacks which all get bonuses on damage. I've seen them rule in combat, but that's also the problem of the ranger. When not fighting a favoured enemy in melee he experiences a lot of difficulties with his lower damage output, AC and hp's than the other most important meleeists. His skills make him perfect for everything in the wilds, but when geting into town his skills fade a lot, because he's not strong in the social settings. - Rogue: Extremely good as dungeoncrawlers and social geniuses. In the hands of a good player they flank a lot, giving them bonuses on attack and most important extra sneak attack damage. In social settings I find rogues the most important class besides bards who have high cha and thus are a bit better. Ohw, and that with the fireballs........Should I mention it? - Sorcerer: I'm not going too mingle with the wizard/ sorcerer discussion. These are just my own conclusions. The flexibility with the spells rock. His weapon prof are decent and I use them often, since spells are scarce in the low levels. Cha as casting stat make them more than decent in social settings. Unfortunatly the skill-list doesn't complemend this. - Wizard: At low level they are monetary disasters. Scrolls and maintaining a spellbook for 100gp per page don't make them as flexible as everybody always says. They can however earn some of they're own money with scribe scroll, brew potion and craft wandrous item. I do have troubles with the XP-cost though, which grow pretty when advancing the game, thus costing a level. When not making items they are just expensive but can be more flexible than the sorcerer if needed outside combat. Almost all wizards I have seen are walking dictionaries adding nice knowledges, which is in my eyes one of the biggest strength of the wizard. My ranking at low level (till lvl4, maybe 5): - sorcerer - fighter - cleric - barbarian - bard - wizard - paladin - ranger - druid - rogue - monk I must add that I don't play a lot of dungeoncrawling, explaining the low place of the rogue. Furthermore, it is too difficult too just say this and that, because some strenght and weaknesess are situational. When putting lvl 5 in with this I guess the druid will go up some lvl's. Sorcerer, fighter, cleric and barbarian are very close to one another.
Lina_Inverse 08-08-05, 07:33 PM	I think a lvl7 fighter, properly built, dominates most 7HD forms available to a druid. Keep in mind, most fighters are not properly built. Even at lvl1, a fighter should have a 14+ AC, and 11+ HP, plenty to kill a dog or wolf. If not, you're doing something wrong. not really,infact im gonna do a comparison right now.*opens SRD*im gonna be useing 28 pointbuy as it seems generally more common,just remember that druids are even better if we go to 25PB.additionally im going to ignore magic items and the druids spells,because magic items will benefit both techniqlly equally if the druid only boosts his combat prowess with them that and id have to find my dmg to get lvl7 gp values instead of useing the SRD,and as for spells im only compareing there physical prowess we know druids dominate fighters magically. Druid(brown bear form) Str:27 Dex:13 Con:19 Int:14 Wis:19 Cha:14 Attacks Claw +13/+13 1d8+8 Bite +8 2d6+4 Armor Class:15 Hitpoints:78 Feats-Wild spell,Power Attack,Craft Wonderus Item Fighter Str:16 Dex:13 Con:16 Int:13 Wis:8 Cha:8 Attacks MW GreatSword +12/+7 2d6+6damage Armor Class:19(20 to dodge target) Hitpoints:55hp Feats:Power Attack,Combat Expertise,Improved Trip,Weapon focus,Weapon Specilization,dodge,Cleave,Iron will well lets take a look.the druid is more accurate and gets more attacks,and generally is going to do more damage.his hitpoints are MUCH higher,the fighters one advantege is that he has higher AC because of heavy armor.however the druid DOES have medium armor profiency,and could easily get himself some nice armor for his bear form which will net him +3AC(studded leather) bringing him upto 18,only 1 point lower.the fighter does have improved trip,however the druid has a higher bonus to the trip roll.
Jell_Moo 08-08-05, 07:44 PM	I think a lvl7 fighter, properly built, dominates most 7HD forms available to a druid. Keep in mind, most fighters are not properly built. Even at lvl1, a fighter should have a 14+ AC, and 11+ HP, plenty to kill a dog or wolf. If not, you're doing something wrong. 7th level Fighter had over a Druid: +2 BAB avg of 8 more hitpoints 4 more feats Weapons and Armor 7th level Druid has: Giant Crocodile Animal Companion (carefully note that itgets a free grapple attempt on a hit, and has a grapple mod of +21 not to mention 15ft reach) Wild Shape into a Black Bear or a Leopard for toe to toe combat. Wild Shape into an Eagle to stay far away from the Fighter. 4th level spells such as Flamestrike for damage, or Summon Nature's Ally IV to bring another Giant Crocodile into the fight... or a Dire Ape... or a Deinonychus... So a Druid Wild Shaped as an Eagle has his Giant Croc attack, hides behind a Wind Wall, and then starts summoning more animals. A 1st level Human Fighter built with the Elite Array Str 15 Con 14 Dex 12 Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 8 Feats: Power Attack, Weapon Focus Greatsword and Blind Fight (take from the Human Fighter starting package on page 39 of the PHB) Armor: Scale Mail Weapons: Greatsword, Short bow AC: 15 Hit Points: 12 Attack: +4 Greatsword (2d6 +3) or +2 Shortbow (1d6) Does this strike you as a fairly built Fighter? He is taken directly from the PHB. Modify him as you wish though. Riding Dog Animal Companion Str 15 Dex 15 Con 15 Int 2 Wis 12 Cha 6 Feats: Alertness, Track and *Trip* Hit Points: 13 AC: 16 (if the Druid spends 20gp for Leather Barding, it's 18) Attack: +3 Bite (1d6 +3) plus free trip attempt, and free attack on successful trip. This is actually a very close fight. Almost even. However, we still haven't taken the actual Druid into accont as of yet so....
Ioreck 08-08-05, 07:49 PM	Aye. Unfortunately, ever since I looked at the mechanics, I've played several melee fighters who combined had fever levels in fighter than I have fingers on my hands, and I'm neither an amputee or an aberrant but medically interesting specimen. And yet, they were all "fighters". Am I metagaming when I do this, or am I making sure the mechanics stand up to my RP expectations? You could certainly make an interesting character by being "medically interesting"... what I meant was do you rp YOURSELF as that character? Or does that character have his own past and history? That's the trick to rping, create a character who isn't like you at all and try to do it right. For example, you play a genius elf who has aspired his whole life to be a mighty sage, and studies hard to know as much of teh arcane as he can. The ultimate goal of this class might be a wizard/archmage/loremaster. Sure, you get the wizard and archmage levels down, but then you start to tack on stuff like duelist to give him a bit of an AC boost. At that point, it becomes metagaming. Your own personal qualities usually don't have much in common with your character (unless you want that), but its certainly doable. Assuming your character has all his fingers, playing a fighter would be easy. A wizard might be tougher for him though. Anyways, I may have misunderstood what you meant.
Kolo 08-08-05, 08:12 PM	You could certainly make an interesting character by being "medically interesting"... Oh, that's easy. Play a beholder. Between free-floating organs, a womb that spawns other beholders once in your lifetime, nine eyes with magic abilities, having no sense of taste but liking food and having two conflicting brains that are continually at odds with one another, I'd say you'd be a handful. :P what I meant was do you rp YOURSELF as that character? Or does that character have his own past and history? That's the trick to rping, create a character who isn't like you at all and try to do it right. ...I wasn't aware there was any other way. I don't classify "RPing" yourself as RPing at all, to be honest. I mean, let's face it; these people who live with magic, monsters, other sentient life, resurrection, and who can in their lifetimes settle down in their own eventual afterlives are going to be radically different from oneself, so why pretend otherwise? For example, you play a genius elf who has aspired his whole life to be a mighty sage, and studies hard to know as much of teh arcane as he can. The ultimate goal of this class might be a wizard/archmage/loremaster. Sure, you get the wizard and archmage levels down, but then you start to tack on stuff like duelist to give him a bit of an AC boost. At that point, it becomes metagaming. No, at that point it becomes POWERgaming. Metagaming is looking at your sage's character sheet and stating yourself to be a wizard/archmage/loremaster, rather than simply saying "I'm a sage". Metagaming is when you talk about the DC's of a trap you're disarming, or when you state that your total attack bonus is +27, or when you automatically use fire to kill a troll even though your character has no reason to know such a thing. We all do it at some point. You just did it yourself, stating a wizardly sage ot be a wizard/archmage/loremaster. Metagaming is not a bad thing. " (neither is powergaming, within reasonable limits, but let's not get into that :P) So when my characters state themselves to be "fighters" (as I already pointed out they do), is it wrong that they have few actual levels in the fighter class (or none at all)? Hardly. But I am using the mechanics to make sure my Monk2/Rogue7 is capable at his style of fighting, whatever he decides to call himself. Your own personal qualities usually don't have much in common with your character (unless you want that), but its certainly doable. Assuming your character has all his fingers, playing a fighter would be easy. A wizard might be tougher for him though. Our personality always leaks through when acting. Just look at Morgan Freeman. When Morgan Freeman is in a movie, I don't care what his character is called because he always basically is the same personality whatever he does, give or take some minor profanities. Heck, I don't know why they bothered renaming him in Batman Begins. Morgan Freeman is batman's friend. Woot. :D But there are more differences than similarities. Anyways, I may have misunderstood what you meant. Yep. The concept of Metagaming Vs. the concept of Powergaming. Not the same thing, nor is the "metagaming line" all too clear cut as some would think. it's easy to step over it by accident.
Ioreck 08-08-05, 08:27 PM	dammit. I meant powergaming. too much talk about metagaming in my group has gotten to my head... but yes, I misunderstood what you had written before. I thought you hadn't known what I meant, and was talking about RPing yourself as a fighter etc etc
Ribking 08-08-05, 08:47 PM	To those who mention "helpers" that can be bought or summoned at first level to protect against a level one Fighter..... The level one Fighter also has money too.....and likely more than the opposing class. Who's to say that a level one Fighter won't have just as many (or more, even) purchased "help"? A Fighter can buy dogs too. If you add this to the equation, is there any class that can win vs. the Fighter at level one? Can any class take a level one Fighter and his 4 dogs? I think few, if any.
Jell_Moo 08-08-05, 09:26 PM	The difference between what an animal bought by a Fighter, or the Druid's Animal Companion is pretty big though. The Animal Companion at 1st level will have abonus trick, be able to share the benefit of the Druid's spells, and the Druid gets a +4 to all checks made with Handle Animal. The last one is a big one. The DC to train an animal is fairly high for a 1st level character, and even the DC to get the Animal to perform a task is pretty iffy for a 1st level character. DC of 10, and the likelihood is that the Fighter will have Cha as a dump stat. Also note that a Druid can have his Animal Companion attack as a free action. The Fighter must spend a move action doing it. They really aren't the same.
Kolo 08-08-05, 09:28 PM	To those who mention "helpers" that can be bought or summoned at first level to protect against a level one Fighter..... The level one Fighter also has money too.....and likely more than the opposing class. Who's to say that a level one Fighter won't have just as many (or more, even) purchased "help"? A Fighter can buy dogs too. If you add this to the equation, is there any class that can win vs. the Fighter at level one? Can any class take a level one Fighter and his 4 dogs? I think few, if any. After buying his armor and weapon and possibly a mount and a shield, I hardly think the fighter is going to have enough for more than one dog at level 1. Let's not forget that the fighter, of all the classes, is the absolutely most dependant on his equipment to function, with the wizard a possible close second-and he gets most of his absolutely necessary stuff free anyways. And even if he had them all, he's at a disadvantage due to the fact that he doesn't have the class skills to handle large amounts of animals nor can he summon them into combat nor can he communicate with them... the list goes on.
Ziatyn Phoenixwolf 08-08-05, 09:35 PM	I have seen all of the clases shine in ways that the others can't, and through it I have never seen the effects of one class far out striping the others. This is just in my experience playing the game.
somogyi 08-08-05, 09:36 PM	i cant believe u guys are down playng the monk so much. my char was a monk, chosen merly on an rp perspective. but he ended up being the best tank in the party. i have made 2 monks since then and played on to 13th lvl. i have to say having more atks that anyone else starting at 1 st lvl is great... not taking negs to do so at 9th lvl. not to mention they have the best saves reguadless. ability to heal its self at 7th lvl and dont forget spell resistance at 13th lvl. not to mention stunning fist combined with knock down equals coup de grace by a party member. and deflect arrow sux in 3.5. and in mass combat a monk with combat reflexs far surpasses a barb or a fighter with great cleave. imo monks are the best tanks, they deal out steady dmg and are hard to hit. granted playing a monk past 13 isnt much good. and multiclassing minks is hard to do unless u take the astetitic(sp) feat for the class u want. and if u gestalt monk goes well with most classes. in case anyone was wondering the other chars i have been playing has primarily been ranged fighters, and i have a gnome wizard now that is kinda fun but only in rp( i dislike wizards but my dm said we all had to play the opposite of the norm).
