No, they arent. Something people sometiems miss in the endless quest for perfect balance (which mostly seems to meen nerfing classes they dont play) is that D&D is not a competative sport. Not all classes and builds are equal, thats true, but they dont have to be - theyre not meant to fight each other. What is important is that no build be so week as to be unable to contribute meaningfully to an encounter (which si both unfair to their companions and unfun for their players). No class I know of meats this criteria, despite frequent hyperbole that might lead one to imagine otherwise. Some BUILDS of certain classes (Strength-based paladins come to mind) may be pushing the lower limits however, I admit, which is not desirable.
It should be noted I havent seen any of the new PHB 2 classes in action yet, nor bothered to read most of them (I mostly only care about enw material that can make me a better wizard). I have no idea if any of them are gimped.
EDIT: Also note that while some builds are arguably broken, that does not make others unplayable. Indeed, D&D is an easy game. All table-top RPGs are. The players are SUPPOSED to win. That doesnt meen encoutners are effortless or that you can never get unlucky, but all things being equal a basic amount of effort and competance is SUPPOSED to ensure that the bad guys stand no signifcant chance of defeatng the party. In such a dynamic it is inevitable that those who put in MORE than the minimum required effort (which is kept low to ensure the game is accesible to the general public and nore merely math professors with 20 hours a week to spend on it) will outperform the average significantly and defeat easily the encoutners that are designed around the lowest common denominator. Once agian, however, as long as the guy who just picked up the book and made a recomended character build can still contribute something meaningful to the battle, he doesnt necesarilly have to be the equal in every way of the guy who lives adn breathes D&D stat blocks.
that i can agree with. Most of these buildmakers with thier Uber DPR do not realize what they are giving up for that DPR. i beleive a 16-18 primary attack stat is needed. and i beleive 1 or 2 dump stats is affordable. but i don't beleive that DPR is the only thing that matters. i just believe it is an important factor that shouldn't be abandoned. 80% of your equipment is predeterimined by your DM. the balancing factor of bloodlcaw is that it consumes hit points, even if you miss. 2 damage dealt for 1 damage taken is actually a fair ratio. and you need a leader in your party to help you spend a surge, the balancing factor of reckless, is that you have to be right next to your foe, and you take a flat -2 armor class, it may not stack, but it raises the enemy attackers chance of hitting you by 10% which is 10% more DPR for the baddy that targets you. which is pobably more than twice your weapon enchantment bonus. the balancing of the wintertouched/lasting frost combo, is you have to invest 2 feats. a glass cannon can only get so frail before he becomes what pokemon games call a sneasel, if you are not familiar with pokemon, sneasel was the eppitamy of a glass cannon, with the right build, he could 1 hit kill any foe, even if they had type advantage against the attack, but anything could 1 hit kill him in return. which is a horrible glass cannon concept. it is the worst way to balance one, if death is cheap, it'd be overpowered, if death has a hefty cost, it's underpowered. in a game where ressurection only requires a cheap low level consumable, sneasel quality glass cannons are broken. so game economy also matters for balance.
1.) You have no idea what the eladrins str is, it could be a 16 at 1st lv, with a 16 dex consider what LD said, its fairly likely that the person in question had a str dex ranger, and was probably dual wielding two javelins. That's actually 2d6+1d8 for most 1st level encounters and thats damn good, both ranged and melee.
This isn't a theoretical char, this char existed, and it wasn't damn good. For first level twin strike that's 2d6+1d6 at a to-hit that's 2 lower than the norm - one lower due to being an eladrin, and one lower due to using a +2 rather than a +3 weapon. Being Str-Dex further means having a mediocre wisdom, which limits many nice ranger extras. Sure, he could use eladrin soldier; though this was before Adventurer's Vault, so at the time no superior spear was available. Now, that would make it 2d8+4+1d6 if everything hits, which is definitely decent; but it's still not easy to compete with a bastard-sword wielder with at least two higher to-hit that isn't eladrin. And, if the sword wielder doesn't care for dex, then he pump his Str all the way to 20 and still have a higher Wisdom than the Str-Dex ranger, for a 2d10+1d6 option at +3 to hit. Of course, this option will have +3 to hit for all encounter powers too, and will deal no less damage due to the +2 strength. In short, the eladrin pre-AV was terrible, and even post AV his average damage was lower using twin strike than that of a plain PHB-only dual bastard sword build, and his encounter powers were at -3 to hit.
In short, for the ability to use twin strike at range, he's trading some at-will DPR and quite a bit of encounter/daily to-hit. In short, it's definitely possible to misbuild a ranger even with the best of intentions (obviously this player didn't realize the import of to-hit).
