# Most overpowered / underpowered ?



## Silverwave (Jan 20, 2009)

So, it's been a time 4th is out, we had plenty of time to try most classes.
Now, what class do you feel is been overpowered, wich one is underpowered?
And mostly, why do you feel this way?


For my part.


Overpowered : Rogue.

There's one in the party since about 5 sessions and we all feel at the table he's overpowered. He got very good attack bonus and bashing a hell lot of damage (his minimum damage is my maximum damage...). Even his at-will (sly flourish) do more damage than most of the dailies of other chatacters.

And even if you think he have to target only one creature at a time, he got blinding barrage which is better than the wizard's (the supposed only controler) dailies (even lvl 3 AND lvl 5 dailies too).

Yes, he's a striker, but compared to other strikers, he's no match !


Underpowered : Ranger.
He's supposed to be a striker, but he's doing less damage than the average fighter, have lesser defences and can't stand out toe-to-toe with most of the soldiers or brutes. He have not-so-good powers, don't have the versatility of the Warlock, and just can't stand compared to the rogue.


The 2nd underpowered is the wizzard.

He's the only controler, but honestly, don't control much.
His powers don't do much damage, and the only one who have sort-of a controling effect is icy rays (who immobilise).
The dailies don't have a "that" big radius (even fireball at lvl 5 have the same area of the lvl 1 daily of the rogue). But then, I've only seen a wizard with mostly "attack" powers and not the web or sleep kind of power and he's staff wizard, maybe the other focuses controls more ?


----------



## Fede (Jan 20, 2009)

(First post! Hello everybody!)

Sorry if i sound rude, but I think that you have read some of the powers wrong. The fireball is "burst 3", while the barrage is "blast 3". That means that the fireball covers a 7x7 squares area, while the barrage is only a 3x3 area.

In my experience, the classes are about on par with each other, the differences in power i found are more between optimized and unoptimized characters (especially concerning the choice of stats and powers) than characters of one particular class.


----------



## Caliban (Jan 20, 2009)

Blinding Barrage is a blast 3, which will hit 9 squares adjacent to the rogue. 

Fireball is a burst 3, which will cover 49 squares within 20 squares of the wizard. It's just a little bigger. 

You do have a point with the wizard though.  Their at will and lower level powers don't have much "control", and most people make the mistake of taking all the most damaging powers, and then being disappointed when they can't keep up with the strikers in damage. 

You can be more of a controller if you build the character for it though.  Give him a decent wisdom and use Thunderwave or Cloud of Daggers.  Scorching Burst is one of the best at wills - ranged area damage, great for minions and opponents with concealment. 

Using the powers that have been added from dragon magazine, you get some more control options.  

Illusionary Ambush targets will and give them a -2 on attack rolls, for example.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Jan 20, 2009)

Some feature or even powers seem dubious (Battlerager...) but classes overall are very balanced so far, IMO.

The rogue is not overpowered in my experience.  I'm not sure what you mean by 'his minimum is my maximum', I'd have to see numbers.  I'm guessing it involves sly flourish but sill, when you consider all the facts, it isn't overpowered nor even typically the most damaging at-will (Archer ranger using Twin Strike does more damage).

Typically the rogue does a high damage output but it's roughly comparable to the archer ranger and he has less fun side-effect than the warlock.  

With backstabber he has a nifty +2d8 which is better than other strikers but he needs to work for his extra-damage which the other strikers don't have to do.  Plus, his base damage die is low (usually a d4 to d8) compared to other strikers (Archer use D10 or D12).  It shows, expecially when there is a multiplier; 3d4+2d8 vs 3d10+1d8...  

No question he can do much damage, but I don't see other strikers becoming jealous.

I have no experience with the melee ranger so I'll abstain.  I'd just point out that he benefits very much from fighting side by side with a defender.

Blinding barrage isn't all that.  I mean, as a rogue ability it is very cool because it is one of the very few area effect he can do but it's a gross exageration to say it's better than the wizard's daily in term of area damage.  As area effect go, it is just a bit more useful then thunderwave, the wizard at will, and not nearly as powerful as freezing cloud for level 1 area damage (And let's not forget flaming sphere for overall damage in large melees!).

Wizard, well played, are very powerful.  My combat mage does the most total damage in at least 50% of every fights; basically he shines when there are a lots of monsters on the map.  The rest of the time he focuses on his hindering powers.  

Most powerful?  Maybe the tactical warlord, in the right party.  The increase in damage output he produces may be too subtle for some to notice but trust me, it is very subtstantial.  I wouldn't go as far as saying he's broken, but he can probably transform more tough fight into walk in the park than any other classes.


----------



## MrAlgothi (Jan 20, 2009)

> In my experience, the classes are about on par with each other, the differences in power i found are more between optimized and unoptimized characters (especially concerning the choice of stats and powers) than characters of one particular class.



I agree, these comparisons are difficult without knowing the characters in question.  I think comparing an Optimized Rogue to an Unoptimized Ranger is the problem we are seeing in the Original post.

To break down the Rogue vs Ranger issue, popular opinion holds the Two Weapon Ranger far above the Rogue in terms of damage in the paragon tier forward.  The ranger will be more consistent in hitting and gaining his extra damage bonus due to multiple attacks, in addition he will get to add his static multipliers for each hit.  When built correctly, this amounts to huge total damage over the encounter.  

The Rogue on the other hand, of which I have played from 1st to 14th lvl, can gain a rather large bonus to hit that is difficult for most classes to obtain.  While his extra bonus damage is higher then the Rangers, a rogue must work harder to get it.  The rogue is also limited to smaller Weapon Dice, maxing out at D8s without using Oversize racial abilities.  The rogue does benefit from better effects on his attack, which I feel balances the class nicely.

Now for my opinions, I think in the Striker role the Warlock is a bit low on the totem pole, though I fully expect this to shift up a bit once Arcane Power hits the shelf.  In the defender role I feel the paladin is a bit lower then normal, Id like to see something help them out in the mark department, perhaps a feat to increase the attack penalty to -4 should something ignore their challenge.  Again, this may change when Divine Power is release.