Jell_Moo 08-08-05, 09:44 PM	somogyi Two things: 1) I'm not what you call a grammar nazi by any stretch of the idea, but please use punctuation. Also, less shorthand would be nice. I'm not being mean, really I'm not, but it's really hard to read through your post. 2) Being stunned (like a Stunning Fist) does not make a character helpless, and therefore a stunned opponent is not subject to a Coup de Grace.
Nephlite 08-08-05, 09:50 PM	The difference between what an animal bought by a Fighter, or the Druid's Animal Companion is pretty big though. The Animal Companion at 1st level will have abonus trick, be able to share the benefit of the Druid's spells, and the Druid gets a +4 to all checks made with Handle Animal. The last one is a big one. The DC to train an animal is fairly high for a 1st level character, and even the DC to get the Animal to perform a task is pretty iffy for a 1st level character. DC of 10, and the likelihood is that the Fighter will have Cha as a dump stat. Also note that a Druid can have his Animal Companion attack as a free action. The Fighter must spend a move action doing it. They really aren't the same. If you trained the dogs to defend you; you won't have to command him in battle he will just know to defend you. I know tricks. I like to train my own dogs but than again I like Int at least 13 or 14 fighters.
Jell_Moo 08-08-05, 10:03 PM	If you trained the dogs to defend you; you won't have to command him in battle he will just know to defend you. I know tricks. I like to train my own dogs but than again I like Int at least 13 or 14 fighters. DC 20 to train for the "Guarding" general purpose, which is really high for a 1st level Fighter. Just teaching "Defend" is also a DC 20 check. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad thing for a 1st level Fighter to do (I actually think it's a good strategy if you have the skill points) but I am just mentioning that the Druid does do it better.
somogyi 08-08-05, 10:23 PM	jell moo yes stunning some one does not make them helpless but everyone i play with agrees that being prone and stunned makes u so. and as far as my grammar goes, did u get the jist of wht i said. if u did it couldnt have been that bad. and in any case as long and people get the jist of wht i mean, i dont care about my grammar.
Fiddlypoppin 08-08-05, 10:33 PM	and in any case as long and people get the jist of wht i mean, i dont care about my grammar. Today 08:03 PM I'm going to side with Jell Moo on this one most emphatically. Seriously, there are reasons for rules of punctuation and grammar in a written language. By writing you posts in such a style, you are clearly stating that you are doing it for your own benefit only, and not for anyone else. However, if you want to write for the benefit of others--so they can be understood, appreciated, and even responded to--you would please be so kind as to properly punctuate, capitalize, and even run a spell check on your post. It doesn't require too much effort, and I think you'll find that you get fewer people asking you nicely to write more clearly, let alone jumping down your throat about how ignorant/stupid/whatever you come across. It'd make things easier for everyone involved, and would save you a lot of irritation, I'm sure.
Jell_Moo 08-08-05, 10:53 PM	jell moo yes stunning some one does not make them helpless but everyone i play with agrees that being prone and stunned makes u so. and as far as my grammar goes, did u get the jist of wht i said. if u did it couldnt have been that bad. and in any case as long and people get the jist of wht i mean, i dont care about my grammar. When talking about how good you think the Monk is, it would be best if you didn't use House Rules to prove your point. It makes things much easier when everyone is discussing the same rules set. As for your grammar and such, the big difference is the amount of time readers need to decipher your posts. If the average post takes me 10 seconds to read, a poorly written filled with shorthand and a lack of punctuation and/or correct grammar could take me a few minutes to decipher. There are many posters here whose first language is not English, and their posts are easier to read than yours. I'm honestly not trying to bad mouth you or anything, I'm trying to help. To start off, try capitalizing the first letter of a sentence, and writing out the word "you" instead of "u". It would make reading your posts so much easier.
Ribking 08-09-05, 12:48 AM	After buying his armor and weapon and possibly a mount and a shield, I hardly think the fighter is going to have enough for more than one dog at level 1. Let's not forget that the fighter, of all the classes, is the absolutely most dependant on his equipment to function, with the wizard a possible close second-and he gets most of his absolutely necessary stuff free anyways. And even if he had them all, he's at a disadvantage due to the fact that he doesn't have the class skills to handle large amounts of animals nor can he summon them into combat nor can he communicate with them... the list goes on.So does that mean that your Wizard can no longer "buy a dog that will tear the fighter's throat out until he's level 3"? Funny how you chose to suddenly add all of these "rules" to the fighter's dog after previously posting this.....Aye, there's the rub. That's what I'm doing too. Druid still kicks large amounts of rear at level one, and a wizard with 25 gp (i.e. starting cash) can go buy a dog that will tear the fighter's throat out until he's level 3, at which point he starts getting some more survivability and can simply charm the fighter into submission. Or he can use the Mount spell, that works too in a pinch. I factor in equipment (which is an inherent part of class balance), reliance on said equipent, what the class contributes to a four-man party (again, a baseline to which D&D is balanced) and what roles the class can cover in case another class is missing from the party or has gone down in combat when I make my comparisons.Also, I do understand that the Druid animal companion is superior to what can be purchased....but if we take a look at another of your posts - the one where you presume that a level one Druid's animal companion will take care of a level one Fighter while leaving the level one Druid with so many options, and we factor in the level one Fighter's dog(s) and/or the mount that you previously mentioned, I think you'll see a different outcome...no? I think too many people like to discredit the effectiveness of the Fighter. I'm not saying the Fighter class is the best, far from it. I was simply trying to help Darkview argue this point....Thus casters being pathetic up through 5-6 and warriors over 15 makes those levels invalid. We either have to rate them at all levels and average them, or find a good level to represent all. I think that can be done at lvls 8-11.
Jell_Moo 08-09-05, 01:25 AM	Just want to point out that even if people are trying to discredit the effectiveness of Fighters (which I don't think is actually being done in this case) mentioning that the Fighter can excel because of a bought dog rather than his actual class features doesn't really help your case. Both the Ranger and the Paladin have the same starting gold as the Fighter. So they can both buy as many Dogs as the Fighter could. However, the Ranger has far more skill points than the Fighter so he can better afford the Handle Animal ranks. The Paladin is much more likely to have a higher Cha score so he can make the required skill checks much easier than a Fighter could. Does this make the Paladin or Ranger better? Not at all. The discussion at hand centers around actual class features, not what doggies a first level character can buy. It just so happens to be that the Animal Companion is a class feature of the Druid, which is why it was brought up.
Ribking 08-09-05, 01:52 AM	Just want to point out that even if people are trying to discredit the effectiveness of Fighters (which I don't think is actually being done in this case) mentioning that the Fighter can excel because of a bought dog rather than his actual class features doesn't really help your case.No doubt. But the only reason I brought up "Fighter's Doggie" was to invalidate a previous poster's "Wizard's Doggie". And for the exact same reason. Personally, I think that equipment should have little to do with character balancing. And I feel the need to respond when someone uses general tactics instead of class based tactics. If you are going to use general tactics, give the same consideration for the voice of opposition. It's also hard for me to accept that there isn't a little un-favoratism towards the fighter in this thread...especially since the flaws in my post were so readily debated...especially since those same flaws were ignored in other posts that centered around other character classes (even the original poster)...especially since it seems to go unnoticed that I am not even debating the superiority/inferiority of the Fighter class.
Kolo 08-09-05, 04:50 AM	No doubt. But the only reason I brought up "Fighter's Doggie" was to invalidate a previous poster's "Wizard's Doggie". And for the exact same reason. Personally, I think that equipment should have little to do with character balancing. And I feel the need to respond when someone uses general tactics instead of class based tactics. If you are going to use general tactics, give the same consideration for the voice of opposition.. Of course, you handily ignored that a wizard has more gold to spread around because his most necessary equipment, i.e. his spellbook, is free for him at level 1. Wizard wins out there by way of simply being better funded (I already said this), and they have move actions to spare on directing their dogs after casting their spells. plus, I'm amazed you haven't yet figured out what it was I was stating by saying that. Anyone with a little gp can duplicate the average fighter for practically free (fighter included), and one class gains that as a freakin' class ability. How's that for balancing? Also, if you think equipment should have little to do with class balancing... too bad, but D&D is balanced around equipment, and the fighter is the most dependant class in that area. He needs equipment more than anyone. It's also hard for me to accept that there isn't a little un-favoratism towards the fighter in this thread...especially since the flaws in my post were so readily debated...especially since those same flaws were ignored in other posts that centered around other character classes (even the original poster)...especially since it seems to go unnoticed that I am not even debating the superiority/inferiority of the Fighter class. I ingored nothing. You, on the other hand, ignored a great deal, misinterpreted and immediately flew off your handle when someone dared criticize the fighter. I am, and have always been, focusing on the druid first and foremost. You're the one who started on the fighter. And you say you're not debating? sorry, but you are.
Brujeria 08-09-05, 04:53 AM	I have to say that most of the posts here have some thing to take from them. I have been playing DnD a very short time compared to most of you, I am sure of that. However in my short gaming time I have learned one thing. It matters very little what class is being played, the character is made what it is by the person playing the character. I have seen it in almost every campaign I have played in, someone always brings a new class into perspective to me and I cannot help but be in aw. Knowledge of the game and the ability to "think outside the box" can help bring a class that you thought nothing of into new light. Now I am not saying you can take a monk--I chose monk because it seems to be at the lower half of most the rankings I have seen--and make him look overpowering compared to the rest of the classes, but the monk can look better then it did previously. If people are thinking about there options and do not limit there character to "the box" then any class can make a good run at another.
