PDA

View Full Version : Overpowered Classes



Hefty Lefty
2007-05-27, 06:11 PM
My group has been having a lot of trouble lately. We have narrowed the playable classes/races (classes/races we feel are fair and balanced. Mostly just the Cores.), but one player begs to be other classes. I think variation is fun, so I'll let him (and the others) play other classes, but I don't think characters powerful than the rest of the party are any fun at all (half the fun of playing is getting out of the trouble you put yourself into:smallwink:). Are there any overpowered classes I should look out for? I was going to do this in a poll, like, which is the most overpowered or something, but I don't know which I'd include. Which classes are overpowered, and are Scouts (my friends say 1 scout = 1 ranger + 1 rogue) or Warmages (Armor and Arcane Spells!?) overpowered?

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-27, 06:18 PM
You should look out for the druid above all, as overpowering the druid takes almost no effort or intention, simply the obvious Natural Spell feat and obvious Wild Shape forms (bears and the like), plus spellcasting and an animal companion. The cleric can also be very powerful due to spells which allow him more than the melee might of another melee character combined with spellcasting. You should watch out for any wizard who knows what he is doing. Note how these--the three most powerful classes in the entire game, despite dozens of splatbooks (save the campaign-setting-specific Artificer)--are from the Player's Handbook, as with many of the other most overpowered or even game-breaking things in Dungeons & Dragons (the Candle of Invocation is a prime example).

The Scout and the Warmage are not overpowered. In fact, they are both combat-weak classes.

-The scout is not a ranger plus a rogue. Skirmish damage is half of Sneak Attack, and it is very, very difficult to make it work with a full attack (unlike Sneak Attack). The best a Scout can do is take Greater manyshot and, eventually, shoot three arrows with Skirmish damage (which, as mentioned, is not much). The Rogue also has Use Magic Device, which the Scout does not.

The warmage has armor, but he is in fact far more vulnerable than a wizard or sorcerer--he does not have any of the arcanist's typical defenses: Mirror Image, (Greater) Invisibility, flight, and the like--spells that do far more in terms of protection than armor ever could.
In addition, the Warmage casts arcane spells, but he casts them from a fixed list of poor spells: dealing out damage is essentially, nineteen times out of twenty, the worst strategy (or at least one of the worst) availible to an arcane caster. Compare what Magic Missile does to someone at first level compared to what Sleep does. Compare what Fireball does to how much damage Haste adds over the course of a fight with its extra attacks. And so on.
The warmage has a weaker offense, a much weaker defense, and zero in terms of the utility that is one of the arcanist's primary roles.


However, it should be noted that while maximum class power depends on class features, actual class power is to a greater or lesser degree (depending on the class) reliant on player proficiency. If a wizard player memorizes spells such as Detect Undead and Hold Portal and considers Burning Hands to be an excellent first-level spell and Fireball to be the height of power, then in your game, the wizard will not be in any way overpowered. Meanwhile, if the cleric is built and played very poorly and, say, the fighter/barbarian is built and played very well, the latter will overshadow the former.

It is a good thing to have the characters in a campaign be on approximately the same power level--but compare the actual characters you are presented with and what they can do, not simply their classes.

Diamondeye
2007-05-27, 06:24 PM
I don't allow scouts because I find the premise ridiculous.. being able to do more damage because you're moving? Moving makes it harder to shoot a gun accurately, much less a bow, which is presumably the reason skirmish does more damage.

Spiryt
2007-05-27, 06:24 PM
When i first saw Scout i also though that he is overpowered, but when you look more specificaly you see that not at all.

He don't have full attack bonus, have only one tactic (moving and making manyshots- at least if he want benefit skirmish) ec.
The most powerful classes (wizard, druid and cler) are you, know in core.
Scout, as well as other classes from Complete serious, is strong for non-caster (which is hardly fair for fighter, ranger and paladin...) but i wouldn't consider him overpowered.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-27, 06:28 PM
I don't allow scouts because I find the premise ridiculous.. being able to do more damage because you're moving? Moving makes it harder to shoot a gun accurately, much less a bow, which is presumably the reason skirmish does more damage.

Oh, come now. Of all the ridiculous and unrealistic things in Dungeons & Dragons, this strikes you as ridiculous?

In any case, Skirmish is not "doing more damage because you move as you are shooting". The damage and armor class bonuses can be said to simply represent the general advantage in combat a Scout's mastery of combat tactics grants him, as hit points are fairly abstract.


Edit: the Scout is not "strong for a non-caster". The Scout makes a good skill-user, competitive with the Rogue (the Rogue has more versatility, while the Scout is better at, well, scouting specifically), but in combat the Rogue is significantly more powerful: the Scout's bonus damage keeps him from becoming entirely irrelevant, but it is difficult for a basic Scout to contribute too much. Skirmish simply does not add that much damage. The Scout fills his party role (the same as the Rogue's) quite well, but in combat, any sort of actually primarily combat-oriented character (spellcaster, melee, or otherwise) will bring more to the table.

Yuki Akuma
2007-05-27, 06:32 PM
Three people using the same avatar posting in a four-post thread.. confusing.

Anyway: Fourth is pretty much on the money here. Most new classes are much weaker than they first appear (Warlock, anywone?), and most of the most broken material appears in the core rulebooks.

