PDA

View Full Version : Which class is the most overpowered?



PlatinumJester
2007-04-23, 12:37 PM
I have been wondering recently which class is the most powerful over all (excluding prestige classes). I mean they are all supposed to be balanced but there must be one class that can is head and shoulders above the rest. Personally I feel that the monk and cleric class are slightly overpowered especially at high levels.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-23, 12:39 PM
The Artificer. It is consistently ridiculous.

The monk is actually one of the weakest classes, not the strongest.

Tellah
2007-04-23, 12:40 PM
I second Artificer. Second place goes to the Wizard/Master Specialist/Incantatrix/Archmage combo.

Deel
2007-04-23, 12:41 PM
Top 5 classes that can do pretty much anything:

Cleric
Druid
Wizard
Artificer
Archivist

That breaks the broken barrier for the most part.

Then the other full-casters like Sorcerer, Favored Soul, ect.

That breaks it the rest of the way.

Then we're just on to the normal good stuff: Tome of Battle classes for melee, Duskblade, Beguiler, Warmage, ect.
.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-23, 12:43 PM
lol @ warmage, as they say on the Webbernets.

Deel
2007-04-23, 12:47 PM
Hey, warmage is a one-trick-pony, but he does his one trick fairly well. It's a pew-pew mage, he pew-pews things with his spells, he doesn't disappoint if you want to play a pure blaster mage.

Admittedly, he is better if you take some levels in wizard and go to Ultimate Magus or Mage of Arcane Order for versaility and keep all those slots of his progressing for your pew-pew spells and able to use either the wizards slots or the Arcane Order spell pool for utility, but this is excluding prestige classes.

PlatinumJester
2007-04-23, 12:52 PM
The Artificer. It is consistently ridiculous.

The monk is actually one of the weakest classes, not the strongest.


The monk at level 20 has 2d10 weapons, full saves, quivering palm, improved evasion and damage reduction magic/10.

Also clerics at level 20 have miracle and true resurection, summon monster 9 and mass heal. Not to mention full Fortitude and Will saves.

Aquillion
2007-04-23, 12:53 PM
It depends on the rules and splatbooks you're using, too... like, are you allowing Divine Metamagic? Spells from the Spell Compendium etc? Are you allowing artificers at all (they're pretty setting-specific)? And so on.

There are also different measures of 'overpowered'. A wizard is powerful, say, but still benefits from having a grunt melee guy around to dish out damage to things that have been incapacitated by magic. A twinked-out cleric or druid, on the other hand, might not have quite as effective a spell list as the wizard, but can render melee classes totally obsolete... a wizard at least theoretically has weak points (even if they're not generally very important weak points), while a CoDzilla really doesn't.

In general, if you're allowing more books but not allowing Prestige Classes, druids and clerics win out, since clerics have every spell on their class list while druids get more and more choices for wild shape just for being a druid. If you allow prestige classes, it gets trickier.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-04-23, 12:54 PM
Monk is the most overpowered if you consider getting a load of random nonsensical abilities at every level to be a measure of power.

And if you think that a small number 9 on a spells per day table is meaningless.

kamikasei
2007-04-23, 12:55 PM
Also clerics at level 20 have miracle and true resurection, summon monster 9 and mass heal. Not to mention full Fortitude and Will saves.

I don't see anyone contesting that clerics are indeed very strong.

Really, it depends on what classes are available and what options are open to them. The truly broken combo for clerics, for example, requires Complete Divine and Libris Mortis in addition to the core books (if I'm remembering it correctly).

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-23, 12:55 PM
The monk at level 20 has 2d10 weapons, full saves, quivering palm, improved evasion and damage reduction magic/10.
2d10 is not a big deal. Quivering palm is very weak as far as save-or-dies go. Improved Evasion's not bad or anything, but ref-save spells are the least dangerous. Damage reduction /magic might as well not exist.
Monks can't do anything but survive, and they're not very good at that either if they get into melee (like to, say, use their Flurry of Blows ability).
Monks: really weak.


Also clerics at level 20 have miracle and true resurection, summon monster 9 and mass heal. Not to mention full Fortitude and Will saves.
Clerics are on of the Big Three (Cleric, Druid, Wizard, the guys who rule core), yes.

Jack Mann
2007-04-23, 12:56 PM
Monks get a lot of stuff, but it doesn't really add up to anything. There isn't much they can do effectively.

Lapak
2007-04-23, 12:56 PM
The monk at level 20 has 2d10 weapons, full saves, quivering palm, improved evasion and damage reduction magic/10. He also has a 3/4 BAB, making those weapons far less effective, MAD to deal with, meaning that all of his combat stats will be somewhat lower than a purist melee combatant, and no versatility - his abilities are what they are, and there's no working around that.

He's very tough to kill, definitely - but lacks the ability to do a heck of a lot to other people in exchange.


Also clerics at level 20 have miracle and true resurection, summon monster 9 and mass heal. Not to mention full Fortitude and Will saves.I don't think anyone would call clerics underpowered, certainly.

JellyPooga
2007-04-23, 12:58 PM
The monk at level 20 has 2d10 weapons, full saves, quivering palm, improved evasion and damage reduction magic/10.

I used to think like you do, but 1)what's that DR going to do? defeated by magic? who hasn't got a magic weapon at level 20? 2)2d10 weapons? 11 damage average? woooo. Wizards have Time Stop. You use those rather inferior weapons how exactly? 3)quivering palm? You can't count the amount 'save or die' spells available on one hand.

O.k. so Imp Evasion if pretty good..against blaster mages. But it's useless against anything else.

Sorry to shoot you down, but Monks really aren't that good.

Deel
2007-04-23, 12:59 PM
The monk at level 20 has 2d10 weapons, full saves, quivering palm, improved evasion and damage reduction magic/10.

Also clerics at level 20 have miracle and true resurection, summon monster 9 and mass heal. Not to mention full Fortitude and Will saves.

Nobody is saying you are wrong on clerics, they are indeed awesome.

Monk however... DR 10/magic at level 20 is near meaningless if not just plain so. Dice damage is hardly the biggest factor for damage, 2d10 don't even average over 15 damage, they lose the ability to power attack for more than 1-for-1 through unarmed strikes as well, unless they leap attack on a charge. Quivering Palm is a nice save-or-die effect, but it's once per week, not exactly highly utilizable like anything a spellcaster can do. Saves are high, yes. Monk's can survive well, but other than that, they can't do much, while other classes(see: spellcasters, Tome of Battle classes) can survive AND do a lot of other things.

Hell, I'm pretty sure the Crusader from ToB is even better at surviving than a monk with his healing strikes and damage pool, but I'm on a general ToB loving spree lately, so I may be a bit biased(even if it's true.)

Ramza00
2007-04-23, 01:06 PM
Plain Monk's suck. 2d10=11 Average Damage which doesn't even pierce most DR at those levels. Most damage is done due to strength (which a monk can't put in due to MAD) and Power Attack (which a monk can do in theory besides the 1:1 ratio and the medium bab thus making it far weaker).

A monk who is either an Enlightened Fist or has wizard friend can be very effective. Greater Mighty Wallop boosts Damage alot, Blood Fist gives you range, Wraithstrike to hit, GMW for more attack and hit, Greater Mage Armor for more AC, Heroism for more to hit, Heroics for another feat, Overland Flight for fly, Teleportation for other mobility, having some back up spells so you can not act like a monk and like a wizard, False Life for more hit points...I can go on but I won't.

