Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caelic 07-27-04, 12:02 PM	If a thread like this has been done before, apologies; I haven't seen one, and a quick search didn't turn one up. A lot of what's done on these boards is dedicated to finding the absolute outer boundaries of what's possible--frequently, to the point of making a character who's so optimized in one direction that he's realistically useless in any other situation. Such characters, while fun, are not the be-all end-all of optimization. I thought it might be helpful to discuss the BENCHMARKS of optimization--the standards by which we measure whether something is over- or underpowered. What is a "good" save array at 20th level? What is a "good" DC for your fifth level spell at seventeenth level? What is a "bad" AC at tenth level? Which classes and prestige classes are used as measuring sticks to determine whether OTHER classes and prestige classes are very powerful or underpowered? Here's what we've got so far: CLASS ELEMENTS By class elements I mean those things common to all classes. Every class has a BAB, every class has saves, every class has skill points. BAB: For a character who's going to engage in combat frequently, +16 BAB seems to be the benchmark. SAVES: General consensus seems to be that the benchmark for saves is 30 points total, as proposed by Snow Savant. This is the total accrued by a 20-level class with two good saves. SKILL POINTS: 7 fully advanced skills seems to be right around the level at which a character is considered a "skill monkey."
Snow Savant 07-27-04, 12:57 PM	Originally posted by Caelic What is a "good" save array at 20th level? A good benchmark here is a 20th level character who is straight classed in a core-class that gives 2 good saves, i.e. Bard, Druid, or Ranger. Add up the 3 "base" saves of such a character, and you get a total of 30. I tend to think that any 20 level build with a base compiled save total of 30+ is considered "good". Anything higher than that is gravy. Without a doubt, the FORT and WILL saves are the most important, as those are the saves you need to defeat "save-or-die" spells. A poor REFL save usually means you are taking a lot of damage, which is generally easier to deal with as most optimized characters boost CON as much as possible via point buy or magic gear. What is a "good" DC for your fifth level spell at seventeenth level?Due to all the point buy options, optimal DC's are difficult to gauge. If your primary spellcaster was starting at 1st level with a primary casting stat of lower than 16, your character is probably not optimized. Which classes and prestige classes are used as measuring sticks to determine whether OTHER classes and prestige classes are very powerful or underpowered? Core Classes? Well, my chart below is based upon a strategic assessment of combining both their in-combat and out-of-combat value. And we are talking optimized 20 level straight-classing for each. You may be surprised to see Rogue placed so high - it's because Rogue is the elegantly balanced of all the classes. And for those of you who balk at such a concept thinking that Sneak Attack is the be-all, end-all of Rogues ... it's not. It's the SKILLS... And the fact that at 20th level, Rogues and Bards are immensely effective spellcasters if their UMD is structured right. Using scrolls, staves, wands, holy swords, etc. of all the other classes. The Sorceror almost made it into my "Average" column because I despise their horrid mechanics - but ultimately, they do get 9th level spells and the resultant cheese from Shapechange, Time Stop, Gate, etc. WORLD-CLASS = Cleric & Druid TOP-TIER = Wizard GOOD = Rogue & Sorceror & Bard AVERAGE = Ranger & Barbarian BAD = Fighter & Monk & Paladin
Caelic 07-27-04, 01:08 PM	I like your figure of 30 as a benchmark for saves, Snow, and I think we can add a few more along the same lines: I'd say that +16 BAB is the benchmark for a class that intends to engage in combat on a regular basis. This is, of course, subject to modifications (a straight cleric does just fine in melee thanks to Divine Power, even without the +16 BAB.) +16 is not what I'd call optimal for a straight front-liner, seeing as it means you're lagging four levels behind the full BAB boys, but it's the bare minimum I would consider for a combat-heavy character. DCs, I believe, we can calculate based on what we determine to be the average bonus likely to be encountered; that is to say, if your highest-level spell fails to affect the average opponent with a good save in that category half the time, it probably falls short of the benchmark. As a rule of thumb, I'd probably assign a +2 or +3 bonus to that base save, to reflect the fact that most well-designed opponents will have bonuses...some more, some less. I confess that I'm a bit surprised that Bard made it so high on your list; I actually would've rated the Rogue's superior skills and class abilities a bit higher than the Bard's, in a straight 20-level build. What about non-core classes? Where would you place Hexblade on this list, for example, or Favored Soul?