Wizards, for example. Polymorph. Gate. The Candle of Invokation.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-05-27, 06:35 PM
Using Favored Souls and Sorcerers for spellcasting instead of the Big Three core power classes: Clerics, Druids and Wizards for PCs, NPCs or BBEGs in a campaign goes along way in tempering out an overpowering campaign.

Gralamin
2007-05-27, 06:35 PM
Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Archivist, Artificer. These are the most overpowered, If built right.

Also be wary of level 1 kobold paladins.

Heres a few variants for some of the weaker classes:
If you want A better Monk, I suggest using this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1700109&postcount=1) (assuming you have tome of battle)
If you want a better Paladin, I suggest using this (http://corporation.walagata.com/fax/wiki/index.php/Paladin).

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-27, 06:36 PM
Do not neglect the Spirit Shaman, Mike! It is an excellent class which seems to see very little use.

Spiryt
2007-05-27, 06:38 PM
Anyway: Fourth is pretty much on the money here. Most new classes are much weaker than they first appear (Warlock, anywone?), and most of the most broken material appears in the core rulebooks.

Wizards, for example. Polymorph. Gate. The Candle of Invokation.

I know, i had written it myself, but i think we are comparing scout to other non casters or weak casters.
And altought sneak attack ussualy can be much better than skirmish, rogues almost don;t have any more useful abilities.
Scout has.
Scout can also do ranger, ranger has many things much wooorse. And he has "only" Full BaB, some spells and favorite enemy. I don't know if this things are indeed "only", but anyway scout looks strong.

Diamondeye
2007-05-27, 06:45 PM
Oh, come now. Of all the ridiculous and unrealistic things in Dungeons & Dragons, this strikes you as ridiculous?

Yes, as a matter of fact it does. Does this offend you in some way?


In any case, Skirmish is not "doing more damage because you move as you are shooting". The damage and armor class bonuses can be said to simply represent the general advantage in combat a Scout's mastery of combat tactics grants him, as hit points are fairly abstract.

Yes, it is extra damage because you are moving. You get it when you move, you don't get it when you don't move. Moving is the cause, extra damage is the effect. I see little reason to think a 3/4 BAB class with limited weapon selections has some grasp of tactics that esxcapes a Ranger, Fighter, or Barbarian.

Tactical knowledge does not make weapons hit any harder. Extra damage comes from either damaging more vital parts of the target or delivering more energy.

Raum
2007-05-27, 06:45 PM
And altought sneak attack ussualy can be much better than skirmish, rogues almost don;t have any more useful abilities. LMAO! Thanks for the laugh!

CASTLEMIKE
2007-05-27, 06:46 PM
Do not neglect the Spirit Shaman, Mike! It is an excellent class which seems to see very little use.

The Spirit Shaman is a very nice class with some interesting abilities. A little off topic I particularly like it as a model for the old Shair class arcane spellcasting in 3.5

tsuyoshikentsu
2007-05-27, 06:48 PM
rogues almost don;t have any more useful abilities.

So what do you call trapfinding, Use Magic Device, (Improved) Evasion, skill mastery, or opportunist?

Spiryt
2007-05-27, 06:53 PM
LMAO! Thanks for the laugh!

Before you will start to laugh all the way :
Don't has abilities that scout can't have too. Trapfinding, uncanny dodge,evasion. Special abilities can be good (bounus feats, why not), but Scout has more interesting things, on high levels too.
Probanly I said it wrong.
And it would be nice if you could share your opinion about rogues/scouts ec. with people instead laugh from them:smalltongue:

The_Snark
2007-05-27, 06:58 PM
Yes, as a matter of fact it does. Does this offend you in some way?

Yes, it is extra damage because you are moving. You get it when you move, you don't get it when you don't move. Moving is the cause, extra damage is the effect. I see little reason to think a 3/4 BAB class with limited weapon selections has some grasp of tactics that esxcapes a Ranger, Fighter, or Barbarian.

Tactical knowledge does not make weapons hit any harder. Extra damage comes from either damaging more vital parts of the target or delivering more energy.

Skirmish damage does come from damaging more vital parts of the target. It's precision damage, same as sneak attack. The rogue relies on being able to catch the target off guard to aim more precisely. The scout relies on being able to move into the right position to catch the target in a vulnerable spot. Imagine a scout with a bow circling the battle to get a better angle and to be able to catch enemies in the weak spots in their armor.

Yuki Akuma
2007-05-27, 06:59 PM
Use Magic Device is better than any Scout class ability, because Magic Wins D&D.

Extra damage in combat does not mean that the attack hits hard. Hit point damage does not have to be actual physical harm. It could be an attack that catches the opponent off-guard, allowing the barbarian to crush his skull with that big club of his. Or whatever.

Do you really think an average human can be hit by a sword larger than he is multiple times and survive? One solid chop from a greatsword will kill you. No matter how well-trained you are.

Also: Not all tactics are the same. The knowledge of how to swing a weapon with perfect finesse that a Fighter has, granting him full BaB progression, is not the same knowledge of anatomy a Rogue's Sneak Attack implies, or the knowledge of the best position to launch an attack from that is the Scout's Skirmish.

Namron7
2007-05-27, 07:01 PM
A quick off subject question... Whats a snark? Its sounds familiar...

ArmorArmadillo
2007-05-27, 07:01 PM
Any inclusion of the D&D magic system will lead to a massive power imbalance.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but unfortunately that's kind of how it is.

