Are Casters 'still' way better than noncasters after level 6?

Hmm...Shapechange....yes.....well, whether or not it was the ultimate spell of doom depended (IMO) upon which of the 30 versions of it WotC errata'd over the life of 3E. In some instances it was worse or better than others.

Personally, a simple fix I implemented was ruling that my players couldn't have a spellcaster just go shopping through the MM to pick the best form. I just ruled that they were only able to turn into creatures they had personally seen. That tended to reduce the forms selected by a fair amount.
On this, I am fairly similar although I do allow research which pretty much opens everything up (similar for gate too). Even with these restrictions, I still found it was too abusable.

Mirror Image I didn't mind. It didn't help against AoE attacks, and *did* give the Wizard some protection against melee attacks.
It stops the wizard being targetted by the nasty high level stuff. They have to be sprayed with attacks first which was not always easy if they were flying or other evasive some such. Area effects could trim up hit points but that means that the wizard gets a free shot at the magic caster (usually killing/mazing them).

Frankly with 1d4hp/lvl, and no armour, wizards were very vulnerable to fighters. If those magical defenses got taken down, or wore off or whatever, a Wizard (even high level) was one good hit away from -10 hp.
Thats the thing though. Wearing away those defences is very very difficult. They don't just wear off any time soon.

Given that I didn't use the whole "go nuke, then camp" paradigm, the Wizard had to ration out his abilities over the day. If they *did* go nuke and then camp, they usually got attacked while sleeping, and oftentimes the beaten up party would end up worse off than before they started resting.
At high level, you can literally ignore the DM trying to do this. You can reasonably interrupt their resting but if they NEED to rest, then they can usually find a way of doing it that if the DM does try to interrupt them, will just be the DM metagaming and waving around the DM mallet of doom as I call it. Sometimes, you just have to respect the power level of the party and that they can rest when they want, go where they want and pretty much kill anything they want. To challenge a party of this level in combat is very difficult. You either just end up challenging the fighter-types or killing them if you up the challenge to match it with the wizard. Such is the tightripe I was describing in previous posts.

I tended to enforce everything from running out of food, to sleeping without armor on in order to get a proper rest. And if they decided to camp, and didn't get interrupted, well, the NPCs weren't twiddling their thumbs either.
This is fine at lower levels. At higher levels, they crawl out of their Magical Mansions to dine on the Cleric's best Heroes Feast. Again, when the party has ready access to these things, you just have to accept that you can't challenge them as you once did.

For every statement about the party wizard being able to determine the rules of engagement and when the fight would occur.....well, the NPC villains could do the same thing. If they had Outsiders, or a Wizard themselves, they would just reverse those tactics on the PC.
But you can't have every enemy they face having access to that sort of stuff. The monsters will do the best they can but when it comes to ambushing, the PCs are going to be doing it more so than the bad guys.

Or just go ahead and off the princess or something....and then the King would hear from some bystander/witness (maybe a plant, by the NPCs, disguised as an innocent), that they fled the fortress or whatever, and left the princess to die, because they seemed to want to limit their risk.
And then they came back and ressurected her when they were at full power and so the King was happy again. If charged with cowardice in the first place, they would simply answer that if they were dead, the Princess would not be coming back at all. If the King pushed the matter, he'd then end up with a very expensive bill from the party or just simply being replaced if he was that ungrateful.

Even ones like Moment of Prescience are limited. It's a bonus with a long duration...but it's expended as soon as you use it...once. So, it's an 8th level spell that's effectively "protection from death". How many games take place where there's only once in the adventure that the party faces death?
In high level combat, it is fairly easy to be killed and killed quickly. Most combats barely last a couple of rounds. Moment of Prescience is a guaranteed "you lost a round DM'. It does not have to be used - and in fact it almost becomes a game to get the wizard to use it up on a slightly lesser magic so they can't on the big one. (and that is of course once you have got through spell turning too).
In a "fair" encounter, you are not going to be able to target a wizard that many times with nasty stuff. This spell is the key to surviving more often than not - and most wizards I have played or DMed against will have a few scrolls of this just in case.

