Weaksauce: An Overview of Class Deficiencies

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wizard PPs don't get the job done, none are really impressive Controller PPs. Planeshaper MAYBE and then its main feature is more +leader than +Controller. If you need to MC to access PPs that are +role, your MC is more locked down than it should be.

Rangers I've always been meh on their PPs too, but I will grant you it. 


Ranger has one or two gems (Principally Battlefield Archer and Blade Dancer IMO), but you're usually better going over to Fighter.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Here is my quick take on what is wrong with the cleric, warpriest, and shaman.

flaws

Shaman 


Hybrids too well


Doesn’t lose much and gets a lot out of it.  Most of the time you should be hybridding.


Lackluster Powers


Has struggles with encounter power attacks for some builds.  A few levels don’t have stand out dailies.  Healing Spirits is probably the least useful of the “Healing Word” powers since it spreads out the healing too much and has placement issues.


Class Features


Lack of decent armor proficiency is a big deal for con shamans and those builds require you to invest in strengh and chain proficiency right away or somehow get battle clerics lore.  The class normally has the worst AC of any leader.  Totems are one of the worst implements and its the only one they start out with.


Restricted Multiclassing


If your DM allows BCL through multiclassing, there goes your multiclass spot for con shamans.


RAW/ETV


It has its own stickied rules FAQ on how the companion works.




Having played a Shaman for quite a while (will probably hit Epic levels next session), I agree with most of your statements on it, but I will say that if you are playing a Shaman focused on healing, Healing Spirits becomes one of the best healing powers at paragon levels with the Spirit Tempest PP because you can then heal the entire party at once, unless you've been avoiding taking additional conjuration powers for some reason. 
  I've also rarely found the armor proficiency to be an issue except for the rare case where an enemy manages to get anywhere near the shaman.

   I don't know if this is a true "weakness" to include or not, but its difficult to make a ranger who can function well at both melee and ranged striking because all of the class attack powers require the use of dexterity for ranged attacks, even if you're using heavy thrown weapons.

Your examples are inaccurate and that's not a class failure anyway, it's passing with a C.



Sorcerer : You will take Flame Spiral, Lightning Daggers and Thunder Summons along with a handful of others regardless of build selection. Sounds like one-true-path to me.

Swordmage : Assault is a Genasi(Storm) only option. Altho, you're right that the class has other options. 
Ranger has one or two gems (Principally Battlefield Archer and Blade Dancer IMO), but you're usually better going over to Fighter.

Pathfinder? The replacement LDB used for the best practical OP melee Ranger build after Pit Fighter was errata'd? Stormwarden, the highest damage Str/Dex path?

I concede some of the others (Lone Wolf) not only lock your MC but your race to maximize their benefits, but Rangers have at a minimum three top-tier in-class PPs and another half a dozen that are very much +striker in the mid-tier range. Strictly in terms of +role they may very well be the best supported class in terms of PPs. It'd be close, they are in the top 3 classes for total PPs (Warlod, Fighter, Ranger), but a lot of the Fighter ones aren't +Defender and while a lot of the Warlord ones are +leader they are also bad.

@Rising: The armor prof is an issue because with MM3 damage expressions, monsters can reliably one-shot the SC. If your DM doesn't realize this it isn't as much of an issue. But it hurts you, can screw with your action economy (particularly in Heroic), etc. A level+3 brute doesn't even need to roll damage, a 1 on the d6 will kill it (granted brutes get 25% more damage with the new expressions) and at level+12 AC by default an even level with CA only needs to a roll a 4 to hit. The level+3 brute? Needs to not a roll a 1. That is basically guaranteed damage to the Shaman. And considering the passive boosts your SC gives that suddenly disappear if it isn't there, that hurts. Even Chainmail doesn't really solve the issue, it only boosts your AC by 3 to level+15. Still a strong option. Also worth noting some Defender features specify "attacks against an ally." Your Conjuration is not an ally. Near guaranteed damage and no punishment? Sign me up says team monster.

@Zelink: That is a fair point if you are evaulating strictly based on role, could you add that as a note? That you are evaluating PP availability strictly based on role?
Ranger has one or two gems (Principally Battlefield Archer and Blade Dancer IMO), but you're usually better going over to Fighter.