Snow Savant 07-27-04, 01:16 PM	I confess that I'm a bit surprised that Bard made it so high on your list; I actually would've rated the Rogue's superior skills and class abilities a bit higher than the Bard's, in a straight 20-level build. Primarily because of the famed Uber-UMD Bard build being able to do ungodly things at high levels. Enough so that it trumps her own spellcasting and bard song capability. And again, we're talking about a comprehensive value overview of her in and out of combat capabilities. What about non-core classes? Where would you place Hexblade on this list, for example, or Favored Soul? GOOD = Favored Soul AVERAGE = War Mage BAD = Hexblade, Samurai, Healer, Marshal, & Swashbuckler Again, we're talking a 20 level investment here, not dips or exit point builds. I also despise War Mage as well - and it resides somewhere between bad and average.
Funny Slaughter 07-27-04, 02:03 PM	GOOD = Favored Soul AVERAGE = War Mage BAD = Hexblade, Samurai, Healer, Marshal, & Swashbuckler Again, we're talking a 20 level investment here, not dips or exit point builds. I also despise War Mage as well - and it resides somewhere between bad and average. i dont think you have to rate all these classes at lvl 20. in my opinion hexblade, marshal and swashbuckler are all really really good as long as you take them for a few levels only. as for benchmarks i would suggest that we take a dragon as an enemy. the oldtimers do sure remember the "how many white dragons can you slay" contest. i would say one should take a basic array of enemies like a balor, a big dragon and the like and measure the AC, to-hit etc with these benchmarks. a second benchmark should be some enemies of a CR around 15 maybe, if they can easily hit you/defeat your saves etc. you are sub-par. Caelic, how about editing your first post and adding the "results" of our discussion there? you could make a section with core-classes, one with numbers like saves, AC and the like... it would be also cool if we could include the various "highest possible"-things within such a collection... gs Funny
Snow Savant 07-27-04, 02:25 PM	Funny said:i dont think you have to rate all these classes at lvl 20. I interpreted Caelic's quote:Which classes and prestige classes are used as measuring sticks to determine whether OTHER classes and prestige classes are very powerful or underpowered? ... as an overall assessment of the individual classes as a whole. Otherwise, every single core class in creation has merit in some build or another - based on dips and their respective optimal entry/exit points. *** Regarding optimal AC points, that's a bit dependent on party structure and builds-in-relation-to roles. For example, your party's respective "tank" may be a THF Barbarian with a Karmic Strike angle. This kind of guy doesn't give a damn about AC ... and in fact [i]encourages[i] getting hit. AC is just one component of a more comprehensive "Overall Defense Factor" that a character should be evaluated on. For example, a lower AC "tank" is acceptable if your character has decent DR, extraordinary HP, Karmic Strike emphasis, Fast Healing, etc. XO, Snow :cloud9:
Ranthanas 07-27-04, 02:26 PM	I tend to use the core classes for benchmarks- can you beat them (and Snow's 30 points of saves is a good rule). For anyone attempting to do a "jack of all trades", I subject it to the "Bard test"- can they beat the bard at what they are supposed to be good at. With the exception of hit points, the answer is usually a resounding no (8th level spells in 6th level slots CL20, +15BAB, 6+Int skill points, 2 good saves, both magic and music as superb abilities). I'd only very slightly disagree with Snow on relative power of the classes WORLD-CLASS = Cleric & Druid TOP-TIER = Wizard & Bard GOOD = Rogue & Ranger AVERAGE = Sorceror & Barbarian BAD = Fighter & Monk & Paladin Yes, I would put the bard above the rogue. The reason is that quite simply where the bard and the rogue skills overlap, with the single exception of the skill mastery ability, the bard thrashes the rogue- he can bring spells to bear as well as his skills (Move silently? Move silently + Silence + Sculpt Sound Hide? Hide + Invisibilty. Socials? An extra synergy for Diplomacy and *Glibness* (one of the bardic game breaking abilities (also Bardic Knowledge providing background on anyone important)). He also flattens all knowledge skills and the Gather Information skill with Bardic Lore (another game breaking ability). Still, he's the hardest of the major classes to play effectively.