Yuki Akuma
2007-05-27, 07:02 PM
A psuedo-mythical creature from Lewis Caroll's absurd epic poem "The Hunting of the Snark".

It could have other meanings, but that'smy favourite.

Namron7
2007-05-27, 07:04 PM
Thank you. I thought it might have been from "the Jabberwock" by Lewis caroll also. Heh

Yuki Akuma
2007-05-27, 07:14 PM
"Jabberywocky". The Jabberwock is the name of the monster

:smallwink:

Raum
2007-05-27, 07:15 PM
Before you will start to laugh all the way :
Don't has abilities that scout can't have too. Trapfinding, uncanny dodge,evasion. Special abilities can be good (bounus feats, why not), but Scout has more interesting things, on high levels too.
Probanly I said it wrong.
And it would be nice if you could share your opinion about rogues/scouts ec. with people instead laugh from them:smalltongue:If you were offended, I apologize. It was a comment that simply caused me to laugh unexpectedly, the thanks were sincere.

As for my opinion of scout vs rogue:
1. Damage, melee or ranged, goes to the rogue. SA is that much better than Skirmish.
2. Skills again go to the rogue. UMD is the most significant but they also get Diplomacy, Gather Information, and Open Lock.
3. Mobility is one of the few things scouts tend to be better at. Starting with Fast Movement and ending with Free Movement, the scout out does the rogue.
4. Perception also goes to the scout, blindsense and blindsight can make a big difference.
5. Defenses go to the rogue also. He gets Improved Uncanny Dodge and, probably, Improved Evasion.
6. Options go to the rogue hands down. Not only are there more feats & PrCs intended for rogues, scouts get locked into the scout class if they want some of the better abilities like Free Movement.

Spiryt
2007-05-27, 07:23 PM
As for my opinion of scout vs rogue:
1. Damage, melee or ranged, goes to the rogue. SA is that much better than Skirmish.
2. Skills again go to the rogue. UMD is the most significant but they also get Diplomacy, Gather Information, and Open Lock.
3. Mobility is one of the few things scouts tend to be better at. Starting with Fast Movement and ending with Free Movement, the scout out does the rogue.
4. Perception also goes to the scout, blindsense and blindsight can make a big difference.
5. Defenses go to the rogue also. He gets Improved Uncanny Dodge and, probably, Improved Evasion.
6. Options go to the rogue hands down. Not only are there more feats & PrCs intended for rogues, scouts get locked into the scout class if they want some of the better abilities like Free Movement.
Maybe you are right. Maybe my first post was closer to truth

When i first saw Scout i also though that he is overpowered, but when you look more specificaly you see that not at all.
Beacuse they certainly look better than they are.

In fact there is probably better to start taking something else after 11th of scout. Rogue is as i see and I heard one of classes which are quite good to go 20. Scout has IMO better 1-10 anyway.

The_Snark
2007-05-27, 07:32 PM
A psuedo-mythical creature from Lewis Caroll's absurd epic poem "The Hunting of the Snark".

It could have other meanings, but that'smy favourite.

Right on the nail. That's my favourite meaning too.


In fact there is probably better to start taking something else after 11th of scout. Rogue is as i see and I heard one of classes which are quite good to go 20. Scout has IMO better 1-10 anyway.

After taking 11 levels of scout, I don't see why you'd stop there. You're only 3 levels away from Hide in Plain Sight. Once you're there, it's only four to Freedom of Movement, and after that only two to Blindsight... a scout who plans to multiclass should do it a lot sooner than level 11, I think.

Scouts have better movement, perception, and stealth-related abilities. Just like their name would indicate, really. Rogues generally do more damage, have better skills, and have a very neat list of special abilities towards the higher levels. Everyone always forgets about the special abilities, but Strength damage on every sneak attack, the chance to make extra attacks, and better skills are very good, easily on par with the Scout's high-level abilities.

MeklorIlavator
2007-05-27, 08:42 PM
In fact there is probably better to start taking something else after 11th of scout. Rogue is as i see and I heard one of classes which are quite good to go 20. Scout has IMO better 1-10 anyway.

Actually, if you allow PrC's from the completes, rogues should leave the class after a certain point, around 10, but if the PrC is good enough, 5. Also, no rouge should go straight to 20. They don't have a capstone, so it makes more sense to go into any full BAB class. My personal favorite for almost-straight rouge would be Rogue17/Swashbukler3, or go Rogue19/fighter 1.

If you go out of core, ban Initiate of the Seven Foldviel and persist spell and/or Divine metamagic. That takes some of the biggest offenders away, as the newer base classes don't add to much to the power level. I would encourage use of the Tome of Battle base classes, however, as all are very useful to melee, and help raise the melee-ers to a useful status in high level play by increasing the versitility of melee, but not to the point where they can combat CoDzilla or the Wizard.

Diamondeye
2007-05-27, 08:52 PM
Also: Not all tactics are the same. The knowledge of how to swing a weapon with perfect finesse that a Fighter has, granting him full BaB progression, is not the same knowledge of anatomy a Rogue's Sneak Attack implies, or the knowledge of the best position to launch an attack from that is the Scout's Skirmish.

The scout's ability description says that it, like a sneak attack, does not work on creatures immune to criticals (which is a result of their anatomy) and that the scout "must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach the spot". It is clearly physical damage.