Spell Resistance was excellent......but it basically had to be used shortly before the big battle...otherwise it would wear off while you're getting there.
You would load this one on before heading off to ambush the bad guys. It's like a blur against magic which is incredibly handy.

Mind Blank was definitely useful. But it wouldn't do much against most damaging spells......nor would it stand up to Greater Dispel Magic or Disjunction.
If the opposing mage is using up valuable time with GDM, they're not killing the wizard. If you can have creatures that have a GDM effect then cool, you are going to make the wizard feel a little heat as the opposing wizard takes advantage. As for Disjunction, not many things have access to this and if they do, then nobody has much fun. I think almost by passive agreement, my group limits the use of this - kind of like antimagic. It's there though and it has its place. It just does not come up that often.

As for Mind Blank, it is a blanket protection versus enchantments (which in a world of Feebleminds is huge). It also protects the mage versus scrying and so many other little things at the cost of an 8th level spell slot. Key spell.

Spell Turning was great, as long as you were facing targeted spell effects, and not AoE effects.
But this is the thing, area of effect things generally don't kill the wizard, even if maximized. They normally have some sort of resistance to the energy type (particularly if they are ambushing). All the good stuff is generally targetted. And I think in this you are missing the point. Put altogether, you have a really difficult series of barriers to get through - and you can't have every combat being about getting through the wizard's defences. As such, they become incredibly dangerous and "unkillable" in regular, standard encounters. If you have had to DM through this, you would see what I mean when I say that your prep becmoes completely warped by what the wizard can do. To challenge the party as a whole is so incredibly difficult.

Again, it sounds like we had different paradigms for our game. I tended to have a bit of a gritty feel to my games, and the feel that events were going on around the PCs, regardless of what they did....and sometimes as a consequence of what they chose to do or not do. Enemies didn't stand still and wait in their 10x10 room for someone to come kill them. They might scry on the party, and if they couldn't see the wizard, they might still see the fighter, for instance.
This if fine at lower levels, but at higher levels the game changes. What the PCs can do is completely different. This is where the grittiness of a game generally ends as the PCs don't have to worry about this stuff any more. Admittedly, this is as much a product of the DM embracing the rule set, rather than trying to restrict and limit teleportation and all the other stuff that the PCs at high level can do. If you go with the rules as written, this is the type of game you end up with. Not everyone's cup of tea, nor is it easy in terms of preparation, and nor is it easy to make it enjoyable and challenging. High level DMing becomes an art unto itself.

Or, without scrying, they might have something simple.....like the opposing wizard has a crow familiar. The PCs would have to have a reason to be trying to spot a single crow out of a flock of 50 of them sitting in a group of trees (for instance). And even if they did notice the crows, do they know that one of them is a familiar? How do they tell it apart from the others? Does it have a name tag?
No when the wizard Meteor Storms the murder of crows because the rogue or cleric made a DC 50 check that "something was a little fishy about that flock of crows following us", and they all get fried to ash except for the singed one in the middle, THAT is as good as a name tag. And something that the rogue will then put a series of arrows into, generally killing it. Unfortunately, once you get to certain levels, familiars just become easy targets.

I'm fairly familiar with high level play. Frankly, in my campaign, the Wizard ended up being overshadowed by the druid. And the rogue and fighter made a great tandem. The wizard was great, but his defenses were by no means invulnerable to the barbarian's critical hits, for instance.
If the enemy barbarian is getting a chance at hitting the wizard, the fighter is NOT doing his job right. The other party members have to do something! Druid's are very powerful in the effects they can produce, particularly against multiple targets and at range too. But they don't have the all round utility of a wizard, nor the wizard's complete array of defenses.