Funny Slaughter 07-27-04, 02:42 PM	Otherwise, every single core class in creation has merit in some build or another - based on dips and their respective optimal entry/exit points. ok, if we look at straight lvl20 i would also put the swashbuckler into the average-category. but in fact i think beside of casters and the rogue no core-class is above average in power when taken straight. i also agree with rathanas that the bard is better then the rogue when its one class only. and i think the "bard-test" is a great idea. gs Funny
Elgonn 07-27-04, 03:01 PM	Originally posted by Caelic What is a "good" DC for your fifth level spell at seventeenth level? While an exact number is probably impossible. You can easily say that a minimum of 23 is required. I'd be interested in how you could define whether or not a character is considered 'skilled'. Ability to have 7+ skills maxed in ranks?
Snow Savant 07-27-04, 03:39 PM	Originally posted by Elgonn While an exact number is probably impossible. You can easily say that a minimum of 23 is required. I'd be interested in how you could define whether or not a character is considered 'skilled'. Ability to have 7+ skills maxed in ranks? My criteria for a true "skill-monkey" is exactly that, Elgonn. 7+ Ranks per Level .... after adding on your INT Mod. Which means that Rangers and Bards with no INT Mod. are not really skill monkeys in my book, but Rogues automatically are, assuming no heavy penalty to INT. Since skill-monkey builds are not very sexy in the CO Forum, I often see people touting their versatility builds as skill-monkeys with only 4-5 skill ranks per levels. While that is decent and perhaps above average, it is no superstar skill dude. If we applied the same emphasis to maxing out skills as we do to damage output, DC's, attack bonuses, etc. ... the bar for skill superstars in the CO Forum should be raised even higher. Perhaps my 7+ is even a little low in light of such comparisons... XO, Snow :cloud9:
Mucknuggle 07-27-04, 03:50 PM	How about the psionic classes? I would say that the Psychic Warrior, Psion and Psychic Rogue are all Top-Tier classes. A straight Psychic Warrior is just plain scary (see Lord Shade's King of Smack). A Psion IMO is just as good as a Wizard, while the Psychic Rogue can easily be a skill-monkey and a combat fiend at the same time (thx to that nasty Int damage ability + SA dice). The Soul Knife looks pretty bad, and I have not even bothered to read the Wilder class, so no opinion there. I think that we are forgetting a couple of non-core classes as well. The Oriental Adventures Wu Jen, Shaman, Samurai, Sohei and Shugenja. Also the Complete Divine Shaman.
Zubon 07-27-04, 04:14 PM	As I read this thread, the benchmarks work roughly like this: Find the core class that is best at whatever you are measuring (BAB, spellcasting, etc.). Give it the right number of levels, a 16 base in whatever stat is relevant, and the simplest relevant equipment, feats, etc. You must have more than 75% of what that class can do to be "acceptable," more than 100% to be "good," and more than 150% to be "highly optimized." That may be high for standards, but we tend to operate on high standards here. Some quick examples: - DC benchmark is a Wizard/Cleric with base 16 Int/Wis, an item to boost Int/Wis, Spell Focus, and Greater Spell Focus. At higher levels, include a book to increase that stat. The level 12 benchmark would be Int/Wis=23 and DC=10+6+2+spell level. If your DC for a third level spell is less than 16, do not bring the character to the table, and do not consider yourself an offensive caster if your DC is less than 21. Do not post "I HAVE MADE THE ULTEMATE SPELLCASTUR!!!!!!!!" if your DC is less than 31 (well, maybe 26, 150% of the +DC). - Skill benchmark is a Rogue with 16 Int, so 11 skill points per level, maybe more at higher levels or if we assume human. A human Rogue at level 8 could then have 18 Int, 8+4+1=13 skill points per level. That would make 10 skill points/level the threshold for being a skill monkey on these boards, 13 for being a "good" skill monkey, and 20 to be the king of the hill. Actually, if you can max 20 skills at any pre-epic level, call me, I need to play that character. This one might be a little high. - To hit benchmark is a Fighter with 16 Str (or Dex w/ Finesse), Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, and the best + weapon available at that level. A level 4 Fighter would have 17 Str, so +4 (BAB) +3 (Str) +1 (WFocus) +1 (+1 sword) = +9 is the benchmark for "to hit" at level 4. Less than +7 is not trying, and less than +14 will not impress us. Again, this could lead to some high standards, but I have come to expect a lot from people here. :) The minimum for an optimized character should be the best "non-optimized" character, i.e. the most straightforward way of getting there with core material.