----------



## Mengu (Jan 20, 2009)

Power is all relative really. Yes a rogue can do somewhere in the neighborhood of 3d8+7'ish damage at level 1 with an at-will power, which may be higher than numerous daily powers. But how often does the rogue get slapped around in combat? The person who went down most frequently (and eventually died) in my game was the rogue.

And calling the Ranger weak is preposterous if you ask our group. He is just as threatening as the rogue, and much more survivable focusing on range.

A lot of this perception of strength and weakness I think comes from optimized builds playing alongside poor builds, or experienced players alongside inexperienced players, or simply players with different styles.

There are features and powers that may be at the extreme ends of the power curve, but it's difficult to quantify any class as weak or strong. However, some are better at their role than others. For instance I feel both previewed PHB2 controller classes feel better and more enjoyable to play, than the wizard.


----------



## Van der Hoorn (Jan 20, 2009)

Silverwave said:


> Underpowered : Ranger.
> He's supposed to be a striker, but he's doing less damage than the average fighter, have lesser defences and can't stand out toe-to-toe with most of the soldiers or brutes. He have not-so-good powers, don't have the versatility of the Warlock, and just can't stand compared to the rogue.




I have to disagree here. We play with a two-weapon ranger and it does the most damage of all characters. I would say it is one of the most powerful classes there is.

Underpowered classes can come in variety, but it always depends on the other PCs. It also depends on the race, feats and combination of powers. If you do not choose the right ones, the character will never work and thus be underpowered.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 20, 2009)

Silverwave said:


> Overpowered : Rogue.
> Underpowered : Ranger.




My experience has been the opposite. In the group I play most as a PC in, if I'm not on my game (Assault Swordmage), the Rogue is not very good. The Dragonborn Fighter and I MUST play with the Rogue to make sure he gets Combat Advantage to make him pump out the damage. 

In DMing RPGA events, Archer Rangers have consistently put out the most damage.

In playing, Melee Ranger is pretty decent but generally behind the other two in raw damage or durability. He's a good middle ground. 

The Rogue simply isn't all that powerful on his own. Tactics with other players make the rogue, in my opinion. Melee Defenders are a must because he simply doesn't have the durability to take a lot of hits.


----------



## Rashak Mani (Jan 21, 2009)

I find the Paladin a bit underpowered compared to the overpowered Fighter.

The Wizard seems very good... my Human Wizard easily does more damage output than either of the strikers.


----------



## Scarface6174 (Jan 21, 2009)

A Wizard with thunderwave and an area effect spell up can make for awesome damage to enemies. Drop Freezing Cloud on a group of baddies. Watch them come towards you. Thunderwave them back into the cloud before the end of your next turn. That's at least 4 dice of damage against multiple enemies! 

I would say that the Wizard is FAR from the most underpowered. 

Overpowered......  A rogue can most definitely do the most damage, but when he's out of surges for the day, my barbarian is still tickin' and still wackin' away at the enemy.

Underpowered...... Swordmage? We have one in our group and he does OK, but his charater never has never really shined..... Mabye in one session that I missed I think, but overall, not the best out there IMHO.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jan 21, 2009)

Overpowered:
Battlerager Fighter
Tempest Fighter
The bard version that gives temp hp every time you bloody or kill an opponent, just for standing there.

Underpowered:
None, really.

Poorly labeled:
Warlock.

People walk into this class thinking that it is a striker but it doesn't actually strike any better than a fighter--and not nearly as good as a Tempest fighter who is us at the top of the damage chain with stormwarden and pitfighter rangers. Warlocks are really single target focused controllers. They can be very effective in that role, but it's not the same role as other strikers play.


----------



## Mort (Jan 21, 2009)

Elder-Basilisk said:


> Overpowered:
> Battlerager Fighter
> Tempest Fighter
> The bard version that gives temp hp every time you bloody or kill an opponent, just for standing there.
> ...




The battlerager certainly seems iffy, especially if you allow a dwarf with dwarven stoneblood (haven't played one though).

IMO tempest fighters are fine if double weapons are not allowed.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 21, 2009)

In my experience, nothing is *over* or *under* powered.

That said, here goes:

Powerful:
Ranger. Deals crazy damage and I can't ever hit the bastard. 
Dwarf 2H Fighter: High damage, hard to kill. 

Least Powerful:
Fey Warlock. Good at times, but otherwise a sub-par striker. I tend to put her on the 'pay no mind' list.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 21, 2009)

Archer Ranger: Most overpowered. Crazy damage, so hard to kill. They can get out of everything, and great skills!

Underpowered: Wizard. Not enough control in the controller class. After my brief stint trying out the druid, I found out what a control is supposed to feel like.


----------



## babinro (Jan 22, 2009)

Overpowered: Ranged attackers:  Bow Ranger, Controller Wizard, Fay Warlock

The wizards controller abilities will easily win the battle as a result of costing many foes at least one or two extra turns to get into position and accomplish what they want.  These turns give the PC's free chances to get hits in and as a result essentially guarantees victory.  Controller Wizards in my eyes are hands down the best character in the game and the one in need of the real balancing at this time. 

Ranged attackers tend to deal less damage, but are VERY hard to hit in 4E.  If they focus on speed feets, they can often manuever about the board in a way that they either never take damage from enemies, or force the melee based foes to charge every round in order to even reach them.  I feel this fault exists solely because there are A LOT of monsters with no range capabilities.  Playing an Elven Bow Ranger with Movement oriented feats is overpowered. 

Fay Warlock: These guys are just like the Ranger except they can teleport.  In the off-chance they get slowed or immobilized, the warlock can simply teleport and remain extremely effective at preventing damage to themselves. 

Underpowered: All Melee Fighters except Rogue.

The reason for this is because they have no choice but to go melee unless they want to do constant basic attacks for ranged damage.  Going into melee is fine, but they will take a lot of damage, and are extremely weak to things like immobilized condition.  I place the Rogue as the only exception simply because they have a very high damage output to over come this detriment.


----------



## JoeNotCharles (Jan 22, 2009)

Silverwave said:


> Overpowered : Rogue.
> Underpowered : Ranger.
> The 2nd underpowered is the wizzard.




