What is your "Base line" character class?

[thompur]

After 40+ years of playing Pathfinder and its antecedents, and 12+ reading various internet forums about classes, a common complaint, especially about new classes, often with new mechanics, is that they are"broken", or at least overpowered. I've heard complaints about the ToB classes, the Witch, the Magus, the APG Summoner, Kinetisist, etc.
Now this thread isn't about what's OP, but what class do you compare it to to determine that it is OP. What class do you consider the best balanced? Or do you have a more nuanced view, judging a class on what roll it plays in a party.

[Elkad]

OP is when you don't need the rest of the party.

So it's always relative.

Baseline? Probably somewhere around a solid Warblade build, or a low-op Wizard. Vaarsuvius and Durkon both fit my baseline just fine.

[Kallimakus]

My general rule of thumb for a baseline is not really a class. As a GM, I'm more interested in the performance of PC's against monsters. My rule of thumb is that 'appropriate damage' is around a quarter of average hp of a monster of your CR (there's a handy table), more if you are a focused damage-dealer or are bursting. But generally, even so, around half the hp. I also reconstruct this. An appropriate challenge that I'd consider to be of equal CR is one with hp on that scale. They should, on average, weather 2-3 attacks from the monster (again, depending on specialization). Their ability DC's should not be lower than 50% success, or higher than 75 (barring secondary or tertiary abilities).

A decent fighter can meet these standards pretty well at low optimization, so makes for a decent baseline.

I think that that really covers most eventualities. If I'm running or playing in a more optimized game, the assumed baseline naturally changes. But that is basically my comfort zone.

[Cyrocloud]

This is kind of hard, mainly because spell lists continually expand and can really control how strong a class is. In general I would say I find a similar class that is in tier 3 or 4 and compare.

[Kobold Esq]

So it's always relative.


So much this. It is extremely party and campaign dependent.

At first level, the wizard is gonna feel pretty useless after about one fight, if he sunk all his points into Int and only knowledge skills. At 20th level, the fighter is wondering why he isn't as powerful as the wizard and cleric's gated summons, or the druid's animal.

I think for me the question is: is the class so bad that the player will always feel like someone else is better at everything. For example, a bard in a game with no social interaction might feel like an inferior caster to the wizard, inferior skillmonkey to the rogue, and an inferior warrior to every full BAB class. This is less about the specific mechanics of the class, and more about making sure that the players and the DM are on the same page in terms of what type of game they are playing so everyone can have fun.

[Amphetryon]

Judging a Class without considering the build and - more importantly - the Player is tricky. Absent any prior experience, I usually point to Archery Ranger as my default "teach a newbie" Class, as it's competent (barely, among newbies) in a martial role while having useful things to do besides combat, & grows in complexity at a reasonable rate while Players learn the game.

For more experienced gamers, I would pick the 3.5 Binder as a good baseline, along with the ToB Classes & fixed list Casters.*

*Assuming Rainbow Servant shenanigans & minionmancy are off the table.

[Air0r]

I put the aegis in fairly high regard in terms of balance; it is flexible missing out only on casting and/or manifesting.
My baseline for what is overpowered? full casters (0-9) followed by summoners followed by full manifestors (0-9).
but as others have said, it is up to the player's system mastery, the rest of the group, and perhaps most important, the DM.

[Padoodle]

Path of War's Warlord is my gold standard.

[Alent]

I don't have any specific baseline since builds and such vary wildly, but I tend to kind of think of Bard as the caffeine of D&D- you're not getting through the day without it.

Things can go up and down a bit from that balance point and stay reasonable, but you don't need a RedbullGod Wizard/CoDzilla and I pity da foo' that drinks decaff plays core only monk/fighter/rogue/etc.

[Elricaltovilla]

I think it's less about one specific class than it is about being able to meet certain thresholds. There are certain things that I want or need my character class to do/have in order for it to be worthwhile. Some examples:

4+INT skill points
A good spread of skills including at least one social skill
Able to meet level appropriate minimums for attack/damage rolls
Some ability to navigate unusual terrain
Defensive abilities for those oh ****! moments

[Florian]

More or less the whole range of PF T3 classes with the basic d8, 3/4 BAB and 6th level casting framework (Bard, Inquisitor, ...) but without the two major pet classes (Spiritualist, Summoner).

[Psyren]

My baseline is actually T4 - scrappy underdogs that are strong enough to handle most obstacles with a little optimization, but weak enough for GMs to easily challenge. Usually they don't have many tricks, which make them an ideal vehicle for newer players.