PlatinumJester
2007-04-23, 01:10 PM
I don't like monks (due to there annoyingness) but I do think they can be overpowered.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-23, 01:12 PM
But they can't. They've just plain got nothing going for'em besides a decent defense.

Deel
2007-04-23, 01:12 PM
Monk itself is still bad as it has to rely on those things to either be cast on him or he needs to multi-class to get him, otherwise he just isn't an effective force.

That being said, I do loves me a Monk/Cleric/Sacred Fist (optional Vow of Poverty, if you do, take Travel Domain for transport and fly) or a Monk/Sorcerer/Enlightened Fist/Abjurant Champion with Ascetic Mage. Those are pretty cool.

Pink
2007-04-23, 01:24 PM
http://www.rpgwebprofiler.net/view.php?id=20107

I happen to agree with the general consensus that monks aren't very good. However the above was an entry of a friend of mine in a ECL arena. dunno how he did and it's absolutely never going to realistically happen in a game but...it sure is impressive. Seemed appropriate in any event.

Laurellien
2007-04-23, 01:24 PM
Barbarian: A decent fighting class, but ultimately it is best used as a spring board for frenzied berserker, berserk and other prestige classes.

Bard: Pah, don't make me laugh, they can't even cast spells properly, if they could wear heavy armour then maybe i'd rate them.

Cleric: A VERY powerful base class. It has a decent hit dice, the capability for heavy armour therefore a high ac, some excellent buff spells (righteous might, shield of faith, divine power etc...) making it a great combatant. Turn Undead, when coupled with divine metamagic (Complete divine) and Night Sticks (a broken item from Libris Mortis which grants +4 turning checks/day and stacks with itself) creates a truly fearsome character, and all without any PrC's/

Druid: A VERY powerful base class, although I am not as experienced as others with it. Needless to say, take a suit of wilded dragonhide full plate and the wild spell feat, and then the sky is the limit. They have the most rounded spell list in the game and can reach level 9 spells too with the capability to heal, summon, damage etc... all without having to select spells known and paying for them and all without ACP.

Monk: A cool class to be sure, but not up to it. Don't be fooled by the column bursting with special abilities, there is nothing another character couldn't do better than a monk. The 3/4 BAB on a primary fighter is criminal, and all a monk can really do is survive, and that's it, otherwise, it's outclassed.

Paladin: A very good class which requires good abilities. The spell list, although limited, has some very good spells on it. It has good BAB and HD, good skills, and some abilities to die for. All in all, an excellent combat choice. If you use the unearthed Arcana Paladin of freedom variant, then you don;t have to be a jackass either (you don't anyway, but most DM's think you do).

Ranger: The ultimate in support fighting. This is a good fighting class, and a great springboard class, but it is inferior to both paladins and barbarians.

FIghter: Sucks, straight fighters can get beaten by BARDS for goodness sake. The only reason that anybody in their right mind would even approach the class is so that they can two dip in it for feats.

Sorcerer: Good caster, cleric and wizard are better.

Wizard: The ultimate game breaker, it has a spell to bypass any obstacle. It also can access the most obscene prestige classes available, such as dweomerkeeper (wish and other spells without exp costs), or initiate of the seven-fold veil (very very good). The only balancing factors for it are its lack of a fort save, lack of a decent HD and no armour or shields.

Ramza00
2007-04-23, 01:30 PM
http://www.rpgwebprofiler.net/view.php?id=20107

I happen to agree with the general consensus that monks aren't very good. However the above was an entry of a friend of mine in a ECL arena. dunno how he did and it's absolutely never going to realistically happen in a game but...it sure is impressive. Seemed appropriate in any event.
Sigh, 60th lvl epic is a huge can of worms. You aren't playing D&D anymore.

Laurellien
2007-04-23, 01:33 PM
The monk at level 20 has 2d10 weapons, full saves, quivering palm, improved evasion and damage reduction magic/10.

2d10? big deal! My level 1 barbarian deals 3d8 damage with his huge dwarven waraxe.

Full saves? A character with even a sprinkling of multiclass can get huge saves.

quivering palm? A save or die 1/day. A Cleric or wizard at level 20 is pumping out save or die spells every round with very high DC's.

Improved evasion? Clerics, wizards and druids can all heal themselves or grant themselves temporary hp to counter that, plus they can cast protection from energy and 9 times out of ten they will negate that sort of spell anyway.

DR/magic? It sucks, at those high levels, everything will be dealing some sort of magical damage, or worse, ability damage, spells can be used that will make that obsolete in a split second.

Telonius
2007-04-23, 01:34 PM
Monks can't be overpowered without some major houseruling. Your level 20 monk hits for 2d10? Even if he hit somebody with all of his attacks, that's 55 +5(strength) points of damage in a round, assuming they all hit. A not-particularly-optimized barbarian will hit for 2d6+40 per hit. Don't let the big die size fool you. When you're talking about dealing melee damage, it's all about power attack and sneak attack.

The biggest problem with Monks is their lack of full BAB. If they got that, they'd be pretty close to even with Fighters and Barbarians.

Deel
2007-04-23, 01:36 PM
Okay guys, I think we beat the monk thing to death already. Like 4 people at least, including me.

And Quivering Palm is once per WEEK, not day, as I recall. Once per day would be fairly nice though.

Murongo
2007-04-23, 01:38 PM
Yea, monks are weak. And druids and clerics are certainly above any other class.

I don't think wizards are in the same league as clerics and druids though. They're situationally awesome, but every once in a while I find them to be entirely useless. Like when they can't conveniently protect/carry/read their flimsy paper book. Or when they can't make their concentration check. Or against spell immune... yeah you get the idea.

Druids and clerics are pretty much awesome 100% of the time.

Dausuul
2007-04-23, 02:03 PM
Yea, monks are weak. And druids and clerics are certainly above any other class.

I don't think wizards are in the same league as clerics and druids though. They're situationally awesome, but every once in a while I find them to be entirely useless. Like when they can't conveniently protect/carry/read their flimsy paper book. Or when they can't make their concentration check. Or against spell immune... yeah you get the idea.

A wizard with time to prepare can deal with all of these problems quite handily. The key phrase here, of course, is "with time to prepare."


Druids and clerics are pretty much awesome 100% of the time.

*shrug* Wizards are specialists. A high-level wizard who has time to identify and prepare for any given threat is the scariest character in the game, bar none, and can easily smoke opponents who would trounce a cleric or druid. On the other hand, wizards have limited ability to react quickly to unexpected obstacles. Sure, they can teleport away, re-prep spells, and come back a day later ready to kick ass and take names, but in a time-sensitive situation that may not be an acceptable option. Clerics and druids have more raw fighting power to fall back on.

Of course, the splatbooks allowed also makes a big difference. Wizards get a major power boost if they can get things like Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil.

Each of the Big Three shines in its own special, horribly broken way.

Tokiko Mima
2007-04-23, 02:09 PM
Monks need full BAB, Abundant Step at will, Quivering Palm to be a full round action (available at will), and DR of 10/-. Then Monks would be on par with other classes, IMO.

That'd be nice, huh?