This is hilarious, because on another board I'm on, there are huge vitriolic threads about how overpowered the 2-weapon Ranger is.  And in my game the wizard is by far the most powerful in combat, between Flaming Sphere and Fire Shroud.  (I guess the other players are just poor min-maxers.)


----------



## Festivus (Jan 23, 2009)

Having a rogue as my main character, I'd just like to point out that he is usually the first bloodied, consumes the most heals and is often voted most likely to take a dirt nap at the gaming table (and often does at least once per session go into bleed out).  There are more factors than just damage output to be considered... my rogue isn't the sort to throw ranged attacks from a safe distance.


----------



## Madred (Jan 23, 2009)

thats right. range in general is overpowered because DM won't take time to do small area maps/dungeons.
most of the time (well in the games I played) it is usually a near open field.
but.. i never played an 'official' campaign. i would like to test one of those paragon level adventure and see what really happens, since they often have small area layouts for encounters.

until then.. long live the range attacks and 1 stat chars (like elf archer DEX rules all!!    or    tiefling feylock(at a lesser extend..he needs INT for ac.).. lets pump that main stat to 20 and fck the rest!)

oh and by the way, most underpowered =

'great weapon fighter' (unless you allow those crazy big races like minotaur) Barely does more dmg than the 1h weapon fighter, less AC, and cannot use shield tactics. I'd rather go rogue or twf ranger..

and

'paladins' (especially the avenging straladin.. it becomes even more pathetic at paragon level. they really should have powers that works with either wisdom or strength..
the 'straladin' problem is that, any build that requires 3 stats maxed out will loose in the long run.
+.. poor guy cannot even push his constitution for some soaking.
hes definitely the big looser of 4th ed.
close to him his the starlock. or any other class that really needs 3 stats.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Jan 23, 2009)

babinro said:


> Underpowered: All Melee Fighters except Rogue.
> 
> The reason for this is because they have no choice but to go melee unless they want to do constant basic attacks for ranged damage.  Going into melee is fine, but they will take a lot of damage, and are extremely weak to things like immobilized condition.  I place the Rogue as the only exception simply because they have a very high damage output to over come this detriment.




What you don't realize is that without melee fighters, your ranged attackers become front line characters and are not so hard to hit anymore.

You don't have a good grasp of what overpowered/underpowered means.  It's not a ratio Damage output / damage taken.  It's overall usefulness.  If we have a balanced team of 4, the addition of any one class should only improve the party's power by 25%.  If a class bring more or less than 25% increased power to the party, that class is a little more or less powerful than the others.

I think most class are reasonably balanced but  if we did extensive test with model partys, where we run the same fight several time by removing one different PC at a time, I think you'd be surprised to discover that the archer ranger is probably not that high on the totem pole of the most crucial team member.  After all, removing him only reduces damage output but doesn't affect in the least the ability of the team to hold a line or keep itself fitting fit.  A fight where you remove a fighter, paladin, warlord or cleric from the mix is probably going to go more poorly than one where you remove an archer ranger.  

In fact, the archer ranger almost exclusively provide damage to the team.  Most other classes bring more to the table and are therefore IMO more useful/powerful since they also do damage and their additional contribution outweight the difference in DPR.

The melee ranger actually is much more powerful than the archer IMO _because_ he takes more hits.   Beside comparable DPR, he also brings to the table an improved ability to hold the line for the team, spread the burden around a bit and synergize well with the defender marking ability.  In a team of 5, you shouldn't have more than 2 purely ranged characters IMO, and the fact that they take less damage than the other 3 should never be construed as being more powerful!  It should be seen as a lesser contribution on that front that needs to be compensated in other areas.  And in fact, IMO, the Archer ranger's higher DPR isn't quite that much higher to make it worth it to have a PC hiding in the back and shirking front line duty.  Warlock and Wizard brings more to the mix IMO and in a team of 5, I'd rather shield a warlock than a ranger from blows.

Taking hits isn't something to denigrate.  It's something that has to be done!  And if your PC doesn't do it, he better make up for it in some other way.  I don't think the archer ranger brings enough to the team to compensate the loss of a warm body at the front and so I think _he_ is one of the most underpowered class!


----------



## Mengu (Jan 23, 2009)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> If, in a team of 5, you can remove that PC and that team lose more or less than 20% of effectiveness, then that class is overpowered/underpowered compared to the other.




I don't think that's a very good way to look at it. If you remove a character from any well coordinated party, you should lose more than 20% effectiveness because you are missing a key element.

The better comparison of overpowered/underpowered will be between characters of the same role. If you remove the avenging paladin and replace it with the battlerager fighter, do challenges suddenly become easier? If you replace a wizard with a druid, do you suddenly have better battlefield control? These will answer the question of overpowered/underpowered a bit better, though the roles are not pure, so some discussion for secondary roles may also be necessary.


----------



## Madred (Jan 23, 2009)

yeah.. taking hits is necessary..
but,
archer ranger got a very decent AC and HP close to the paladin (since the paladin is so stats dependent that he cannot afford constitution..)

But I agree. Battlerager w/ hammer and shield, iron vanguard works like a charm.

but most vanilla defenders (especially the PALADIN) are just crap compared to vanilla strikers.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Jan 23, 2009)

Mengu said:


> I don't think that's a very good way to look at it. If you remove a character from any well coordinated party, you should lose more than 20% effectiveness because you are missing a key element.




Yeah, I already edited to adding someone to a balanced party.

The idea stands; the question is who brings the most to the table.


----------



## Madred (Jan 23, 2009)

the idea is the same..

elf archer ranger is #1 best char.. an hardcore source of dmg that is barely never hindered by anything.

even a wimpy greatsword fighter or avenging paladin can dare to go in a fight knowing that the crazy archer behind them is going to down the enemies so quick that they won't have time to hit them


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Jan 23, 2009)

Madred said:


> the idea is the same..
> 
> elf archer ranger is #1 best char.. an hardcore source of dmg that is barely never hindered by anything.
> 
> even a wimpy greatsword fighter or avenging paladin can dare to go in a fight knowing that the crazy archer behind them is going to down the enemies so quick that they won't have time to hit them




The melee ranger does almost as much damage and plays a significant secondary role in holding the line and relieving the pressure on the defender(s).  Right there, the archer can't be #1 in my book.

