Weakest Non Prestige class?

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Lowlander wrote...

Shadow Seriously?

Not sure where you are coming up with +8 ab for Paladin. But I guess it some highly situational occasional use case like the Bard:

War Cry. A spell that lasts a few rounds, that you can cast once?? That also has a saving throw that negates.

Bard level 16 Curse song requires 30 perform. Do you really think you can pull that off at level 16?

You also seem to forget that you have -4 BAB vs fighter classes like the ranger.

As a charisma based class you will also be down on your AB stat (Str/Dex).

End result is more like one fight, when your enemy fails saves, you will be one or two AB ahead. The rest of the time you will be behind.

I notice you didn't mention Fighter either, which is what I asked...

Yes absolutely seriously I skipped these things willingly as they doesnt seem relevant to me, you can have full BAB with any of those classes above and perform is no problem to get especially when it counts charisma/skill bonuses into it. And there is no save vs curse song.

Ok, imagine an environment where minumum AB to have playable char is 62. And now show me which ranger gets past to it. Maybe half-orc, str-based, two handler rdd/ranger which is compared to anything else just fail. If its pvp, then ranger may be useable for csers who doesnt need ab. But if its pvm where majority of NPC ha true seeing then the ranger is just unusable. In this environment the bards get superior to everything, they can cap dodge ac by themselves, their ab isnt so good but with curse song they hit even better than fighter.

Personally dont think there is point to compare these classes in low lvl environment that is in SP. In SP you can play anything as those modules are designed to be completed with anything (class specific are pointless to mention).

Played like 5 servers with the environment I described. PvM, real start at lvl 40 where are the best dungeons.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               So Full BAB classes like Ranger/Fighter are weak because you can get full BAB anyway, presumably from taking a full BAB class like Fighter/Ranger?

Nice circular logic there.

Oh and low levels don't matter, just level 40 PWs. Double nice.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               It's pretty evident that without defining "weak" and the environment in which this definition of weak is to be examined, we end up with "my dad kicks your dad's arse" arguments of little validity.

Let's be serious: both bard and ranger can be used for effective bard/ranger mostly builds and if you are a little into character building you know it. Let's leave skewed comparisons aside, fellas.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               @ ShaDoOoW - while I dislike specifics such as 62 AB, I do play a Dwarven Rgr 24/ Rog 10/ Ftr 6 that does rather well at range or melee. It would be easy enough to revamp this design to gain full BAB, and place all the Rog lvls during Epic play. Again, I prefer to use a STR heavy armor archer with Mighty effect, but I am fairly certain the more experienced builders could whip up something in another design if they wished.

Currently a few highlighted features are Armor Skin, five chosen FE, BoE, Imp Evasion, EDR 1-3, EWS: Longbow and Warhammer, +5d6 SA, full Search, Tumble, UMD, Animal Empathy, Discipline, and Lore skills cause I am a greedy little Dwarf. While it may not be optimized, it ain't shabby at all, and does triple digit dmg at range or melee.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_HipMaestro]

               BoE is one the best epic combat feats in the game IMO, like EWF & EWS all rolled into a single feat and even better with lots of FEs.  Unfortunately, I have seldom taken ranger into epic levels to experience how uber FE levels perform in practice.   Well worth considering especially with a Dexpecker build.

Ranger is the "skilled" version of a fighter with a pet... just without the feat flexibility.  And no bleedin' alignment tag so that me likes. '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Kail Pendragon wrote...

It's pretty evident that without defining "weak" and the environment in which this definition of weak is to be examined, we end up with "my dad kicks your dad's arse" arguments of little validity.

Let's be serious: both bard and ranger can be used for effective bard/ranger mostly builds and if you are a little into character building you know it. Let's leave skewed comparisons aside, fellas.

Ok, so again and better.

In lvl 1-20 environment I think that all classes are somewhat balanced. Weakest class there is indeed bard because his low hitpoints and slow spell/offensive progression.

At epic environment due to the Lasting Inspiration and multiclassing the bard is IMO the strongest class from all. Also in this environment barbarian is weakest because his rage dont give any benefits. Second weakest is ranger imo.