In answer to the OP's question: I would say Artificer. After that, Cleric and Druid, then Wizard. Then Archivist.

PlatinumJester
2007-04-23, 03:02 PM
OK, it seems that we have proven me wrong about monks and established that they are worthless

PlatinumJester
2007-04-23, 03:08 PM
By the way do favoured souls choose domains like a cleric?

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-23, 03:11 PM
No, only clerics get domains. You can tell by, well, how only the cleric class says it gets domains.

Favored Souls are rather mediocre compared to clerics.

Ivius
2007-04-23, 03:21 PM
The monk at level 20 has 2d10 weapons, full saves, quivering palm, improved evasion and damage reduction magic/10.

Also clerics at level 20 have miracle and true resurrection, summon monster 9 and mass heal. Not to mention full Fortitude and Will saves.

A friggin' SOULKNIFE can have a 1d10+5d8+4d6 weapon with a feat or two and 2 rounds of preparation. Soulknives are also widely considered a very weak class. This is because at that level wizards own the battlefield, not to mention spells like Knock which can make the rest of the party useless.

Person_Man
2007-04-23, 03:22 PM
Artificer if you're allowed Eberron material.
Archivist (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3) if your DM allows Heroes of Horror.
Druid if you're Core Only.

At some point though, any well built and intelligently played full caster class should be able to essentially win most CR appropriate combats if they win Initiative by using metamagic.

MeklorIlavator
2007-04-23, 04:36 PM
Artificer if you're allowed Eberron material.
Archivist (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3) if your DM allows Heroes of Horror.
Druid if you're Core Only.


My DM suggested I play a Archivist, said it looked like a weaker Cleric.:smallsmile:

Morty
2007-04-23, 04:44 PM
What's so bad about Archivist?:smallconfused:
As for the most overpowered classes- the wizard is, sadly, the winner if anyone asks me.

MeklorIlavator
2007-04-23, 04:46 PM
What's so bad about Archivist?:smallconfused:
Nothing, I just find it funny that my dm thinks the archivist is weak, and here it is mentioned a "overpowered" thread. Eh, he always did favor Pure melee.

Morty
2007-04-23, 04:50 PM
My question was actually for Person_Man, as I can't see anything broken about Archivist, either.
And the brokeness of Artificers saddens me- it's cool class concept if you agree for high-magic world. I'd play one, but the only way to touch Eberron would be by running a campaign in it, as my DM dislikes it even more than I used to.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-23, 05:24 PM
What's wrong with Archivists is that you can pick up spells from obscure domains, from ranger and paladin lists, et cetera. You wind up getting lots of otherwise arcane-only spells, getting other spells much earlier than you normally would (for example, Divine Power as a 3rd-level spell from the Runescarred Berserker list; Holy Sword--which makes a weapon +5 Holy--as a 4th-level spell; et cetera).
This goes from "good, but you can't always find the exact ones you want" to "broken" as soon as you get, say, an Artificer or a Warlock or a Chameleon in the party. They can craft you whatever scroll you want with their UMD-crafting abilities (or "take spells from any list" spellcasting focus, in the Chameleon's case).
It goes from "broken" to "totally broken" when you realize that technically the Warlock can craft Arcane spells as divine, meaning your archivist casts wizard spells in addition to all the others.

the_tick_rules
2007-04-23, 05:30 PM
they can all be broken. it's all about the player behind them.

Jacob Orlove
2007-04-23, 05:39 PM
And by "have one in the party" you mean "take the leadership feat".

Of course, the DM has discretion over Leadership, but once you invoke DM discretion, most of these abuses get houseruled away anyway.

The most egregious (recent) example of low-levelled spells is the Trapsmith PrC in Dungeonscape. It gives Artificers and Chameleons access to (note: this is just the highlights):
arcane sight, clairvoyance, knock, and protection from energy as first level spells.
arcane eye, dimension door, and stone shape as second level spells.
break enchantment, fabricate, and wall of stone as 3rd level spells.

So now your first level Artificer can craft a scroll of Knock for 12.5 gp, or a Scroll of Dimension Door or Stone Shape for 75 gp. That won't will literally just trump many low level dungeon crawls.

Necromas
2007-04-23, 05:40 PM
The Truenamer.

Optimize one skill check and he can pwn anything.


No, favoured souls do not get domain access.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-23, 05:40 PM
Yes, but some are a lot easier to abuse than others. It would take a lot more for a fighter to become broken than, say, a wizard. Like if the wizard player was comatose or didn't realize he was playing a wizard.

Deel
2007-04-23, 05:41 PM
they can all be broken. it's all about the player behind them.

There are limits to how far something can go mechanically.

Fullcasters, especially druids, wizards, clerics, and archivists, can just do a lot more with their mechanics than any non-full caster, ditto with artificer and it's redonkulousness.

The Vorpal Tribble
2007-04-23, 05:50 PM
I've played two archivists and haven't noticed him outshining much of anyone. Sure, he can have a wide selection of spells... but he can cast pitifully few of them, and those are the only ones he's got, and you have to PAY for them to add, or find it. And really, divine spells aren't commonly kept on scrolls.

A cleric can go and choose any he wants for the day. He can also turn.

An archvist's dark knowledge and info-gathering is nice, but when that comes to combat they are merely helpful, almost bard-like, instead of WOW!!!

MeklorIlavator
2007-04-23, 05:54 PM
The Truenamer.

Optimize one skill check and he can pwn anything.

Because a (15+[CR*2]) skill check is just so easy to make. Yeah, right. With that class you have to optimize.

Necromas
2007-04-23, 06:02 PM
Because a (15+CR) skill check is just so easy to make. Yeah, right. With that class you have to optimize.

But once you do you can't lose. This (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-614691) is an extreme example of an LA 20 that can kill a CR 48 without even rolling, but there's plenty of inbetween builds.

Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=605786) is a more tame but still incredibly overpowered build.

Necromas
2007-04-23, 06:03 PM
Because a (15+CR) skill check is just so easy to make. Yeah, right. With that class you have to optimize.

But once you do you can't lose. This (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-614691) is an extreme example of an LA 20 that can kill a CR 48 without even rolling, but there's plenty of inbetween builds.

Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=605786) is a more tame but still incredibly overpowered build.

Arbitrarity
2007-04-23, 06:03 PM
15+2(CR) actually. You have to really, really optimise.

I wanna try make a archivist, but after extolling their brokeness, I may have some difficulty.

Kill is an overstatement, and also, he's stacking an amulet and a custom item (both competence?).

The only other broken bit is the motivate aura, which gives his CHA bonus to his intelligence modifier, it appears.

Jacob Orlove
2007-04-23, 06:13 PM
They're actually quite fair if you avoid the Artificer/Chameleon/Warlock abuse, and stick to the Cleric/Druid lists. Probably on par with the Rogue or Sorcerer. If you start adding in Domain spells, they get a lot closer to Wizard/Druid/Cleric (which, honestly, should be fine in most campaigns). If your goal isn't to break the game, you generally won't accidentally outshine people the way a druid can.

Person_Man
2007-04-23, 06:46 PM
My question was actually for Person_Man, as I can't see anything broken about Archivist, either.
And the brokeness of Artificers saddens me- it's cool class concept if you agree for high-magic world. I'd play one, but the only way to touch Eberron would be by running a campaign in it, as my DM dislikes it even more than I used to.