Beside, every character does damage.  If you have 5 players, you will have 5 PCs, whether there is an archer or not.  In terms of damage, the archer's real contribution is not the entirety of his damage, but just the margin of damage he does above the damage another character would have provided.  

Damage is the cheapest commodity, everybody does it.  

Things like healing, bonuses to hit, free saving throws, stopping enemy movements... these thing have a higher value than damage IMO.

I'm not saying the archer suck because thankfully he brings more advantage to the team than just dealing damage.  But he's not in the top 5 of my dream team.  I'll take a melee rogue over him anyday.  Deals even more damage and helps at the front.  Also has more powers that move the enemies and can help set up good blast for the wizard.

Melee Rogue
Fighter or paladin
Warlord
Wizard
Warlock

That's a tough team.  I could also swap the warlod for a laser cleric and the warlock for melee ranger.  But always have at least 3 melee.  To squeeze in the ranger, I'd have to replace the warlock, but I prefer the warlock for his hindering effect on the targets.  I could also turn the wizard in a combat wizard (leather armor, defensive staff, toughness, lots of blast and defensive power) and then I could replace the rogue by the archer.  Not my favorite, though.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jan 23, 2009)

Part of the reason the archer may feel overpowered is that he isn't relieving the preasure on the defenders except by killing things - instead, he's sitting back and letting the defenders take all the hits, which both a) makes the defenders seem weaker, and b) makes the ranger seem stronger. This seems to me a case of strength being measured not in how much the ranger helps the party, but how well the ranger seems to do compaired to the rest of the party.  So, the apparent strength is actual an example of a party playing less well overall (as I imagine the defenders are running out of surges before the ranger), which in turn makes the character who is excelling at the expense of everyone else appear far better in comparison.

Not that the apparent strength complaint isn't valid - its just that a view of the actual effectiveness of each of the characters is somewhat beside the point as I imagine the complaint is more a result of party disfunction where that an analysis of the ideally functioning party is somewhat of a tangent.

As a related note, apparent strength may also depend on the personalities of the players.  If the ranger is a loud and enthusiastic player who shoots "boooyah!" whenever he kills something, or if he puts down other players for never killing anything/not contributing, then that will obviously increase the apparent imbalance.  Likewise, a highly effective character may not appear as such if the player is modest and doesn't take credit, or if the advantages he is giving are less obvious than pure damage.

My only suggestion is charge your tactics/encounter composition to encourage party cooperation.  Have the ranger be the target of artillery monsters, particularly those with status effects such as slow or immobilize.  Have him attacked by flanking brutes and melee skirmishers, such that the rest of the party gets to feel useful by coming to rescue him.  Try to arrange it so that the ranged attackers shooting the ranger are better dealt with in melee (put them in superior cover, for example), so that the ranger has an incentive to shoot the melee ones tieing up his defenders/melee strikers rather than those that are doing damage to him.

Actually, I do have one other suggestion - if part of the problem is player dinamics, then may need to deal with that again.  Play up the contributions of the less vocal members, and make sure everyone gets the praise they deserve for good ideas and tactics.  Conversely, you may need to talk to the ranger about being a better team player.


Inquisitor Psychologis Ruminahui


----------



## Nail (Jan 23, 2009)

This is worth saying again:

In 4e, doing damage is NOT the only thing to consider; its also how well you take damage. 

If you've got a thin front line - perhaps only 2 melee PCs - then that front line will be taken down (or avoided) too easily.  Your party needs more up in front, even if that means you loose a little bit of damage.  Think of it this way: The DM is going give out damage --> if you allow him to spread it out, it's less likely someone dies.

I'm reminded of a story of a fellow gamer, running a PC through KotS.  He and his party could not make it past Irontooth.  They tried twice, with all-new PCs!  Eventually they just gave up, and said that it was the fault of 4e.  They never understood that having 4 ranged PCs and only 1 melee PC meant the quick death of the melee guy, and the sure destruction of the front line-less ranged PCs.

Poor suckers.

Back to the OP:

There are no overpowered classes in 4e.  There *might* be some over-powered class options in 4e.

Rogue as overpowe4red?  <chuckle>  Not really.


----------



## Madred (Jan 23, 2009)

to come back on the archer ranger thing..

i find it quite 'strong' that he can get TO HIT + DMG + AC only using his main stats.
+ he can use twin strike with greatbow doing d12+d12..

there is no way the two-sword ranger can match that.. since he needs strength, it will probably leave his dexterity lower and thus, his AC will be lower AND he needs to be in melee.. AND he'll never do d12+d12.
lets not even talk about his hps..
so.. from my point of view.. archer ranger owns because he is 'single stat dependent' and thus allowed more versatility with his other stats (either hps, or wis, or whatever e wants..)

is there something i'm not understanding ??


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Jan 23, 2009)

Madred said:


> to come back on the archer ranger thing..
> 
> i find it quite 'strong' that he can get TO HIT + DMG + AC only using his main stats.
> + he can use twin strike with greatbow doing d12+d12..
> ...




A lot, apparently.

For one thing, most melee rangers take an heavy armor feat and thus get rid of the need to pump dex.  They end up pumping STR and WIS just like the archer pumps DEX and WIS.  They can also use two war axes just as easily as the archer can pick up a great bow, so yes they can do D12.    

You also keep overestimating the value of the damage the archer is dealing.  His overall damage output isn't head and shoulders above the other strikers.  And the others tend to provide more valuable services in compensation for a slightly lower damage output.  

I feel the archer looks particularly weak compared to the melee rogue because they both do comparable damage but the rogue isn't selfishly letting the fighter take all the heat and so is a better asset to the team.  

Your choice of words betray your point of view; You say the Archer owns.  Who cares if a PC _owns_?  The party has to _win_.  The only consideration is how much a PC contribute to victory.  That's the only valid measure of success.  And IMO I can build a more powerful party without the archer ranger than with him.