Elgonn 07-27-04, 04:36 PM	Originally posted by Snow Savant Perhaps my 7+ is even a little low in light of such comparisons... Probably not... There are only so many useful skills one can truly use. I personally love the skill monkey. One of the reasons I like the Loremaster PrC. 4+Int on an arcane caster? With an even better skill access. I think I ranked everyone. WORLD-CLASS: Cleric, Druid TOP-TIER: Wizard, Psionic Rogue, OA Shaman GOOD: Rogue, Ranger, Bard, Favored Soul, Psion, Psionic Warrior AVERAGE: Wilder, Sorcerer, Barbarian, War Mage, OA Samurai, OA Shugenja, Wu jen, Sohei, CD Shugenja, Hexblade, CD Spirit Shaman BAD: Fighter, Swashbuckler, Hexblade, Monk, Paladin, Marshal, Healer, CD Samurai
Caelic 07-27-04, 04:46 PM	I'll compile these into the first post a bit later. Another one I'd like to benchmark: "dip" classes or prestige classes. For purposes of this thread, let's define them as, say, classes where you take no more than two levels.
Snow Savant 07-27-04, 04:50 PM	- Skill benchmark is a Rogue with 16 Int, so 11 skill points per level, maybe more at higher levels or if we assume human. A human Rogue at level 8 could then have 18 Int, 8+4+1=13 skill points per level. That would make 10 skill points/level the threshold for being a skill monkey on these boards, 13 for being a "good" skill monkey, and 20 to be the king of the hill. Actually, if you can max 20 skills at any pre-epic level, call me, I need to play that character. This one might be a little high. Zubon, I really wish this could be the skill-monkey standard for the CO Forum. But straight Rogue (which is the only way to get to your route you mentioned above) is generally frowned upon by many of the CO Regulars here. Which is a crying shame, because Rogue-20 (in all of its various sub-genre specialties) is still in my book, one of the most powerful characters you can play. Primarily because of the power of crazy-high ranks in skills - at all levels of play.
Elgonn 07-27-04, 04:57 PM	I love skill monkeys but considering how hard it is to get 10+ for anyone besides the rogue/spymaster. Its probably setting the bar too high. Rogue 20 is a great character. God I love Hide. DIP CLASSES Swashbuckler - Weapon Finesse Fighter - Proficiencies, Feats Barbarian - Rage, Movement Rogue - Trapfinding, Evasion Ranger - Track, Weapon Style Monk - Saves, IUS, Wis to AC Paladin - Divine Grace Hexblade - Arcane Resistance Any spellcaster theoretically for "Able to cast arcane/divine" or access for wands, etc.. DIP PRESTIGE Someone else dare compile this one. Hundreds... EDIT: There really need to be more skill based PrCs. How many give 8+Int / level? How many grant even larger skill access and/or points/level than a rogue? Where is my 5 level PrC that grants Skill Mastery and 12+ skills / level with poor BAB and no sneak?
HoshiAdam 07-27-04, 05:02 PM	I would also consider a 7+ skill points per level as a minimum for a slightly specialized skill monkey. Maxing 7 skills or more can cover a lot of skills, but not all of them that might be necessary for a skill-monkey type character. 11 skills is a good average I think, and 14 or more pretty much can cover multiple skill-based party needs (face, traps, sneaking) You could even list skills that should be maxed in groups: *Face: Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Gather Information, Perform, Speak Language, Disguise *Traps: Disable Device, Open Lock, Search, Listen, Spot, and the trapfinding ability *Sneaky: Move Silently, Hide, Bluff, Sleight of Hand, Forgery, Escape Artist, Use Rope, Tumble, Disguise *Other particularly useful skills for a skill monkey: Survival, Use Magic Device, Decipher Script Covering one group exclusively might be a bit of overkill, but I think that would make for the minimum of a skill monkey. Damage figures might be a good benchmark also, but they are a little harder to quantify, since there is usually a damage/AC tradeoff. Maybe after the attack bonus benchmarks are made, some damage benchmarks could be added. Something like "average damage of 17 while TWF at level 12 while maintaining a minimum attack bonus of 16." Also, for an idea, what about breaking the Dip Classes down by how many levels are best to dip?