Venom of the Yuan Ti 08-09-05, 05:28 AM	Here are my thought on your thoghts Barbarians are incredibly solid choices all around, especially when mixed with a drop of multi-classing from another non-caster class to eliminate their innate disadvantages. Their incredibly high HP even before rage more than compensates for their slightly lower AC. Their increased movement lets them take best advantage of terrain, and unless you do dungeon crawls, this advantage is a dominating force. They deal out incredible amounts of damage in short time spans. They are the best of the combat oriented classes in the game for that purpose. Rage acts not only as damage, but also gives extra HP which helps to survive spells which are reflex based (one weakness), and gives a flat bonus to will saves (another weakness), and the CON bonus helps the fortitude. In the wilds, while not an advantage themselves, their skills help to remove a disadvantage they might receive from elusive foes. However a Barbarian has prehaps the shortest "burn time" of any class, in less than a minute they are done and dusted, and if there is still an oponent out there they are in SERIOUS trouble. Also the number of times a barbarian has droped to dangerously low hp after they stop raging is not funny. You are right to say they have the best damadge over a short time, but miss that they have the worst over a long time. Bards are incredible social adepts, and as weak in every other way. Because of the way the game is set up, bards tend to have very low AC and damage, and as a result cannot and should not be involved in melee. A high dexterity helps immesurably, allowing them much needed AC and ranged capabilities, but they still tend to be pretty paltry at it. A bard wishing to be a combatant needs very high ability scores. Their spellcasting is awful. Their spells don't rival any class in terms of power or utility beyond their innate abilities with bardic music. The progression is interesting, but the spells themselves are weak, even though they take so long to get. I'd go so far as to say that paladin and ranger spells are better. Their saving grace is their skills and special abilities. Bardic knowledge is way too situational to be useful most of the time. Bardic music only really helps in social situations, outside of those the bonuses are for the most part too little to make an effective difference, and the compulsions are ineffectual. Countersong is weak because the few sonic spells that it would work against often don't offer acceptable saves anyway. The skills are varied, but there is little a rogue can't do and a bard can. Unless the campaign is heavily non-combat oriented, bards are the weakest choice. Jack of all trades, master of none, sure their skills are sub rouge, their spells sub wizard, their combat sub fighter and their abilites sub paladin, but their skills are better than Paladins, their combat better than wizards, their abilites better than fighters and spells infinatley better than rouges. The best class at all round goodness. Also Bardic knowladge is nice as it is basicly a catch al knowlage cheack, monsters, information about palces, magic items, all this locically falls in bardic knowladge. Clerics, in contrast, tend to be the strongest choice. Despite being less varied than arcane magic, divine magic can heal, and often deals similar damage to or can circumvent the same situations as arcane magic. Additionally, cleric's indirect spells are far superior (these being the 'buffs'). In melee or ranged combat, a cleric is no worse off than a fighter, and maybe only slightly than a barbarian. With divine power, or another buff spell, the cleric can easily match the raw survivability and accuracy of a fighter. Add healing to the mix, most clerics can match that of a barbarian as well. Their weak reflex save means even less than most with their ability to repair injury. They can use the heavy mace, which only averages about 1 less point per blow than the longsword, if that. A cleric, like a wizard, also has spells in their repetoire enough that with careful preparation they can circumvent many otherwise needed skill checks. Clerics are, hands down, the most powerful class.BUT they have to burn about 25% (on adverige) of their spllcasting power to heal the party. That is what chafes me about the "clerics are ulber overpowered" bregade, PCs are in a party of allies, this is great for most but it weakens the cleric as so much of their power is taken from them. Druids are, sadly, a watered down version of a cleric. Druidic spells are even more limited, though their offense is availible earlier and their defense and healing later. They have some more unique magic and their wildshape is interesting, so they have some very intriguing options availible that keep their abilities on par despite their inability to use metal, heavy armor, or more effeective weaponry. I'd say until the later stages wild shape isn't potent enough to make them a strong combatant, by which point spells dominate anyway. Druids are strong, but much more situational in their power than clerics.Then you cant use wildshape right. Simple. The massive boosts to AC and Con (especially if you have wild armour) can get you through most spell duels, plus being able to shrink to tiny can put your touch AC in the statophere. Elemental wildshpe hurts like the bejeases, and yes their spells are weaker, but their class abilites are terrifing man! Fighters are slightly underpowered, but incredibly versatile. They tend to amass large hit point totals, high AC, and good damage on any given swing of their weapon. Buffed properly, they are nigh unstoppable. They perform rather poorly compared to the cleric and barbarian however, even in their ballwick. The key with feats is not to go for the obvious. Specialization and Focus just don't cut it. Power Attack is a must, this feat alone lets them keep on par with almost any non-spell attack for damage, and with a two handed weapon, is devestating. Moreover, feats like improved sunder, disarm, trip, and the like are very underrated but incredibly valuable. A fighter goes from being the early damage dealer to being the disrupter once spells are the primary damage source. Sadly, there aren't enough of these techy feats out there, but if well picked, the fighter maintains his influence until late.Whenever this comes up I like to point out that a fighter is the only reason why BAB 4+ is a pre requasit for whirlwind attack, becasue a human fighter can get the feats by level 3. Fighters who are played as tanks and or meat shields die. Fighters who are played as cunning, whily oponents live and become the favourate PC of the party. Monks are pathetic, both in concept, design, and execution. Their AC and attack bonus never measure up to the martial classes, even if their damage surpasses it. Their special abilities are very defensive, but also situational. They do not survive well versus warriors or larger creatures in combat, and their special abilities do not fix this. The trick to a monk is that their innate speed, raw damage, and unarmed bonus make them choice mage killers. A monk is useless against foes with ACs so high they never hit, but against the vulnerable mage, armed with stealth, diamond soul, excellent saves, and incredible grappling ability, they shine. Only this and scouting truly suit them. Any slugfests are best left to the other classes, and finesse opperations to the rogue.Hit and run my freind, hit and run. Monks are the only class who can truly be where they want to be, use the high move to rule the battlefield. MONKS ROCK. Shure they are weak against high ACs, so flank, hide, or simply run rings around your oponets to get at the weak wizard at the back. BTW, Stunning hurts melee combatants HARD. No one wants to have to pick up their weapon and shield mid combat man. Paladins are interesting. They do almost as well as the fighter for the most part. I'd say that they're on par, except for one detail. Early on, they fill the same roll. Later on, the fighter must select feats that enable him to disrupt his enemies (once spells over 5th level show up, no weapon swings alone will do enough). The paladin instead maintains a minor roll as a tank, backup healer, and caster. However, in a fight with evil creatures, the paladin can deal damage on the same level with caster. The paladin has a very specific roll which contrasts nicely with the fighter. The paladin becomes the guard of the weaker party members, while the fighter disables foes directly.Paladins are a role players dream. Also if your DM has any sence they get a mountain of "non writen" bonuses. They are not suposed to be common (look at the random NPC population tables, they share the lowest bracket with rangers, and rangers typicalyl live in the wild.) They are trustworthy. They are respected. Their spells are a dream to describe. They are true heros in LG+++ Rangers are likewise interesting. They do measure up almost in hit points and attack capacity to the fighter. However, their AC tends to be substantially lower. Their spells just don't really measure up to the benefits the feats present, and neither do their abilities. Even the combat styles are outshown. While the ranger's wilderness alertness is good, it's as easily shown by the barbarian, and their stealth and cunning are not paired with a speed advantage, thus they are undermined in this respect. Favored enemy is too situational to count. Rangers are, sadly, a weaker class in the fighting arts, skills, and casting.Try telling that to their +8 on attack and dam favoured enemy. OUCH much? Also they are the ONLY full BAB class who can really match a rouge for hide/move silently modifiers. flat footed VS TWF is scary. Rogues are one of few classes that do their job well. They have decent offensive capabilities relying on their skills to get into position for sneak attack, and they have enough skills to do it. Their tree is so versatile there is little beyond them. Even if this is all the rogue has going for them, it's a lot. They can do the ranger's job better than the ranger, and the bard's job, outside casting, better than the bard. They're a top quality class, ground up. Bards job outsdie casting, bardic song and bardic knowladge you mean. Also rouges crumble agaisnt anything immune to snaeka attack and have trouble getting that attack in after round 1. Also try hitting one with a fort negates spell. Sorcerers are excellent casters in any situations they've selected for, and this is usually combat. A sorcerer with a well picked selection of offensive and general utility magic at his disposal will outshine his wizardly counterpart, and the druid just doesn't measure up in damage. A cleric does, however, and is more survivable to boot. Sorcerours are a crule joke by Wotc. They are weaker tahtn Wizards in allbut a few situations. Whilst it is nice to see they have fans rmemmber Wizards get more better spells faster. Wizards are weaker than sorcerers in most respects. :rofl: sorry, do carry on. They cannot know the right ratios of spells and they have less power. Most wizards as a standard routine prepare less spell variety than sorcerer's know, meaning here the sorcerer has the advantage of versatility and capacity. However wizards do have an ultimate versatility advantage, and with some good divinations, foreplanning, and the like they may easily have an answer a sorcerer doesn't. They also make the best item craftsmen easily, with their limitless spells and crafting feats. Again my cleric argument comes up, yes they are more powerfull, but they should realy (for the good of party power levels) be buring xp into itmes and preparing lots of buffs. Fireball is not usfull everywere "animal name""ability score" is. As for your ranks. This is an impossible task as there are n+1 ways to play most classes and I can come up with a build for amy class specificalyl deisgned to take out any character that you show me.
Nyferto 08-09-05, 07:36 AM	Now this was dumb. There's a place called Redgards where you can post your opinion and see if anyone cares, not only that but we can rate the original post itself (i'd give it no stars). Dog v Bow = ? (BTW that's as in Arrow Launching Bow rather than the noise of a dog going "Bow"). Deffinately over-estimating the 1st level Druid there. Then again ill-defined examples rarely show anything. Personally my Fighter's shooting you and your dog to pieces from atop of his balcony in the castle where he works. You do know the Fighter (or Barbarian) could actually kill your dog in two hits, and you in the same amount of time or less.
Kolo 08-09-05, 08:31 AM	Now this was dumb. There's a place called Redgards where you can post your opinion and see if anyone cares, not only that but we can rate the original post itself (i'd give it no stars). Dog v Bow = ? (BTW that's as in Arrow Launching Bow rather than the noise of a dog going "Bow"). Deffinately over-estimating the 1st level Druid there. Then again ill-defined examples rarely show anything. Personally my Fighter's shooting you and your dog to pieces from atop of his balcony in the castle where he works. You do know the Fighter (or Barbarian) could actually kill your dog in two hits, and you in the same amount of time or less. Nyferto, your concept of "well-defined" seems to mean "picking terrain I fight in to maximize my advantage and minimize theirs". There's no guarantee that you'll be up on a balcony or any kind of overlook at any time in any combat, and lest we forget, the druid can shoot you back and even be on an overlook looking down on you. If you want well-defined, look at Jell-Moo's posts. He breaks it down into stats, which is the best common ground. Let's look at what druids and fighters contribute at level 1 to a four-man party; Fighter; Tactically flexible meat shield and damage dealer. Covers weaker members from damage. They likely have great physical strength for heavy lifting. They might have a craft skill that may or may not be applicable. Druid;Full caster who has a tactically flexible meatshield for an animal companion that is comparable to a first level fighter, while the druid can heal and can summon secondary meat shields with little effort. Can thus cover weaker members from damage from two (or more) sources and can heal the damage they sustain. even with their relatively few spells, they can accomplish this easily. They also contribute to survival in natural environments, can scout forward ahead of the party, track enemies (animal companions with scent), and can completely neutralize encounters with unfriendly animals with a skill check. And don't give me the "fighters go all day" argument, as it is not only false (as fighters do in fact run out of HP, consuming resources from himself and the rest of the party to heal) but it's also a niche situation. Plus the animal companion falls under that heading too. I do agree, though, this is misplaced and should be in Redgar's.
not Yoda 08-09-05, 09:59 AM	I agree, to some extent with Darkview. I have played as or played in groups containing all of these character types. I have had clerics and druids in parties at the same time and while some of us are masters at power-builds and combos many are not. Some players can build truly horrifying melee characters and make the most inept mages concievable. In most situations, I would prefer a cleric to druid in my party simply put they have better spells and better healing capacity. Chances are someone actually is a fighter so... being a great fighter whether a bear a tiger or bull is not a priority being a great caster is. Wiz and or scor top the list for power because their spells are more pwerful. See... isn't that easy. The barbar in combat doesn't have many options. Me smash or smash'em. Outside combat they can be quite useful too. Fighters have more options than the Barbar in combat but good ablity scores will make their options braoder and more effective. Rouges are easily broken not in an overpowered sense but from a combat standpoint they are fragile unless played by masters. Low HP probably low AC poor Fort and Will put them in precarious postions when initiative is rolled. I have yet to see a powerful monk made from core races. Sure a rakshasa monk can kick some serious tail..... but we aren't rakshasa are we. bard like Rogue needs a master player to really make a showing. It's too easy to suck it up with this class. Ranger can be fun but not really powerful in a non-species enemy sense
Nyferto 08-09-05, 11:58 AM	There's no guarantee that you'll be up on a balcony or any kind of overlook at any time in any combat Which is exactly my point, for all I care, the Druids on the balcony with an owl and a sling and My fighters using the open air toilet with his pants down arrmed with a spoon (originally for cleaning afterwards, now going to be shoved in the Druids eye). Static Examples don't mean anything - ever. Whilst you might replace a Druid with a Fighter, you'd have to live without the Fighter's flexability and try to cover it with a Druid, which might not be possible. You might get killed in a hit the Fighter could've taken. Not only that but I doubt you'd compare unfavourably with many other classes at first level. Replace the Fighter with another Wizard, then compare him to another Druid. Lets say my Fighter uses a Reach weapon, now what? Maybe your Druid didn't take a Riding Dog? Optimal examples are meaningless too, i've told this to people who think the COB means something, they didn't get it.
Douglas Zuver 08-09-05, 12:50 PM	It matters very little what class is being played, the character is made what it is by the person playing the character. I have seen it in almost every campaign I have played in, someone always brings a new class into perspective to me and I cannot help but be in aw. Knowledge of the game and the ability to "think outside the box" can help bring a class that you thought nothing of into new light. A character's true power is found within... "Your brain is the most important weapon you have..."- a General to the troops. Having said all that, this discussion is informative. The game must stay balanced to keep play fun. I have two questions, but don't want to sidetrack this thread: Can a Healer from "Dungeons and Dragons Minatures Handbook" be used as a character in most D&D role playing games? and Has anyone used that class?
Kintara 08-09-05, 01:35 PM	Which is exactly my point, for all I care, the Druids on the balcony with an owl and a sling and My fighters using the open air toilet with his pants down arrmed with a spoon (originally for cleaning afterwards, now going to be shoved in the Druids eye). Static Examples don't mean anything - ever.Well, originally, this started out as how low level druids can do well for themselves. They do well by having a decent animal companion, and summoning more. Druids don't lack for power in the early game. Fighters don't either.