I think the archer ranger is a large party luxury item.  In a 6+ team, the Archer ranger can settle in his niche and be a real asset.  In fact, if you have 6 PC and just one leader, it's a good thing to have the sixth be an out-of-harm's-way ranger since he won't put additional strain on the leader's healing capabilities.  On a short team of 4 though, he's not the first guy I'd pick.


----------



## Madred (Jan 23, 2009)

ok then, agree that with some feats, 2 to be exact (probably chain then scale) the twf ranger will compensate for his low AC, but, still wont compensate for his lack of initiative.
all in all, lets say that at paragon levels the twf ranger will be on par with the archer ranger. just have to go thru a few level with a somewhat bad AC, or bad hps, or bad weapons, or bad ini, or whatever else he needs feats to boost.

but don't get me wrong, I am not an ardent 'archer ranger' fan. I just think that its probably the easiest, strongest, simplest, 'out of the box', and a tad on the overpowered side, build. (hence the reason for posting in this thread)

I still think the ranger archer and  battlerager are being the 2 strongest guys right now.
BUT,
I am "not" saying the others characters are not necessary. (aside from greatweapon fighter and straladin and maybe starpact wlock).
+ in the end, what matters is that everyone is having fun with their chars.
though, if you happen to have either the battlerager or ranger archer in a team, well, some other chars that focus on the same things as them might feel slightly.. overshadowed.
Not as much as being totally useless, but just not, as edgy.


----------



## babinro (Jan 23, 2009)

I'll concede to the fact that I associated this overpowered and underpowered as meaning, which character can a PC play with the best chance of overall survival...rather than, which PC is most beneficial towards the team's overall goals. 

I do feel that melee characters are still underpowered though because they can only tank for a brief period unless they have other melee support...or a leader providing them with healing.  Warlords can easily fill the roll of a fighter and be more beneficial to the team.  They seem far too dependent on a team keeping them in check.  In addition, they add little to the field beyond some damage and minor attack roll manipulation via marks. 

As for the remarks based on environment, that would change the answer for overpowered and underpowered completely.  As a wizard becomes horrible in close quarters when his spells are likely to effect as many of his allies as his enemies.  An archer ranger is still solid simply based on the fact that they can fire at someone, then move behind a wall/door  for total cover.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jan 24, 2009)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> > As a related note, apparent strength may also depend on the personalities of the players.  If the ranger is a loud and enthusiastic player who shoots "boooyah!" whenever he kills something, or if he puts down other players for never killing anything/not contributing, then that will obviously increase the apparent imbalance.  Likewise, a highly effective character may not appear as such if the player is modest and doesn't take credit, or if the advantages he is giving are less obvious than pure damage.




This is a major understatement. I have been in games where I knew i clearly had the strongest character with the highest ac, hit and damage + spells (3.5) but it was the other guy who bragged and was called the  broken character (when he was only mediocre). 

I like to be modest at times I am excelling. I think the opposite is true as well for others and sometimes even myself. People will blow their own horns to hid their own inadequacies. 

So that's a hint to power gamers. If your going to do it, be modest and they might not even know.

PS: seemingly strange options also will commonly get tossed into the broken pile simply because its strange or doesn't follow a common formula

some times it is the weakest option as well.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Jan 25, 2009)

Madred said:


> ok then, agree that with some feats, 2 to be exact (probably chain then scale) the twf ranger will compensate for his low AC, but, still wont compensate for his lack of initiative.




I don't really see few couple of points of initiative being a big thing for a melee combatant.



Madred said:


> all in all, lets say that at paragon levels the twf ranger will be on par with the archer ranger. just have to go thru a few level with a somewhat bad AC, or bad hps, or bad weapons, or bad ini, or whatever else he needs feats to boost.




For a start a twf Ranger has toughness for free, so that's going to give them better hit points than an archer ranger 
He can probably do with hide armour for a few levels which gives him a couple of points less of AC than the archer ranger but not terrible.
initiative isn't a big deal for him.

Against that he provides (and can take advantage of) flanking spreads damage around a bit so that the party can go on longer and has more options in his attacks like several burst 1 abilities at lowish levels.





Madred said:


> but don't get me wrong, I am not an ardent 'archer ranger' fan. I just think that its probably the easiest, strongest, simplest, 'out of the box', and a tad on the overpowered side, build. (hence the reason for posting in this thread)




Rangers are probably the highest damaging classes, but they provide a lot less in the way of control.

In my limited experience I'd agree with you that Archer rangers are probably the easiest class to play and contribute a significant amount of what they can potentially do for the party.
Whether the damage different of an archer ranger compared to another striker build is as useful to the party as the other options that the other striker provides is open to question (and the answer probably varies widely based on the encounter type)



Madred said:


> I still think the ranger archer and  battlerager are being the 2 strongest guys right now.
> BUT,
> I am "not" saying the others characters are not necessary. (aside from greatweapon fighter and straladin and maybe starpact wlock).




The great weapon fighter has his place, it places the tradeoff for damage versus control for a defender in a different place from the sword and board build. 
I suspect that a greatweapon fighter is better with a Warlord in the party than without -> he also probably does a better job of focusing attacks on himself than the sword and board character because he's more of a damaging threat and he's easier to hit.

The strength based Paladin seems to have a few too few options (although I haven't had much of a look at one) to choose from. The splatbook will hopefully fix that.

I think the starpact warlock is the in-between option of the initial three pacts. Does more damage than the feylock and less than the infernal lock. Provides less control than they feylock but more than the infernal.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jan 25, 2009)

Mad Hamish said:


> For a start a twf Ranger has toughness for free, so that's going to give them better hit points than an archer ranger




an archer ranger can choose twf as well and get toughness for free. The only difference is one might not be able to take the paragon paths in player handbook. other then that everything else functions normally.


----------



## Kzach (Jan 25, 2009)

The rogue definitely needs something more to help it survive melee. I'm honestly considering granting a bonus to AC as a class ability simply because the rogue is usually the most likely to be targeted and dropped first. Fighters can't mark everything and the rogue has to be in the thick of things in order to fulfil its role.