..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />@Rising: The armor prof is an issue because with MM3 damage expressions, monsters can reliably one-shot the SC. If your DM doesn't realize this it isn't as much of an issue. But it hurts you, can screw with your action economy (particularly in Heroic), etc. A level+3 brute doesn't even need to roll damage, a 1 on the d6 will kill it (granted brutes get 25% more damage with the new expressions) and at level+12 AC by default an even level with CA only needs to a roll a 4 to hit. The level+3 brute? Needs to not a roll a 1. That is basically guaranteed damage to the Shaman. And considering the passive boosts your SC gives that suddenly disappear if it isn't there, that hurts. Even Chainmail doesn't really solve the issue, it only boosts your AC by 3 to level+15. Still a strong option. Also worth noting some Defender features specify "attacks against an ally." Your Conjuration is not an ally. Near guaranteed damage and no punishment? Sign me up says team monster.



I can understand where it can be a problem, especially for stalker spirits. The addition of Elven Chain Shirt in the MME does help some.  My DM hasn't done a true MM3 conversion - instead for the last 10 levels or so he's been doubling the static damage modifiers of the monsters we've been fighting, which is arguably worse in terms of damage.  My companion does get popped on occasion but most monsters seem to realize that a) I can bring right back (as a free action) and b) the Ranger (and other characters as well) is doing significantly more damage to them and is a much bigger threat.  Plus we have a shielding swordmage who can reduce the damage of an attack against the SC if really necessary.  When you add in that the SC doesn't provoke attack of opputunity and can move vertically, you can do a lot of hit and run tactics with it, or if you already used your move action, dismiss it as a minor and resummon it elsewhere as a free action. And while not the best option a Totemic spear to make all your Melee Spirit attacks have range of 2.
Ah, no, the Swordmage can't do that. Aegis of Shielding only works if the enemy damages a creature "...damage dealt by that attack to any one creature.". SC is not a creature. I mentioned that, many defender features don't apply.

Elven Chain Shirt, at Epic, gives you +3 to AC. Identical to Chainmail. Prior to that it is worse (assuming a 12 stat in Int or Dex, if you have a 13 and use the Paragon bump you end up tied when you get the Paragin ECS, a level 20 item).

Again, it depends on how tactically acute your DM is. 4e is really designed around some encounters being hard and some being easy, but each basic work day being a drain on resources and hard to get through. Pinging you for 5+1/2 level damage every round with near impunity is a good way of doing that. And, again, not having it around for out the turn benefits sucks. You can resummon it on your turn, but that is... on your turn. Say your DM keeps killing it right after your turn. Which he can do trivially by rolling an attack roll and checking to see if he rolled a 1 or not (I mean, sometimes he'll have to roll damage. Sometimes).

If your DM isn't using MM3 damage expressions, if your DM isn't being particularly tactical, if your DM isn't looking at making each "work day" a rough experience, none of these apply. But DMs should be doing all those things. I do and I imagine Gelatinous does, as well, which is why he has the same criticisms.
I found the fact that the Shaman's base heal doesn't go up in range to be much more of an issue than people initially think, or make it out to be. Having to bring yourself into easy charge/burst/blast range to heal hurts. People seem to think the shaman has long range healing due to the SC's extra healing, but you still need to be in CB5 to trigger it in the first place.
A Beginners Primer to CharOp. Archmage's Ascension - The Wizard's Handbook. Let the Hammer Fall: Dwarf Warpriest/Tactical Warpriest/Indomitable Champion, a Defending Leader. Requiem for Dissent: Cleric/Fighter/Paragon of Victory Melee Leader Ko te manu e kai i te miro, nona te ngahere. Ko te manu e kai i te matauranga e, nano te ao katoa. It's the proliferation of people who think the rules are more important than what the rules are meant to accomplish. - Dedekine
That is an issue as well. Lurkers, skirmishers, close bursts/blasts if you have to be CB5 to heal. Though most bursts/blasts don't target AC. But having what is near auto-hit AC is a serious deficiency for any character. The PSG has a minimum recommendation of Level+14 AC for every character no matter what and those were suggestions written by the developers based on feedback from CharOp fleshing out the system math. The fact that there is a build that, by default, cannot make that and has to buy into it with an awkward stat spread is a deficiency.
AC issues will be something I will be adding as well.
10/10 Would Flame Again: An Elite Paladin|Warlock The Elemental Man (or Woman): A Genasi Handbook The Warlord, Or How to Wield a Barbarian One-Handed The Bookish Barbarian Fardiz: RAI is fairly clear, but RAZ is different That's right. Rules According to Zelink!
I guess I posted that as a half assed attempt to get the ball rolling on the thread. Regardless of whether or not I was right I was hoping it would give people a place to jump off and comment on the classes. However, thanks for telling me that I'm wrong and not giving my any reason why. Anyways, my post probably didn't have a point because this thread won't accomplish much since wizards isn't going to be changing a damn thing. I guess I just don't understand the point of the thread. Perhaps you guys should make a thread of common misconceptions when it comes to certain classes opposed to what's wrong with the current classes. 
/takes off lurker hat