In my experience, the difference usually isn't so much between the classes per se, but between the levels to which the players can and do optimize them.
cute. If he was in melee range with another opponent, then he would not be using a single target ranged attack against something different. He could have just used thunderwave against the both of them then moved afterwords. or another spell altogether. It's clear that you are setting up examples where you want the wizard to fail and can see them failing, because you don't know what your doing, not where the wizard actually does fail.
I've played a wizard, and have played with tons of wizards in the RPGA. It's statements like "thunder ram makes wizards great!" that TD said that I'm disagreeing with. A barbarian can do the same control that he was salivating over, and yet deal a lot more damage at the same time. That's my point.
All classes get damage powers too.
Wizards are really at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to damage unless you use blood pulse cheese or whatever. What you're missing is all classes do more damage than them, while also retaining the ability to control the battlefield. My warlock's Hunger of Hadar beats the pants of of anything I've seen the party wizard do in my home group.
You do realize that you are trying to tell us that a barbarians "knock a target prone" power is BETTER then the wizards "knock a target prone" because the wizards also has the option to push.
No, it's better because it will have a +2 or +3 greater bonus to hit, will do more damage, and is done by a class that isn't afraid of melee combat, like a wizard is.
Wizards also has range of 20, can target objects and is force, not fire.
You think this makes it comparable? This is what wizards are good at? Long range combat? That's their special niche??
Ok, sure.
Except rangers have an even longer range.
There's no effective difference between force and fire at 1st level either. While WOTC prints tons of insubstantial monsters in heroic, they in their wisdom delayed the ability to hit them for full damage till 10 levels and a feat later.
The striker role accounts for the variation in damage and the level and range difference account for the need to hit secondaries. I also notice that you assumed infernal pact for the extra damage, can I assume wand mastery to insure the initial attack hits? or should we just look at the base powers?
Sigh. Wand mastery is used once per combat for a +2 or +3 to hit. And probably on a daily. Warlocks get their curse damage and pact bonus to damage all combat long. In fact, I can't even believe I'm having this conversation... the wizard spell isstrictly inferior. There's no debating it.
Umm. you are aware that it effectively takes the cleric out of the fight too? With the cleric needing to sustain with a standard action, and likely using it's minors to heal the damage he's taking every round he sustains. I'd put prismatic spray over seal of binding any day. It's not just single target and applies more then just stun, and doesn't take the wizard out of the fight for doing it.
Seal of Binding is powerbroken cheese, so we'll ignore it. I only mentioned it because the best stun in the game is on a Leader class, not a controller.
I think when he says stun, he's referring to action denial.
I've noticed. He's been backpedalling in every post off his claim.
Honestly, I don't see any stuns on the invokers spell list (at a quick glance), but you don't seem too upset about that. Clearly you hold wizards to a higher standard then you do other class's.
I don't make judgments on a class till I play them or have seen them in action at a table... after PHB2 classes get more playtime in LFR, maybe I will chime in that Invokers suck.
But it wasn't me that made the ludicrous claim that wizards have encounter stun abilities coming out of their ears at paragon - that was TD. I was just pointing out that, wizards actually don't get any stuns until 10 levels after non-controller classes get them.
Remember, wizards are supposed to be the masters of things like stunning, creating difficult terrain, blocking line of sight, etc. Except the way it works out in practice, rangers, rogues and fighters get stuns 10 levels earlier, wardens are the undisputed masters of making difficult terrain, and warlocks have the best LOS blocking spell in low level play.
This is why they suck - not because they can't do cool stuff, but because they really fail to do their role better than anyone else, and are penalized with anemic controller damage at the same time.
@TD: No, Tomb is not a stun. It's a mez effect written with a stun keyword - it removes a target from combat for a round. Stun makes a target lose a turn while being exposed to incoming damage.
I certainly wouldn't claim that wizards were the best class at paragon or epic. I don't think they are; I think clerics, warlords and fighters have them beat at every tier (probably bards, invokers, and druids, too, although I haven't seen much of those yet). And many of the other classes are just as good as wizards, in their own way.
But, if they don't mind devoting enough of their feats to actually doing some at-will damage, wizards are great to have in your party. Blinding half the enemies for the first round of a fight, then immobilizing a couple of them (which a 13th level wizard can do pretty consistently) is enough to make the fight really easy a lot of the time. Those big bursts with negative status effects are something that none of the other PH classes can manage. At low levels, wizards do pretty good damage anyway.
The dailies which everyone drools about...meh, I can take them or leave them; fighters have better daily powers. But wizards are solid.
My vote for THE overpowered class goes to the fighter.