Ranthanas 07-27-04, 06:46 PM	Originally posted by Snow Savant My criteria for a true "skill-monkey" is exactly that, Elgonn. 7+ Ranks per Level .... after adding on your INT Mod. Which means that Rangers and Bards with no INT Mod. are not really skill monkeys in my book, but Rogues automatically are, assuming no heavy penalty to INT. There's a good reason I favour human bards :p (I also usually put the highest even stat into Int- it's the only stat that isn't affected retroactively (or even effectively for non-casting purposes by items)). I'd say 6 ranks per level before Int (and assuming that one of your highest stats will be int) is sufficient for a skill monkey assuming he can do other things as well. (Also in the specific case of the straight bard, he definitely qualifies due to Bardic Lore covering quite a range of skills) Since skill-monkey builds are not very sexy in the CO Forum, I often see people touting their versatility builds as skill-monkeys with only 4-5 skill ranks per levels. While that is decent and perhaps above average, it is no superstar skill dude. If we applied the same emphasis to maxing out skills as we do to damage output, DC's, attack bonuses, etc. ... the bar for skill superstars in the CO Forum should be raised even higher. Perhaps my 7+ is even a little low in light of such comparisons... The problem is that skills aren't so flashy as damage dealing and not so obviously useful (and not all skills are always useful). The other point is that there isn't half as much emphasis placed by WoTC on skills as on fighting or magic- I can name only a single PrC that gives 8+Int skill points per level, and that one circumscribes two of them. (At least the situation's improved since 3.0 when the ranger and the bard had 4+Int skill points each- even if I can't think of any 8+Int 3.5 PrCs) On a tangent, the one thing I'd say against the Rogue 20 being a more than viable build is that the will save is only +6 and he doesn't have feats to dump into Iron Will (yes, he can get slippery mind- but unless you already have a good will save this probably won't be enough)
Zubon 07-27-04, 07:52 PM	Actually, my favorite skill-monkey class is the Cerebrex from Dragon Magazine. 8 skill points per level and 1/2 arcane caster advancement works well for me. :) Less combat efficient than a Rogue, but probably the most utile PrC I have ever seen. It would be nice to get 14+ skill points per level.
Snow Savant 07-27-04, 08:01 PM	The problem is that skills aren't so flashy as damage dealing and not so obviously useful (and not all skills are always useful). The other point is that there isn't half as much emphasis placed by WoTC on skills as on fighting or magic- I can name only a single PrC that gives 8+Int skill points per level, and that one circumscribes two of them. (At least the situation's improved since 3.0 when the ranger and the bard had 4+Int skill points each- even if I can't think of any 8+Int 3.5 PrCs) Too bad. Because a well-constructed CHA-Rogue or Bard can have both UMD and Diplomacy cranked so high that they can eventually use every conceivable magic item around in addition to converting a majority of the foes they face into non-hostile with either a Friendly or Helpful attitude adjustment towards the party. And yes, that's with the option for -10 on Diplomacy to use in a full-round action. That's a more esoteric way to "win" encounters (yes, you get XP for diplomicizing enemies into friends), but it works - and it saves the typical 25% expenditure in resources that a party spends in a given combat encounter. And man, that's really freaking nice. Because now you can use those potions, spell slots, scrolls, what-have-you on your next encounter. Skills are great at high levels - and what's greater. Is that they are *FREE* to use whenever you want. XO, Snow :cloud9:
catharz 07-27-04, 08:06 PM	Originally posted by Ranthanas On a tangent, the one thing I'd say against the Rogue 20 being a more than viable build is that the will save is only +6 and he doesn't have feats to dump into Iron Will (yes, he can get slippery mind- but unless you already have a good will save this probably won't be enough) With Rogue 20 you have feats to dump into Iron will because Iron will is a pre-requisite for Dexterous will/fortitude. And you get Slippery mind because Void incarnate requires it.