The reason why people didn't want to respond to your giant wall of quoted text as to not further derail the thread and misinform new players who just glance at small bits here and there.

As for the reason why people say you're wrong on multiple counts, please wait for the OP to fill out the details. I suspect you will get more than enough reason.

/lurks back to the shadows. 
I guess I just don't understand the point of the thread. Perhaps you guys should make a thread of common misconceptions when it comes to certain classes opposed to what's wrong with the current classes. 



Without seeing actual info on the thread itself, but basing my opinion off of what I've read from Zelink, I'd have to guess that the point of the thread would be to help people see the downsides/weaknesses of the class they're thinking about playing. This would then allow them to try to look for a way, if there even is one, to build around those weaknesses, thus strengthening their character.

Many of the handbooks normally say that a build will be weaker then other options within that same class, but doesn't really go into detail on the why, just expecting people to know/understand what makes it's a weaker choice. 
OP: "I want to play a Vampire"
A: "Vampires are horrible, here's a link to their handbook and (this thread) to explain why"

That's the point.

CharOp has long ago given up on the idea that the Devs both care about 4e and what we think, ever since they did their community feedback request thing and just outright ignored 99% of what we posted, and made posts in Ro3/blogs basically saying that instead of fixing 4e because they don't believe it's broken, they're working on 5e ... because 4e is broken. Kinda like noob posters that come here and ask us to peach a shade vampire and then get upset when we tell them their character is a waste of space.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
Wizard PPs don't get the job done, none are really impressive Controller PPs. Planeshaper MAYBE and then its main feature is more +leader than +Controller. If you need to MC to access PPs that are +role, your MC is more locked down than it should be.



I played a wizard with all those PP i wrote... and everyone of them gets the job done. Anyway, the level 16 feature of planeshifter is more leaderish, i agree... but the utility wrecks encounters.

That said I don't think there are impressive controller PPs in the game, except (maybe) Adroit Explorer and Divine Oracle for will based characters. Hammer of Vengeance is good, Keeper of the 9 is good, Divine Philosopher is good, Entrancing Mystic is good... there isn't the equivalent of Infernal Strategist or War Chanter.

BTW, i was joking :P 

Chauntea/Lathander/Torm Cleric since 1995 My husband married a DM - καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/14.jpg)

Pinging you for 5+1/2 level damage every round with near impunity is a good way of doing that.



It is generally the equivalent of a monster self-deciding to be weakened and lose the effect on their attack - with a chance of doing zero damage(about 5-10%) or massive overkill(10-20% of the time) - and that's with MM3 expressions.

If a monster is choosing to do that and the encounter is still a threat, there's usually something wrong with the encounter, such as the encounter is too hard for the particular group and that's a way for a DM to pull back the strength of the encounter.

But the DM, if the encounter is balanced against the party, is choosing to target the SC, that ought to be a win for the Shaman.
It's really all about the Brute Minion with a Limited Attack.

But really, when dealing with an optimized party, particularly with the example swordmage, attacking the spirit is the best option by a long shot.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
It's really all about the Brute Minion with a Limited Attack.

But really, when dealing with an optimized party, particularly with the example swordmage, attacking the spirit is the best option by a long shot.



If your best choice is a stupid thing to do, that still doesn't make a good option. And if that's consistently the best thing to do, it suggests that the party is too optimized for encounters and the DM needs to either ask the party to tone down the optimization or up the encounter strength significantly.

