Most worthless class or unit in your tabletop game?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Most worthless class or unit in your tabletop game?
Most worthless class or unit in your tabletop game?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
5E monk of four elements
Anything it can do a gish can do better
Anything it can do a full caster can do better, yes, including martialing.
Monk is pretty worthless in general in 5e, more so than even in 3.5e time and that's an accomplisment that never thought could be reached, the only thing they have that is ok is stun and that can be replicated with spells, everything ese is hot garbage
And no wonder taking into account Crawford said in twitter years ago he dislikes the class and only put it in 5e because people asked for it but not like he was going to make it good or anything, he wishes to never put it in a book again
Monk is decent at RAW adventure day field control after 6-7~ tho. And they get very efficient near-immortality at 18 with AP. 15 minute adventuring days and their nova damage being entirely subclass dependent+high level is what makes people ignore monk rather than by rules capacity.
outside of specific niche builds like the gunk the monk is strongest in tier one play in games where feats aren't allowed. other martials just have much easier times getting benefits out of the classic GWM/PAM and SS/XBM combos that form the backbone of martial damage dealing while being more durable and not as MAD as the monk (paladin is just as MAD but the base class is just leagues more powerful than the monk and can be notoriously fixed with a 1 level hexblade dip). it gets even worse when you remember the monk has to expend resources just to keep up, the same resource you need for defensive and utility abilities (including stuff the rogue can do for free). in addition the monk has a similar problem to the barbarian where they just scale really fricking poorly and have mostly underwhelming subclasses but again the barbarian is a much stronger base class with genuinely amazing features like reckless attack and rage making it both more durable and stronger than the monk. monk isn't unworkable or irredeemable but one class has to be the worst and the monk's issues with poor damage output, fragility, being MAD, scaling poorly, the lack of a generic power attack feat, having mostly bad subclasses, and a deeply stupid resource system make it an obvious choice. it's genuinely bizarre how hobbled the class is around stunning strike when stunning strike is already pretty underwhelming and unreliable in comparison to typical full caster control spells or a paladin or fighter just blowing up an enemy in a single round.
>paladin is just as MAD
No?
Paladin has d10 HPs and can wear armor and shield so he can survive with less Con, he also can self heal too. He benefits from weapons so a +1 weapon is +1 on all his attacks (not like monk that only works on half his attacks). A Paladin only needs Str and Cha (and not even crazy Cha) to be more than viable. A monk who doesn't max Dex and Wis is dead meat because he can't fall back on armor/shield, and he also needs good Con because d8
Also as they pointed out it starts making a lot of sense why monk sucks when the chief dev hates them and doesn't want them in the game
Gunk is a massive meme, even straight wisdom MI monk is better and it is entirely core content without relying on either questionable interpretations or rai or massive DM fiat of all tashas bonus features and CL.
And no, all through early game monk has no extra resource cost because martial arts is a thing. Monk simply has the choice of player choosing one of 3 routes (str, dex or wis) based on subclass with average sustained dpr up to 14, average hp, average ac and nova locked behind subclass capstones.
Idiots like you being autistic trying to nova, cc and soak from 1 at once AND greed into feats that the class has no need for is entirely a you based skill issue.
It does show designers failed to streamline it like other classes tho.
Fighter has no problem doing all three at level 3. Frick off.
I surprise he didn't try to claim he made it bad intentionally because it's racist or something.
>That said, the guy playing Monk has had the worst streak of bad rolls I've seen in a long time. And the last time it happened it was because the dice were cursed.
It's not just your friend. Monks are "balanced" around low damage but lots of attacks. So they get more "chances" to miss and the hits are less impactful.
Monk is on the weaker side, but it is still very viable and certainly not worthless. I would say there is a skill gate to it being good though (similar to Sorcerer). If your average pleb plays a Monk, they are going to get dumpstered.