Oftentimes, defenses would get used up against a wave of minions who might flood the PCs, before a more deadly encounter.
If mooks are using up a wizards primary defenses, then the wizard's player ain't doing it right.

Then, they'd be rebuffing, have an even lower selection of spells to choose from, and come across a fighter or something who'd get a good hit in on the Wizard, and the Wizard's 60 hp would be taken down to 4 in a single good hit, and now he'd be so busy trying to get distance between himself and the sword swinger that all his tactics were purely defensive.
So if the party fighter fails and the wizard gets targetted - remembering of course this is the classic case where the fighter looks at the mirror images and starts guessing, there is a chance that the melee enemy might get a lucky shot in. But again, look at the other defenses the wizard might have such as stoneskin, moment of prescience and so on. It is just not that easy to do.

And yes, he could teleport away......which, since it was happening while he was trying to save his own skin, would mean he abandoned the rest of the party, which is effectively the same as having been killed, with respect to the effects it has on the rest of the party.
Time stop is the wizards ultimate friend in this regard along with Gate or even conventional summoning. He doesn't teleport away, he teleports next to the party cleric who's ready with a heal spell if he's in that bad a way. OR he flies into the air if such will put easy distance between him and a non-flying melee enemy. Surely you've seen this all before. Unless you specifically go out of your way to do it as a DM, getting to kill the party wizard just does not happen at high level.

As to things like Disjunction, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It was yet one more tactic enemies could use.
Mordenkainen's Disjunction does not grow on trees. And I disagree with you with this. A DM who gets too joy-happy with Disjunction will generally find their players losing interest as hard fought for or crafted MIs get destroyed. Again, I think for high level play to be fun on both sides of the screen, I think you almost need to have a gentleman's agreement on this one. I very very rarely go anywhere near using this spell against PCs and if I do, the PCs will generally have worked it out beforehand and be expecting it as part of the challenge. YMMV.

I also tended to use item saving throws, so if a character failed a save and survived (or even failed a save and died, but planned on being resurrected), plan on losing some of your magic goodies.
On a 1, yes things have to make saves. Doing more than this would seem a little unfair.

And Wish? At 5000xp per casting, it wasn't used that often. The Wizard didn't really want to end up entire levels behind the rest of the party after casting a few spells.
It used to go with the territory along with Gate. As the party wizard, you just accepted that this was a part of things in 3.x. In Pathfinder of course, the pain gets spread around in terms of diamonds.

I'll admit I likely haven't run as many high level campaigns. We had one that got into high levels. The rest were in mid levels.
And that's cool. The main reason why groups don't go to higher levels is because it places a huge demand on the DM in terms of rules knowledge, and preparation time. As well, the differences between casters and non-caster becomes increasingly pronounced in terms of power level. Pathfinder addresses this but the differences are still there. This means that it becomes less fun for some players and less fun for DMs planning things to challenge the PCs.

Sounds like our games were just very different. I'm not going to say one approach is better than the other. I'm just saying, in my experience, the tactics you're talking about did not result in wizards being unkillable.
Actually our games sound very similar! At lower levels, this is exactly how things pan out. I prefer a grittier feel but as I mentioned above, by 11th level, the wizard starts getting signigicantly more powerful than the non-casters. By 15 level, the style of the game changes and by 19th level, you have the issues that I have mentioned in this thread where the wizard becomes unkillable unless his death is programmed by the DM. The tactics I mentioned above DO result in this. Seriously try DMing against it and you will see exactly what I mean.

And adding 3rd party material into the game just magnified this fact. Yes, there were spells that could make wizards even more unkillable.....but there were also spells and feats that made others even better at turning wizards into fertilizer. Laced spells that could dispel a wizard's protection from fire spell, even while hitting him with a fireball, throwing an antimagic shell onto the BBEG's antipaladin henchman, and sending him after the wizard (how good are those defensive wards now?).
And the rest of the PCs are just going to stand around and let this happen? I prefer to limit extra stuff and in my Pathfinder games, I have stuck to core only. Antimagic is a good way of scaring a wizard and it will work. But you can't have every combat utilizing anti-magic. Flying works very nicely against your tactic by the way.