Archer rangers are by far the most 'broken'. I'm honestly thinking of making a longbow a d8 and simply not allowing the greatbow at all. And TWF rangers with 2x1d10/+3 weapons... fahgettabowtit. They can be happy with smaller weapons instead of this stupid dual-wielding of massive swords.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Jan 25, 2009)

Kzach said:


> The rogue definitely needs something more to help it survive melee. I'm honestly considering granting a bonus to AC as a class ability simply because the rogue is usually the most likely to be targeted and dropped first. Fighters can't mark everything and the rogue has to be in the thick of things in order to fulfil its role.




The current AC of the rogue is plenty if he opts for a mostly ranged approach, using stealth and deft strike to harass the enemy.

If you are a melee rogue, my favorite concept, you need to pump your AC a bit. 

I designed a brutal scoundrel who spent 4 feat in the heroic tier to get hide armor, heavy shield and a rapier so by level 4 with DEX 19, he has the same AC as a sword and board fighter.  In paragon level he keeps this up by taking shield and hide specialization.

He is basically a light armored, vicious fighter.  By level 6, he has the utility powers adaptable flanker and ferret frailty that can give him 2 or 3 sneak attack option every fight _without flanking_.   He gets a few more from powers like sly lunge and toppling strike + AP for a follow up.  

The result is that by level 6 that character can sneak attack every round in melee witout needing to put himself in a difficult spot.  He takes whatever dazed, prone etc. opportunity comes along and then use his tricks to drum himself up a sneak attack when his buddies can't do it for him.  He typically just stand shoulder to shoulder with the defender.    

I just love that character concept; I want to play it so bad...


----------



## Caliban (Jan 26, 2009)

Mal Malenkirk said:


> In paragon level he keeps this up by taking shield and hide specialization.




FYI, those two feats don't stack.


----------



## Nail (Jan 26, 2009)

If there's one thing this thread should teach anyone that reads it:  The term "overpowered" is meaningless without a huge explanitory paragraph by the person writing.

In my case, I think "overpowered" is best applied when comparing one PC in a party to another in that same party. Put another way "overpowered" might be better phrased as "spot-light hog".   As *Moon-Lancer* said, no one notices how powerful a quiet person's PC is.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 26, 2009)

Madred said:


> there is no way the two-sword ranger can match that..  AND he'll never do d12+d12.
> lets not even talk about his hps..
> so.. from my point of view.. archer ranger owns because he is 'single stat dependent' and thus allowed more versatility with his other stats (either hps, or wis, or whatever e wants..)
> 
> is there something i'm not understanding ??




It really depends on the criteria. in a one-on-one battle on open terrain, the Archer Ranger is simply the most powerful character. But does power equal efficient? In this case I'd argue no for the same reasons many others have pointed out. Rogues need other characters to reach their full potential, but also blend better with the party concept. A rogue with a solid defender and leader working together is great. An Archer Ranger plays pretty much the same in every party but doesn't add much in efficiency besides damage. In other words, he doesn't make the rest of the party better by doing his thing, nor does he force the tough choices like a melee striker does.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 26, 2009)

Kzach said:


> The rogue definitely needs something more to help it survive melee. I'm honestly considering granting a bonus to AC as a class ability simply because the rogue is usually the most likely to be targeted and dropped first. Fighters can't mark everything and the rogue has to be in the thick of things in order to fulfil its role.
> 
> Archer rangers are by far the most 'broken'. I'm honestly thinking of making a longbow a d8 and simply not allowing the greatbow at all. And TWF rangers with 2x1d10/+3 weapons... fahgettabowtit. They can be happy with smaller weapons instead of this stupid dual-wielding of massive swords.




For rogues to survive melee they do need something: fellow players with defenders and a clue. I love my Windsoul Genasi Swordmage with a rogue. A fighter is really nice too. If you add in a Warlord and improved initiative for the defender(s) it gets really good. Add a mage to take care of those pesky minions and it rounds out nicely.

Round 1 action:
1. Wizard blasts minion(s)
2. Defender(s) set up on a "big guy".
3. Rogue comes in for a big ol' swingathon.  

I do dislike the concept of the Great Bow and dual-wielding big ol' meat cleavers and don't really think they're necessary nor flavorful.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jan 27, 2009)

Rogues survive just fine.
Level 1 rogues should be averaging _at least_ 16.5 damage a hit: 2.5 weapon, 4 stat, 3 other stat (whether sly flourishing or brutal scoundrel with CA), 7 sneak attack.
Backstabber ups the average by 2, weapon focus by 1, 20 dex (for the char oppers) ups it by another 1, though their secondary stat's damage drops if they're not one-trick-ponying offense (such as a 20 dex 16 cha halfling)
Their hitroll is only matched by the fighter (or rangers who prime shot with CA), and they often massacre stuff before they can take two swings.

The idea with rogues is that fatal shankings = they can't hurt me back.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 27, 2009)

On the issue of rogues: they are a class that's either very dependent on party makeup (they need defenders) or on player skill to get the heck out of the way.

I play a rogue in the RPGA's Forgotten Realms games, and I've found it to be much easier for me, as in the game is almost a no-brainer if the defender is doing his job.

I played in a recent event with no defender and only a level one leader, and it was brutal. I had made it to level 3 without ever using an at-will other than sly flourish, but I was very thankful for taking deft strike, since it let me move out from behind cover to get sneak attacks consistently. Even with that, I was hurt far worse than any of the other adventures I've played in.

As far as rangers go: having heavy armor is almost a must for a melee ranger: the game I run had a two-weapon ranger in hide armor, and he was always one step away from death until he improved his AC. I think before that he was running around at AC 17 when he was 4th level, and that meant he was always getting tagged by skirmishers and lurkers.

From my experience, the classes are a lot better balanced than most people give them credit for, but you don't always see some of their strengths or weaknesses based on your party composition or play style. I haven't seen something that I have a real problem with yet, and the closest thing to that has been the dwarven battlerager.

--Steve


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jan 28, 2009)

Eww ... 17 AC at 4th is ... eww ... nonmagical light armour and +2 stat mod on a meleeist .. ? How else ..
I'm sorry, but that doesn't reflect on the class, it's pink ninja territory.