Almost all classes have some OP features or powers but the fighter is OP in its whole.
He has amazing powers and amazing features. I don't like to even talk about battlerager. The Fighter's Stances are top. He has at least one crazy power for each level. He has one of the best to-hit in the game. He has survivalability, he has damage, he has control.
He also gets immense boosts out of all leaders. More than the average class.
Well, the arguments here have swayed me. It's time to change the pecking order (I'm actually going to make a thread about this, I think it would be good for us to point out to WotC which classes need love and which classes have enough/too much power):
Top Tier:
1. Fighter (best class overall - can do damage, defense, or control)
High Tier:
1. Ranger (best offense overall, and very mobile) 2. Warlord (insane buffing, decent damage, and very versatile) 3. Cleric (the best healing, and some pretty meaty control effects too)
Medium Tier:
1. Barbarian (heavy offense, especially burst offense, kick-a$$ mobility, and soft control) 2. Rogue (the ultimate in jack-of-all trades, especially among Strikers) 3. Paladin (not many options available to Straladins, but good PP's)
Low Tier:
1. Wizard (wonky power selection, but he does have the Orb) 2. Swordmage (Shielding is good, but Assault sucks) 3. Warlock (OK damage, and decent control)
I'm not sure about the placement of some classes (henceforth the question marks), so I would appreciate some insight there. If you have an argument in favor or against on of the classes who have comments on them, let me have it.
"The best defense is a good offense." -Gen. George S. Patton
Aegis of Assault is definitely not as good, but there are some gems there, and Swordmage is getting a short straw when it's actually pretty good.
First, the Aegis lets you instantly flank any melee monster, if I am correct. That means that you get a +2 bonus to all attacks against these enemies. Mix this up with a little bit of warlock love, and you have the feysword, and you have all sorts of teleporting damage goodness. You blast enemies multiple times for AOE intelligence damage which zapping away like nightcrawler, and then smack the guy who is on your friend, and then just poof away again next round.
With total aegis, they are all marked by you, so you can cherry pick when and where you want to go in the combat, even if they are not adjacent to you. Fighters can stop enemies from moving past them, but monsters out of their reach are usually safe, where swordmages can slam a mark into an entire AOE of combat and move safely and effectively between this area. Also, I would like to assert that if you expect a defender to take 100% of the hits, you're doing it wrong.
Also, arcane power. I'm guessing the Aegis will see some love.
I find it amusing how some classes are being scaled based on the best possible builds (rangers with specific weapons), while others are being scaled based on their worst (swordmage).
I know I come off as Hostile and abrasive. It is not my intention to do so, I am just a very emotionally driven individual. I apologize if I come off as such to you and ask that you please don't take it personally, as I can assure you, it is not intended as such.
Remember, wizards are supposed to be the masters of things like stunning, creating difficult terrain, blocking line of sight, etc. Except the way it works out in practice, rangers, rogues and fighters get stuns 10 levels earlier, wardens are the undisputed masters of making difficult terrain, and warlocks have the best LOS blocking spell in low level play.
This is why they suck - not because they can't do cool stuff, but because they really fail to do their role better than anyone else, and are penalized with anemic controller damage at the same time.
Except out of all those classes listed, the wizard is the only one who perform all those roles well. He doesn't have to be the best at one specific thing, like the specific examples. He can still do them all.
As well for your controlle definition, I don't remember seeing anywhere that it it was the master stunner. I know controllers are the best at targeting large amounts of enemies, battle field manipulation, and conditions. I'm not even going to talk about the Wizard's epic level powers. If you can't find controlling abilities for the Wizard at that level, then that's ones own fault.
Last time I checked warden was master of close proximity difficulty terrain. That is not the same as getting to drop difficult terrain from a far.
ShakaUVM wrote:
wizards actually don't get any stuns until 10 levels after non-controller classes get them.
Ranged vs melee. Ok, so they don't get a stun at 13th. But, at level 13 Wizards do get a burst *2* blind. Who cares if it's not stun. They get a power that is just as good.
In summary: The wizard doesn't have to have the best of every single type of condition ability in the game, or the soonest. The fact of the matter is the wizard gets a control power at *every* time he gets a new power. Those other classes do not.
Sorcerer might be a candidate for multiple tiers. Depends upon how many average targets per encounter your particular DM throws at you. If s/he is a big solo/elite builder, your wonderful AOE striker suddenly becomes the worst tier. OTOH, if s/he likes larger numbers of monsters and/or loves minions, the sorcerer springs up to middle tier.
I believe we have to wait until all power source books have been published prior to making any real judgements...however if martial power is any indication, they will likely have little influence on the final list.