I tended not to rely only on single enemies against the party either. Very often I used the rules for combined CR's when building encounters, so instead of fighting one CR 15 guy, they might be fighting 2 CR 10's, 4 CR 9's, and 6 CR 7's in a single fight for instance. It is correct that none of those would be a match for a party on their own, but in a group? It was all about grinding down PC resources.
Confusion, rinse repeat at range while the rest of the party do their thing. If something survives that, then you might let loose a more powerful spell but a good wizard will know when to use the big stuff and when not to. Unless you have something that is an immediate threat to the wizard, they will dominate, or the group will bug out, buff up and head back and destroy the enemy through superior planning.

Then, after 2-3 fights like that, *then* they would hit the CR 15 baddy. But at that point, they'd already all be hurting, the cleric is burning through all his utility spells (thus lessening his ability to do anything other than heal) just channeling energy to heal the party, the fighter's at 70% of his normal hp total, the wizard is missing half his spells and he is at 60% of his hp (which might only mean he has 35 left), etc.
Unless the PCs have to (that DM mallet of doom again), they will rest up if their Cleric and Wizard can't protect them. Besides, when the PCs have control over where they are spacially (greater teleport), and they know who there enemy is (thank you cleric), then you don't get to ram all your beastie's at them. They normally just go straight to the BBEG. As a high level DM you get used to planning stuff that simply never gets within coo-ee of the PCs.

But, they couldn't stop to rest, because they knew that the BBEG planned to sacrifice the princess to Gozor or whatever.......so they didn't have enough time to rest and get their spells back before going into that final battle. Sometimes the PCs made it through, and sometimes half of them were dead but the rest survived, and other times they had to flee, and failed their quests. But everyone had a good time. My players tended to point out that they liked that they didn't feel like anything was getting handed to them.

Banshee
Again at higher levels the game changes. With ready access to multiple 9th level spells and the sea of spells below that, the wizard is in a different sphere power-wise to the rest of the party. The trend starts happening at about 11th level, is obvious at 15th level and is par for the course after that. That is the point of this thread and my input in regards to my own experiences playing and DMing high level adventures. What makes a game fun is up to the DM and the players and for most, this fun is in the 6 to 11 sweetspot. If you are willing to embrace the ruleset for high level play, there is also fun to be had but is more difficult to orchestrate in terms of DMing. It is not for everyone and that is perfectly fine. I can certainly understand why most groups press the Campaign Refresh button when they start hitting levels 15 and above.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 

log in or register to remove this ad

On this, I am fairly similar although I do allow research which pretty much opens everything up (similar for gate too). Even with these restrictions, I still found it was too abusable.

It stops the wizard being targetted by the nasty high level stuff. They have to be sprayed with attacks first which was not always easy if they were flying or other evasive some such. Area effects could trim up hit points but that means that the wizard gets a free shot at the magic caster (usually killing/mazing them).

Thats the thing though. Wearing away those defences is very very difficult. They don't just wear off any time soon.

At high level, you can literally ignore the DM trying to do this. You can reasonably interrupt their resting but if they NEED to rest, then they can usually find a way of doing it that if the DM does try to interrupt them, will just be the DM metagaming and waving around the DM mallet of doom as I call it. Sometimes, you just have to respect the power level of the party and that they can rest when they want, go where they want and pretty much kill anything they want. To challenge a party of this level in combat is very difficult. You either just end up challenging the fighter-types or killing them if you up the challenge to match it with the wizard. Such is the tightripe I was describing in previous posts.

This is fine at lower levels. At higher levels, they crawl out of their Magical Mansions to dine on the Cleric's best Heroes Feast. Again, when the party has ready access to these things, you just have to accept that you can't challenge them as you once did.