Thorgrimm 08-09-05, 02:02 PM	ok, i have just read through this very long thread and found a couple of things out. First, most people think that fighters suck because they can only do one thing. But, that one thing is combat. Second, most people think that the druid is the save all class out there that has no equals and could walk in and stomp anyone, anytime, anywhere. I personally think fighter is the best class out there. Of course, i think this because i come from playing first edition and playing fighters then compared to now is scary. Most players discredit the fighter because of this one dimension style of class, but i look at it a different way. (not having played one player adventures) Fighters are more reliant on the party than any other class. Yes they can't heal themselves. Yes they can't cast spells. Yes they can't wildshape. But, they dont have to do any of these things because they are designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to stand in a fight and deal damage while taking damage. It is pretty much up to the rest of the party to keep the fighter alive, and deal damage if they can. A druid that can keep a fighter alive is the fighters best friend. And a fighter that can tank for a druid while he casts his summon nature's ally without getting hit with an attack of opportunity is the druid's best friend. A tank is what it is someone to take the attention from the enemy so the rest of the party can do thier jobs. There are a few other melee oriented classes that can substitute as a tank but none do so as effectively as a fighter. Yes a barbarian has on average more hps (but a little feat called improved toughness can negate this) and the fighter will have a better ac. Yes a druid in wild shape can tank and usually gets good bonuses to hp from con and good damage from strength (but a fighter with weapon specialization can deal alot of damage, and the druid still has to work with d8 hit dice so the bonuses to con usually only mean that they are increased to a fighters, not to mention the fighter will have a higher BaB to hit). Yes, a paladin has the same hps and possible armor as a fighter and yes they get bonuses to saves and can heal at higher levels (but because the fighter can use thier bonus feats to get the feats they need for combat they can use thier level feats to gain bonuses to saves). Yes, a monk can tank if they have high enough dex and wis scores to offset thier inability to wear armor, but this usually means that the fighter and monk have about the same ac until higher levels when the fighter has magical armor. And, i know the monk can get things that can increase there ac at higher levels as well but still this just evens things up. The point to all of this is...fighters fill a role as all the classes do. And, in that role i dont thing any core class can compare at any level. A fighter's feats make the fighter and to not include options from those feats as class abilities is just being blind to the potention of the said fighter. Being versatile in the way a fighter can be built to do the same job they are designed for makes them better than all the other core classes because a druid built to tank just isnt as good as a druid not built to tank at tanking, and a druid build for casting is just not as good as a druid not built for casting, and a wizard built for casting damage spells isnt as good at casting enchantment spells as a wizard designed to do so. I know im rambling but the main point is: FIGHTER IS THE BEST CLASS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MOST OPTIONS TO DO THIER JOB. oh and a side note: the best part about a higher level fighter is once you get your primary attack mode maxed out (ei: melee or ranged) you can begin focusing on the other attack mode so you can be almost as good at both by the time you reach level 20. A level 20 fighter can sit there and fire 5 arrows a round at the bad guy charging him for a few rounds until melee is started and just as quick (with the quickdraw feat) can begin to pound on them in melee as well. instead of having to wait till melee begins or trying to stay out of melee.
Fiddlypoppin 08-09-05, 02:19 PM	My two cents: I've seen, in the various different campaigns or one off adventures that I've been involved in over the 10+ years that I've been playing this game, one class or another really shine. I played a human monk in one of my friends' campaigns that not only held his own in combat, but has since become something of a legend for what he was capable of. I had a wizard who won the day on more than one occassion--in combat, mind you--by casting the right spell at the right time; and it was almost always from the Enchantment school, not just pure damage. I've seen rangers take down monsters that were threatening to annihilate the party, single handedly. I've seen fighters crush the enemy and save the day multiple times. I've also seen clerics who were completely and totally ineffective. One cleric even complained that he was the party "chew toy" based on how much he got munched on by monsters. My point is that any class can be an amazing character, and not just from a role-playing perspective. You don't even need to delve into non-core material to make it work, either. For that matter, any class, even with non-core material augmenting what they've got, can be a waste of space; and in case you're wondering, I'm only referring to class features, feats, etc. here. Play what you want to play, and have fun with it. With just some attention to what makes each class unique, you can build on their capabilities to make an impressive and effective character.
Douglas Zuver 08-09-05, 02:32 PM	.................. :clap: :cheer: :clap: ..................
Jell_Moo 08-09-05, 02:41 PM	I think we need to step away from the whole "Fighter sucks -or- The Fighter doesn't suck" thing. There's already a thread on that very topic on the first page. My whole point with the Druid was to show that they in fact do not suck at low level, as had been claimed. The topic at hand is the OP's assessment of the PHB classes. Maybe we should stick to that.
Kolo 08-09-05, 03:13 PM	Which is exactly my point, for all I care, the Druids on the balcony with an owl and a sling and My fighters using the open air toilet with his pants down arrmed with a spoon (originally for cleaning afterwards, now going to be shoved in the Druids eye). Static Examples don't mean anything - ever. So why post one? If anyrthing, yours is worse because you assumed uneven advantages in favor of the fighter. All we use is numbers, which are as fair as things go. Whilst you might replace a Druid with a Fighter, you'd have to live without the Fighter's flexability and try to cover it with a Druid, which might not be possible. You might get killed in a hit the Fighter could've taken. You might, if you A)didn't heal yourself, B)didn't have an animal companion and summoned creatures take damage for you, and C)didn't end up with more HP's than most fighters ever get when wildshaped anyway. Not only that but I doubt you'd compare unfavourably with many other classes at first level. Replace the Fighter with another Wizard, then compare him to another Druid. A wizard loses against a fighter a large portion of the time at level 1. I doubt the wizard would fare better against the druid. (Of course, the wizard can always just sleep his problems away...) Lets say my Fighter uses a Reach weapon, now what? I order my animals to attack to tie you up while I blast or range attack you? Or maybe to disarm you? or swarm you... a fighter only has so many AoO's. Maybe your Druid didn't take a Riding Dog? Optimal examples are meaningless too, i've told this to people who think the COB means something, they didn't get it. Maybe he took a wolf, which is identical except for a slightly lower AC and a meaner disposition. maybe he took a viper, and you didn't see him before he poisoned you. Maybe he took a badger; try AoOing something which just burrows your way. Or hey, a Baboon can hide easily and grapple you. Optimization has little to do with it. I highly doubt that the dog is optimal at all. I've said it before; If the fighter is so damn good at combat, why is he outclassed by an equal level class feature of another class? If he's so flexible, why does it only take any kind of will save to remove him as a threat for an entire combat? And if he's so powerful due to options, why is it that he gets fever choices of options for every level than every spellcaster out there? If he's the master of combat, why doesn't he get more combat-applicable skills (or indeed any at all besides intimidate?) He can't feint, he can't use skill to see feints coming, he can't dodge and weave past enemy attacks (or gain the synergy from Tumble to fighting defensively). the only thing he can do is use weapons and armor in some slightly nifty ways and take damage. Whether he can do this with 30 different weapons or armors or not doesn't matter, because he's doing the same bloody thing with all of them. At range, with two weapons, on horseback, using trip/disarm/bull rush, his entire role is defined by taking damage and dealing some in return-and he doesn't even do that as well as other melee classes can. The feats also give the illusion of competency. Merely by existing, a barbarian can outdo a fighter as an archer and as a close meleeist, and he can take the same feats as a fighter to make himself better or more flexible. A paladin comes with class features that completely outdoes any defensive feats a fighter can come up with, while dealing comparable amounts of damage, and he can also take feats to supplement his combat style. He is no less proficient at any weapon or tactic than a fighter is, and he is in fact wildly better at a lot of them just by being there. This is not flexibility. It's a straitjacket in a very good disguise.
Douglas Zuver 08-09-05, 04:06 PM	The Fighter and the Druid duke it out in the middle of the woods. Meanwhile, the Cleric and the Wizards are arguing over Politics and Religion. The Ranger is feeding the horses because nobody else will bother. The Monk who has a headache is sitting on a rock meditating. The Paladin and the Rogue are dueling about a ladies honor. Suddenly, over the crest of the hill....
Darkview 08-09-05, 04:10 PM	And the sorcerer, barbarian, and bard are getting all chummy I'm sure. Sorry, couldn't help myself. But I'm glad the fighting has stopped, I'm finding people's perceptions of the core classes interesting.
mrpopstar 08-09-05, 05:21 PM	In my experience, the Core classes are quite equal and balanced. :)
Kintara 08-09-05, 06:15 PM	In my experience, the Core classes are quite equal and balanced. :)Yes, but especially Bards. ;)
Nyferto 08-10-05, 07:41 AM	Kolo: I didn't post an example, Jell Moo is - it's not that hard to follow. He said a Riding Dog would beat a Fighter in Scale Mail with a Bow and Greatsword. I said he wouldn't because obviously I'm standing on my Balcony shooting arrows at him. In reality it shows how many natural advantages a humanoid warrior has over an animal. They're plenty important because until a Druid starts using Elementals, that's practically all he's got backing him up. At no point does this start being about the Fighter, and less about how powerful the Druid is. If by some freak possiblity the Druid was overpowered, or possibly just animal companions, it wouldn't mean bugger all for the effectiveness of the Fighter. Let alone a Wizard who's completely stomped by this point. I'm going to go back to 3.0 briefly now (don't mention the Ranger). A 1st level can't get a 2HD Wolf as a companion, now before we ask "WTF can a 3.5 Druid get a companion that's practically stronger than any other class of his level and dump his improved ass on top anyway", you have to see that Druids got a stupid bump in power - it says more about the Druid than any other class. Why can't my Wizard get a Wolf Familiar? Why isn't my Spell book a Small Fire Elemental (I know someone who had a Stone Badger as a Spell book)? Why don't Fighters get Alertness and Improved Trip for free at first level?
Kolo 08-10-05, 08:38 AM	Kolo: I didn't post an example, Jell Moo is - it's not that hard to follow. He said a Riding Dog would beat a Fighter in Scale Mail with a Bow and Greatsword. I said he wouldn't because obviously I'm standing on my Balcony shooting arrows at him. In reality it shows how many natural advantages a humanoid warrior has over an animal. They're plenty important because until a Druid starts using Elementals, that's practically all he's got backing him up. 2 things wrong here; -Jell moo posted a numerical analysis, you posted the example. -You're stating that a humanoid warrior is superior because he has access to balconies (or indeed any terrain advantage). This is not true because tactical thinking is not limited to humanoids, nor is terrain an advantage only fighters can utilize. Balconies are not a feature of the fighter class. At no point does this start being about the Fighter, and less about how powerful the Druid is. If by some freak possiblity the Druid was overpowered, or possibly just animal companions, it wouldn't mean bugger all for the effectiveness of the Fighter. Let alone a Wizard who's completely stomped by this point. Actually, it does! when you look at how much a druid contributes to a party compared to a fighter, the druid wins out, and thus the effectiveness of the fighter is much less. Let's not forget that this is a party oriented game; The druid may not affect the fighter's class abilities all that much, but he does outshine him in the fighter's own area of specialty and provides more benefits besides. In terms of pure party contribution, the fighter loses. I'm going to go back to 3.0 briefly now (don't mention the Ranger). Feel free, but keep in mind that I probably won't accept the argument because you're arguing under completely different rules now. Why in the world can't you stay with 3.5? because hey, maybe I was right and the druid IS better overall? A 1st level can't get a 2HD Wolf as a companion, now before we ask "WTF can a 3.5 Druid get a companion that's practically stronger than any other class of his level and dump his improved ass on top anyway", you have to see that Druids got a stupid bump in power - it says more about the Druid than any other class. Nope, it really doesn't. They beefed the cleric too, lest we forget, and totally nerfed the freakin' sorcerer. And you say I shouldn't mention the ranger? The ranger got a far more significant boost in power than a druid between 3.0 and 3.5. OMGWTFBBQ TEH RANGER IS OVERPOWERED!!!1!one!! [/tongue-in-cheek] Sorry, but this particular argument isn't directed at the class but at the designers. I know the feeling; they frustrate me too. But let's not confuse the two. Why can't my Wizard get a Wolf Familiar? Why isn't my Spell book a Small Fire Elemental (I know someone who had a Stone Badger as a Spell book)? Why don't Fighters get Alertness and Improved Trip for free at first level? Because the designers didn't think about the consequences of what they were doing when they designed that feature, and botched the whole issue, and now refuse to recognize the problem because they don't like to admit they're wrong? Hey, it's as likely an argument as any. Why did they nerf the sorcerer, why did they boost the most powerful classes, why does a paladin get remove disease when it doesn't work on any diseases an adventurer might encounter (including mummy rot), why isn't the monk proficient in unarmed strikes (!), why is unarmed strike defined as a manufactured weapon for all effects but as a natural weapon in all spells... Short of it is, they botched and haven't done a lot to make up for it. The errata and FAQ so far for the books and supplements help very, very little.
emeraldstreak 08-10-05, 08:39 AM	My list at any level 1. Druid, by a good margin for 1000 reasons 2. Cleric 3. Wizard 4. Sorcerer - I place them after wizards only because wizards can make so many more magic items, as spellcasting I've routinely seen sorcerers outshine wizards 5. Rogue - especially once UMD gets high 6. Ranger - only a bit before paladins, mostly because of skills 7. Paladin 8. Monk - especially after Diamond Soul 9. Fighter - undoubtedy better than barbarians 10. Barbarian 11. Bard - they ought to be higher, but I don't know the class well, and all bards I've seen had been the most useless group members. Their spell progression is so slow that a rogue with UMD eventually equals them in effective spellpower, so the only bard thing left is music, while the rogue has sneak attack, more skills, trapfinding, cool class abilities. The bard will save helps - but really, who cares whether the party bard is held or not ;)
Jell_Moo 08-10-05, 09:24 AM	Kolo: I didn't post an example, Jell Moo is - it's not that hard to follow. He said a Riding Dog would beat a Fighter in Scale Mail with a Bow and Greatsword. I said he wouldn't because obviously I'm standing on my Balcony shooting arrows at him. Um, actually I put them as being a very close battle. When it comes to pure stats, the Riding Dog actually comes out ahead. The Fighter, however, brings options ehich could really sway a battle. A Fighter with armor spikes and a Guisarm has a decisive tactical advantage over a Riding Dog. A Fighter with a bow, who is comfortably far away has a decisive tactical advantage (although considering the AC of the Riding Dog, the Fighter would likely be unable to get too far out of the first range increment and still hit reliably). I didn't actually say that the Riding Dog would win, just that the Druid has a great advantage at 1st level because of the Animal Companion. It was mostly in response to somebody saying that a Fighter would easily mop the floor with the Riding Dog, which I don't think is quite accurate.