Its not the coincidence that most of these lvl 40 based PWs are boosting ranger's AB or AC via custom feats or items. Both Dungeon Eternal X and Heart of Winter doing this, also Arkhalia (czech-only server where I play) and The Three Towns (there he can craft arrows and rest in wilderness without being ambushed).

Druid itself is not so powerfull too, no ab spells, poor dmg spells, weak summons, xp penalty for them and no resurrection so he cant make proper "healer".  But at low lvl environment due to summons he is very safe class for PvM and in high lvl environment the dragon shape makes him quite powerfull.

So what now Lowlander, do you agree with this?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...

At epic environment due to the Lasting Inspiration and multiclassing the bard is IMO the strongest class from all. Also in this environment barbarian is weakest because his rage dont give any benefits. Second weakest is ranger imo.

I just want to know, so I will raise it the third time.  Why do you consider Rangers weaker than fighters?  You keep saying Rangers are so weak, but never a peep about fighters even when I ask. So what spares fighters from your list of weaklings?

As far as level 40 PWs. I have no comment on what works best. I have zero interest in them and think NWN turns a corner toward sillyness in epic levels. The only PW I played on was Level 20 capped and I would only ever consider similar PWs.

I like NWN largely for AD&D nostalgia which works up until Epic for me when NWN goes off the rails for me. Many
Epic feats just seem too over the top.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               @ShaDoOoW - I have not played on that many PW's, but the boosting for Rangers I have seen is for spells and Companions, as things are fine on the fields of combat. My guess is that you are seeing AB boosting due to the inflated AB standards and rules mentioned earlier on those worlds; not because of the vanilla game.

@ Lowlander - while you may not like Epic play does not equate it to sillyness, being off the rails, or over the top. For one stating no comment, you appear to make several. But it is OK, as your siding with me on Rangers was getting me worried; being viewed as a possible sign of the apocalypse....


               
               

               

                     Modifié par Elhanan, 31 juillet 2011 - 09:46 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               

Lowlander wrote...
...and think NWN turns a corner toward sillyness in epic levels.

Dude, it's not just NWN to "turn a corner toward sillyness" as you put it, in fact PnP is no better to say the least.

As a side note lvl 20 cap with selected PRC features (I'm thinking mostly some cool PrCs) would be a great environment where to play.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Kail Pendragon, 31 juillet 2011 - 09:56 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Lowlander wrote...

ShaDoOoW wrote...

At epic environment due to the Lasting Inspiration and multiclassing the bard is IMO the strongest class from all. Also in this environment barbarian is weakest because his rage dont give any benefits. Second weakest is ranger imo.

I just want to know, so I will raise it the third time.  Why do you consider Rangers weaker than fighters?  You keep saying Rangers are so weak, but never a peep about fighters even when I ask. So what spares fighters from your list of weaklings?

Because fighters are excellent for multiclassing. Sure pure fighter is useless but there is no point to make pure fighter - I think Kail explained this precisely in the "multiclass" thread.

From multiclassing perspective, 1-6fighter levels are usefull to all builds. Even more in non-epic environment because ranger there wont give you free epic feat (which is bug actually, it should grant only FE) and because you cant afford to spend too many levels on multiclass. If there would be a server that would have max lvl of 20 and then you could keep this character for new challenges, I would take 1-2 levels of fighter for pure wizard or cleric. If you could get fourth class, why wouldnt you take fighter?

@ShaDoOoW - I have not played on that many PW's, but the boosting for
Rangers I have seen is for spells and Companions, as things are fine on
the fields of combat. My guess is that you are seeing AB boosting due to
the inflated AB standards and rules mentioned earlier on those worlds;
not because of the vanilla game.

Yes that makes sense. But that doesnt mean im wrong. The ranger just still cant reach the required AB/AC of some servers, while other classes can.

I just dont know even the barbarian can be combined with RDD or PM to get decent melee or tank but I just cant see this possibility for ranger. Both combinations doesnt seem viable to me.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 31 juillet 2011 - 10:09 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

Elhanan wrote...

@ Lowlander - while you may not like Epic play does not equate it to sillyness, being off the rails, or over the top. For one stating no comment, you appear to make several. But it is OK, as your siding with me on Rangers was getting me worried; being viewed as a possible sign of the apocalypse....

Lowlander wrote...
As far as level 40 PWs. I have no comment on what works best.