What's movement got to do with this? Not moving automatically means they can't? It doesn't seem to affect rogues this way.

Something insubstantial like "knowing the best place to launch an attack from" is represnted by having a full BAB (which would make more sense). Extra damage, like a rogue or ninja gets from a sneak attack or sudden strike, is a result of the player specifically putting the character into a position that is measurable better even without knowing game mechanics. It's obviously better to attack an opponent from opposite directions, or when he's not ready to defend himself.

Yuki Akuma
2007-05-28, 05:29 AM
...And if you're moving quickly, your target is less likely to be able to defend himself, what with having to guess which angle you're going to attack from and everything.

I really don't get your point. It's a combat style; the scout is very, very good at moving quickly and getting through his enemy's defenses by doing so.

He is not moving when he launches his attack. He pauses for a split second to steady his aim and let loose the arrow, then starts moving again.

Spiryt
2007-05-28, 06:15 AM
Diamondeye- some could say that mobility is key in fight. Maybe runnig around and bow shooting seems little weird, it is certainly nothing ridiculous.

Like Yuki said He is not moving when he launches his attack. He is moving fast around to create advantage - not necesarily strike some vital point.
Additional 3d6 points of damage may just mean:
Striked enemy has arrow in leg, feel pain, has no idea how arrow hit him if this archer guy isn't in place farrow could strike from, and anyway he was completely elsewhere. From all this reasons any next attack, regardles - from scout or someone else will be bad for the guy.
And this won't really work on plant or something that is 3meters x 3 m x 3m of cytoplasm.

NullAshton
2007-05-28, 08:41 AM
Rogues are fairly good as classes go. You have sneak attack, which is fairly easy if you have a helpful wizard in the party or someone to flank with you. You can easily take care of traps and locks, helpful to save the cleric's healing spells for later(and extremely helpful if your DM likes to throw wail of the banshee spells at you). You get special abilities, which are very useful. I quite like crippling strike, as for a melee rogue it's one of the best things as abilities go, since you offset your squishiness by damaging their melee capability. And of course, you get one of the best skill sets in the game.

Gate and polymorph aren't good examples of wizards being overpowered. The overpowering uses of both can be stopped easily by the DM saying 'No.'. Candle of invocation is still useful without the summoning ability(or including a clause that was left out, saying that summoned creatures can't summon more creatures or give you a wish...), and polymorph can again be 'fixed' by the DM saying no to the more outrageous forms.

As long as you keep a careful eye on what could be possible abuses of the rules, such as Divine Metamagic, it should be fine. The players should play a part in not making overpowered characters as well. If you do see something that seems overpowered(like the warmage), it helps to think about it's statistics at various levels first. For example, the warmage can only wear light armor, and it's mostly limited to destruction spells. Which makes balancing for the DM a lot easier, as not many overpowered spells are straight out damage spells.

PlatinumJester
2007-05-28, 08:49 AM
I posted this same thread about a month ago and most people decided that Wizard/druid/cleric are the most powerful.

However, I believe the bard, sorcerer or bard are the most powerful. Why? Well thats my li'l secret :smallwink:

Can't have my DnD group knowing.

Diamondeye
2007-05-28, 11:15 AM
...And if you're moving quickly, your target is less likely to be able to defend himself, what with having to guess which angle you're going to attack from and everything.

What are you talking about? "Guess which angle you're going to attack from?"

Check it out. Go outside and point your finger at a car passing you on the street. Keep pointing your finger at it from the time you see it until the time you can't see it anymore.

How fast is the car on your street moving? 25 mph? Your finger isn't moving that fast, even when the car is right in front of you.

Now imagine that car is the scout and you are the scout's target. You're standing there with your sword and shield or whatever. He's moving. He has to move a lot more distance in order to move across the same amount of angle (in degrees, radians, mils, or whatever) because he's farther from the vertex. You only have to move your shield a foot or so, at most, or turn in place in order to address his many feet of movement. If the scout is 30 feet in front of you and moves 30 feet to the left, he's moved 45 degrees from where he was relative to you, but you only have to move about 8 inches or so to cover the same angle.

So not knowing "what angle your opponent is going to attack from" is not any special advantage because he's moving, and especially shouldn't be a special advantage to a class that's at 3/4 BAB in the first place.


I really don't get your point. It's a combat style; the scout is very, very good at moving quickly and getting through his enemy's defenses by doing so.

Ability to get through defenses is defined by attack rolls, not damage rolls, for one thing.

For another thing, there is no logical reason why moving around should especially help the scout get through his enemy's defenses, especially when it provides no similar benefit to Rangers.


He is not moving when he launches his attack. He pauses for a split second to steady his aim and let loose the arrow, then starts moving again.

A split second to steady sim, draw a bow, and shoot, and that somehow makes him more effective than when he's standing still the whole time?

The description of the ability says he is shooting at a vital area, not anything about his enemy not knowing where he's going to attack from or getting through defenses better, but it provides no logical explaination as to why this ability works when moving but not when still.

The class is basically a Ranger/Rogue multiclass (in fact at level 20, its skirmish damage is exactly the same as the sneak attack of a 10 Ranger/10Rogue) with some altered abilities. It's redundant, unneccessary, and its signature combat ability is based on a ridiculous premise.

Hence it's not allowed in my game. If you want it in your game, go right ahead.