Nyferto 08-10-05, 12:52 PM	Kolo: You lost me, the whole point is that circumstances will kill anyone. I liked 3.0 Rangers (seriously), and Druids got botched, but it doesn't mean Fighters are bad. Anyway, I asked our resident Multiclassing Freak to analysise all the Core Classes. Figher: Fun but dull, Take as far as you need Barbarian: Mitigated after 1st level, everything else is waste Cleric: Every level is a waste after 1st, Ultra Scags of 1st level. Druid: Freaks Bard: Useful, but 10th is the most I'd take it. Too much facinate focus, not enough choices Ranger: Slags, wasteful after 1st Paladins: Get to 5th if you're bored, Tarts Wizards: Wasteful after 1st Sorcs: Same as Wizards but different Monks: 1st level is best, 3 is the most you'd ever bother, but 11th if you're boring. Rogues: Sleep with them, pracically all the time. All levels are dust after 1st Complete Series Swash: Straightforward, use if bored and intelligent Hexblade: 3rd or 4th at most, or never bother. Samurai: 3rd at most, or never bother Ninja: Nice alternative, for the Wise only Scout: See Spell Thief Spell Thief: I don't get it Wu-jen: beats Wizards with 3 valuable levels at most Warlock: dust after 1st, sadly level dependant Warmage: Nice alternative to Wizards and Sorcs, still dusty Favoured Soul: Only if you need spont Shugenja: See Favoured Soul and Wu-jen - apply to Clerics and Druids Spirit Shaman: Nice alternative, bit limited, no great value -- Dust means she wouldn't really bother with them after a certain point, Multi/PrC ASAP.
Jell_Moo 08-10-05, 01:22 PM	Um... Ny... What exactly does this person play then? Is every character multiclassed to hell and back? Saying a class like the Wizard or Sorcerer is wasteful after first is interesting. I can only assume she means that one should PrC ASAP, but generally the earliest one can do that is about 6th level. It seems to be a pretty cynical view of the classes...
BlaineTog 08-10-05, 02:46 PM	He said a Riding Dog would beat a Fighter in Scale Mail with a Bow and Greatsword. I said he wouldn't because obviously I'm standing on my Balcony shooting arrows at him.It's not longer a 1st level Druid vs. a 1st level fighter, though. Now, it's a 1st level druid vs. probably an equivalent of a 3rd or 4th level fighter. Terrain adds to, or substracts from, the CR of a fight (how much is dependent on the level). In reality it shows how many natural advantages a humanoid warrior has over an animal.The existance of a balcony is not a natural advantage.
Nyferto 08-11-05, 07:34 AM	But getting to the Balcony and being able to shoot arrows from it -is- and advantage. It doesn't take much to kill someone when all they can do it retaliation to your attacks is Bark abuse. What's so hard to follow about this? Straight forward comparisons don't work. - Jell She's currently playing a Human Ranger 1/Rogue1/Cleric (Celerity and Luck - Traveler Deity)/Monk 1/Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Ninja 1 I think she's heading for a PrC soon but I'm not sure which one. Using a Bastard Sword, with various wands in the "offhand" whilst kicking occasionally. IIRC her feats are. Improved Favoured Enemey (her only favoured enemy is Evil Outsiders) Extra Rage TWF Dodge Mobility EWP Bastard Sword Divine Vigor Typically, she will dump another class for another class as soon as possible. So yes, PrC or multi ASAP. Although she'd rarely stick to a PrC suited to the class she actually took in the first place. She actually had a Wizard Occult Slayer once... Cynical? Maybe, but I can't escape some of the truths that classes are typically as bad as each other. To me it showed that Fighters were actually one of the least front loaded characters. When you've seen her rapidly switching between wands just so she can sneak attack with them, wands look overpowered and broken. -- In case you haven't guessed, me and the player have issues about play conduct. The only class she considered playing straight through was the Scout and Spell Theif, but then she won't play with those classes (straight) because she can't figue out how to multiclass out of them.
Kolo 08-11-05, 07:47 AM	But getting to the Balcony and being able to shoot arrows from it -is- and advantage. It doesn't take much to kill someone when all they can do it retaliation to your attacks is Bark abuse. What's so hard to follow about this? Straight forward comparisons don't work. But you're not making anything that even remotely resembles a straightforward comparison. You're tilting the scales in favor of the fighter and saying that it's equally viable to comparing stats. plus you're not giving the druid enough credit for what he can do in retaliation to your terrain advantage. Bottom line, though, is that you're deliberately adding CR's to what would otherwise be a fair comparison and say that since this can be done, no one can ever compare any class to another. This is like comparing the wizard to the sorcerer and suddenly say in the middle of the argument that the sorcerer has twice the amount of gold for his level and therefore is more powerful. All you're doing is evading the issue. Hell, you didn't even stick to 3.5 in order to make your second argument, which to be honest was more of a rant. You don't get more evasive than that. So please, don't dismiss a meaningful comparison out of hand just because CR is such a mutable concept. we're not comparing CR's, we're comparing fighters mechanically to the effects of a class ability.
kingslgarrett 08-11-05, 08:47 AM	Everyone who says that the druid is all powerful due to the wild shape class ability must have an extremely lenient DM. In the description of the wild shape ability it says that you must have encountered the animal/creature to wild shape into it. A character that is from a temperate area, that has never been out of a temperate area, is highly unlikely to have encountered a polar bear. Therefore cannot take the polar bear as a wild shape. Same goes for any of the dinosaur shapes. In order to make optimal use of this class feature, the druid has to travel very extensively in order to encounter all these different animals. You have to remember what the rules say about player knowledge vs character knowledge. The player know polar bears and dinosaurs exist. So how does the druid character know about the animal? just hearing about it doesn't qualify. The druid has to have encounterd the animal for this feature to work. if you play in a campaign that doesn't have dinosaurs in it, you can't turn into a dinosaur.Encountering a fiendish or celestial version doesn't work, because the animals type has changed. It clearly says animal, not fiendish animal. (and later, plant, and elemantal) and even later more options depending on the sources complete and epic etc that you use.
Kolo 08-11-05, 08:51 AM	Everyone who says that the druid is all powerful due to the wild shape class ability must have an extremely lenient DM. In the description of the wild shape ability it says that you must have encountered the animal/creature to wild shape into it. A character that is from a temperate area, that has never been out of a temperate area, is highly unlikely to have encountered a polar bear. Therefore cannot take the polar bear as a wild shape. Same goes for any of the dinosaur shapes. In order to make optimal use of this class feature, the druid has to travel very extensively in order to encounter all these different animals. You have to remember what the rules say about player knowledge vs character knowledge. The player know polar bears and dinosaurs exist. So how does the druid character know about the animal? just hearing about it doesn't qualify. The druid has to have encounterd the animal for this feature to work. if you play in a campaign that doesn't have dinosaurs in it, you can't turn into a dinosaur.Encountering a fiendish or celestial version doesn't work, because the animals type has changed. It clearly says animal, not fiendish animal. (and later, plant, and elemantal) and even later more options depending on the sources complete and epic etc that you use. No, he has to be "familiar" with it. Now define what that means. Having trouble yet? Does it mean close contact? not necessarily. Maybe he just needs to be familiar with in the sense of "oh, I heard about that from my circle leader, he told me about it's capabilities" kind of way. Maybe you can simply summon the animal, thus gaining close contact with it. Maybe it boils down to a knowledge check. and maybe it means making a trek to a different climate, which IMX is something adventurers do a lot of anyway.
Jell_Moo 08-11-05, 09:18 AM	Everyone who says that the druid is all powerful due to the wild shape class ability must have an extremely lenient DM. In the description of the wild shape ability it says that you must have encountered the animal/creature to wild shape into it. A character that is from a temperate area, that has never been out of a temperate area, is highly unlikely to have encountered a polar bear. Therefore cannot take the polar bear as a wild shape. Same goes for any of the dinosaur shapes. In order to make optimal use of this class feature, the druid has to travel very extensively in order to encounter all these different animals. You have to remember what the rules say about player knowledge vs character knowledge. The player know polar bears and dinosaurs exist. So how does the druid character know about the animal? just hearing about it doesn't qualify. The druid has to have encounterd the animal for this feature to work. if you play in a campaign that doesn't have dinosaurs in it, you can't turn into a dinosaur.Encountering a fiendish or celestial version doesn't work, because the animals type has changed. It clearly says animal, not fiendish animal. (and later, plant, and elemantal) and even later more options depending on the sources complete and epic etc that you use. The spell series "Summon Nature's Ally" take care of this. Nowhere in the spell description does it say you must be familiar with the animal. So a Druid who wants to Wild Shape into something, need only summon it, study it, and then he's good to go.
Jell_Moo 08-11-05, 09:23 AM	Ny, That is certainly an... um...interesting character. I would think that such rampant multiclassing would make a rather weak character. 4 BAB at 8th level is really low, and without much in the way of goodies to make it work. What party role does she try and fill? The only one I can really see is a Trapfinder.
kingslgarrett 08-11-05, 11:03 AM	The spell series "Summon Nature's Ally" take care of this. Nowhere in the spell description does it say you must be familiar with the animal. So a Druid who wants to Wild Shape into something, need only summon it, study it, and then he's good to go. agian, if you have no experience with what you are summoning, how would you be able to summon it. This is completely up to the DM to judge what is player knowledge vs what is character kowledge. That is why I still stand by my claim that you must have a lenient DM to allow you to wild shape into or summon something that you have never seen or heard of. I did not say that there are not ways around things, there are. I am saying that it is a fairly simple matter for a DM to control his campaign and rule that since (for example) Druid A who lives in North America simply cannot in any way shape or form summon or wild shape into a platypus, since it is only found in australia. It is completely up to the DM, and a DM who lets one class dominate his game as is possible with a druid if played loosely with the rules, is a poor DM
Nyferto 08-11-05, 12:43 PM	Wildshape requires Familiarity, that's hard to define and very unspecific. Summon Nature's Ally only lasts for a minute or two on average and might not be enough to gain familiarity. Anyway, example... It's called Hyperbole. The example was a standard issue rubbish one. You can't just say - Here's a Dog and his Druid, there's a Fighter, the Druids statistically better. It's nowhere near that simple, in a real campaign factors and offsets would change many aspects of the encounter. It's a character v Character comparison, not a class one. It still says the Druid is overpowered, not the Fighter. Nothing so far says the Fighter is underpowered, just that a Character might be considered more valuable or better. If a Basic Animal Companion is stronger than most other classes of that level, then why isn't it the Animal Companion that's overpowered? Whilst I'm not suggesting that Riding Dogs should be nerfed, I am suggesting that the choices of early Animal Companion might be a tad too strong for 1st level Druids. Given the amount of extras they already get, and the fact that It's not exactly a Fighter exclusive comparison, why is it actually the Fighters fault? Now as for her Char. She plays her typically killer Stealth/Skills with a bit of Magic and Combat role. She has enough unrelated skills to be good at many things. Her BAB isn't so bad, when you consider she can easily wield a DP wand or Polymorph and has reasonable attack stats that can be boosted with Rage 3 times per day and that she has more movement in those 8 levels than most people will ever see in 20 she's quite effective. I suspect she'll look for shabby Divine PrC's with a good enough BAB to keep her combat going. I'll try to get the full details tommorow.