Mobile Monks have excellent defense. Stun is a concentration-less un-counterable force multiplier and defensive boon for the entire party with no action economy cost. Mobility means they aren't likely to miss entire turns like other melee martials do.
And Schrodinger's Wizard might be able to do everything better all at once, but an actual Wizard has to pick one thing at a time. If they attack, they can't control. If they control, they can't attack or be mobile. If they choose to be mobile, they can't control. A Monk can do all of these things at the same time on every turn.
>If they attack, they can't control. If they control, they can't attack or be mobile. If they choose to be mobile, they can't control.
ok...
>A Monk can do all of these things at the same time on every turn.
cope you stun gun cuck
Solid arguments there sir.
>ok...
From now on just be on the lookout for times during combat where a player needs to move a good distance before they can land a spell or attack, or where they are in melee with enemies and need to relocate, or when the enemy makes their save against a control spell and the caster's entire turn is wasted.
This came up in my most recent game even. The players were fighting in 2 different rooms. The group that had the easier fight cleaned up and needed to spend a whole turn dashing just to get within threat range of the other room.
I ran a monk level 4 to 19 and can say i felt weak in the beginning, but by 9, 10 range i felt on pace with everyone else. Monk is the martial support piece. I don't need to do HUGE DAMAGE if I burn legendary resists with stun, generate threat for the rogue and nothing can reliably hurt me. With great saves, good ac and a decent stun dc, my monk cleanly unlocked the party to just pour damage onto targets. When my character wasn't doing his thing, the party suffered because suddenly they couldn't get past resists, survive legendary actions or generate sneak attacks. Just playing the drummer of the band, so to speak.
Opposite for me
I played one from 1st to 14th and I felt like it started good (levels 1 to 4th) but the moment the martials got their second attack and first feat I was behind them in damage by a large margin, also as soon as they got better equipment my AC kept being mediocre at best
Also stun was like 50/50 chances of stunning, not very reliable and having to pick between flurry, dodge and stun to not waste my ki per short rest also meant I couldn't just spam stun
I also think we didn't get enough short rest per day
Also because we stopped at 14th I couldn't even enjoy the better saves feature
Scratch the first part, maybe from 1st to 6th I felt good because I remember early stun I was still feeling ok in combat, but yeah not long after 5th level when the rest got their second attack and the first feat started to "connect" more then I felt my martial prowess decreased a lot.
That's wild and I'm sad for you. What subclass? I played kensei so my AC was a little above the curve, but its otherwise a mediocre subclass compared to open hand. Honestly, i think a strait up fighter would be better, but the monk really rewards having a high wis more than a high dex, i think. I'll admit I got very spoiled for items in that campaign, but if your characters hit any major city in a normal D&D setting, getting shit like bracers of armor or amulet of claws shouldn't be hard. By the end, I was keepign pace with the rogue-ranger who hasted to fish for sneak attack crits. We both dumped around 100 dmg a turn, but I also accepted that stunning strikes were never intended to actually stun. They exist literally to peel legendary resists off of bad guys.
>What subclass?
Wanted to be Open Hand or Shadow (they seem to be the strongest) but got meme'd by the GM into playing Long Death. First power seems amazing but it wasn't that often that I got to drop enemies, still was the only reason I wasn't going unconscious more often with my mediocre AC. 11th power was really a life saver but wainting till 11th level for that not worth it
Also I can only imagine how awful has to be playing a Wot4E or a Sunsoul monk that rely way too much on ki to use their subclass features, way more than the other monks. Srly imagine having to stun and wanting to flurry or burning hands, your ki disappears in a few turns
>amulet of claws
It it isn't in the DMG chances of getting that were super slim GM rolled on tables and campaign special items rarely appeared (I remember the barb hoping for some special sword that appeared on a campaign and the GM told him it was going to be hard to get it on tables). I remember getting a ring of protection and some utility but nothing that made me stand
>We both dumped around 100 dmg a turn
How? not even in my wildest dreams I could go above 40, I don't think even if I reache 20th I could go beyond 50
>How? not even in my wildest dreams I could go above 40, I don't think even if I reache 20th I could go beyond 50
I put most ASI's into dex and wis, plus my magic item mix included, for much of the game, eldritch claw tattoo and very late game gloves of soul catching as a character arc thing. +13 to hit around level 17, dc 20 stun checks, and each attack is 3d10+7 dmg, averaging 23 dmg a hit? Endgame monsters I would have something like a 70% hit chance, throw a bunch of fists and stun checks. The stun just helps the rogue crit fish any time it goes off.