What Bears said.

Even if you only own the Spell Compendium, you can get plenty of very useful Paladin, Blackguard, and Ranger spells that are scaled for much higher levels. For example, Arrow Storm is a 3rd level Ranger spell that allows you to make a single arrow attack at your full BAB against every enemy within your ranged increment. Rangers get access to it at 11th level. Archivists get access to it at 5th level, when one or two magical arrows could easily kill every enemy on the board. And there are dozens of examples like this.

And looking at the back of the Compendium or on Crystalkeep's domain list, you'll see that you have access to tons of Arcane spells. And they can wear Mithral full plate with no spellcasting failure. And their primary caster stat is Int, which is superior to Wis or Cha, which are used for all other divine casters.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-23, 06:47 PM
Archivists DO use WIS for bonus spells, though. So they still need it.

jameswilliamogle
2007-04-23, 10:05 PM
I have seen the argument that an archivist can't pick up domain spells (I think its ridiculous, but I have seen it).

Artificer ~ Druid ~ Cleric > Wizard >> others.

Clerics become much weaker when divine metamagic: persistant spell isn't used. Its easy enough to control.

Druids mainly become uber when they get access to combat forms like fleshraker dinosaur and spells like venomfire. Likewise, its easy enough to control.

Wizards are very well designed, in general, except the class is way too top-heavy.

The Binder is a ridiculously powerful base class that doesn't even need good ability scores. Incarnate can be pretty wicked too.

My biggest complaint is that there are "power-bands" where one style of character will far outshine another style. Campaigns usually do not go from 1-20, so at low levels melee will be uber, mid levels druids and clerics shine, and at high level wizards rock. There's a lot of small fixes to keep any individual style of character from getting ridiculous, by restricting this thing and that, but I really hope the next edition tries to make all the classes more balanced with each other throughout every level.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-23, 10:07 PM
Wizards? Top-heavy? A wizard ends encounters faster at level 7 and is more invulnerable (relative to CR-appropriate challenges) at level 9 than he does and is at 17 and 19.

Confusion can mean the end of an otherwise high-CR encounter all on its own. Slow works on everything and turns "oh god we're gonna die" into "no sweat". Solid Fog, Glitterdust, Black Tentacles, Haste, flight... wizards can and do rock the mid-levels.

EvilElitest
2007-04-23, 10:47 PM
Samurai are the most over powered, don't you peple know anything:smallwink:
(well they are, from an NPC standpoint, almost)
And clerics are underpowered, really

from,
EE

Aquillion
2007-04-24, 02:58 AM
This goes from "good, but you can't always find the exact ones you want" to "broken" as soon as you get, say, an Artificer or a Warlock or a Chameleon in the party. They can craft you whatever scroll you want with their UMD-crafting abilities (or "take spells from any list" spellcasting focus, in the Chameleon's case).I don't know about the other two, but this has been errataed for artificers. One of Eberron erratas states that anything an artificer creates is considered neither arcane nor divine. Scrolls they create, therefore, cannot be scribed by anyone, since all other casters are either arcane or divine and can only scribe scrolls of that type (and, for that matter, it means that scrolls they create cannot be even be used by anyone without a UMD check. Somewhat rough, but a much-needed fix, as the above illustrates.)

As long as you assume that this also applies to Warlocks and don't have Chameleons around, it isn't so bad. When you remember that scribing a scroll requires a feat (which most of the classes archivists would want scrolls from don't get for free), things become even better.

At that point it's really just a matter of archivists being as broken as the DM allows them to be.

JaronK
2007-04-24, 04:39 AM
It doesn't apply to Warlocks, though.

Archivists are like Artificers. If played by someone who is unfamiliar with the rules, or a DM that nerfs them, they're of course not very strong. If played by RAW by a player who knows what they're doing, they can easily dominate a campaign.

Yes, an Archivist with a Warlock cohort can cast every spell in existance. So can an Artificer (and he doesn't need the Warlock). That alone throws those two into the top of the pile. Druids, Clerics, and Wizards round out the top 5.

Something to note about those five: in a group of only one of those classes, they can still accomplish everything the traditional 4 man party can. Four Druids, for example, can use Wildshape to tank better than a fighter, Wildshape to scout better than a rogue, summoned monsters to trigger traps, a wide spell selection to cast what they need, etc.

JaronK

Aquillion
2007-04-24, 12:13 PM
It doesn't apply to Warlocks, though.Aha! I knew I'd seen this somewhere. Warlocks can't scribe divine scrolls; when they try, they get an arcane version of a spell that would normally be on a divine list. See here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm):


The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his or her class.)
Note that the text in question doesn't specifically refer to the Scribe Scroll feat, but to all scrolls, no matter what mechanism is used to create them. Warlocks, as an arcane class, are therefore only capable of creating arcane scrolls, though they can create them for spells, like Heal, that don't appear on any arcane class list. (Note, again, that as a result nobody will be able to scribe those scrolls, or use them without UMD or an equivalent.)

They can still serve as a source of scrolls for wizards, just not for archivists, who require divine scrolls of the spells in question.

Caelestion
2007-04-24, 12:23 PM
I think the only answer to this thread is "whatever the DM allows to be most overpowered".

EvilElitest
2007-04-24, 01:17 PM
samurai, as i said
from,
EE

Aquillion
2007-04-24, 01:17 PM
I think the only answer to this thread is "whatever the DM allows to be most overpowered".While the DM can houserule things however they want (and archivists, in particular, are subject to DM whims), there are certainly some classes that are better than others. What whim would make monks overpowered? "Non-fist-based damage no longer applies?" "Anyone with a level in a class that isn't monk automatically fails at every roll they attempt?"

Even with the former, there are other people who are better than the monk in the punching-people-in-the-face category... and it'd still come down to the monk beating up people the wizard is holding down for him.

jameswilliamogle
2007-04-24, 01:18 PM
I think the only answer to this thread is "whatever the DM allows to be most overpowered".Seconded!


Wizards? Top-heavy? A wizard ends encounters faster at level 7 and is more invulnerable (relative to CR-appropriate challenges) at level 9 than he does and is at 17 and 19.

Confusion can mean the end of an otherwise high-CR encounter all on its own. Slow works on everything and turns "oh god we're gonna die" into "no sweat". Solid Fog, Glitterdust, Black Tentacles, Haste, flight... wizards can and do rock the mid-levels.Right, I agree completely, but not every Wizard takes those, and Clerics and Druids are both really powerful then too.

I think its important to define what "powerful" was intended to mean from the OP.

From what I wrote, I was mainly defining "powerful" as being "capable of taking on a larger and larger portion of what people rely on other members of the party for."

For example, Crowd Control is freakin' sweet when you have someone with Power Attack to take the guy down, but is not as good otherwise.

[It appears] you took in your list of spells to mean "most synergistic to most party styles", which is also a legitimate definition. We're both right.

Aquillion
2007-04-24, 03:38 PM
Right, I agree completely, but not every Wizard takes those, and Clerics and Druids are both really powerful then too.Still, that's like saying that Fighters are better skillmonkeys than Rogues (if rogues put all their skill points into Profession: Basketweaving and the like.)