Lina_Inverse 08-11-05, 01:12 PM	Wildshape requires Familiarity, that's hard to define and very unspecific. Summon Nature's Ally only lasts for a minute or two on average and might not be enough to gain familiarity. knowledge nature covers that well.every good druid should have it.not from a min/max standpoint but from an rp one.DC10+hitdie to realize what a brown bear is,know that its an animal and thus you can say."nature i needa be a brown bear".you might not know its exact capabilitys yet,but im sure you can experiement during downtime. It's called Hyperbole. The example was a standard issue rubbish one. You can't just say - Here's a Dog and his Druid, there's a Fighter, the Druids statistically better. It's nowhere near that simple, in a real campaign factors and offsets would change many aspects of the encounter. It's a character v Character comparison, not a class one. It still says the Druid is overpowered, not the Fighter. Nothing so far says the Fighter is underpowered, just that a Character might be considered more valuable or better. If a Basic Animal Companion is stronger than most other classes of that level, then why isn't it the Animal Companion that's overpowered? Whilst I'm not suggesting that Riding Dogs should be nerfed, I am suggesting that the choices of early Animal Companion might be a tad too strong for 1st level Druids. Given the amount of extras they already get, and the fact that It's not exactly a Fighter exclusive comparison, why is it actually the Fighters fault? are we argueing the fighter is underpowered here?no were argueing the fact someone stated druids arent the overall best class to add into a party. additionally your balcony example is at possibly +4 CR ie absolutely truly advantages terrain thats pretty much a setup,which means the druid gets to be 5th for a fair comparison. which means your fighter will die if the druid does get there in one round.and another good example,archer going up against slow target that doesnt have range=0exp.you dont get exp unless they can challenge you useing the battles starting circumstanses didnt you know that?
solbergb 08-11-05, 01:51 PM	additionally your balcony example is at possibly +4 CR ie absolutely truly advantages terrain thats pretty much a setup,which means the druid gets to be 5th for a fair comparison. which means your fighter will die if the druid does get there in one round.and another good example,archer going up against slow target that doesnt have range=0exp.you dont get exp unless they can challenge you useing the battles starting circumstanses didnt you know that? Straw man Lina. A fighter has climb as a class skill. In any terrain with something climbable (dungeon, forest, mountain, city) he'll have an advantage that will let him defeat the riding dog unless it trips him in the first round. (which it might, it has a mobility advantage). It is not a CR advantage unless the fighter starts out in a tree. If both he and the dog begin on the ground, in the normal encounter distance (based on their sensory stuff and terrain, dog usually can start pretty close because fighters suck at detecting things), then there is no CR adjustment. Dogs can't climb. Fighters can. Dogs however are very likely to get in one attack (be it by surprise or just being in move/attack range when detected). The dog is somewhat likely to hit that one attack (+3-+5 depending on charging vs AC 18ish, about 1/3 chance). He won't drop the fighter with his d6+3 damage. He has about a 50/50 chance of tripping the fighter. If the 5/6 chance of not tripping the fighter came up, AND the fighter invested in the climb skill, he can withdraw and climb out of reach of the dog (as a quadruped, only the vertical reach of a size small critter, plus how high it can jump. 10' will generally do the job). At L1, the fighter may not be able to automatically climb the tree or wall or whatever, or such terrain may not be available. Probably you're looking at a 50% chance the fighter will take an attack, then get to an invulnerable position. 1/6 chance of fighter being prone and injured before he returns his attack. Maybe 35% chance of an inbetween result where the fighter stands his ground and dukes it out. Ac and damage potential and hps of the two critters slightly favor the dog if it is armored, the fighter if it is not. The fighter may be able to change the equation a bit with feats. By my rough analysis, a riding dog is probably inferior to a fighter 1 vs 1 but can fill the role fairly well (in 30-40% of the fights, it is a good fighter, and in the rest it at least distracts and delays the enemy for a bit). As a party member, animals tend to be locked out of a significant portion of the encounters (anything involving social situations, flying enemies, long range activities, some boat adventures, some rough terrain adventures). Dogs fit better into many of those activities, but eventually you want a bear or lion or something with more "oomph" and they just can't be around all the time. If the Druid was restricted to Wolf (riding dog removed) in a way similar to how they don't get warhorses on their list, just ordinary horses, they'd be a lot weaker in the level 1-4 range, but still pretty good. The wolf lacks the offensive potential of the dog, but is still a decent blocker/distracter.
kingslgarrett 08-11-05, 01:58 PM	Lina, from SRD Check: Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions). In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Okay, lets think about this for a minute. Changing into another form is a fairly complex process. you would have to know what it looked liked, how it moved, what color it was etc. A knowlegde check of 10 + monster's hd tells for example that a vampire hates sunlight. that's useful right? So let's look at it this way. you make a knowledge check that determines that a car needs a battery to start. that's useful and easy so would probably be a DC10. Determining that if a car dies while running is harder, say a DC 20 to determine that it is the alternator that is bad not the battery. Knowing how to replace the entire electrical system of the car without ever having seen a car before in your life? What do you think the DC on that would be? Or do you think it is reasonable to say that unless you are very "familiar" with the inner workings of a car and have physcially worked on a car, you would not be able to do so until you have gained more intimate experience with cars?
Nephlite 08-11-05, 02:12 PM	Lina, from SRD Check: Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions). In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Okay, lets think about this for a minute. Changing into another form is a fairly complex process. you would have to know what it looked liked, how it moved, what color it was etc. A knowlegde check of 10 + monster's hd tells for example that a vampire hates sunlight. that's useful right? So let's look at it this way. you make a knowledge check that determines that a car needs a battery to start. that's useful and easy so would probably be a DC10. Determining that if a car dies while running is harder, say a DC 20 to determine that it is the alternator that is bad not the battery. Knowing how to replace the entire electrical system of the car without ever having seen a car before in your life? What do you think the DC on that would be? Or do you think it is reasonable to say that unless you are very "familiar" with the inner workings of a car and have physcially worked on a car, you would not be able to do so until you have gained more intimate experience with cars? I'll just Summon Nature's Car. Than I can look at it. I have Knowledge skill to know the different cars that exist. I can than summon them. (Though if you had to know of it before you summon Wizard probably can't ever use Summon Monster till a high level because they won't meet a Celesetial/Feindish for a while) A fighter has climb as a class skill. In any terrain with something climbable (dungeon, forest, mountain, city) he'll have an advantage that will let him defeat the riding dog unless it trips him in the first round. (which it might, it has a mobility advantage). Strawman solbergb: You chanded the situation. The Situation was that the Fighter was on the Balcony. Not that eventually a fighter "could" get on a Balcony. Plus climb is at 1/2 speed unless you have enough climb to take the penalty to climb to climb faster. Or a non-standard races that has Racial climb speed. Lina's example was dead-on almost. If the discussion was just who "could" get on a Balcony, you'd be right Solbergb, but the discussion was used that the Fighter can be. Thus, the Fighter already was on the balcony giving the fighter an advantage. Thus raising the CR.
Retsej Esiw 08-11-05, 02:57 PM	Why is everyone playing down the monks? I've had boats of experiance with these guys and I can say that monks can truly shine, even with elite array.Try telling a human monk he sucks after he's attacked you 10 times. In one turn. Using only the SRD. (http://www.3edb.com/viewCharacter.asp?cid=10234) (of course, he's epic at that point, but I'm just trying to deflect some of the hostility towards the monk). I agree with fighters being weak by themselves but they are amazing if played correctly in a diverse party, as was stated earlier. Can we please stop talking about dogs and balconies? Last I checked, neither was a core class in the PHB, nor are either a class developed by someone here.
kingslgarrett 08-11-05, 03:23 PM	[QUOTE=Nephlite]I'll just Summon Nature's Car. Than I can look at it. I have Knowledge skill to know the different cars that exist. I can than summon them. (Though if you had to know of it before you summon Wizard probably can't ever use Summon Monster till a high level because they won't meet a Celesetial/Feindish for a while Summon Nature's Car is a pretty good spell, it gets you a Prius for 6-120 seconds. Now after, at best, studying said prius for a maximum of 120 seconds (the duration of summon natures at 20 level) at a time 4-6 times a day, at that rate you would probably be able to change the electrical system in a couple of hundred years. :D
BlaineTog 08-11-05, 03:34 PM	agian, if you have no experience with what you are summoning, how would you be able to summon it.You can summon it because the spell says you can. Anything else is a house rule. You know, I've been thinking this through, and I'm not so sure that the fighter could reliably climb up to that balcony. I mean, think about it. He's a level 1 character, so his check can't possibly be more than +12 (Half-orc, 20 in Strength, maxed Climb, and Skill Focus: Climb), and since this guy is an archer, I'm willing to bet that his base check doesn't exceed +5 or +6 (+4 ranks, 12 or 14 strength). However, remember that Climb is one of those skills subject to armor Check Penalties, so he's probably wearing Leather Armor (unless he wants to completelly suck at this). Then, look at the DCs: DC Example Surface or Activity 0 A slope too steep to walk up, or a knotted rope with a wall to brace against. 5 A rope with a wall to brace against, or a knotted rope, or a rope affected by the rope trick spell. 10 A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship’s rigging. 15 Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands. 20 An uneven surface with some narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon or ruins. 25 A rough surface, such as a natural rock wall or a brick wall. 25 An overhang or ceiling with handholds but no footholds. — A perfectly smooth, flat, vertical surface cannot be climbed. Climb DC Modifier1 Example Surface or Activity –10 Climbing a chimney (artificial or natural) or other location where you can brace against two opposite walls (reduces DC by 10). –5 Climbing a corner where you can brace against perpendicular walls (reduces DC by 5). +5 Surface is slippery (increases DC by 5). Now, let's assume that he does manage to climb up the wall (although more likely, he'd fail at least one of those checks, so at best he makes no progress for a short while and gives the druid another round and at worst he falls and has to start over). It's going to take him at least a round to run over to the wall and climb a little way up, and then another round to get to the top. This means he's on the wall, virtually helpless, for one round. So, the druid takes out her sling and chucks a rock at the fighter, probably hitting, and dealing ~1d6+1, maybe, in damage, average 4. Now, since climbing technically provokes an AoO (as it's moving), the druid has now forced the fighter to make a DC 14 Concentration check, which the fighter might be able to make, but he's more likely to fail it. Of course, the Druid could also hit the fighter with entangle, which would make it nigh impossible to climb the wall, but let's assume he's prepared other spells. And if we assume that the fighter starts on top of the balcony, then we also assume that the druid got to cast spells beforehand, in which case she cast Magic Stones at least once (the other spell slot I would save for CLW, but maybe Entangle is a good idea anyway, as it offers a -2 penalty to attack rolls and a -4 penalty to Dex, putting the Fighter at a -4 penalty to attacks with his bow). Now, she's got the equivalent of a magic mighty shortbow for three rounds, whereas I doubt that the first level fighter even has a masterwork weapon.
solbergb 08-11-05, 06:57 PM	Well if fighter is willing to risk another attack from the dog, he could use a round to toss a rope and grapnel up to the balcony. I had more in mind a place with trees, or a large rock or a steep slope, or doors, or anything else a dog can't easily cope with. Climb checks in the DC5-10 range, which a fighter with scale mail, 4 ranks in climb and 14 strength could make half to 3/4 of the time. Another way to stump the dog. Go through a door and shut it. Then walk up the stairs to the balcony :)
Nyferto 08-12-05, 03:40 AM	WTF? The Balcony was a joke, get over it. The idea was to demonstrate that using terrain and superior weapons would give the Fighter the Advantage in combat over limited foes. In the original example, there are no variable thrown in. It's not as straight forward as a Dog and a Fighter standing in proximity of each other, it's appling the Druid to a combat situation and see who handles it better and who can add more. I'd still say it says more about the power of Druids (i.e. over) than of the underability of a Fighter. I don't see any other class doing better in this example of a Druid and his dog in some unfeasable duel, what's a Wizard going to do? Or a Cleric? If you really want. Standard Array Bow and Greatsword using 1st Fighter Half-Elf for no good reason. Str 15 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 8 Feats 1. WF Greatsword 1. PBS Skills Climb 4 +2 Str Jump 4 +2 Str Ride 4 +2 Dex Someone tell me the Average Starting Gold and I'll gear him up. Also, does anyone know why standard wealth charts and starting gold don't seem to show up in the online SRD's.
BlaineTog 08-12-05, 04:27 AM	WTF? The Balcony was a joke, get over it.If it was a joke, then you shouldn't of pushed it. And it should have been, you know, funny. Which it wasn't. The idea was to demonstrate that using terrain and superior weapons would give the Fighter the Advantage in combat over limited foes.It's also pointless. Terrain can give advantages either way. In the original example, there are no variable thrown in.Right. As a comparison, that's the only way to do it. It's not as straight forward as a Dog and a Fighter standing in proximity of each other, it's appling the Druid to a combat situation and see who handles it better and who can add more.Ok, fine. Give us one. I'd still say it says more about the power of Druids (i.e. over) than of the underability of a Fighter.But the power of the classes is relative. The only reason the power levels of the classes matters is because they all need to be able to play in the same park. I don't see any other class doing better in this example of a Druid and his dog in some unfeasable duel, what's a Wizard going to do? Or a Cleric?Wizard? Probably sleep. Cleric? No clue. Also, does anyone know why standard wealth charts and starting gold don't seem to show up in the online SRD's.They arn't Open Gaming Liscened.