If an MM3 minion can take down an SC, that means the minion is likely level+6, which is very unusual in most games. There are some notable exceptions, but those mostly happen in Heroic Tier where minion damage doesn't always equal level of minion or less.
I guess I just don't understand the point of the thread. Perhaps you guys should make a thread of common misconceptions when it comes to certain classes opposed to what's wrong with the current classes. 



Without seeing actual info on the thread itself, but basing my opinion off of what I've read from Zelink, I'd have to guess that the point of the thread would be to help people see the downsides/weaknesses of the class they're thinking about playing. This would then allow them to try to look for a way, if there even is one, to build around those weaknesses, thus strengthening their character.

Many of the handbooks normally say that a build will be weaker then other options within that same class, but doesn't really go into detail on the why, just expecting people to know/understand what makes it's a weaker choice. 

Isn't that already covered in most of the class guides though? Also, why go through the trouble saying that certain classes are bad when the vast majority of people know that it's a bad class? 

Also, could somone clarify to me how a shielding swordmage can match up to a hospitialer paladin? What's a more effecient way to get sneak attack on a rogue than frost cheese? Is there better options with avengers then radiant cheese? As for my statement on clerics I was mainly complaining about the fact that people multiclass into them for round off their defenses more often then not. I'm aware that there are plenty of other viable multiclass options. What are some builds for sorcerers that match up to dragon breath cheese? It just seems like certain classes only have one way to build if they really want to be "optimized".

People seem to think the shaman has long range healing due to the SC's extra healing, but you still need to be in CB5 to trigger it in the first place.



It balances out ok at low levels.  Spreading the extra healing to someone 20 away at level 1 is unique.   Its not so great when every other leader has fairly good range on their heals by paragon.


There is also a lot of table variation on how the SC gets targetted by DMs.  Unless you build your shaman to be ok with the spirit dismissed like having spirit's rebuke and phrenic master so the DM faces real consequences when it destroys it, it can be very frustrating to constantly have to build around the fact that its going to be destoyed a lot and you lose the off turn boosts it hands out along with the fact that its no longer a threat and other enemies can now move through the area it was blocking.  If you want to play a Great Elder build for instance it takes a lot of the fun away if the DM never has to worry about moving around it because a brute can always take it out in one try.

This goes with the fact that shamans have a lot of feats they have to take to solve design issues: AC boosting of some sort, you probably want a better implement so that is your MC feat, and sudden call.  Along with all the other feats you need to stay up to par like improved defenses and an expertise feat.  Add in other "must haves" like Tome Expertise and Mark of Healing that is your first dozen feats or so picked out for you, with only minor variations for build or race.
IME, very few DMs actually bother targetting the SC.  My SHaman|Cleric's has been killed all of twicein around 10 levels, and that's because, in both cases, it was literally the only target AND I was using it to block where the mob wanted to go.  I thought about taking one of the off-turn encounter powers which interrupts its destruction and makes the monster hit itself, but it just doesn't get pinged enough.

I suppose it happens more often for pure Shamans who have the OA power, though.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
It's really really hard to make encounters harder for an optimized party in a way that doesn't still make "kill the spirit" a good choice; you really have to accept that over 75% of monster attacks are not going to do anything so taking the 65% chance of dealing minion damage and removing a source of OA/CA for a round is worthwhile.

Also, I said Minion Brute, that's only needing level+3 unless it also has limited attacks, in which case it can even be at-level.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
I guess I just don't understand the point of the thread. Perhaps you guys should make a thread of common misconceptions when it comes to certain classes opposed to what's wrong with the current classes. 



Without seeing actual info on the thread itself, but basing my opinion off of what I've read from Zelink, I'd have to guess that the point of the thread would be to help people see the downsides/weaknesses of the class they're thinking about playing. This would then allow them to try to look for a way, if there even is one, to build around those weaknesses, thus strengthening their character.

Many of the handbooks normally say that a build will be weaker then other options within that same class, but doesn't really go into detail on the why, just expecting people to know/understand what makes it's a weaker choice. 

Isn't that already covered in most of the class guides though? Also, why go through the trouble saying that certain classes are bad when the vast majority of people know that it's a bad class? 