>Except they don't do this unless your DM is deliberately giving you low Con monsters to target. Legendary resists only fire off on a failed save and Constitution is the worst save to target.
You are right, and for a while I was bummed about it till I realized me throwing out 3-4 of these checks meant 1 or 2 failed a turn with dc20. Many monsters in the 20-25 cr range are +12, +13 con save. Plus now and then one of the casters would throw spells out there that gave disadvantage on con saves, forget what it was called. Wasn't always feasable and didn't always work, but seemed worthwhile to them.
>eldritch claw tattoo
>gloves of soul catching
well no fricking shit using the items that gives you +1d6 and +2d10 damage on all your attacks is gonna inflate your numbers
any other class with the same favoritism, like an archer with an oathbow, is gonna shit all over your damage numbers
>They exist literally to peel legendary resists off of bad guys.
Except they don't do this unless your DM is deliberately giving you low Con monsters to target. Legendary resists only fire off on a failed save and Constitution is the worst save to target.
>Opposite for me
>The moment the martials got their second attack and first feat I was behind them in damage by a large margin
He tried to play a damage Monk. Lol. Take Sharpshooter next time.
>also as soon as they got better equipment my AC kept being mediocre at best
Yes, because you aren't supposed to be facetanking things. A Rogue has mediocre AC too.
>Also stun was like 50/50 chances of stunning, not very reliable
50% chance of completely fricking over an enemy and letting the party melt it for no action economy cost is pretty good. Casters have to spend their entire action to get an effect like that (as long as they don't get Counterspelled, or hit too hard before the effect can pay off, or the target isn't the right creature type, or it has an immunity to the condition they are applying, or they can't see it, or they are too far away, or they are in antimagic).
>I also think we didn't get enough short rest per day
Yes, most DMs are storyshitters who run 1 encounter per day in between long melodramatic Critical Role re-enactments. Not your fault.
NTA but rogue can sneak attack with ranged attacks and also benefits from sharpshooter and crossbow expert on all of his attacks. has more ASI than monk, has access to better weapons and armor (read magic ones) and isn't MAD, and this without counting subclasses because many from rogue are actually pretty good. Cunning action also doesn't spend limited resource so you could be enterering and exiting combat without affecting your principal source of damage, which btw thanks to more ASI, less MAD and sneak attack is going to be higher than monk's
Monk meanwhile has bad access to ranged weapons, wouldn't benefit from SS or Crossbow expert, in fact why would you want those feats? you're hard pressed to spend all your ASI rising Dex/Wis/Con because you can't even use a shield or armor in case of having mediocre stats. You need to constantly pump ki on any action to not fall behind everybody else and yet you're still behind all martials even when you pump ki like a madman
I srly feel like rogue is a better skirmisher than monk
that's because rogue IS a better skirmisher than monk, since rogues
>don't have to blow both a bonus action and a class resource to do their damage mechanic
>can do their damage mechanic with ranged weapons and thus don't desperately need to make up for a limp hit die
>can use shields and armor to up AC so the limp hit die isn't as big a deal
>also come with a lot of mobility options in case having workable ranged access and shields+armor wasn't already enough to mitigate your limp hit die
>has access to better weapons and armor (read magic ones)
Monks can use magic weapons.