It's one thing to say "Not every Wizard is going to use Celerity" or whatever, but things like fear, confusion, Solid Fog, and (at lower levels) black tentacles are a wizard's basic level four crowd control. A wizard who doesn't have any of those is like a fighter wielding a table leg--sure, you can do it (and I'm sure someone can come up with a good build), but if you're comparing classes it's not a very good place to use as a reference.

Clerics and druids can compare well even to a competent wizard (just in different categories). Saying "Oh, yeah, well clerics are better than a wizard who memorizes nothing but variously-metamagiced versions of Ray of Frost 20 times" isn't necessary.

(Hmm... what's the most damage you can do in a single round with a Ray of Frost, using a level 20 character? Assume no resistances etc, and you can cast more than one in that round if you want, or get more rounds using time stop etc.)

DSCrankshaw
2007-04-24, 04:03 PM
(Hmm... what's the most damage you can do in a single round with a Ray of Frost, using a level 20 character? Assume no resistances etc, and you can cast more than one in that round if you want, or get more rounds using time stop etc.)

Ray of frost has an attack roll, thus you can add sneak attack to it, so 9d6 + 1d3 (since you need at least one level of wizard). Of course, if you do an arcane trickster build, that's 8d6+1d3 twice (once quickened, once not).

Arcane Tricksters are great for ray specialists. Although you'll probably want a few levels of Spellwarp Sniper (turn any spell into a ray spell).

Telonius
2007-04-24, 04:10 PM
More damage if the critter is vulnerable to cold, too, but I guess that can't be assumed.

jameswilliamogle
2007-04-24, 05:20 PM
I think CoD is better between 7th and 13th than most Wizards at those levels, as per how I defined "power" in my previous post: they can do more on their own. The whole thread is opinion and P.O.V., anyways, and my opinion is just as valid as any other: I think Wizards are too weak at low level and too powerful at high level (and high level to me is anything above 10th or so): ie, they can cover less of a groups needs at low level, and too much at high level. Do you disagree?

Marius
2007-04-24, 08:07 PM
I think CoD is better between 7th and 13th than most Wizards at those levels, as per how I defined "power" in my previous post: they can do more on their own. The whole thread is opinion and P.O.V., anyways, and my opinion is just as valid as any other: I think Wizards are too weak at low level and too powerful at high level (and high level to me is anything above 10th or so): ie, they can cover less of a groups needs at low level, and too much at high level. Do you disagree?

They aren't weak at low levels, they're just balanced.

tobian
2007-04-24, 08:28 PM
Most overpowered classes...

Rogue 2/Bard 6/PrC 1/Ur-Priest 1/Sublime Chord 1/Fochlucan Lyrist 9

Yea, thats crazy, thank you char op boards. (The language requirement can be met by... oh wait, im spreading the evil! Must resist...)

... Oh wait, you said class...

Um, personally, its probally the rules lawyer and/or powergamer who is playing some kind of full caster. Really, it depends on the player what is overpowered or not and what the DM will let them get away with. But, I would think the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard are all candidates for the title of most OP class, for reasons already mentioned.

BardicDuelist
2007-04-24, 09:07 PM
Divine Minion...can you say Pun Pun

That, or a number of monsterous classes (dragon comes to mind...)

Armads
2007-04-24, 09:10 PM
Wizard or Artificer. They can do nearly anything.

Dausuul
2007-04-24, 09:13 PM
I've played two archivists and haven't noticed him outshining much of anyone. Sure, he can have a wide selection of spells... but he can cast pitifully few of them, and those are the only ones he's got, and you have to PAY for them to add, or find it. And really, divine spells aren't commonly kept on scrolls.

A cleric can go and choose any he wants for the day. He can also turn.

An archvist's dark knowledge and info-gathering is nice, but when that comes to combat they are merely helpful, almost bard-like, instead of WOW!!!

Dread Secret is more than just helpful. You can shut down an enemy--any enemy, no matter how powerful--for one round with just a move action and a DC 25 Knowledge check, which is not exactly difficult for an Int-based caster. No save, no SR, no nothing. In high-level combat, where swift and standard actions are the currency of life and death, trading 1 move action of yours to steal an entire round's worth of actions from one enemy is huge.

I_Got_This_Name
2007-04-24, 09:26 PM
Warlocks, as an arcane class, are therefore only capable of creating arcane scrolls, though they can create them for spells, like Heal, that don't appear on any arcane class list.

Warlocks aren't arcane casters. Warlocks use Invocations, which are a type of Spell-like ability; they are not arcane spells any more than psionics are.

With the rules seen that way, though, a warlock-scribed scroll is an Invocation scroll, which can only be activated by those with that spell on their invocation list (i.e. nobody) or by those with Use Magic Device; this ends up just like the Artificer fix.

Dausuul
2007-04-24, 10:06 PM
Warlocks aren't arcane casters. Warlocks use Invocations, which are a type of Spell-like ability; they are not arcane spells any more than psionics are.

With the rules seen that way, though, a warlock-scribed scroll is an Invocation scroll, which can only be activated by those with that spell on their invocation list (i.e. nobody) or by those with Use Magic Device; this ends up just like the Artificer fix.

Actually, it looks like the warlock can create either arcane or divine scrolls. The Imbue Item ability says the warlock can create the item "as if he had cast the required spell," and it also specifies UMD difficulties for both arcane and divine spells. The way I read this, if the warlock uses Imbue Item to fake casting an arcane spell, as an arcane spell, he gets an arcane scroll; if he fakes a divine spell, as a divine spell, he gets a divine scroll.

Of course, the DC to fake a divine spell is 10 higher. Tough, but not impossible by any means.

Jothki
2007-04-24, 10:11 PM
What are epic Artificers like? Do they get the ability to create epic infusions, or do they just stop gaining power?

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-24, 11:03 PM
What are epic Artificers like? Do they get the ability to create epic infusions, or do they just stop gaining power?

Probably what they gain is the ability to turn out epic items for next to nothing. That's scary.

Aquillion
2007-04-25, 01:09 AM
Actually, it looks like the warlock can create either arcane or divine scrolls. The Imbue Item ability says the warlock can create the item "as if he had cast the required spell," and it also specifies UMD difficulties for both arcane and divine spells. The way I read this, if the warlock uses Imbue Item to fake casting an arcane spell, as an arcane spell, he gets an arcane scroll; if he fakes a divine spell, as a divine spell, he gets a divine scroll.I don't think that's what it means. Imbue item's first paragraph is very clear on what it does: It lets you mimic knowing a spell you wouldn't otherwise have for the purpose of item creation. That's the total extent of its power; it doesn't let you decide the type of the scroll you get beyond the guidelines SRD gives for deciding scroll type. The bit you quoted is just for the difficulty of mimicking that spell--15 for a spell from an arcane list, or 25 from a divine list.

The SRD, then, says that the arcane/divine flavor of a scroll you create is determined by your class. Not the spell--in fact, the wording of the sentence in the SRD on scrolls is pretty clearly there to prevent people from saying "oh, it's a divine spell, so I scribed a divine scroll." Scrolls you create always have the same source as your class.

Clerics who get Lightning Bolt from a domain can't scribe arcane scrolls of lightning bolt, even though most people would call it an "arcane spell"; bards can't scribe divine scrolls of Cure Light Wounds, even though everyone would say it's clearly a divine spell. Likewise, even when using imbue item to mimic the ability to cast a spell that normally appears on a divine class list, warlocks cannot create a divine scroll. It's either arcane, or nothing, depending on whether you consider them an arcane class or not.