----------



## robotsinmyhead (Jan 28, 2009)

This is a great thread.  For instance, in my experience with 4e (20ish games in 4-5 campaigns) the rogues have always been bypassed by other strikers and other classes in damage (though they have their place from an RP standpoint) and just couldn't keep up in terms of survivability/utility like some other strikers.  

Really this comes down to the DM's style and the particular build of the classes and I feel like the game has a reasonably good balance overall (Battlerager looks a little much, but again - DM style can change this).

Aside from the rogue, IME, the most underwhelming and disappointing class has -by far- been the Warlord and I guarantee someone will have a story that will be the polar opposite of my experiences with Warlords.


----------



## Diirk (Jan 28, 2009)

Danceofmasks said:


> Eww ... 17 AC at 4th is ... eww ... nonmagical light armour and +2 stat mod on a meleeist .. ? How else ..
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't reflect on the class, it's pink ninja territory.




Sorry, but it very much does reflect on the poor class design. A melee ranger's primary stat is strength. You have 2 choices for your secondary stat: dexterity because it raises your armour class, or wisdom because it improves the effect of your powers. So you get to choose between having an average armour class, or having effective powers. Not many classes have to make that choice (in fact, pretty much none).

You'll notice all the new light armour classes in PHB2 have class features that let them use their secondary stats (str, con, cha etc) in place of dex/int for their armour class. This is a new design decision that the ranger could very much have benefitted from.


----------



## Caliban (Jan 28, 2009)

Diirk said:


> So you get to choose between having an average armour class, or having effective powers. Not many classes have to make that choice (in fact, pretty much none).




Warlocks that focus on Con and Charisma (which are a lot of them) have the same problem.

And the answer is the same for both of them: Put a some stat points in Str/Con and invest in heavy armor.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 28, 2009)

Danceofmasks said:


> Eww ... 17 AC at 4th is ... eww ... nonmagical light armour and +2 stat mod on a meleeist .. ? How else ..
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't reflect on the class, it's pink ninja territory.



Not at all. The character had two magic melee weapons and a neck item, and non-magic hide armor, along with a 14 Dex. Let's just say there was a serious underestimation on his part on what a 20 Str would get him. The character did fantastic damage, but I like running balanced combats, so the artillery and skirmishers struck him down immediately whenever they could.

When the character was retrained (he asked for a mercy ruling on my part and I let him swap two feats at 5th level) he ended up with scale armor (and it was +1 from his loot from the game) giving him AC 20. That still wasn't fantastic, but at least he was missed some of the time. Melee rangers really have some problems with AC unless they place a high priority on Dex, in which case all of those nifty class abilities based on Wisdom suffer. The class really is pretty well balanced.

--Steve


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jan 28, 2009)

Or alternatively, if they intended to go with 20 str and heavy armour all along, dump dex aggressively and stick a 10 or even an 8 there.
The choice to play with low-ish dex and light armour is an error here.

I guess these types of glass cannons worked better in 3e, so maybe it's a leftover from there?

Much like paladins who invest in high str and cha .. they're going to end up underpowered.

The issue isn't so much that the class is underpowered, it's that the players pay a little too much heed to the class description's advice while buying stats.


----------



## Gort (Jan 28, 2009)

robotsinmyhead said:


> Aside from the rogue, IME, the most underwhelming and disappointing class has -by far- been the Warlord and I guarantee someone will have a story that will be the polar opposite of my experiences with Warlords.




My warlord is going to be the greatest healer ever next session. I just levelled him up to 6th, and picked up _Rousing Words_ (encounter power allowing the target to spend TWO healing surges) and that feat that lets me add my charisma bonus onto the healing done by _Inspiring Word_.

It's also nice that all my allies get 6 HP and a saving throw whenever they use an action point, have +2 initiative permanently, and I can stick powers on enemies that make them take 5 more damage from any attack they take that round, whereupon my entire party focuses on them and clobbers them.

Most of all, I'm a healer... AND I'M NOT A CLERIC.


----------



## infocynic (Jan 28, 2009)

Rogues can be very powerful. Overpowered? Maybe. A rogue can easily abuse Stealth + Deft Strike to get CA every turn without working that hard, except in wide open terrain (which is usually boring for encounters). He was completely gimped when the tremorsense creature was completely unsurprised by his attack, and he wasn't willing to close to melee to flank, so that's something. Rogues have a very high attack roll but their damage output probably can't keep up with a stormwarden. Even by high heroic, where the ranger is getting 3[w] attacks more often, 3d10+1d8 vs 3d4+2d8 is in favor of the ranger (but of course, the rogue is more accurate). 

Melee rangers are a pain for MAD. I'm playing a Minotaur (Dragon mag, not MM) one now, Level 5, and I went 18/16/14/8/14/10. DM gave us one bonus feat for good backstories, so my feats are Double Sword, Chain, TWF, TWD. Next level I'll get weapon focus. I could probalby have done without Chain for a while since Hide is effectively only -1 AC until I get +2 armor, but I also wanted Meliorating (AV) for +1 AC per milestone. I'm as hard to hit as a defender if the creature is marked, which is nice, but my damage suffers for it... I only get 1d8+3 or 1d8+2 (main/off hand) with my +2 weapon, and Level 5 is by no means guaranteed to get you a +2 weapon. At paragon, I plan to switch to double axe because deadly axe is tons of fun (our DM rarely provokes OAs because the encounters are typically full of smarter monsters, humanoids and the like, so HBO isn't as good).


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jan 28, 2009)

Well built rogues are outdone on damage by well built fighters and well built rangers, even assuming that they get combat advantage every round according to the numbers.

If you're finding that the rogue is outdoing other classes, then you have a few possibilities:
1) Pure random chance is favouring the rogue
2) The rogue is built better than the other characters
3) The rogue is played better than the other characters
4) The DM is treating the rogue and other characters unevenly (ie - targeting the non-rogues when the rogue is actually the better target etc)
5) Your perceptions are being colored in some way: you're seeing the rogue's big hits and not noticing when, say, he does not get combat advantage, or the fact that he blows a daily and does pretty much the same damage as with an at-will. Or the non-rogue characters are accomplishing non-damage goals at the expense of damage.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 29, 2009)

Caliban said:


> Warlocks that focus on Con and Charisma (which are a lot of them) have the same problem.
> 
> And the answer is the same for both of them: Put a some stat points in Str/Con and invest in heavy armor.