Mucknuggle 07-27-04, 10:41 PM	Hmm, for the dip stuff I think that 3 levels is an acceptable "dip". Some classes have great 3 level dips (3.0 Holy Liberator, 3.5 Swashbuckler). EDIT: Do you guys want to vote on the tier listing of all the base classes? I think that it would be very interesting to have an in-depth discussion as to the power levels of all the WotC 20 level classes relative to one another. It would certainly help newbies out (and those of us, who, like me, have not spent a good deal of time analyzing many of the classes) when it comes to understanding WHY we say that one class is better than another.
Funny Slaughter 07-28-04, 05:34 AM	i think we could maybe ask one of the wizOs to let us make a poll about the base-classes, it would be so much easier with the rating-system activated. a list with PrCs would be a great idea but also quite some work. one could take the list from the abbrevation-section of the build-FAQ and divide them into different categories, like "crap", "cool for a few levels (i.e. dip)" "go for the full load" without otherwise rating the overall powerlevel (which is very difficult) gs Funny
Ranthanas 07-28-04, 06:36 AM	Originally posted by Snow Savant Too bad. Because a well-constructed CHA-Rogue or Bard can have both UMD and Diplomacy cranked so high that they can eventually use every conceivable magic item around in addition to converting a majority of the foes they face into non-hostile with either a Friendly or Helpful attitude adjustment towards the party. And yes, that's with the option for -10 on Diplomacy to use in a full-round action. That's a more esoteric way to "win" encounters (yes, you get XP for diplomicizing enemies into friends), but it works - and it saves the typical 25% expenditure in resources that a party spends in a given combat encounter. And man, that's really freaking nice. Because now you can use those potions, spell slots, scrolls, what-have-you on your next encounter. Skills are great at high levels - and what's greater. Is that they are *FREE* to use whenever you want. XO, Snow :cloud9: You're preaching to the choir there, Snow. Some people, however, don't like their lovely combats being stolen by the bard (or rogue) armed with diplomacy- and I've even seen a Paladin player complain that the Rogue had "Stolen" the spare Holy Avenger (and complain even more after his got sundered). 10 Skill points/level? Human Bard, 16 Int. Easy. 12 as a benchmark is somewhat impractical- it either requires a 16 Int human rogue or a 18 Int something else- and 14 is plain impossible with LA 0 characters. (Remember changing your Int isn't retroactive and enhancement bonusses don't give you more skill points (making them ridiculously overpriced for anyone except a wizard)). Note: the Ranger's 6 skill points per level to me seem to allow the ranger to use Int as a dump stat and still be competant- he quite simply doesn't have as useful a skill list as the Rogue or Bard. As for the poll *watches the bard plummet to the bottom of the list*- it's been done on the classes forum and at enworld, and I wasn't impressed. (IIRC in addition to the bard being off the bottom of the list, the sorc beat the wizzie on one of the polls).
Fălenganor 07-28-04, 07:23 AM	At the same time I found this thread a great idea I found it depressing too, seeing the sorcerer as average made me wonder, is he average even when multiclassed properly? Is he always behind the wizard, cleric and druid? Even them being the class I like the most, they look so lame that the straight sorcerer should be removed from the face of earth and multiclassed sorcerer should be removed from C.O. .:sad:
Borin 07-28-04, 08:02 AM	Sorcerer weak? Any class that has acces to Shapechange, Polymorph Any Object, Shades, the Planar Binding spells... weak? I'd say the non-casters are relatively weak. A caster built for melee greatly outdamages them, and most non-casters (exept rogue/bard) aren't much good for non-combat either. Sorcerer is actually a bit better at abusing Shapechange in that you only need one stat for casting and for DCs of the Sp/Su of the Shapechange forms. Cast SC at the beginning of the day (lasts for hours at those levels), and in combat change forms every round. Example with core rules: Morning: cast Shapechange and become a Beholder :behold: Combat stats: give'm a volley of eyerays (with good DCs), then :free action: Pit Fiend! If someone was standing next to you, you can still do a full attack. A Sorcerer can be seen as mechanically inferior to a wizard, but in my opinion it's still a better class than fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin for combat purposes. Hrm, even an Arcane Caster's familiar with Shapechange is tougher than a FullBAB.