Nyferto 08-12-05, 05:34 AM	I didn't push it, Kolo picked up on it and failed to understand what it was, then others jumped on it out of context. It was a hyperbolic melodramatic direct counter to two melee centric characters vs someone who was specifically given a bow. Obviouisly, someone who has an advantage will use it. A Dog has many comparitive disadvantages compared to a humanoid opponent. The Druid has less overall combat ability compared to a Fighter, Wildshape does not eveliate this problem, it infact applifies it. Right. As a comparison, that's the only way to do it. One day, the only people who believe in reduced scope static comparisons as meaningful methods of analysis will be uneducated kids under the age of 9. Ideally, when 2nd world countries are a thing of the past, the minimum age for such a ridiculous belief will be 5. Give us one Which is exactly why it was an invalid comparison in the first place. Wizard: Pretend they either make the save, never get to cast it, never prepared it, never got to target all targets, otherwise had the spell fail. Cleric: Well now Clerics are underpowered, at least the Fighter had a shot. They arn't Open Gaming Liscened. Which is kinda useless for anyone hoping to use the material to run a game, perhaps that was the point, seems kinda stupid an ommision to me.
Kolo 08-12-05, 08:37 AM	I didn't push it, Kolo picked up on it and failed to understand what it was, then others jumped on it out of context. I picked up on it because you posted it as an example. Joke or not, you took it seriously enough. It was a hyperbolic melodramatic direct counter to two melee centric characters vs someone who was specifically given a bow. Obviouisly, someone who has an advantage will use it. No one ever said that they were completely melee centric. You mmay be making hyperboles, but you're also making assumptions. A Dog has many comparitive disadvantages compared to a humanoid opponent. The Druid has less overall combat ability compared to a Fighter, Wildshape does not eveliate this problem, it infact applifies it. A dog also has many comparative advantages over a humanoid. And wildshape makes druids the most versatile character class in D&D as written, so saying that it limits them- well, THAT's funny. One day, the only people who believe in reduced scope static comparisons as meaningful methods of analysis will be uneducated kids under the age of 9. Ideally, when 2nd world countries are a thing of the past, the minimum age for such a ridiculous belief will be 5. So basically you're saying that all statistical analysis is bunk and should therefore not be a college subject or something scientists, engineers and mathematicians around the world rely on for reference. reduced scope static comparisons include things like analysis of drug effectiveness, viability of construction materials, likelihood of succesful space missions and voting for presidents. Just so you know, I don't think we're going to let go of it as a viable tool any time soon. (as an aside, the entire concept of class balance in D&D is an example of enforced static comparison; ideally, there should be four classes with so-and-so much treasure each facing four encounters of this or that challenge rating between each period of rest, and in such an environment they should be balanced. They're not.) Which is exactly why it was an invalid comparison in the first place. Because you say so? Wizard: Pretend they either make the save, never get to cast it, never prepared it, never got to target all targets, otherwise had the spell fail. Why? So that the fighter can look better in comparison? You're unfairly tilting the numbers to make you look better again. Cleric: Well now Clerics are underpowered, at least the Fighter had a shot. A shot after being given an unfair terrain advantage to begin with? wow, isn't that balanced :rolleyes: Which is kinda useless for anyone hoping to use the material to run a game, perhaps that was the point, seems kinda stupid an ommision to me. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that this was exactly the point. They want you to buy their books, after all, not just give them for free.
Nyferto 08-12-05, 09:29 AM	No, I didn't take it seriously, everyone else did without seeing the point. Druids aren't proficient with many ranged weapons, the ones they might be proficient with are typically less effective, a Fighter will always be inherently better with a Bow than a Class with a lesser BAB. At no point does Wildshape grant ranged attacks. Nore does it grant you skills or movement outside of the animal you take. Unless you take combat feats, you won't have any, and the Fighters going to beat you on that anyway. Because he's a prep based caster - a Druid in Wildshape is less versatile in combat than the Fighter. Not only that but with limited forms each day, it's not like the Druid has free range of animals he can assume within a day. Family Fortunes isn't reduced scope but it is static, drug tests aren't reduced scope - they take a broad sample and they aren't static. Placing a single core defined Fighter vs a single core defined Druid is a reduced scope. If one sample is taken and applied to everyone - it's pretty meaningless. Hence this sample of one possibility out of a practicly infinite array is actually a reduced scope static comparison by any terms. Care to refute that or are you going to take anything else out of context? Or was that a Joke you just made? Why? So that the fighter can look better in comparison? You're unfairly tilting the numbers to make you look better again. No, because static examples are easily broken. You can't just cast sleep and say you won. A shot after being given an unfair terrain advantage to begin with? wow, isn't that balanced? What? Cleric doesn't have a clue, Fighter just hits them with his greatsword, theoretically he'd have a better chance of killing both in consesion, static examples are still crap.
Amphetryon 08-12-05, 11:16 AM	Ny, Wow, the folks over at the CO boards completely disagree with you. Simple, off the cuff example of combat using Human Fighter 3, STR 15 DEX 13 CON 14 INT 12 WIS 10 CHA 8 vs. Human Wizard 3(evoker) STR 8 DEX 14 CON 13 INT 15 WIS 12 CHA 10. DM has not given magic weapons yet; Fighter has MW Scale Mail (AC 15), a MW Greatsword, and a Longbow with 20 arros. Assuming average rolls, Fighter has 10 + 5 +5 +6 = 26 HP. We'll give the Fighter the Feats Power Attack, WF Greatsword, PB Shot, Cleave, and Precise Shot. Wizard has Scrolls of Flaming Sphere, Protection from Arrows, and Magic Missile, that she scribed herself. Prohibited schools are Transmutation ( :eek: ) and Enchantment. Her spells prepared are: 0-Resistance, Acid Splash, Mage Hand, Ray of Frost; 1-Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Color Spray, Shocking Grasp; 2- Flaming Sphere, Scorching Ray, Spectral Hand. Again, average HP means 4 + 2 + 2 + 3 = 11HP. Give her Improved Inititiative, Skill Focus (Concentration), and Magical Aptitude for Feats. Combat (initiative) starts with our combatants 30' from each other in a huge featureless room. Each player rolls a 10 on Initiative. Wiz wins, casts Color Spray, and moves back 30'. Fighter rolls a Will Save and gets 10 + 1 = 11. Failure. Blinded for (average, again) 2 rounds and stunned for 1. Fighter's turn - oh, stunned. Nevermind. New round. Wiz casts Scorching Ray, rolls 10 + 1 BAB + 2 DEX = 13 Touch, hits, even without the Stun. Average rolls means 3 x 4 = 12 points damage. Wiz then moves back 30' more (total 90' back) and draws out a Scroll of Magic Missile. Fighter doublemoves straight forward 40' (double move) and swings at the Wiz, who is nowhere near him. Miss. Round 3. Wiz casts MM from the Scroll, doing 4 + 2 = 6 points damage. Full round action, so no movement. Fighter double moves forward (40') and swings again, missing since he's still 10' from the Wizard. Next Round. Wizard casts Mage Armor (AC 16). Fighter, finally able to see, charges (+2 to hit) forward 10' and Power Attacks for 3. Roll of 10 + 3BAB + 2 Charge +1 MW -3 Power Attack = 13, misses. New round. Wizard casts Burning Hands for 2 x 3 = 6 damage and moves back 30'. Fighter makes a double move to close the distance. New round. Wizard casts Acid Splash for 2 points damage and moves back 30'. Fighter, seriously hurt, pulls out his Longbow and fires, rolling 10 + 3BAB + 1PB Shot =14, misses. New round. Wizard casts Magic Missile for 4 + 2 = 6, dead Fighter. Wizard still has spells left, and her crossbow with a full compliment of bolts. Wizard took 0 damage. Note, this assumed NO help from others, and AVERAGE rolls.
Nyferto 08-12-05, 11:51 AM	And it still means bugger all because I was actually a stealthy Halfling who ripped you to pieces, whilst standing on a balcony, on the quasi-elemantal plane of electricity, whilst being chased by a Paragon Xorn called Steven. I completely disagree with the COB on practically everything, hence not going there. BTW, what did they disagree with me on? I said Druid v Wizard anyway. Druid v Druid = OMG nobody wins against the Riding Dog! Oh and please, read you own example first, it's got more propeganda than a Bush campaign. Opposing Prep time and bad tactics! Lets say Fighter win initiative, chooses different stats and the Wizard has Illusion as his forbidden school. What if it's not featureless? How about starting 50ft away. Wizard is a generalist like any sane Wizard. Static comparisons don't work.
Darkview 08-12-05, 12:13 PM	So you're assuming the fighter bothered to power attack versus a foe with HP that odds are would take two swings either way. That the fighter wouldn't full charge, but only double move if that distant. Oh and scorching ray has a range of 30ft at lvl3, not 60. I'm just getting started here, but I think I've made my point. The fact is this thread is NOT about who beats who in a face off. Anyone can build a PK type D&D char. The question is who performs best in their party roll. So can we please stop discussing balconies, terrain, and hypothetical face offs? If you want to post an example, do something like a lvl5 Fighter and Druid individually face off against a displacer, who performs better in melee (if you're doing a melee aspect comparison)? Or whether the cleric or wizard is capable of doing more at a range. Head on comparisons are meaningless here, since they don't actually indicate how useful a character actually is to the party.
BlaineTog 08-12-05, 02:04 PM	I didn't push it, Kolo picked up on it and failed to understand what it was, then others jumped on it out of context.If it was a joke, you should have (and would have) stopped it immediatelly. One day, the only people who believe in reduced scope static comparisons as meaningful methods of analysis will be uneducated kids under the age of 9. Ideally, when 2nd world countries are a thing of the past, the minimum age for such a ridiculous belief will be 5.Puh-lease. What Jell Moo (I think it was him) was doing was perfectly right: put the stats of the 1st level fighter and the 1st level druid's dog animal companion. Then, he pointed out the diferences and similarities. When you look at those, the druid's dog ends up looking pretty darn similar to the fighter. Sure he's not ranged, but chances are very good that neither is the fighter (people who want to play archers typically play Rangers IMX, at least if it's a core-only game). Which is exactly why it was an invalid comparison in the first place.Non sequitur. That doesn't answer my challenge at all. Give us a few encounters for a fighter and a druid's dog animal companion to overcome. Heck, give us a few situations for a fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue and a druid/wizard/rogue party to overcome (or a druid/wizard/cleric/rogue party, if you want to minimize diferences). Head on comparisons are meaningless here, since they don't actually indicate how useful a character actually is to the party.I completelly agree. I think the problem is that whenever anyone says "fighter vs. druid's animal companion" or thereabouts, everyone else thinks "PvP," when it really needn't mean that at all.
Lina_Inverse 08-12-05, 02:43 PM	And it still means bugger all because I was actually a stealthy Halfling who ripped you to pieces, whilst standing on a balcony, on the quasi-elemantal plane of electricity, whilst being chased by a Paragon Xorn called Steven.. +2 Cr,+2 CR,N/A,Paragon xorn has a crazy CR. see all your terrain crap,modifys the CR.makeing you effectively a higher level charecter.therefore meaning a higher level oponent the only fair comparison.this is in the DMG under challenges.if circumstanse favors one or the other then the favored party is treated as a higher level,thus makeing it an unfair comparison by the rules,it ALSO means less exp! attacking a creature from range that doesnt have range doesnt even give exp.since if there not fighting back its not a challenge,thus you learn nothing.just so you know. as for why stuff isnt in the SRD?SRD exists so game makers can refrence it,not you can run games.you need a phb and dmg for all the rules.i use the SRD though,but then i own a 3.0 phb/dmg(which the srd has all the changes)
Ribking 08-12-05, 02:53 PM	Steven is an awesome name for a Xorn. :D
Nyferto 08-15-05, 08:03 AM	Am I on some bizzare CCTV camera stich-up show - except it occurs on Web Forums and no one actually watches or records it? If it was a joke, you should have (and would have) stopped it immediatelly I did, go back and read the history. I didn't pick up the example, I crushed the original by showing how inadequate a comparison it was, at least a Fighter would have the option to pick up a bow, and he could be better with it than many other people who could pick up a bow at those levels. IMX Fighters pick up whatever weapon they want and attack with it using whatever advantages they can drag out of their other combat abilities, that is to say, you're not trying to be an archer just because you picked up a Bow, having a Greatsword as a backup would support that idea. Both the Fighter and the Druid are on a Balcony, on the Quasi Elemental plane of Lightning, being chased by a Paragon Xorn named Steven. It's a fair comparison because the Fighter had abilities that the Druid didn't, and has abilities the Druid can't mimic as effectively and he uses them to kill the Druid. The point being he doesn't have to be this one thing, whilst a Druid with a Riding Dog is pretty much what he is. The Balcony is still a valid example, because one has gone to an advantageous position and used it to their advantage. It's one Dogs can't exploit, then again Dogs don't actually have that many tactical advantages to their name.