Also, could somone clarify to me how a shielding swordmage can match up to a hospitialer paladin? What's a more effecient way to get sneak attack on a rogue than frost cheese? Is there better options with avengers then radiant cheese? As for my statement on clerics I was mainly complaining about the fact that people multiclass into them for round off their defenses more often then not. I'm aware that there are plenty of other viable multiclass options. What are some builds for sorcerers that match up to dragon breath cheese? It just seems like certain classes only have one way to build if they really want to be "optimized".



Many handbooks are outdated and don't mention any of the most common tweaks and flaws of the class. (Most) Handbooks actually cover only the very basics, that you need to know to make a mediocre op'd version of the class. 
And the vast majority of people doesn't know, what's good or bad. That's the reason why so many new bad threads show up, that derail pretty fast.

How you summarized the classes showed pretty clearly that you don't know too much about their mechanics. No need to clarify any further, since that's not the topic here.
Isn't that already covered in most of the class guides though? Also, why go through the trouble saying that certain classes are bad when the vast majority of people know that it's a bad class?

Because lots of people know classes are weak but don't really understand why. Your list actually kind of reinforced and illustrated that.

For example, warlock has some limitations, but lack of a DEX-based pact is not really one of them. Swordmages have deficiencies, but "they're not X build of awesome paladin" doesn't really tell you anything except that you should maybe play a paladin. Rogues do often rely on frost, but that doesn't make it "too good," and there are builds that meet baseline without it. Avengers already get radiant damage from Punishing Oath, so a radiant weapon definitely isn't a given there either.
It's really really hard to make encounters harder for an optimized party in a way that doesn't still make "kill the spirit" a good choice; you really have to accept that over 75% of monster attacks are not going to do anything so taking the 65% chance of dealing minion damage and removing a source of OA/CA for a round is worthwhile.



If the monsters are missing that much, then that's a party/DM problem. When someone states that it is better to get off a weakened attack with no benefit from effect than to actually attack a PC, that's a broken game. If that were happening from the PC side against the DM, most players would be screaming bloody murder.

Also, I said Minion Brute, that's only needing level+3 unless it also has limited attacks, in which case it can even be at-level.



Not if you're playing by the rules, it can't.

The calculation is 4+1/2 level and then about 25% higher for brutes. So an 8th level minion brute does 10 hp of damage, but a 12th level brute does 12.5. A 13th level brute does 13.125. Or round to 13. And that's just a guideline as the damage goes down in Epic.

An 8th level SC needs to take 14 hp of damage to have it pop. So there's your level+5 minion brute typically failing to pop an 8th level SC. A Tulgar Savage(22nd level brute minion from MM3) does 18 damage on a hit, which will fail to pop a 18th level SC target.
 
Pinging you for 5+1/2 level damage every round with near impunity is a good way of doing that.



It is generally the equivalent of a monster self-deciding to be weakened and lose the effect on their attack - with a chance of doing zero damage(about 5-10%) or massive overkill(10-20% of the time) - and that's with MM3 expressions.

If a monster is choosing to do that and the encounter is still a threat, there's usually something wrong with the encounter, such as the encounter is too hard for the particular group and that's a way for a DM to pull back the strength of the encounter.

But the DM, if the encounter is balanced against the party, is choosing to target the SC, that ought to be a win for the Shaman.

It also removes CA (Tome Expertise), removes a blocker, removes an OA threat, and  that is just on basic Shamans. Some Shamans the SC the is a real pain, using one standard of one monster who is nearly guaranteed to kill it? Worth it.

I'd also check the actual update guidelines in the DMG update doc. An 8th level brute does 20 damage, on average.
So between all this I can't tell if it's worth it to play a Shaman or not. It seems like it sounds if you do a really good job they can become good but if you don't they're not worth their table space. So in general is a Shaman worth playing?
I am Red/Green
I am Red/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both instinctive and emotional. I value my own instincts and desires, and either ignore or crush anything that stands in my way; planning and foresight are unnecessary. At best, I'm determined and fierce; at worst, I'm headstrong and infantile.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

So between all this I can't tell if it's worth it to play a Shaman or not. It seems like it sounds if you do a really good job they can become good but if you don't they're not worth their table space. So in general is a Shaman worth playing?