Dausuul
2007-04-25, 07:56 AM
I don't think that's what it means. Imbue item's first paragraph is very clear on what it does: It lets you mimic knowing a spell you wouldn't otherwise have for the purpose of item creation. That's the total extent of its power; it doesn't let you decide the type of the scroll you get beyond the guidelines SRD gives for deciding scroll type. The bit you quoted is just for the difficulty of mimicking that spell--15 for a spell from an arcane list, or 25 from a divine list.

Spells themselves are either arcane (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm) or divine (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/divineSpells.htm), and that depends purely on who cast them, not on what lists they happen to be on. Say you're mimicking protection from evil. You can mimic it as a wizard version at DC 16, or as a cleric version at DC 26, and it will follow slightly different rules depending on which you pick.


The SRD, then, says that the arcane/divine flavor of a scroll you create is determined by your class. Not the spell--in fact, the wording of the sentence in the SRD on scrolls is pretty clearly there to prevent people from saying "oh, it's a divine spell, so I scribed a divine scroll." Scrolls you create always have the same source as your class.

The exact wording is "The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his or her class." That's pretty vague. The warlock text does not specify what kind of scroll the warlock makes; and since a spell is divine if cast by a divine caster, and arcane if cast by an arcane caster, I'd argue that mimicking a divine spell means you are, in effect, being treated as a divine caster for purposes of that scroll.


Clerics who get Lightning Bolt from a domain can't scribe arcane scrolls of lightning bolt, even though most people would call it an "arcane spell"; bards can't scribe divine scrolls of Cure Light Wounds, even though everyone would say it's clearly a divine spell.

Lightning bolt cast by a cleric is a divine spell, because it was cast by a divine caster. Cure light wounds cast by a bard is an arcane spell, because it was cast by an arcane caster. It doesn't matter what spell lists it's on or what class it's traditionally associated with.

AllisterH
2007-04-25, 08:24 AM
The one thing that keeps artificer in check is that it really is a DM and splatbook dependent class. If the PHB is the only source and the DM doesn't allow for the domains and the only divine class in yor group is a cleric then the archivist quickly drops to below even a sorceror.

Add in the spell compendium and the archivist quickly jumps to head of the class. Which is kind of sad since the class itself is a nice concept but not for a novice DM.

Another would be the artificer. Shouldn't be surprised since Eberron also gave us the most broken Prestige class ever, the "Planar Shepherd".

Core druid 20 is just plain broken. Add in splatbooks and the druid easily takes the number one spot.

Clerics aren't that bad honestly but once you add divine metamagic and nightsticks, they quickly become broken. So I would argue a core cleric is on the VERY strong but not broken side of the equation.

The wizard as well isn't "overpowered" but certain spells are. Wraithstrike, the Orb spells, the polymorph line of spells, Gate etc. This also applies to the Psion in a way.

jameswilliamogle
2007-04-25, 08:58 AM
edit: nm; misread.

Jack Mann
2007-04-25, 11:42 AM
Eh, even core only, a cleric becomes much better at melee than the fighter can hope to be. Beating the poor fighter at his own specialty could be construed as broken, I think.

Morty
2007-04-25, 11:53 AM
In fact, fighter gets better as you have more books- he's got more feats to pick up. Core-only fighter isn't only weaker than cleric, but also he runs out of feats after about 10 levels.

Jack Mann
2007-04-25, 12:54 PM
Yep. He still isn't up to par outside of core, but at least he can pick up some battlefield control.

Aquillion
2007-04-25, 03:40 PM
The exact wording is "The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his or her class." That's pretty vague. The warlock text does not specify what kind of scroll the warlock makes; and since a spell is divine if cast by a divine caster, and arcane if cast by an arcane caster, I'd argue that mimicking a divine spell means you are, in effect, being treated as a divine caster for purposes of that scroll.But you just agreed that there are no divine spells, only divine casters and divine spell lists. The wording in the SRD, I think, is pretty straightforward in what it means... it extends this concept to scribing scrolls, saying that the only way to get a divine scroll is to be a divine caster, and the only way to get an arcane scroll is to be an arcane caster. The spell you're scribing doesn't matter at all.

Given that there's not really any such thing as a divine spell, just spells on divine lists, why would mimicking a spell from a divine list matter? Warlocks are mimicking the ability to cast the spell, not the ability to cast it as a member of that class; so they get a scroll as if they'd been able to cast the selected spell as a warlock. Since warlocks are not a divine class, they would never cast the spell as divine, and will never be able to scribe a divine scroll.

Wish can mimick divine spells, too, but that doesn't make it divine itself. This is the same concept.

Dausuul
2007-04-25, 04:39 PM
But you just agreed that there are no divine spells, only divine casters and divine spell lists.

No, there are divine spells; it's just that whether a spell is arcane or divine is determined by who casts it, not by what list it's on. The SRD is quite explicit on this point (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/magicOverview.htm):


Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/bard.htm), sorcerers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#sorcerer), and wizards (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard)) and divine (cast by clerics (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm), druids (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm), and experienced paladins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) and rangers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm)).So a divine spell is a spell cast by a cleric, druid, ranger, or paladin (or other divine caster). The warlock ability includes rules for mimicking "divine spells," not "spells from divine casters' spell lists." By definition, mimicking casting a divine spell means mimicking being a divine caster.


Given that there's not really any such thing as a divine spell, just spells on divine lists, why would mimicking a spell from a divine list matter? Warlocks are mimicking the ability to cast the spell, not the ability to cast it as a member of that class; so they get a scroll as if they'd been able to cast the selected spell as a warlock. Since warlocks are not a divine class, they would never cast the spell as divine, and will never be able to scribe a divine scroll.

What if we're talking about a spell like cure serious wounds, which is level 3 for a cleric but level 4 for a druid? How can the warlock possibly figure out which level scroll to create (which determines cost, save DC, et cetera) without picking a class to create it as?

The only way warlock scroll-scribing makes any sense at all is if the warlock chooses a class to mimic as well as a spell. It doesn't specifically state that you pick a class, but it's implicit in the ability.

Aquillion
2007-04-25, 05:14 PM
No, there are divine spells; it's just that whether a spell is arcane or divine is determined by who casts it, not by what list it's on. The SRD is quite explicit on this point (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/magicOverview.htm):

So a divine spell is a spell cast by a cleric, druid, ranger, or paladin (or other divine caster). The warlock ability includes rules for mimicking "divine spells," not "spells from divine casters' spell lists." By definition, mimicking casting a divine spell means mimicking being a divine caster.That doesn't follow at all. The warlock ability doesn't say it changes the warlock's effective class for creating items (something that would be required explictly to get around the effective SRD's strict requirement that you be a divine class to create divine scrolls), it says he can substitute a UMD check for the required spell--that is the total extent of its power.

Per RAW, the rules are very clear. The warlock announces that they're creating a scroll. At this point, the type of scroll is already determined based on their class--it doesn't matter what scroll they're scribing, it's going to be arcane if you think they're an arcane class, or nothing if you think they're neither. Then the warlock announces it's going to be a scroll of, say, heal. At this point, they need to satisfy the requirements for the scroll. This is when the sole effect of Imbue Item comes in--they use it, they make the roll, and they're allowed to bypass one single rule, the restriction that would normally require that they know the spell they want to scribe. So they can continue, resulting in an arcane (or nothing) scroll of Heal.