Ranthanas 07-28-04, 08:17 AM	Originally posted by Fălenganor At the same time I found this thread a great idea I found it depressing too, seeing the sorcerer as average made me wonder, is he average even when multiclassed properly? Is he always behind the wizard, cleric and druid? Even them being the class I like the most, they look so lame that the straight sorcerer should be removed from the face of earth and multiclassed sorcerer should be removed from C.O. .:sad: Well, I'm not arguing with either the Sorceror 9/Heartwarder of Sune 10/Archmage 1 or the Sorceror 6/Exalted Arcanist 5/3.0 Incantatrix 9 Actually, I'm not arguing with the sorceror at all once he gets 9th level spells and I'm certainly not arguing with anyone who can cast spontaneous epic spells (it's probably worth a bard burning the feats and skillpoints for this)- but before that, he is definitely behind the wizard (by half a spell level) and not half as flexible.
Stormwind 07-28-04, 09:42 AM	I would rate the sorcerer and the wizard at about the same level. Although the wizard can be much more flexible in terms of the range of spells available to him, the wizard also has an enormous weakness (his need for a spellbook), which I have seen expoited by more than just one DM. Perhaps the sorcerer lags slightly behind the wizard due to his/her delayed access to higher level spells, but I would not rate them more 1 rank behind. Thus if Wizards are ranked as top-tier, then sorcerers would be at least ranked as Good. Just my 2cents worth.
Funny Slaughter 07-28-04, 03:05 PM	Funny Slaughter wrote on 07-28-04 02:35 AM: hi WizO_Autumn, quite some regulars of the CO-board had the idea about a poll rating the base-classes as it would be quite interesting to see what everybody else thinks about it. is it possible to make up such a voting-thread with the vote-function if we give the details? gs Funny Sure- write up the details and email it to me. I'm leaving for vacation right now actually, but I'll be back Tuesday and I can post it then. I have to actually make the thread to do polls, so I can't do it until then. Or you could ask a scribe- they can create polls too. -------------- so lets get some form for this poll and we can get it at tuesday, what do you say? gs Funny
Fălenganor 07-28-04, 03:16 PM	Originally posted by Funny Slaughter Funny Slaughter wrote on 07-28-04 02:35 AM: hi WizO_Autumn, quite some regulars of the CO-board had the idea about a poll rating the base-classes as it would be quite interesting to see what everybody else thinks about it. is it possible to make up such a voting-thread with the vote-function if we give the details? gs Funny Sure- write up the details and email it to me. I'm leaving for vacation right now actually, but I'll be back Tuesday and I can post it then. I have to actually make the thread to do polls, so I can't do it until then. Or you could ask a scribe- they can create polls too. -------------- so lets get some form for this poll and we can get it at tuesday, what do you say? gs Funny :bow: We already have the competitors, what about the categories already posted, like World-Class, Top-Tier, Good, Average and Bad? We could vote separatedly for each of the classes, giving them the 5 options. P.S. : I`m already saying that the results will be hella strange, like fighter as a Top-Tier
Elgonn 07-28-04, 03:36 PM	A poll would be interesting but the simple fact that it would be voted in by possibly hundreds of unknown people and the fact that the results would be annonymous would limit their validity. God forbid we see Ftr 20 scoring anything other than BAD.