But you can't have every enemy they face having access to that sort of stuff. The monsters will do the best they can but when it comes to ambushing, the PCs are going to be doing it more so than the bad guys.

And then they came back and ressurected her when they were at full power and so the King was happy again. If charged with cowardice in the first place, they would simply answer that if they were dead, the Princess would not be coming back at all. If the King pushed the matter, he'd then end up with a very expensive bill from the party or just simply being replaced if he was that ungrateful.

In high level combat, it is fairly easy to be killed and killed quickly. Most combats barely last a couple of rounds. Moment of Prescience is a guaranteed "you lost a round DM'. It does not have to be used - and in fact it almost becomes a game to get the wizard to use it up on a slightly lesser magic so they can't on the big one. (and that is of course once you have got through spell turning too).
In a "fair" encounter, you are not going to be able to target a wizard that many times with nasty stuff. This spell is the key to surviving more often than not - and most wizards I have played or DMed against will have a few scrolls of this just in case.

You would load this one on before heading off to ambush the bad guys. It's like a blur against magic which is incredibly handy.

If the opposing mage is using up valuable time with GDM, they're not killing the wizard. If you can have creatures that have a GDM effect then cool, you are going to make the wizard feel a little heat as the opposing wizard takes advantage. As for Disjunction, not many things have access to this and if they do, then nobody has much fun. I think almost by passive agreement, my group limits the use of this - kind of like antimagic. It's there though and it has its place. It just does not come up that often.

As for Mind Blank, it is a blanket protection versus enchantments (which in a world of Feebleminds is huge). It also protects the mage versus scrying and so many other little things at the cost of an 8th level spell slot. Key spell.

But this is the thing, area of effect things generally don't kill the wizard, even if maximized. They normally have some sort of resistance to the energy type (particularly if they are ambushing). All the good stuff is generally targetted. And I think in this you are missing the point. Put altogether, you have a really difficult series of barriers to get through - and you can't have every combat being about getting through the wizard's defences. As such, they become incredibly dangerous and "unkillable" in regular, standard encounters. If you have had to DM through this, you would see what I mean when I say that your prep becmoes completely warped by what the wizard can do. To challenge the party as a whole is so incredibly difficult.

This if fine at lower levels, but at higher levels the game changes. What the PCs can do is completely different. This is where the grittiness of a game generally ends as the PCs don't have to worry about this stuff any more. Admittedly, this is as much a product of the DM embracing the rule set, rather than trying to restrict and limit teleportation and all the other stuff that the PCs at high level can do. If you go with the rules as written, this is the type of game you end up with. Not everyone's cup of tea, nor is it easy in terms of preparation, and nor is it easy to make it enjoyable and challenging. High level DMing becomes an art unto itself.

No when the wizard Meteor Storms the murder of crows because the rogue or cleric made a DC 50 check that "something was a little fishy about that flock of crows following us", and they all get fried to ash except for the singed one in the middle, THAT is as good as a name tag. And something that the rogue will then put a series of arrows into, generally killing it. Unfortunately, once you get to certain levels, familiars just become easy targets.

If the enemy barbarian is getting a chance at hitting the wizard, the fighter is NOT doing his job right. The other party members have to do something! Druid's are very powerful in the effects they can produce, particularly against multiple targets and at range too. But they don't have the all round utility of a wizard, nor the wizard's complete array of defenses.

If mooks are using up a wizards primary defenses, then the wizard's player ain't doing it right.

So if the party fighter fails and the wizard gets targetted - remembering of course this is the classic case where the fighter looks at the mirror images and starts guessing, there is a chance that the melee enemy might get a lucky shot in. But again, look at the other defenses the wizard might have such as stoneskin, moment of prescience and so on. It is just not that easy to do.