Notice that I'm not complaining about the Scout's AC bonus to movement? That's because movement helps you avoid attacks. While it makes little sense that this is unique to the scout, it at least has a logical reason for existing. Moving never makes it easier to hit; in fact it makes it measurably harder. This is why police departments specifically conduct move-and-shoot training. This is why modern tanks have autostabilized cannons while their WWII counterparts pretty much had to stop to shoot with any daccuracy. While I realise that we are talking about bows or crossbows, not firearms or high velocity cannon, the fact remains that a small amount of bouncing or instability on the launch end for any ballistic object will cause a much larger error on the other end. That's that whole "angles encompassing more distance further from the vertex" thing again.

Diamondeye
2007-05-28, 11:26 AM
Diamondeye- some could say that mobility is key in fight. Maybe runnig around and bow shooting seems little weird, it is certainly nothing ridiculous.

Yes, actually it is pretty ridiculous. Movement in combat is important when it gives you a positional advantage on the enemy -- we represent this with flanking.

Mobility being key in a fight because it keeps you from getting hit, not because it makes it easier to hit the enemy.


Like Yuki said He is not moving when he launches his attack. He is moving fast around to create advantage - not necesarily strike some vital point.

The ability description specifically states that he is striking some vital area.

There's nothing about moving fast that should inherently create an advantage in terms of ability to either hit a target or the amount of damage done.


Additional 3d6 points of damage may just mean:
Striked enemy has arrow in leg, feel pain, has no idea how arrow hit him if this archer guy isn't in place farrow could strike from, and anyway he was completely elsewhere. From all this reasons any next attack, regardles - from scout or someone else will be bad for the guy.
And this won't really work on plant or something that is 3meters x 3 m x 3m of cytoplasm.

"Isn't in a place the arrow could strike from"?

The ability description specifically says that the attack must be launched from a place where the scout can see and reach a vital area (not a leg).

"Completely elsewhere"?

It has to be launched from inside 30 feet.. We're talking practically point-blank range.

It also won't work on undead. They aren't plants or 3x3x3 cubes, and many are thinking beings that could be confused just as a living being could.

That's because the ability -- as per the description in the book -- is based on the idea of hitting some part of the target's anatomy that is more vital.

The_Snark
2007-05-28, 01:13 PM
The class is basically a Ranger/Rogue multiclass (in fact at level 20, its skirmish damage is exactly the same as the sneak attack of a 10 Ranger/10Rogue) with some altered abilities. It's redundant, unneccessary, and its signature combat ability is based on a ridiculous premise.

I wouldn't regard it as redundant or unnecessary. Try making an archery-focused rogue. Now play it. Did you get any sneak attacks past the surprise round or first round?

The answer to that is no. Unless you can turn invisible or conceal yourself again, you can't get more ranged sneak attacks. The scout, on the other hand, actually works better in ranged combat, because you don't have to make Tumble checks.


That's because the ability -- as per the description in the book -- is based on the idea of hitting some part of the target's anatomy that is more vital.

Yes. It is. And the scout relies on moving slightly away from the target's facing to be able to shoot it in a better spot—the side, for example, instead of trying to shoot the chest.

Scouts are trained to be able to shoot while moving and to use the mobility to hit from a better angle. That's what the extra damage represents.

Diamondeye
2007-05-28, 02:40 PM
Yes. It is. And the scout relies on moving slightly away from the target's facing to be able to shoot it in a better spot—the side, for example, instead of trying to shoot the chest.

There is no facing in 3.5, and as I already pointed out, unless the scout can run at truly incredible speeds, the target can turn in place faster than they can move.

For another thing, it's not necessarily better to shoot someone in the side than in the chest. Sure, a lot of armor is most effective from the front, but not everything is either humanoid or in metal armor, and nothing in the rules makes a scout move from one place to a demonstrably better one.. they just have to be "moving"

Suppose your enemy is fighting the paladin in your party. You're a scout. You move to a spot 25 feet away from the enemy, and 90 degrees from the paladin. Now you're in an ostensibly better position -- the side. You deal extra Xd6 damage this round.

Round 2: The enemy survives and is still fighting the paladin, facing the same direction. If you stand in the same place and attack again, you don't get the bonus damage, but if you move 10 feet to your left, you do. That's ridiculous.. you're still facing the side of the enemy (ignoring the lack of facing rules for the moment) which was better one round ago.. why isn't it now? Did it expire or something?


Scouts are trained to be able to shoot while moving and to use the mobility to hit from a better angle. That's what the extra damage represents.

No, that's not what the extra damage represents. It represents hitting the target in a vital area. The description says so specifically.

As for the fact that rogues can't repeatedly sneak attack at range, that doesn't mean there needs to be a class that can. That's a limitation of the rogue class.

This is the rule in my campaign. If you want scouts in yours, be my guest.

Valdyr
2007-05-28, 05:23 PM
Getting back to the original question, my group had a guy who really wanted to play a duskblade and it turned out that it seems to be overpowered. The fact that you can quicken True Strikes before you attack and channel spells (possibly through a Spell Storing sword) makes for a lot of pain. Good base attack, armor and spells that are touch attack/no sving throw.

Although you can break just about any class it's been my experience that classes and prestige classes in books other than the cores tend to be a little unbalanced or easier to break. Maybe not enough playtesting? And you can make your characters even more broken if you have multiple secondary books and use feats from one for a class from another.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-28, 06:11 PM
You're... saying that in flavour terms, the damage can't come from hitting someone in the side, because there's no facing rules?