>Cunning action also doesn't spend limited resource so you could be enterering and exiting combat without affecting your principal source of damage
If Rogues are using Cunning action to Dash or Disengage they are giving up damage because they aren't using Hide or Steady Aim to get advantage. And Disengage is worse on a Rogue because they don't get increased movement speed. Disengage becomes a lot weaker if the enemies that were in melee with you can just walk up 30ft and still bash you.
>Monk meanwhile has bad access to ranged weapons, wouldn't benefit from SS or Crossbow expert, in fact why would you want those feats?
You can start with a feat if you are a human. No need to mess up your ASIs. You can also take a single level in Fighter to get archery. This is what the highest personal damage Monks do. You not needing CBE is a good thing and SS is mostly used with a d6 weapon (hand crossbow) anyways. Monk is meeting that instantly with a shortbow and exceeding it later.
>You need to constantly pump ki on any action to not fall behind everybody else and yet you're still behind all martials even when you pump ki like a madman
You are only falling behind if you are trying to be a personal DPR machine.
>I srly feel like rogue is a better skirmisher than monk
Rogue is a safer skirmisher but not necessarily better. They have to give up damage to skirmish as has already been said. Monk is riskier but stunning something is a better payout than sneak attacking something, I would say, but really they fulfill different niches and actually compliment one another (damage vs control).
There are some Monk subclasses that excel at skirmishing but Mobile exists and singlehandedly makes Monk the best skirmisher with a base speed being close to a dash and no opp attacks with the ability to cripple enemies (without having to give anything up to skirmish).
>Disengage becomes a lot weaker if the enemies that were in melee with you can just walk up 30ft and still bash you.
> but Mobile exists and singlehandedly makes Monk the best skirmisher
so take it on a rogue with their more numerous ASIs and single attribute dependency
>Monks can use magic weapons.
And? who said they can't? I sad rogue has access to better weapons and armor, and therefore better magic weapons and magic armor
Also monk only benefits 50% of their attacks with magic weapons and most of the subclasses give features to flurry meaning you can't use magic weapons with them
>Rogue is a safer skirmisher but not necessarily better. They have to give up damage to skirmish
Black person just park the fighter next to whoever you're trying to hit and as long as you don't have disadv you deal your full damage
>He doesn't know that accuracy affects damage output.
Looks like you're the Black person in this equation my tawny friend.
Berserker Barbarian is worst in 5e, objectively. No one else has a "feature" that can just make you just suck for multiple sessions or straight up kill you if you try to use it.
>There are spells that can kill you for using them!
Spells aren't features, the ones that can are all WAY more powerful than a bonus action attack, and you can select other spells if you don't like it
>You can select another subclass too
And everyone does.
No that anon but I think we can all compromise and agree that 4e Monk and Berserker Barb are on the same dogshit tier.
Tell me you never played 5e as intended. No one does, so can't blame you there. But if you actually tried, maybe ending on no or a short rest, you'd actually see the full potential and the risks of a lot of these classes. It wasn't designed for you 2 hour gamers. It was designed for the 3.x grog that would play it all day in the basement. But that's not who picked it up. I kinda wished D&DOne would changed that, rebalanced shit. It didn't and won't. So Monks will forever suck and Warlocks will forever be one trick ponies.
5e monks are even worse playing as intended.
Maybe WoTC should have designed their game to better suit the players? It's not like dnd has a small player base
I'm doing my best to avoid worthlessness in my game, as that goes against the spirit of it, but I'd have to say the Alchemy Ability in the hands of someone who never buys, finds, or makes any Items. If you just unlock the Ability and never use it, that's pretty worthless, but there are numerous other options to choose from instead of picking an Ability you won't use.
Funnily enough, in my heartbreaker the Apothecary perk is the most situational like that as well. A complete waste of advancement points if you don't engage in downtime play but an actual gamechanger if you do.
Player.