I made no comments on what works best on Level 40 PWs.

I have several on the on what I consider the lameness of NWN epic rules/feats. It simply doesn't correspond to my idea of D&D and does seem over the top, even silly silly to me.  Hence I have zero interest in Level 40 PWs. I am not arguing this as it entirely based on personal preference and nostalgia. Nothing more.

Kail Pendragon wrote...

Dude, it's not just NWN to "turn a corner toward sillyness" as you put it, in fact PnP is no better to say the least.

Ah fair enough, 3E is the problem then. I haven't played PnP since 1st edition. I am sure my main DM from those days would have tossed most of the 3e Epic feats. My DM was the anti-Monty Hall. He kept us lean and Hungry and I have an appreciation for that.

Now get off my lawn.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 31 juillet 2011 - 10:13 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Kail Pendragon]

               To be fair, PnP is (was) mostly geared around lvl 20 cap and most of the 3.0/3.5 PnP character building capped at lvl 20 too. Sure, you have a bunch of PrCs to choose from, which doesn't happen in vanilla NWN.

So, just to try something on topic, would the OP care to define "weak" and the environment in which this definition is to be examined?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               Ok.

So let us do this, redefined, shall we?

Up to level 20, I consider the weakest class to be Barbarian, as it is implemented in NWN.  After level 20, I really do not consider any class to be weak.

Obviously, Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid are very powerful classes.  I think that is a given.  We could create a sort of Tier rating, if we wished.

Tier S : Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid.
Tier A : Rogue, Bard, Paladin, Ranger, Monk.
Tier B : Fighter
Tier C : Barbarian

I do not rate the PrCs here - because they are PrCs.  However, I think it is pretty much unanimous that PDK is considered the weakest of them all.

Epic levels is just so wrongly done IMHO.  There never should have been such a description in the first place!  It just should of advanced further.

And if you think that Epic levels in 3.0 were bad, see 3.5 for what really is ape-$h1t.

Personally, it makes absolutely no sense to advance levels beyond 20 for a D20 game.  The D20 just gets horribly overcome.  They should have changed it to a D100 system, where every 1% increment makes a difference.  Then one could do 100 levels and attempt to reasonably balance things.

Trying to balance things with a D20 and doing levels above that is just tightening the thumbscrews, if you ask me.  No matter what one does, it will disadvantage some other class or classes, while at the same time making others horribly overpowered.

It is not D&D as we all knew it.  Above 20, and one does not need the party anymore.  One is a one man army, capable of doing just about everything that a party can do, and more.  Epic levels is like filling in the vulnerabilitiies of the different classes, to make a "super character", so to speak.  Or an Epic one.

Yeah.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Because fighters are excellent for multiclassing. Sure pure fighter is useless but there is no point to make pure fighter - I think Kail explained this precisely in the "multiclass" thread.

From multiclassing perspective, 1-6fighter levels are usefull to all builds. Even more in non-epic environment because ranger there wont give you free epic feat (which is bug actually, it should grant only FE) and because you cant afford to spend too many levels on multiclass. If there would be a server that would have max lvl of 20 and then you could keep this character for new challenges, I would take 1-2 levels of fighter for pure wizard or cleric. If you could get fourth class, why wouldnt you take fighter?

In many books, not being able to slap just 6 lvls of a class to get the better features is a plus; not a negative. And while a pre-Epic 20th lvl Ftr has a grunch of Feats, both the Ftr and Rgr have access to the same AB feats, while the FE bonuses grant +5 dmg; the Ftr only +4 dmg.

Yes that makes sense. But that doesnt mean im wrong. The ranger just still cant reach the required AB/AC of some servers, while other classes can.

I just dont know even the barbarian can be combined with RDD or PM to get decent melee or tank but I just cant see this possibility for ranger. Both combinations doesnt seem viable to me.

Why cannot the Rgr get the same AB/ AC of other non-PrC's? They have the same general Feats. And Rgr becomes even better when seasoned with a pinch of other classes; the same is not generally held for a pinch of Ranger because it is a better designed class, IMO.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Elhanan, 31 juillet 2011 - 11:06 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               The Ranger has the biggest advantage over the other full BaB classes, in that it can Set Traps.  'Nuff said.