Then I say flanking can't exist, because there are no facing rules. Furthermore, one can never be flatfooted by any manner other than immobility, or slow reaction time, because they can see everything, note everything, and react instantaneously!

EDIT: Maybe you haven't played a wizard/druid/cleric.

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-28, 07:18 PM
Although you can break just about any class it's been my experience that classes and prestige classes in books other than the cores tend to be a little unbalanced or easier to break. Maybe not enough playtesting? And you can make your characters even more broken if you have multiple secondary books and use feats from one for a class from another.

On the contrary--the majority of splatbook classes are very poor. The Complete Warrior has the Samurai, Swashbuckler, and Hexblade, for example, all of which are terribly lacking (especially the Samurai; the Hexblade is the best of the lot overall, and the swashbuckler is tolerable for three levels). In the Player's Handbook II, Duskblades shine early on (although a raging barbarian would meet their damage--there is no spell-channeling, but they do not need to waste one round casting True Strike), but are worse at melee (and far worse at spellcasting) than a well-built "gish" becomes; beguilers and Knights are solid classes, and the Dragon Shaman is weak.

The most powerful classes remain in the Player's Handbook. The campaign-setting-specific Artificer is the only exception to this.

Sutremaine
2007-05-28, 07:19 PM
Getting back to the original question, my group had a guy who really wanted to play a duskblade and it turned out that it seems to be overpowered. The fact that you can quicken True Strikes before you attack and channel spells (possibly through a Spell Storing sword) makes for a lot of pain.
Duskblades are nice until they run out of spells. Then, it's goodbye 'fiery nova of stabbity arcane death' and hello 'Fighter with d8 HP and no bonus feats, hope you've got some mithral full plate handy'.

The_Snark
2007-05-28, 07:30 PM
There is no facing in 3.5, and as I already pointed out, unless the scout can run at truly incredible speeds, the target can turn in place faster than they can move.

For another thing, it's not necessarily better to shoot someone in the side than in the chest. Sure, a lot of armor is most effective from the front, but not everything is either humanoid or in metal armor, and nothing in the rules makes a scout move from one place to a demonstrably better one.. they just have to be "moving"

Suppose your enemy is fighting the paladin in your party. You're a scout. You move to a spot 25 feet away from the enemy, and 90 degrees from the paladin. Now you're in an ostensibly better position -- the side. You deal extra Xd6 damage this round.

Round 2: The enemy survives and is still fighting the paladin, facing the same direction. If you stand in the same place and attack again, you don't get the bonus damage, but if you move 10 feet to your left, you do. That's ridiculous.. you're still facing the side of the enemy (ignoring the lack of facing rules for the moment) which was better one round ago.. why isn't it now? Did it expire or something?

When fighting, enemies move. The spot where you could hit and get that extra damage in is not in the same place. Most enemies being attacked do not stand perfectly still. So you move to have a shot at that weak spot again, or try for a different one.


No, that's not what the extra damage represents. It represents hitting the target in a vital area. The description says so specifically.

I'd meant that you'd have a better angle to hit those vital spots.


As for the fact that rogues can't repeatedly sneak attack at range, that doesn't mean there needs to be a class that can. That's a limitation of the rogue class.

This is the rule in my campaign. If you want scouts in yours, be my guest.

Fair enough. It's pretty clear that you don't much care for the mechanics of the scout and prefer the ranger and the rogue to fulfill its roles. I rather like the scout myself, so I come up with a rationale I like and that makes sense. So we'll just agree to disagree, I guess.

Abjurer
2007-05-28, 07:45 PM
You can do just about anything with the core classes.

I'm not really into prestige ones, but I do like duelists and archmages.
Duelists might be a bit overpowered; A fighter 6/duelist 9 (CR 16) can top 50 AC fighting defensively without too much hastle, and the extra damage on attacks and deflect arrows with a rapier is a bit too nice...

I actually made a duelist (CR 18) with two +1 daggers of speed and loads of two-weapon fighting feats, who could attack nine times in six seconds at +25/+25/+25/+25/+20/+20/+15/+15/+10, and deal 1d4+2d6+5 damage with each hit, with a 17-20/x2 crit ratio (thanks to improved critical). :smallbiggrin: And when he fought defensively or used total defense, his AC was 40-50-some stark naked.

The one prestige class which I hate with a passion far outstanding from the others, however, is the Blackguard. What is the point of a paladin? It is a divine spellcaster who sacrifices freedom of alignment and follows the single narrow path to become powerful through the love of his deity. A blackguard gets all that and more, and he can be whatever alignment he wants!! And as evil as he is, he gets even more healing abilities!!! And cleric abilities like command undead!!! AND SNEAK ATTACK DAMAGE!!! AND FREAKING AURAS OF FEAR!!!! SMITE GOOD!!!!!!!!! SPELLS!!!

...
*twitch*
I'm really not that into them.

Warmages are bad, too, at least as far as combat is concerned... but they're completely useless off the battlefield. They can't cast any spells whatsoever that actually help move an adventure along, unless their DMs are hack-and-slashers.

Orzel
2007-05-28, 07:59 PM
Rangers are overpowered.