Nothing in the rules would make anyone think differently. The only reason anyone thinks that warlocks can scribe divine scrolls is because they're under the misconception that the type of scroll you get depends on the spell you're scribing. It does not; it depends solely and exclusively on character class, which Imbue Item makes no mention of changing.


What if we're talking about a spell like cure serious wounds, which is level 3 for a cleric but level 4 for a druid? How can the warlock possibly figure out which level scroll to create (which determines cost, save DC, et cetera) without picking a class to create it as?

The only way warlock scroll-scribing makes any sense at all is if the warlock chooses a class to mimic as well as a spell. It doesn't specifically state that you pick a class, but it's implicit in the ability.Different versions of spells for different classes are, effectively, treated as different spells, so a warlock does indeed have to decide whether they're scribing the druid or cleric version of Cure Serious Wounds. However, this has no bearing on whether they get an arcane or divine scroll. The type of scroll they get was already decided way back at the beginning, from the fact that they are a warlock scribing a scroll. The only way it could be changed is by an ability that specifically states that it allows warlocks to ignore the rule that states that the type of scroll you create is based on your class. Imbue Item doesn't do anything of the sort; its sole effect is to let you create a magic item (including scrolls) without having to know the required spell. In all other respects, you remain a warlock scribing a scroll, and get a scroll of whatever flavor of magic warlocks use.

Ras Sha'Akhamen
2007-04-25, 06:17 PM
Monks can become unbelievably overpowered at high levels. However, at that point, pretty much any class can take on a god that doesn't have auto-kill Salient abilities and hold their own for awhile. They can also be a part of some really broken things (Give an illithid spellcaster a few monk levels to make it one of the deadliest things alive, even in toe-to-toe melee, thanks to Flurry-brainsucking), but on its own, it's not much of a class.

Starbuck_II
2007-04-25, 10:44 PM
Monks can become unbelievably overpowered at high levels. However, at that point, pretty much any class can take on a god that doesn't have auto-kill Salient abilities and hold their own for awhile. They can also be a part of some really broken things (Give an illithid spellcaster a few monk levels to make it one of the deadliest things alive, even in toe-to-toe melee, thanks to Flurry-brainsucking), but on its own, it's not much of a class.
You can't flurry natural weapons.
Monk doesn't help at all.

Rainspattered
2007-04-25, 10:49 PM
You can't flurry natural weapons.
Monk doesn't help at all.

What are fists?

Ulzgoroth
2007-04-25, 10:58 PM
Natural weapons, yes, but the part that makes it possible to flurry with them is that they are Unarmed Strikes. A claw or tentacle attack is a natural weapon, but not an unarmed strike. Monks and natural weapons, contrary to what one might think, don't mix at all well.

Rainspattered
2007-04-25, 11:05 PM
Tentacles that are a natural part of a creature's body, with no alteration or enhancement of any sort, are not considered to be "unarmed."
That is the stupidest thing I have heard in months.
This is why I hate d20.

Jack Mann
2007-04-26, 12:49 AM
An unarmed strike is a specific type of attack. It does a specified amount of damage, and there are certain things you can do with it. In flurry of blows, you can use other parts of your body, possibly even those tentacles. But they are hitting as unarmed strikes, not as tentacles, to avoid the sort of cheese Ras was talking about. This also keeps the monk from declaring that his unarmed strikes deal slashing damage, since he's using his claws, or to keep him from saying that his claws do 2d10 damage because of his unarmed strike damage.

Effectively, unarmed strikes are a different kind of natural weapon that follow slightly different rules. If you want an in-game explanation, then it's probably enough to say that monks are trained to hit in a certain way. Hitting with a tentacle as a tentacle doesn't allow him to focus his ki the way he is used to, preventing it from doing as much damage or to be usable in a flurry of blows.

On the plus side, this theoretical illithid monk could go through his flurry of blows routine, and then follow it up with his tentacles at the general -5 penalty (-2 with multiattack). We'll say that this illithid has twelve levels of monk, giving him five attacks (factoring in his BAB from racial hit dice), plus four tentacles. If he takes two-weapon fighting, improved two-weapon fighting, and then greater two-weapon fighting, he'll have twelve attacks in one round.

He's still not an optimal character, but he could be an interesting NPC.

Jothki
2007-04-26, 01:03 AM
Nothing in the rules would make anyone think differently. The only reason anyone thinks that warlocks can scribe divine scrolls is because they're under the misconception that the type of scroll you get depends on the spell you're scribing. It does not; it depends solely and exclusively on character class, which Imbue Item makes no mention of changing.

What about multiclass characters, or characters with a class that can cast both divine and arcane spells? It seems like the spell list would matter there.

Funkyodor
2007-04-26, 02:34 AM
My favorite NPC bad guy in 2nd ed. DnD was the Madar (male medusa) Monk. Save vs every hit or be turned to stone, lol. But I digress.

The monk can be made into a very powerful NPC enemy. He can infiltrate (cook, maid, servant) with no magic items and still be very effective. I can't count the times that my characters have been arrested or thrown in prison with nothing but the clothes on our backs. Every time that happens the DM loves to throw a monk in there to be the head honcho. (Don't start mentioning sorcs or divine casters, DnD is a game including magic. If there wasn't a way to drain a mage / clerics powers daily what would be the point of a prison?)

I feel alot of characters can be overpowered as long as the player can maximize their advantages and minimize their disadvantages. But the Monk being overpowered is very situational.

Dausuul
2007-04-26, 08:03 AM
My favorite NPC bad guy in 2nd ed. DnD was the Madar (male medusa) Monk. Save vs every hit or be turned to stone, lol. But I digress.

The monk can be made into a very powerful NPC enemy. He can infiltrate (cook, maid, servant) with no magic items and still be very effective. I can't count the times that my characters have been arrested or thrown in prison with nothing but the clothes on our backs. Every time that happens the DM loves to throw a monk in there to be the head honcho. (Don't start mentioning sorcs or divine casters, DnD is a game including magic. If there wasn't a way to drain a mage / clerics powers daily what would be the point of a prison?)

I feel alot of characters can be overpowered as long as the player can maximize their advantages and minimize their disadvantages. But the Monk being overpowered is very situational.

Commoner is overpowered because in a situation where a god has entered the Material Plane in his true form and is slaughtering anyone who isn't a commoner, they're the only ones who survive.

Any class can shine if you strip every other class of its abilities. Fighters trounce wizards in an anti-magic field. The question is who does better overall, in a "normal" gaming scenario at a given level?

jameswilliamogle
2007-04-26, 08:05 AM
Re: Which class is the most overpowered? Oh, definitely the rich.

Mr. Moogle
2007-04-26, 09:10 AM
WARLOCK!!!! Darkness + devils sight + eldrich blast = OWN!!!!!!!!

Dausuul
2007-04-26, 09:15 AM
WARLOCK!!!! Darkness + devils sight + eldrich blast = OWN!!!!!!!!

*sigh* I hope that was sarcasm.