It isn't an issue for Wis/Int builds, just the Wis/Con ones. But yes, Shaman are fun to play, they just have some issues... like always being better as hybrids. That is what this thread is about, after all, deficiencies and issues. We aren't going to be discussing the things the classes do well or are good for. We're talking solely about their shortcomings.
I played a Shaman in another 4e campaign (Protector), and I'm about to play another one in a new campaign (Watcher or Stalker, haven't decided). Here is my experience with the whole "kill the SC":

From my perspective: 
The DM actually targeted my SC fairly often initially. I had taken the 'burst' healing feat, so I generally kept my SC away from enemy targets and adjacent to my allies. Occassionally, it was succesfully destroyed, and I would take some damage and then resummon it. At no time did I feel like I was in danger because of my SC being targeted, and its demise was rare, even when it was being swung at.

From my DM's perspective:
There was not one single time where destroying the SC turned out to be the most optimal move. Yes, it has a healing OA, yes it gives some bonuses, yes it takes up space, and yes it can attack. But it does little to no damage, and excess damage done to the SC is wasted, since I always take 5+1/2 level. Those times when he managed to roll a crit and all the points got funneled into my SC made him want to throw his dice across the table. It's not that the DM wants to kill us, but targeting my SC actually made the encounter LESS challenging for us.  

Later, he found it much easier to just isolate ME and hound me, forcing me to pull my SC back and use it defensively. This was sort of forced, because I went full healing optimization, and I dont' think people understand just how much healing a Shaman can throw out if you give it feat and power support. 
Yes they are defintely worth playing.  Most of charop considers them to be one of the better leader classes and they have the best enabling at will power in the game.  On top of that its one of the most interesting classes in the edition and the best of the "pet" classes since the ranger and sentinel pets have bigger issues.

The class has issues: You have to build them properly, the 5 builds vary a lot in effectiveness and what they can do with one build requiring an ally with an RBA to function, they are one of the harder classes to play, they have funky rules, etc.

So they are for sure not for everyone, but they work well when done right and are not boring.
I played a Shaman in another 4e campaign (Protector), and I'm about to play another one in a new campaign (Watcher or Stalker, haven't decided). Here is my experience with the whole "kill the SC":

From my perspective: 
The DM actually targeted my SC fairly often initially. I had taken the 'burst' healing feat, so I generally kept my SC away from enemy targets and adjacent to my allies. Occassionally, it was succesfully destroyed, and I would take some damage and then resummon it. At no time did I feel like I was in danger because of my SC being targeted, and its demise was rare, even when it was being swung at.

From my DM's perspective:
There was not one single time where destroying the SC turned out to be the most optimal move. Yes, it has a healing OA, yes it gives some bonuses, yes it takes up space, and yes it can attack. But it does little to no damage, and excess damage done to the SC is wasted, since I always take 5+1/2 level. Those times when he managed to roll a crit and all the points got funneled into my SC made him want to throw his dice across the table. It's not that the DM wants to kill us, but targeting my SC actually made the encounter LESS challenging for us.  

Later, he found it much easier to just isolate ME and hound me, forcing me to pull my SC back and use it defensively. This was sort of forced, because I went full healing optimization, and I dont' think people understand just how much healing a Shaman can throw out if you give it feat and power support. 

Was your DM playing exlclusively with MM3 damage expressions? Did you buy up to chain?
mwao: So here we come back to me once again questioning your play experience and game knowledge. Hitting isn't an issue if the DM is smart enough to just increase challenge level appropriately. Getting to make attacks against relevant targets and have them not be interrupted to negation IS the issue. I realize I wasn't particularly clear that Att vs Def isn't the problem, but that's the reason why it's so freaking hard to scale for optimized parties, you can't just toss +2s on things or add a Monster and call it good. A DM will often end up in a situation where it's better to just MBA/RBA the Spirit (particularly if the spirit is adjacent to a more interesting NPC) than even attempt to attack a PC and risk 2 IAs.

alcestis: There's also the "optimal party" issue. He was using Protector ... that's one of the 2 Spirits that no one should ever play if they're optimizing because the spirit is not a major contributor to the fight, and thus he experienced that it was not a significant loss if it's destroyed; the stronger builds have a better Spirit and thus destroying it is more effective.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
So you'd not be a fool if you made a Dwarf World Speaker build Shaman? My DM made me. He restricted race to dwarf and class to shaman. So I did what I could. It's because we lost our other person so I had to pick up the slack and he demands we have MORE dwarves.