You walk into the palace garden and Whammo! 5 arrows to the chest from outta nowhere. Then he hides behind a moss covered rock next round and does it again the following round it's natural terrian, he doesn't need cover, he can hide while observed, and it can't be dispelled.

Those poor guards.

Diamondeye
2007-05-28, 08:20 PM
You're... saying that in flavour terms, the damage can't come from hitting someone in the side, because there's no facing rules?

That's how I run my games. I'm not forcing anyone to participate; I'm saying how I run things and why.


Then I say flanking can't exist, because there are no facing rules. Furthermore, one can never be flatfooted by any manner other than immobility, or slow reaction time, because they can see everything, note everything, and react instantaneously!

1. Facing is irrelevant to flanking. Flanking only requires enemies on opposite sides.

2. If you want to run your game this way, you go right ahead.


EDIT: Maybe you haven't played a wizard/druid/cleric.

Not recently, but how is that relevant?

Artemician
2007-05-28, 08:29 PM
Rangers are overpowered.

You walk into the palace garden and Whammo! 5 arrows to the chest from outta nowhere. Then he hides behind a moss covered rock next round and does it again the following round it's natural terrian, he doesn't need cover, he can hide while observed, and it can't be dispelled.

Those poor guards.

Sucks that there's a -20 penalty to hide from attacking then.

@The Skirmish Argument

I have absolutely no idea what the problem is. In a world with 5 ft armour spikes, piercing chain weapons, people holding 3 arrows in one hand and firing them in one motion(imagine that!), you're concerned over tactical positioning?

Also, there's no facing. Big whup. Enemies are assumed to be looking left and right, turning around all over the place. If you don't move, he has already brought his big shiny shield in front of your face. No extra damage for you. So your rev up your legs, which move faster than a car, and move to an area where you can shoot past the shield. Simple.

And, yes, you obviously haven't played a wizard/druid/cleric. Why? Because you obviously don't grasp thatphysics doesn't apply in D&D.
*gasp*

Diamondeye
2007-05-28, 08:54 PM
I have absolutely no idea what the problem is. In a world with 5 ft armour spikes, piercing chain weapons, people holding 3 arrows in one hand and firing them in one motion(imagine that!), you're concerned over tactical positioning?

No, I'm concerned over the complete lack of it that somehow justifies a massive damage bonus.


Also, there's no facing. Big whup. Enemies are assumed to be looking left and right, turning around all over the place. If you don't move, he has already brought his big shiny shield in front of your face. No extra damage for you. So your rev up your legs, which move faster than a car, and move to an area where you can shoot past the shield. Simple.

Aside from the fact that the scout's legs don't move faster than a car, if the enemy is looking left and right and turning all over the place, how does moving 10 feet to the left assure you that you can shoot past the shield?

And how about the fact that shooting past the shield is already reflected by this little thing we call an attack roll?


And, yes, you obviously haven't played a wizard/druid/cleric. Why? Because you obviously don't grasp thatphysics doesn't apply in D&D.
*gasp*

Yes, they do. Why do you think bigger, heavier weapons or stronger people do more damage? It's because they do in real life. Magic is simply a means to violate the laws of physics in a certain perscribed manner set by the spell or effect.

Falling damage? Comes from gravity. The normal laws of physics are assumed to be in place in a D&D world at any time magic isn't specifically altering them.

Orzel
2007-05-28, 09:00 PM
The -20 only applies if you attack and hide the same round. If you are standing far enough away, most things can't get you until after you hide the next turn.

Also I always attributed damage to danger. The highter the damage, the more dangeous the attack. Scouts move to get a better shot and the shot becomes more dangerous to the target than it was originally.

Diamondeye
2007-05-28, 09:04 PM
When fighting, enemies move. The spot where you could hit and get that extra damage in is not in the same place. Most enemies being attacked do not stand perfectly still. So you move to have a shot at that weak spot again, or try for a different one.

Weak spot... in the armor?

Armor prevents hits in this game, it doesn't reduce damage (aside from certain magic effects).

You're describing an attack bonus, not a damage bonus. What of your target is something that has no particularly strong or weak spots, such as Mage Armor?


I'd meant that you'd have a better angle to hit those vital spots.

A better angle to hit vital spots? I don't know that any angle when shooting at a humanoid is particularly advantageous over any other. The front and back present a bigger profile, but other than that...

Sure, you're shooting sometimes at nonhumanoids, but there's no reason to think they necessarily have good or bad angles either.


Fair enough. It's pretty clear that you don't much care for the mechanics of the scout and prefer the ranger and the rogue to fulfill its roles. I rather like the scout myself, so I come up with a rationale I like and that makes sense. So we'll just agree to disagree, I guess.

That's my point. If I play in your game, I won't complain if you allow scouts. If you play in mine, don't expect to be allowed to play one. I'm not trying to convince anyone to drop them, and I don't need anyone's approval to ban them.