Or, you could go Genasi Ranger, build Strength and Int, backstory from Thay (I have a group of Freedom Fighters in mind I am starting to build a campaign for) and essentially dump Con AND Dex and keep the light armor while also getting a +1 to Will via 12 Wisdom. The number of surges will be low, as will Initiative Mod, but very workable. I have one built already for LFR games like that I may try next.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 29, 2009)

Diirk said:


> You'll notice all the new light armour classes in PHB2 have class features that let them use their secondary stats (str, con, cha etc) in place of dex/int for their armour class. This is a new design decision that the ranger could very much have benefitted from.




You could try this. Instead of giving the TWF ranger toughness for free, give him chain mail prof instead. Melee Rangers can use the heavy armor they really need, and archer rangers don't have even more incentive to take the TWF route.


----------



## Zelc (Jan 30, 2009)

Why do people say TWF Rangers have lower damage than Archer Rangers?  A Stormwarden with Scimitar Dance has one of the highest DPR outputs in the game.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jan 30, 2009)

While the question of power (over or under) is generally considered only in the context of combat, I'd like to point out that an Archer Ranger is admirably stat-qualified to be a super scout and general skill master.

With high Dex and Wis, training in Nature, Perception, Stealth, Athletics and Acrobatics, a Ranger can stealthily close on the enemy in most any terrain, study their composition and formation, and retreat with this valuable information.  If also an Elf and possessed of a few feats like Fast Runner and Fleet Footed (names?), the Ranger stands a very good chance of escaping, even if spotted, by running like hell.

Also note that as the Archer Ranger needs only a few feats to improve damage, and none at all to improve AC, there are plenty of feat slots available to multiclass and to train in additional skills.

Add another character to the party with good Cha skills and bonuses, and you can meet all the most common skill challenges.

So while it is certainly possible that an Archer Ranger is not overpowered per se, I would seriously consider including one in my party for the sake of all of the extra-combat utility.


----------



## Hawkeye (Jan 30, 2009)

I think the DM is just way too overpowered.  They have access to everything in unlimited numbers.  That is just way too much to me.



Hawkeye


----------



## tleilaxu (Jan 31, 2009)

the elephant in the room is the wizard class. they had to put it in the PHB, but i think the designers realize that it is not one of their better realizations. 

In addition to more powers on par with the new controllers, I'd like to see Wizards get Rituals -and- Alchemy as free feats, and have a significant advantage in these two areas relative to all other classes. I don't see it being a power issue as much as a coolness issues, as rituals and alchemy essentially cover the same role mechanically.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 31, 2009)

I think my biggest problems with rogues right now is they have no area effect attacks.

Fighters have em, Rangers have a lot of multishot powers that can simulate the effects, and warlocks have a few choice ones. I believe all rogues have is one daily, and now I think one encounter in MP.

Your damage doesn't seem that good when your friend are knocking down 3-4 guys a round with different things.

The other thing about rogues is that don't have any dailies that say "for this whole fight, I am X".

When a fighter uses rain of steel, they become a striker. When a wizard uses Bigby's ice hand, he becomes a striker (and a stronger controller). When a cleric uses beacon of hope, he becomes an even more powerful leader.

Rogues don't have any of these "buff" type dailies that make them extra cool for a fight.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jan 31, 2009)

Hmm ... I think you may be on to something.
Though personally, I prefer classes and/or races whose raw numbers are higher, and don't need a daily to get them up to speed.

And since rogues can have functional 20/16 builds (halflings and drow, in particular) take backstabber, slaying action, and sneak in the attack, they can potentially deal 2x more times of sneak damage in a round on top of their 19.5 average (with an at-will, which doesn't count enhancement).

Also, there's nothing stopping you from MCing for those cool dailies if you really want them.
Heck, I've seen a rogue that MC'ed fighter to get unyielding avalanche, though dual wielding dagger/waraxe (which he wasn't proficient with) was probably over the top.


----------



## Secthay (Apr 21, 2014)

*I agree with the initial post about rogues.*

I have been playing a game with a halfling rogue, dragonborn paladin, dwarven fighter & my (recently deceased) elven ranger. (We were all Level 4 at time of writing)

The rogue seems incredibly overpowered.
His base armor class is only 1 lower than the paladins (& his other defences aren't far off) However, he has a bonus against opportunity attacks & anything that attacks him gets hit by a riposite strike most turns. He also has second chance to stop any crits.

His damage output & hit to miss ratio is far higher than my ranger's.

Here are his Riposite strike calculations:

Attack: Dex (7) + Combat advantage (2) =  +11 vs AC

Hit: 1 [W] (1D6) + Dex (7) + Two Weapon Fighting (1) + Sneak attack (2D8) Max = 32

If the target tries to attack him before he can do it again, hit him first.

Attack: Str (4) + Combat advantage (2) = +6 vs AC

Hit: 1 [W] (1D6) + Strength (4) + Two Weapon Fighting (1) + Sneak attack (2D8) Max = 27

So... Two attacks that will probably hit, dealing a maximum of 59. Level 4. At-will.
(He almost always had combat advantage too, with a mix of his racial higher initiative thing & tumble letting him get wherever he needed to be to kill them best.

My ranger on the other hand.

His most damaging attack, Two Fanged Strike

Attack Both: Dex (7) + Prime Shot (1) = +8 Vs AC

Hit 1: 1[W] (1D10) + Dex (7) + Hunter's Quarry (1D8) Max = 25

Hit 2: 1[W] (1D10) + Dex (7) Max = 17

If (& only if) both attacks hit + Wis (5)

Total Maximum: 47 With attacks that are pretty likely to miss.

I don't understand how he is capable of being the best striker & the best defender simultaneously. It's not just that we are complete scrubs & he's power gaming. The rest of us have gone through everything & we can't seem to find a way to compete with that.


----------