Rogues that spec for combat
>edge of the empire
>scholar skill tree
It just makes you slightly better at knowledge checks, it requires a very proactive player and a knowledgeable DM to make any use of
BEHOLD THE MOST USELESS AND UNDERPOWERED UNIT IN ALL OF WARHAMMER
Huge points sink. One of my regular opponents runs O&G and he has never found a good use for it. It’s fricked that in an army where almost everything works by just “point it in the right direction and giggle” it somehow can’t even do that.
Its a tragedy. Its a great looking centerpiece too
It was pretty good in Warhammer. Shame AoS is barely a shadow of its former glory in any regard.
Not really? The game's more balanced than 40k currently is Granted that's not hard and likely moreso than FB was after 6th. Having a rules team that actually seems to care definitely helps too.
These things actually have a niche in AoS, where the four different loadouts are different units with specific rules, and one is actually battleline meaning if you wanted you could run a list that has like eight of the damn things if you wanted.
They are overshadowed by the rest of the book they're in, but GSG is just generally good right now. Also I don't care how good it is, the fact that you can deep strike with one of these things and 30 fricking spider riders is hilarious
Will own it someday for the fun of modeling it and prestige of what I think I can I can do painting it. I really want to get a PLAYABLE army first though.
Kek I routinely forget about this thing, has been useless for 10 years straight now
Us Guard have a wall that can fail a battle shock test
Could have just given us a cool command bunker instead we just got a shitty wall
Aside from this obviously being a stupid oversight because James is an idiot, I do like the idea of terrain having to pass tests over some kind.
>Yes, your trench line did protect most of your troops from the bombardment, but it's so fricked up you get reduced cover values.
>The barricades broke before the Guard did
>barricade as HP
but you can also order it to gain an OC value so it balances out.
too bad its overcosted to hell
Someday flyers won't be useless and then this thing will then not be useless any day now I'm sure of it! Just wait until a few more editions trust me
Ugly dumb "obelisk" scum.
Monolith one love.
cool terrain
It was rather cool in vidya.
Truenamer. No need to even mention the game
Though actually, I suppose the PrCs that are for Truenamer are slightly more useless given you need to be a truenamer to go into them
for all the rightful complaints about lack of testing during the williams era, TSR at the very least managed to not frick up so bad as to create a class that performs worse as you level up
As DM it's my duty to try and make sure all players are having fun, and as such a "worst class" has more to do with my quest/encounter design than anything else. That said, the guy playing Monk has had the worst streak of bad rolls I've seen in a long time. And the last time it happened it was because the dice were cursed.
No, wrong, you don't bend the world over to accommodate subpar classes, you give them personal boons to offset their weaknesses.
>Just jump through hoops to entertain a bunch of entitled children like a dancing monkey
No. I make the game, give you some pointers in chargen and then you're on your own, make the best in interacting with all the wolds moving parts using what you have.
I used to go for players who were "into rp" because I wanted a "serious game" and whatever, and they always treated me like shit, but you know what? It's my beer and pretzels stoner friends who have outright told me that they respect my game more than others because it's fun to know they could actually die if they don't try, and also don't take it so seriously that they'll get upset with me as a person if they do die. Took me like a year to accept that I am having way more fun this way. I can't wait to run tomorrow. B/X hack if anyone's curious.
Modern GMing in a nutshell.
Ego-stroke and power-wank your players instead of expecting them rub two brain cells together.
i strongly believe this was written by a bot or ai, but i'll reply so others can find an answer maybe. If you're a new dm and can't balance your encounters, buy pre written adventures until you get experienced enough to know what works and what not before its in the table. All the classes work fine unless the PLAYER and not the dm is moronic. That said, player moronation is based in many factors starting with the setting and tone of the campaign. Most often shitbrains pick a character with no hope of fitting in your game, then you explain it to them and YOU set the tone. I wouldn't allow them in the game if they didnt change, but i see more often than not dms accepting them and then having to deal with all the crying.