EvilElitest
2007-05-28, 09:06 PM
Skirmish damage does come from damaging more vital parts of the target. It's precision damage, same as sneak attack. The rogue relies on being able to catch the target off guard to aim more precisely. The scout relies on being able to move into the right position to catch the target in a vulnerable spot. Imagine a scout with a bow circling the battle to get a better angle and to be able to catch enemies in the weak spots in their armor.

any good sniper knows, you are more likely to hit the target if your are both standing still. A scout moving and shooting somehow hitting more vital spots doesn't make any sense at all, but maybe it should be allowed just because the scout is underpowered
from,
EE

Bassetking
2007-05-28, 09:07 PM
On the contrary--the majority of splatbook classes are very poor. The Complete Warrior has the Samurai, Swashbuckler, and Hexblade, for example, all of which are terribly lacking (especially the Samurai; the Hexblade is the best of the lot overall, and the swashbuckler is tolerable for three levels). In the Player's Handbook II, Duskblades shine early on (although a raging barbarian would meet their damage--there is no spell-channeling, but they do not need to waste one round casting True Strike), but are worse at melee (and far worse at spellcasting) than a well-built "gish" becomes; beguilers and Knights are solid classes, and the Dragon Shaman is weak.

The most powerful classes remain in the Player's Handbook. The campaign-setting-specific Artificer is the only exception to this.

I'll cite the Archivist (Heroes of Horror) as the exception to your statement, that proves the rule.

Catch
2007-05-28, 09:19 PM
As a general rule, if a class does not have a full spellcasting progression, it's not overpowered. Every damn time.

This pretty much solves any silly threads that crop up. (Warlocks, Psionics, Monks, etc)

Ask yourselves: Does the class have full spellcasting? No?

It's not overpowered. Precision damage doesn't win D&D, multiple attacks per round don't win D&D, high mobility doesn't win D&D.

Say it with me: "Magic. Wins. D&D."

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-05-28, 09:30 PM
Buy Tome of Magic. Buy Tome of Battle. Ban every single other class in the game that does not come out of either book. This is my new balancing solution.

Artemician
2007-05-28, 09:37 PM
No, I'm concerned over the complete lack of it that somehow justifies a massive damage bonus.

If the enemy is looking left and right and turning all over the place, how does moving 10 feet to the left assure you that you can shoot past the shield?


Footwork and pacing are everything in combat. By moving faster than he can react, and capitalizing on that oppurrtunity, you hit him in the weak spot under the chin that he exposes for merely a split second.



Yes, they do. Why do you think bigger, heavier weapons or stronger people do more damage? It's because they do in real life. Magic is simply a means to violate the laws of physics in a certain perscribed manner set by the spell or effect.
Falling damage? Comes from gravity. The normal laws of physics are assumed to be in place in a D&D world at any time magic isn't specifically altering them.

One of the fundemental laws of physics is k=1/2mv^2. Do you see that applying in D&D? No, or strength bonuses would be multiplicative, not additive. In additon, how come you get to add the same strength bonus with a hurled dagger weighing 1/2 pound and a morningstar weighing 6 pounds? How about weapons like the Spiked Chain, which allows you to swing it through people. Does armour not reduce the impact from blows? How come you can use a rapier to pierce armour, how come your armour and shield never get damaged,even if the wearer dies from a hideous gargantuan sized zweihander blow to the chest?

Or heck, just take a look at hitpoints. Nuff said

D&D doesn't even remotely follow physics, just enjoy it as a game. If you want realistic stuff, just open the window and drop your PHB.

Catch
2007-05-28, 09:51 PM
D&D doesn't even remotely follow physics, just enjoy it as a game. If you want realistic stuff, just open the window and drop your PHB.

That is a delightful quote. May I sig that?

Droodle
2007-05-28, 10:14 PM
I actually made a duelist (CR 18) with two +1 daggers of speed and loads of two-weapon fighting feats, who could attack nine times in six seconds at +25/+25/+25/+25/+20/+20/+15/+15/+10, and deal 1d4+2d6+5 damage with each hit, with a 17-20/x2 crit ratio (thanks to improved critical). :smallbiggrin: And when he fought defensively or used total defense, his AC was 40-50-some stark naked.
I think you've got one attack too many, there. Daggers of speed don't stack with each other, or with any other haste effect, for that matter.

Lord_Kimboat
2007-05-28, 10:26 PM
Diamondeye, I'll back you up and admit that I think the scout's sniping is ridiculous.

Unfortunately, no more ridiculous than a cleric, plunging a dagger into the chest of the barbarian who is tied to the alter (ie. helpless). The dagger auto crits, doing a MASSIVE 7 points of damage (on average because the cleric doesn't have a str bonus). Then, the barbarian - who is say 6th level and has a con of 16 (60 hp) has to make a Fort save of DC 17, which he has about a 50/50 chance. This presents the players and DM with the utterly ridiculous proposition of this tiny wound (about 1/10th of his hp) killing him or the cleric going back for a couple more stabs until he gets it right.

Meanwhile, this barbarian's twin brother is currently fighting the cleric's fanatical warriors. He's been hit, yes actually HIT, by no less than 6 sword strokes from great swords and he's still going (average damage 8 per hit for a total of 48) but getting a little hurt.

Or the halfling rogue, who stabs one of the fanatical warriors with his small dagger with surprise for 12 points (2+10 from sneak attack). The warrior, not quite dead yet, fights back. The halfling strikes again but is seen so can only do 4 more points. However, the babarian twin brother moves a little to the left and suddenly the halfling rolls well and 16 points of damage (1+15 sneak attack damage).

There are a lot of ridiculous things in D&D Diamondeye and I haven't even gone into alignment. I think the crux of this problem is hit points and what they represent. When a hit gets through the armor, is it actually a damaging hit? Could it be a minor bruise or could it just be that it force the adventurers attention away for a second?