Kolo 08-15-05, 08:46 AM	Am I on some bizzare CCTV camera stich-up show - except it occurs on Web Forums and no one actually watches or records it? I did, go back and read the history. I didn't pick up the example, I crushed the original by showing how inadequate a comparison it was, at least a Fighter would have the option to pick up a bow, and he could be better with it than many other people who could pick up a bow at those levels. IMX Fighters pick up whatever weapon they want and attack with it using whatever advantages they can drag out of their other combat abilities, that is to say, you're not trying to be an archer just because you picked up a Bow, having a Greatsword as a backup would support that idea. Both the Fighter and the Druid are on a Balcony, on the Quasi Elemental plane of Lightning, being chased by a Paragon Xorn named Steven. It's a fair comparison because the Fighter had abilities that the Druid didn't, and has abilities the Druid can't mimic as effectively and he uses them to kill the Druid. The point being he doesn't have to be this one thing, whilst a Druid with a Riding Dog is pretty much what he is. The Balcony is still a valid example, because one has gone to an advantageous position and used it to their advantage. It's one Dogs can't exploit, then again Dogs don't actually have that many tactical advantages to their name. Nyferto, I don't think there's any point in replying anymore. Seriously, you've completely contradicted yourself on every single account excepting that you feel the fighter is fine. First you say there can be no meaningful comparison between the classes. Then you post an example comparison and state that in light of that comparison, the fighter is fine. Then you say it's a joke, but then you go ahead and argue the point for several posts taking it perfectly seriously. I don't know what I'm supposed tp be countering, here. You unfairly give one class a terrain advantage except, oh, you didn't, or maybe you did, excpt now you're claiming that only the fighter can take advantage of it, except it's meaningless because they can both do it... you are way out there. The horizon is not as distant as your meaning, and the point you are making has passed into legend of ages past, so long has it been. Just what are you trying to prove? That the fighter who can climb balconies is tactically superior to the druid? Sorry, according to you, such a comparison is meaningless, just like the comparisons of everyone of everything is meaningless and is apparently a stupid subject altogether. I think you would do well to not contradict yourself so much. I honestly can't reply when I don't know what it is I'm replying to. This mess of contradiction is starting to become a bit like bible research without the gory bits.
Nyferto 08-16-05, 07:59 AM	Is it that hard to follow. The entire point is that static examples don't work. You can't just compare statistics and say one class is better than the other. You at least have to look at what each class can do and how it works out in the long run. The Terrain advantage - it's not an advantage, it's called tactics. Think about it. Your a Fighter given a solo mission to kill a Druid (same level as you), you know the Druids got a particular weakness in his attacks (range) and that if you take him from a position where he can't retaliate in close quarters you'll have the advantage. After your easy victory, the DM rewards you for your cunning tactics as normal for a CR 1 encounter (prentend the rest of the party had something to do with setting up the enemy Druid). -- Now pretend your a Druid. You're walking through the forest and see a fire, you go to investigate, fall into a pit and some guy in heavy plate starts pin cushioning you. After your crushing defeat, you scream at the DM "TPK Mutha****, WTF up with that you ****?". So no, no bonus CR for the Fighter, no unfair comparison, he used tactics. This is why a straightforward comparison means bugger all. Now pretend the Fighter was a Barbarian and he did the same thing, but mis pronouncing some words and sounding thicker and taking slightly longer to do it all. Static examples don't work, please stop believing in them.
Kintara 08-16-05, 03:25 PM	Those sorts of comparisons are more problematic because they start with the erroneous assumption that if one character of a class can "win" over another one, that the loser is somehow less powerful in the context of the game as it actually plays. And you are right that one example isn't a fair sample with which to base any conclusion on, if that's what you mean by static example. I don't think that's the important thing, though. Druids have an animal companion, and that helps them contribute pretty well in the early game, along with spontaneously summoned animals. A human Druid with Augment Summoning, and/or perhaps Ashbound, does pretty well in providing meat shields before he even gets Wildshape. And once he does, certain forms will make him very effective in melee combat, with out even putting any emphasis on physical scores in chargen. That's why Druids don't suck in the early game, which was the impetus for this whole thing, iirc. I wouldn't say that Druids are especially vulnerable to ranged attacks, though. Spells can go a long way. Obscuring Mist, for instance. They eventually get ranged attack spells, too. And Summoned animals can be summoned far enough away to engage ranged attackers before disappearing.
BlaineTog 08-16-05, 03:50 PM	The Terrain advantage - it's not an advantage, it's called tactics.Which is an advantage. A serious advantage. An advantage that can win and lose wars. In D&D, advantages like that are described as an increase in the CR of an encounter. A fighter at the top of a balcony with no ways in with a bow, hiding in wait for the druid to come near enough, is much more difficult for the druid to defeat than facing the fighter down in the middle of a field, which means the former case has a higher CR. Your a Fighter given a solo mission to kill a Druid (same level as you), you know the Druids got a particular weakness in his attacks (range) and that if you take him from a position where he can't retaliate in close quarters you'll have the advantage.So, now you give the fighter the element of surprise?! No, no, no. That isn't just one or two CR boosts. Against a first level character, that's practically a gaurenteed kill. There's really nothing the druid can do. There's really nothing anyone can do in that case. Maybe a rogue or a bard with ranks in escape artist, but even then, it's iffy. Static examples don't work, please stop believing in them.Just because you can give the fighter unfair advantages doesn't mean static examples don't work. First, PvP in D&D is retarded as a method of comparison and it should never have been brought up in the first place. Second, it is in no way a fair comparison when one party has an advantage; I might as well say the druid wants to kill the fighter because he chopped down a tree once, so the druid waits until the fighter is sleeping after killing a half dozen orcs and then coup de gras him. If you want to compare them in PvP, the only way to do it is to give them a level playing ground. And Third, laying out their relative statistics and seeing how they measure up to each other in relation to the job they are going to do (what Jell Moo did, IIRC) is the best way to do it short of massive playtesting. Based on what they can do, who has an easier/better time defeating generic challenge X? Challenge Y? Z? etc etc.
RadicalTaoist 08-16-05, 09:45 PM	May I request people use player vs. monster comparisons for class balance? Please? I never see people use it enough. Also, a rough guideline: if a party can just kill an encounter if they know the challenge ahead of time, are rested with all their daily resources available, have the advantage of surprise, and they don't have any bad luck, then it can fairly be assumed (unless all the characters are uber munched, like a 4 druid party for example, or crazy weak, like a 4 soulknife party for example) that the encounter is 5 CRs higher than the effective party ECL.
Nyferto 08-17-05, 04:25 AM	Blaine, if you read what I actually posted. It's perspective. The party would be rewarded for tactics, but if they were on the receiving end - they'd call it TPK and complain all the time about being TPK'd. The Druid in the example is an enemy NPC. When it comes round to being the Druids turn in a party, the Fighter that ambushed him is the Enemy NPC. Simple fact is, Fighters have more advantages than a Riding Dog, and have abilities way beyond what a Druid could do in combat. The fact that they can easily up their ECL so easily should show how many advantages they have over a dog and why static examples are bad. PvP doesn't work, neither do static examples. One Fighter vs One Riding Dog and his Druid doesn't mean anything, precisely because Tactics can give you a massive advantage. That's the entire point, you actually hit the nail on the head, though it's more like you stepped on it by accident. More so, using only one example was a bad idea in the first place because it doesn't reflect the power of a class, only the choices they made. The only point Jell Moo got over to me is that some Animal Companion choices are stupid for availability at 1st level. At no point does this mean the Fighter is bad, because you're now talking about options inherent to a class feature. As long as you stick to the Animal Companion being overpowering, you'll never demonstrate that a Fighter is a worse choice.
BlaineTog 08-17-05, 05:16 AM	Blaine, if you read what I actually posted. It's perspective. The party would be rewarded for tactics, but if they were on the receiving end - they'd call it TPK and complain all the time about being TPK'd. The Druid in the example is an enemy NPC.Right, because the creatures in the encounter are supposed to die whereas the characters are not. The party doesn't have a CR (they have a party-wide ECL). The fact that they can easily up their ECL so easily should show how many advantages they have over a dog and why static examples are bad.It shows nothing. Because druids can just as easily, if not more easily, up their CR through surprise as well. One Fighter vs One Riding Dog and his Druid doesn't mean anything, precisely because Tactics can give you a massive advantage.That logic doesn't follow, at all. The Druid's riding dog, at level one at least, makes a comparable tank to the fighter, except he doesn't take 1/4 of the XP and treasure home with him. If tactics are needed, the druid can step in and execute them. More so, using only one example was a bad idea in the first place because it doesn't reflect the power of a class, only the choices they made.It reflects both. The power of a class limits your choices. The only point Jell Moo got over to me is that some Animal Companion choices are stupid for availability at 1st level.[So you admit that a riding dog is too good for a 1st level druid to have as an animal companion. I agree. At no point does this mean the Fighter is bad, because you're now talking about options inherent to a class feature.Again, class balance is relative. If one of the druid's class features has the option of making the fighter's job of tank obscolete, then the fighter is underpowered compared to the druid. As long as you stick to the Animal Companion being overpowering, you'll never demonstrate that a Fighter is a worse choice."Never" is a funny word, mostly because it's almost never accurate. Anyway, I say we close the book on this particular side topic. We're going in circles, and it's starting to derail the thread.
Nyferto 08-17-05, 05:28 AM	Well I'm not sure what the topic's really about, but i'll stick to the bad methods of class anaylsis theme that kicked it all off. Because a Druid doesn't have to choose a Riding Dog as an Animal Companion, the animal companion feature has faults in it's options that are overpowered, it does not equate to a bad/powerful class because you don't have to take the option. Whilst a 1st level Riding Dog might make a compariable Tank to a 1st level fighter class (still see no evidence of others facing off any worse), it doesn't replace the character as an option for a compariable Fighter. Exactly because the Fighter has the tactical advantages in Combat that A Druid or his riding dog cannot match. The Animal companion does not replace the Fighter, he matches up as a Tank - Fighters aren't exclusively Tanks. Even if the Fighter was a Tank, he wouldn't have to be. Not only that but the Animal Companion is harder to replace if he dies. Tiny Animal Hit Dice: 1d8 (4 hp) Initiative: +3 Speed: 10 ft. (2 squares), fly 40 ft. (average) Armor Class: 17 (+2 size, +3 Dex, +2 natural), touch 15, flat-footed 14 Base Attack/Grapple: +0/–11 Attack: Talons +5 melee (1d4–3) Full Attack: Talons +5 melee (1d4–3) Space/Reach: 2-1/2 ft./0 ft. Special Attacks: — Special Qualities: Low-light vision Saves: Fort +2, Ref +5, Will +2 Abilities: Str 4, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 14, Cha 4 Skills: Listen +14, Move Silently +17, Spot +6* Feats: Weapon Finesse Environment: Temperate forests Organization: Solitary Challenge Rating: 1/4 Advancement: 2 HD (Small) Level Adjustment: — The statistics presented here describe nocturnal birds of prey from 1 to 2 feet long, with wingspans up to 6 feet. They combine both talons into a single attack. Combat Owls swoop quietly down onto prey, attacking with their powerful talons. Skills: Owls have a +8 racial bonus on Listen checks and a +14 racial bonus on Move Silently checks. *They have a +8 racial bonus on Spot checks in areas of shadowy illumination. How does he compare to say a Rogue or a Wizard? Or a Fighter or a Barbarian?
BlaineTog 08-17-05, 05:32 AM	Because a Druid doesn't have to choose a Riding Dog as an Animal Companion, the animal companion feature has faults in it's options that are overpowered, it does not equate to a bad/powerful class because you don't have to take the option.But you can take it. There's nothing stopping you. If anything, a riding dog is one of the less exotic animal companions you can aquire.
Nyferto 08-17-05, 05:49 AM	Which doesn't mean you will take it, just like how a Fighter might come off better than a Greatsword and Long bow user. Not only that but it wasn't even a clear-cut victory. The fact that you can take it just means that Animal Companion choices are imbalanced against themselves. It's like Cleric domains, they're not balanced against each other, there are optimal choices for each situation. Neither mean the respective users are overpowered or broken classes, just that they have a number of bad options. Consider that at 2nd level a Wolf Animal Companion will outstrip practically everyone because it's got 4HD and a number of other bonuses and the Animal Companion is clearly broken at early levels. Who would win in a Fight, the Animal Companion or his Druid?