>had the worst streak bc the dice were cursed
i wonder if you understand any of the game rules to play it at all, if you can't even understand how dice work. Anyway, dms are morons for completely different reasons from players, a character beeing weak or irrelevant is 99% the player's fault.
>1985+38
>Still playing class-based games
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
What do you suggest as an alternative? A point-buy system like Mutants & Masterminds, or True20? A narrative system where players choose "backgrounds" and "skillsets" to define their abilities?
Any wilderness survival-based ones since we're in an urban environment 90% of the time
Thief, followed closely by fighter.
Aspected Magician in Shadowrun. Alchemy aspect in particular.
It's literally just a mage with an arbitrary limitation to only use 1/3rd of a mages abilities.
Has anyone ever broke this card? Even in edh?
It actually has a bunch of niche uses, especially around cards that want you to have fewer cards in hand than the opponent, have a graveyard full of a bunch of reanimation targets, reach threshold by filling the graveyard, discard cards to activate madness abilities, or have an empty hand for hell-bent abilities.
No card is completely useless because no card is played in a vacuum. But a truly bad card is something like pic related.
>part of the Squid of Sorrows combo
>bad
lol, as if, here's what a REAL shit card looks like
That card is bad but a creature with power and toughness that can attack and block will never be as terrible as some mtg cards will be.
Not only that but it has easily triggered discard at instant speed, honestly there are much worse cards. This motherfricker on the other hand costs 4 mana and requires you tosacrifice untapped forests, meaning that you have to pay a total of 8 mana (4 of which is permanently gone) to get a vanilla 4/4. This Black person is literally jus a walking drawback.
Sorrow's Path is substantially better than One With Nothing because Path at least can be used in jank combos that involve donating it to your opponent. No one has figured out an actual use for OWN yet.
There are better cards.
Neither pitches to Grief.
Its in black
Black has creature recursion but no good way to dump their own cards into the grave
>in your tabletop game?
>your game
Currently its probably being classless, not that thats unviable
The hatchetman from battletech. It's centered around melee combat, but it's slow and has rather thin armor. And the eponymous hatchet doesn't even do much damage, so it cannot catch what it is able to damage and it's too squishy to kill what it can catch
That or the mauler, which spends 24 tons on weapons that deal a collective 8 damage (even less than that hatchet) and doesn't have enough heat sinks to contunuousley fire it's main guns. Also it packs it's torsos so full of ammunition that a lucky sneeze will send it sky high
Anyone who says the charger is useless is dead wrong, I once had my berserker's head kicked in by one
It's got AA-targeting. You are supposed to clear the air space on your way down from orbit.
hatchetman is a cheap ac10 platform who can whack a bug or something that tries to start shit, not a melee brawler
>Dr. Banzai, what energy are we going for with this Hatchet man design?
"Modern Man's struggle."
>CLAN'S LIFE
>FREEBIRTHS RIP MY MECH
9/10 cc weapons in battletech are invalidated by kicking being so op. I love the game but if there was one thing I could change it would be kicking rules
Hatchets do the same damage as a kick no?
Same damage, but harder to hit, doesn't force a piloting roll, and if you have any other weapons in that arm you can't fire them that turn.
Plus you've had to dedicate tonnage and critical slots towards doing the same damage any mech can do for free.
The Hacker archetype in every cyberpunk/sci-fi game.
It's not that they can't accomplish things or even do them well. It's that they always take ten times as long in real-time to accomplish anything and have their own subsystems that the rest of the group is not allowed to interact with in any way and it's such a slog to wait for them that it's literally not worth the time to let them exist. On any system. It's universally, mechanically awful. It should exclusively be in the domain of NPCs where that shit can be narratively handwaved.
>t. Some room temperature IQ solo
Light mortars in Bolt Action.
They take forever to have decent chances to hit.
If/when they hit, they don't do much damage.