Edit: First feat I made was Chain. It seems like the guide recommend a handful of "all shamans" and then another 4 or so "World Speaker Shaman" and that's okay with me because when it comes to feats I tend to get lost and not know what is good. So having a bunch of feats picked out gives me a direction so I don't mind the feat taxes.

That's just my opinion.
I am Red/Green
I am Red/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both instinctive and emotional. I value my own instincts and desires, and either ignore or crush anything that stands in my way; planning and foresight are unnecessary. At best, I'm determined and fierce; at worst, I'm headstrong and infantile.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

alcestis: There's also the "optimal party" issue. He was using Protector ... that's one of the 2 Spirits that no one should ever play if they're optimizing because the spirit is not a major contributor to the fight, and thus he experienced that it was not a significant loss if it's destroyed; the stronger builds have a better Spirit and thus destroying it is more effective.

Good point, I kind of glossed over that because targeting the SC with pre-MM3 damage expressions is usually a bad idea and if targeting the SC only occasionally killed it, than odds are his DM was using pre-MM3 damage expressions.
So you'd not be a fool if you made a Dwarf World Speaker build Shaman? My DM made me. He restricted race to dwarf and class to shaman. So I did what I could. It's because we lost our other person so I had to pick up the slack and he demands we have MORE dwarves.

Edit: First feat I made was Chain. It seems like the guide recommend a handful of "all shamans" and then another 4 or so "World Speaker Shaman" and that's okay with me because when it comes to feats I tend to get lost and not know what is good. So having a bunch of feats picked out gives me a direction so I don't mind the feat taxes.

That's just my opinion.


Stats match, and you get a great u2, you just miss out on a couple powers and are down a feat or two, it's not like you're downgrading to Sentinel.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
So you'd not be a fool if you made a Dwarf World Speaker build Shaman? My DM made me. He restricted race to dwarf and class to shaman. So I did what I could. It's because we lost our other person so I had to pick up the slack and he demands we have MORE dwarves.



It sounds to me like you need to have a chat with your DM. A DM shoud never "make" a player do anything, especially restricting the character that they want to play like that.
Nah man, I may not like dwarves too much but I love shaman so I'm all good with it.
I am Red/Green
I am Red/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both instinctive and emotional. I value my own instincts and desires, and either ignore or crush anything that stands in my way; planning and foresight are unnecessary. At best, I'm determined and fierce; at worst, I'm headstrong and infantile.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

So you'd not be a fool if you made a Dwarf World Speaker build Shaman? My DM made me. He restricted race to dwarf and class to shaman. So I did what I could. It's because we lost our other person so I had to pick up the slack and he demands we have MORE dwarves.



It sounds to me like you need to have a chat with your DM. A DM shoud never "make" a player do anything, especially restricting the character that they want to play like that.


This.  Why the heck is your DM telling you what race and class to play?
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
About Halfway through my first pass. Will add more terms as needed.
10/10 Would Flame Again: An Elite Paladin|Warlock The Elemental Man (or Woman): A Genasi Handbook The Warlord, Or How to Wield a Barbarian One-Handed The Bookish Barbarian Fardiz: RAI is fairly clear, but RAZ is different That's right. Rules According to Zelink!
"Hybrids too well" for wardens?

I guess warden|defender is usually better than pure warden. But I feel like that's more from other defenders being better at the job, not because hybrid warden is any good.
You also lose Font of Life, the "sack of HP" effect, native multi-marking, etc. Wardens don't hybrid well at all.

"Better as hybrid" might be more what you are trying to say, which would apply to Swordmage, Paladin, Warlock, Barbarian, Cleric, but still not so much to Wardens.

How do Knights, or any aura-based OA defender, have a lack of an ability to muli-punish? They can punish on every monster's turn.

Wizards MC into Warlock to pick up +Controller PPs. How does the Binder, who has access to Warlock PPs, not have access to +Controller PPs?

Blurred Step is a great stickiness feature, having an inherent in-class way to deal with Shift+Charge is unique to the Battlemind (Fighter coming in second, being able to do so with feats). The only issue they have with stickiness is Lightning Rush moving them around the board all the time.