Snow Savant 07-28-04, 03:41 PM	The reason I ranked Sorc so low is that yes, he can participate in this Shapechange/Gate/Astral Projection/PAO Cheese Sweepstakes just like the Wiz and the Cleric. But until he gets to 16th level (and is breaking the game 6 ways to Sunday with PAO), the Sorcerer is behind 1 spellcasting level from the Wiz/Cleric ... and can consistently be faced with extremely poor spell selection through entire campaigns. Spell selections where he has to rest each and every night for 8 hours knowing that when he wakes up in the morning, the majority of his spells will be useless or counterproductive to the challenges he faces the next day. The Wizard can make spell prep errors right and left ... admit to his mistakes in prior selection ... then "fix" his selections for the next adventuring day and come out raging like gangbusters. This aspect of the Sorceror is absolutely, freakin' crippling in highly competitive play. Note: in my area of NYC, there is a disproportionately high fatality rate amongst Sorceror characters in the area. And well-played ones too. For more reasons on Sorceror suckage, visit the Classes Forum for a whole assload of well-articulated threads on why the Sorceror needs improved mechanics. Originally posted by Borin Sorcerer weak? Any class that has acces to Shapechange, Polymorph Any Object, Shades, the Planar Binding spells... weak? I'd say the non-casters are relatively weak. A caster built for melee greatly outdamages them, and most non-casters (exept rogue/bard) aren't much good for non-combat either. Sorcerer is actually a bit better at abusing Shapechange in that you only need one stat for casting and for DCs of the Sp/Su of the Shapechange forms. Cast SC at the beginning of the day (lasts for hours at those levels), and in combat change forms every round. Example with core rules: Morning: cast Shapechange and become a Beholder :behold: Combat stats: give'm a volley of eyerays (with good DCs), then :free action: Pit Fiend! If someone was standing next to you, you can still do a full attack. A Sorcerer can be seen as mechanically inferior to a wizard, but in my opinion it's still a better class than fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin for combat purposes. Hrm, even an Arcane Caster's familiar with Shapechange is tougher than a FullBAB.
Elgonn 07-28-04, 03:53 PM	Originally posted by Snow Savant The reason I ranked Sorc so low is that yes, he can participate in this Shapechange/Gate/Astral Projection/PAO Cheese Sweepstakes just like the Wiz and the Cleric. One of the reasons I rank the Sorcerer only average is that they are hands down the most likely character to get screwed because of common house rules. Just think about the above spells. A sorcerer's viability is almost totally dependant on using the top notch penultimate spells to be effective. Which leaves them precipitously at the edge of the DM's whim. Not only do the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid not really care about minor house rules but they already have better class features and mechanics.
Fălenganor 07-29-04, 01:59 AM	For more reasons on Sorceror suckage, visit the Classes Forum for a whole assload of well-articulated threads on why the Sorceror needs improved mechanics. I`ve had my share of alt. sorcerers Snow :D . But one of the things that bothers me is that the sorcerer`s mechanic should be the psions`s, what I mean is that psion are what sorcerers should have been. P.S. : I already alerted that the poll is a good idea to see what the C.O. community thinks, and I`m all for it, but the results will be weird.
Naja 07-29-04, 03:34 AM	Originally posted by Snow Savant Due to all the point buy options, optimal DC's are difficult to gauge. That is partly correct. But to give an overview much like yours I would propose the following: 1) Match the DC versus the Medium Save bonus of a character of equal level (that is, (Good Save +Bad Save)/2). 2) Then get the percentages for failing the Save without Attribute Bonus: (For example a DC of 17 has a percentage of failing of 35% at level 20 (1-7 on the D20) [Medium Save has been +9]) 3) Compare to the table: Bad: 5-45% (1-9) [=failing to get most spells into effect] Average 50-65% (10-13) [=getting less then 50% of spells into effect] Good: 70-90% (14-18) [=getting 50-60% of spells into effect] Top-Tier: 95-135% (19+) [=getting almost every spell into effect] World-Class: >140% [=getting every spell into effect, even directed against the creature´s best saves] As this does not count in the Attribute modifier (and feats), it should obviously be adjusted to High Powered and Low Powered Campaigns. I put the Attribute Bonus out of that, because that isn´t to manipulate on your side. But if the attribute bonus has to be considered, I would propose an Attribute score of 14 (+2 Bonus), because that would be the average to be encountered in the relevant attributes. That leads to a simple solution: raise the percentages above by ten percent. Also this does mean, with a rating of Top-Tier or better, that you are well done for every encounter with a bad save or those with a good save (and no attribute modifier). That seems to me sufficient for most caster types who are well optimized in their spell-selection (as in: have spells to affect all saving throw weaknesses). Now, in a 3.0 Forgotten Realms campaign that numbers had to go far above that.