They don't shoot any further than regular infantry rifles.
They need a direct line of sight, can't shoot at coordinates. (the enemy riflemen get a direct line of sight, too)
They lose their zero as soon as they move, which they'll have to do often if they don't want to be quickly targeted by the enemy.
If you get one of them, you can't get a good mortar (read: one that's heavier and can have a spotter)
Meanwhile, real life light mortars are one of the best infantry weapons out there, especially back in WW2.
At least, they're a threat to infantry units when used en masse in Japanese or Belgian infantry squads.
This or the MMG team, which is a flavor fail. Light mortars locking you out of heavier mortars is objectively dumb considering how common they were. My US light mortars are more expensive and come with an extra guy so they lose the small team bonus, why does this exist when a medium is ten points more? Why can I take 3 MMG teams per platoon it that's 150 points spent on dumb bullshit? 150 gets me a Stuart with, get this, a hull and coaxial and pintle MMG and a light AT gun AND it won't get its butthole blown out by a sniper team.
I love the game but some of this stuff needs another pass. Don't get me started on Soviet fanatics, that didn't need to happen.
PF2 Summoner
Have they still not fixed the way that class gets fricked by a ruin economy?
I haven't looked at PF2e since the magis launch.
Nah Summoner's pretty good, the real ass class in that game is witch.
I hear PF has the opposite martial/caster divide that D&D has and the casters are all bad. How is that even possible? Do linear fighters and quadratic wizards not exist there?
Keep in mind that most of the complaints are hyperbolic or come from people mad that they balanced the class around the assumption that you'd be playing god wizard type builds.
1. Fighter is one of the most overtuned classes I've ever seen while not being capital B broken. This means that the basic b***h braindead whiteroom builds theyre compaing stuff to is quite literally the best class in the game.
2. Caster utility got nerfed quite a bit by incapacitation and targeted spell nerfs. While skills got buffed all around.
3. It is theoretically possible to poach a good deal of a casters utility with rituals/ Multiclassing, in pratice good luck trying to fit in good int on any martial worth a damn.
4. Casters scale slower than martials proficiency wise and have no +x meaning that their are several level ranges where spells are noticibly worst than strikes, doubly so if you arent building to compensate.
It's mainly because PF2 nerfed most of the spells. The best spells are buffs for martials, so that adds to the gap. Of course, the martials are overtuned in some ways but obviously not having any good offensive or utility spells is the reason casters feel weak.
>not having any good offensive or utility spells is the reason casters feel weak
What is the point of a class that has no offense, defense, or utility?
Other poster is the type of idiot
was talking about.
Spellcasters in PF2 are balanced around the idea of the party working together instead of players being able to do everything themselves. Spellcaster classes are made to support the party through AOE damage against groups of weaker enemies, debuffing strong targets, and buffing the melee classes. Melee classes on the other hand are designed for high accuracy single target abilities, whether those are focused on debuffing targets through skill checks or straight up damage.
In PF2 the best Wizard against a single target is the one supporting a Fighter and the best Fighter against a group is the one protecting a Wizard.
Nah, casters are just misunderstood. You need the mindset of being a support rather than a damage dealer.
>Most worthless [...] unit in your tabletop game?
BS4+
Monk
IMO its probably Media, for Cyberpunk 2020. Its the one role which I've seen get very little attention, and it appears to have minimal power compared to the other options.
In terms of "social" or "leadership" roles, Corpo Fixer and Rockerboy are all vastly superior to media's softer influence.
In comparison to providing an essential service to a party, Tech, Medtech, and Netrunners are all vastly superior to the soft influence that a media provides.
In comparison combat wise, Cop, Nomad, and especially Solo are all vastly superior to the media.
Am I just playing it wrong? I just can't think of a situation where I'd want a media over any of the other roles.
Step aside magicucks a Yugioh Chad is in the thread.
>implying
Scribes. They have the ability to read and write.