If not, then, once again... darkness + devil's sight + eldritch blast = the bad guys have a 20% miss chance, and you're still doing squat for damage. Hardly earth-shattering. Darkness got massively nerfed from 3E.

Indon
2007-04-26, 10:47 AM
Oh, definitely the rich.

The working class will rise up!

Hmm... gnomish NPC with a theory that meleers will rise up and exterminate spellcasters...

Penguinsushi
2007-04-26, 10:56 AM
I have been wondering recently which class is the most powerful over all (excluding prestige classes). I mean they are all supposed to be balanced but there must be one class that can is head and shoulders above the rest. Personally I feel that the monk and cleric class are slightly overpowered especially at high levels.

I think this is somewhat subjective. The 'most powerful' class depends quite a bit upon your playing style. Also, how much time you spend min/maxing charaters and what equipment you give them can make a *huge* difference.

There's really only one consistent truth here with respect to class power level: The classes are not objectively balanced. They will never *be* balanced - it's not possible. The criteria used for determining said 'balance' and 'power' are too abstract. As long as you have such a wide array of potential abilities and focuses, there will never be a reliable way of comparing them.

Are 3 attacks better than a 6d6 fireball? Consider all the variables that depends on. There is no universal, objective answer.

Apples and Oranges.

~PS

Woot Spitum
2007-04-26, 11:29 AM
The monk can be made into a very powerful NPC enemy. He can infiltrate (cook, maid, servant) with no magic items and still be very effective. I can't count the times that my characters have been arrested or thrown in prison with nothing but the clothes on our backs. Every time that happens the DM loves to throw a monk in there to be the head honcho. (Don't start mentioning sorcs or divine casters, DnD is a game including magic. If there wasn't a way to drain a mage / clerics powers daily what would be the point of a prison?)

A psion with nothing but the clothes on his back can break anyone in half with the power of his mind. Bards and beguilers need no spellbooks to charm or dominate the guards. Druids can wildshape. Barbarians can power attack the door into nothing. Psychic warriors can do far more bad things while unarmed than a monk ever could. And finally, a wizard that invests in a tattooed spellbook never has to worry about prison again.

EDIT: Forgot about the Warlock. All his abilities, plus the fact that he can do similar round-by-round damage as the monk, only from a distance.

Aquillion
2007-04-26, 11:34 AM
Are 3 attacks better than a 6d6 fireball? Consider all the variables that depends on. There is no universal, objective answer.Er, is this a trick question? Of course they are. You could establish several theoretical situations where the fireball is better, no doubt, but overall the three attacks are vastly superior, since you can add all of your damage modifiers and special weapon effects to each one.

It's like the previous poster who said that monks are better in a situation where, in effect, non-fist-based damage is disallowed. Yes, there are situations that favor everyone, but that doesn't change the fact that some strategies are, in the long term, vastly superior to others; multiple-hit attacks vs. one big unmodifiable lump of dice is one of these situations.

Penguinsushi
2007-04-26, 11:51 AM
Er, is this a trick question? Of course they are. You could establish several theoretical situations where the fireball is better, no doubt, but overall the three attacks are vastly superior, since you can add all of your damage modifiers and special weapon effects to each one.

It's like the previous poster who said that monks are better in a situation where, in effect, non-fist-based damage is disallowed. Yes, there are situations that favor everyone, but that doesn't change the fact that some strategies are, in the long term, vastly superior to others; multiple-hit attacks vs. one big unmodifiable lump of dice is one of these situations.

But that's exactly the point. Situations matter. No action takes place without a situation. I can think of dozens of situations in which one or the other would be the better choice (about the same number for each, actually) - but universally, no. You can look at all the statistical averages and probability you want, but in the end, what matters is what happens in the game. Since there's no way to know what situations you're going to be in, there's no absolute superior. That's all I'm getting at.

Consider this: 3 attacks requires a full round action. Always. A Fireball only requires a standard action (or, possibly less in the case of a quickened spell). You may have taken my 'which is better' statement to mean 'which deals the most damage' - which is not necessarily true. There are too many other factors to consider.

Also, fireballs are not *technically* unmodifiable. Metamagic feats abound and there are a few other class and presige class features that increase damage or otherwise augment spells.

:smallsmile:

~PS

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-26, 12:01 PM
Actually, an aristocrat might be the single most powerful class. Why be a powerful character when you can command powerful characters? Though that's purely fluff reasoning and ignores mechanics.

jameswilliamogle
2007-04-26, 12:33 PM
Actually, an aristocrat might be the single most powerful class. Why be a powerful character when you can command powerful characters? Though that's purely fluff reasoning and ignores mechanics.I agree. Beguilers would be the most powerful PC class by the same reasoning (all those charm spells and such).

It really, really depends on what you define "Power" to be, as has been said.

1. Most damage output in a fight (DAMAGE)
(varies by level, I think, but Fighters & Barbs to Wizards & Sorcerers, and even druids and clerics sometimes, Totemists with some builds, and Paladins with charging builds too)

2. Able to handle any situation singlehandedly (ADAPTABILITY)
(Incarnates, Binders, Beguilers to a much lesser extent, Wizards too)

3. Able to move the story along (PROBLEM SOLVING)
(Rogues, Beguilers, skill-types, even Incarnates)

4. Able to survive encounters (DURABILITY)
(small Rogues w/ ridiculous Hide mods, lol, and clerics and druids)

5. Are just helluh cool (FUNKY)
(Monk, Dragon Shaman, Warlock, Dragonfire Adept, Incarnate, Totemist, Binder, Binder, Binder)

GoC
2007-04-26, 05:55 PM
Does everyone agree that (counting only the normal classes) at epic levels wizards are the most powerful?
Does anyone agree that Shapechange&polymorph is broken?

JaronK
2007-04-26, 06:28 PM
Archivists are better at Epic levels, especially with one level of Sacred Exorcist, so they can cast Divine Persistant Shapechange and be everything at once.

JaronK

Jacob Orlove
2007-04-26, 07:34 PM
At Epic levels, anyone who takes "Epic Spellcasting" is tied for best. Class abilities don't even matter at that point.

Rainspattered
2007-04-26, 09:12 PM
So, an Illithid trains for years to becmone a master of physical prowess, but doesn't think "Oh, hey, given that I will not be using weapons, and can kill a man easilywith my face, maybe I should learn to combine these skills at some point in my training," despite the ridiculous Int he's almost invariably starting with thanks to a racial bonus.
I still maintain that that's a wholly inane rule with no reasonable in-game explanation that isn't blatant DxM (Kai just, um, doesn't work that way. Yeah.)
I mean, I don't even think monks are overpowered or should be more powerful. That's just a really, really, illogical rule.

Counterspin
2007-04-27, 12:27 PM
He combines them with his training by using his tentacles as secondary natural attacks after his flurry presumably. Admittedly don't have my MM right now. Anyway, we don't make the rules, we just play them. *shrug*

Caelestion
2007-04-27, 12:46 PM
To answer your question about an illithid monk, chances are that an illithid will never become one. They are super-geniuses, almost from birth, they are naturally powerful telepaths straight from maturity, and they have an attack routine (stun/suck) which, if it works, is pretty much an instant kill.

There is no reason for an arrogant, over-cerebral, fond-of-own-life, somewhat lazy aberration to take up any career than what they are naturally damn good at.