Time stop is the wizards ultimate friend in this regard along with Gate or even conventional summoning. He doesn't teleport away, he teleports next to the party cleric who's ready with a heal spell if he's in that bad a way. OR he flies into the air if such will put easy distance between him and a non-flying melee enemy. Surely you've seen this all before. Unless you specifically go out of your way to do it as a DM, getting to kill the party wizard just does not happen at high level.

Mordenkainen's Disjunction does not grow on trees. And I disagree with you with this. A DM who gets too joy-happy with Disjunction will generally find their players losing interest as hard fought for or crafted MIs get destroyed. Again, I think for high level play to be fun on both sides of the screen, I think you almost need to have a gentleman's agreement on this one. I very very rarely go anywhere near using this spell against PCs and if I do, the PCs will generally have worked it out beforehand and be expecting it as part of the challenge. YMMV.

On a 1, yes things have to make saves. Doing more than this would seem a little unfair.

It used to go with the territory along with Gate. As the party wizard, you just accepted that this was a part of things in 3.x. In Pathfinder of course, the pain gets spread around in terms of diamonds.

And that's cool. The main reason why groups don't go to higher levels is because it places a huge demand on the DM in terms of rules knowledge, and preparation time. As well, the differences between casters and non-caster becomes increasingly pronounced in terms of power level. Pathfinder addresses this but the differences are still there. This means that it becomes less fun for some players and less fun for DMs planning things to challenge the PCs.

Actually our games sound very similar! At lower levels, this is exactly how things pan out. I prefer a grittier feel but as I mentioned above, by 11th level, the wizard starts getting signigicantly more powerful than the non-casters. By 15 level, the style of the game changes and by 19th level, you have the issues that I have mentioned in this thread where the wizard becomes unkillable unless his death is programmed by the DM. The tactics I mentioned above DO result in this. Seriously try DMing against it and you will see exactly what I mean.

And the rest of the PCs are just going to stand around and let this happen? I prefer to limit extra stuff and in my Pathfinder games, I have stuck to core only. Antimagic is a good way of scaring a wizard and it will work. But you can't have every combat utilizing anti-magic. Flying works very nicely against your tactic by the way.

Confusion, rinse repeat at range while the rest of the party do their thing. If something survives that, then you might let loose a more powerful spell but a good wizard will know when to use the big stuff and when not to. Unless you have something that is an immediate threat to the wizard, they will dominate, or the group will bug out, buff up and head back and destroy the enemy through superior planning.

Unless the PCs have to (that DM mallet of doom again), they will rest up if their Cleric and Wizard can't protect them. Besides, when the PCs have control over where they are spacially (greater teleport), and they know who there enemy is (thank you cleric), then you don't get to ram all your beastie's at them. They normally just go straight to the BBEG. As a high level DM you get used to planning stuff that simply never gets within coo-ee of the PCs.

Again at higher levels the game changes. With ready access to multiple 9th level spells and the sea of spells below that, the wizard is in a different sphere power-wise to the rest of the party. The trend starts happening at about 11th level, is obvious at 15th level and is par for the course after that. That is the point of this thread and my input in regards to my own experiences playing and DMing high level adventures. What makes a game fun is up to the DM and the players and for most, this fun is in the 6 to 11 sweetspot. If you are willing to embrace the ruleset for high level play, there is also fun to be had but is more difficult to orchestrate in terms of DMing. It is not for everyone and that is perfectly fine. I can certainly understand why most groups press the Campaign Refresh button when they start hitting levels 15 and above.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I guess my players just weren't competent, because they definitely didn't use the exact tactics you have mentioned. None of this was a problem, as they used different selections of spells.

Reading these boards some days, it seems there is a segment of players who spend their time reading up on optimum tactics, and basically trying to figure out how to game the system, and then others who just want to have fun, and spend less time trying to make the perfect character. I guess I was blessed in that only one out of my five players was an optimizer.

In any case, all of the spells you've mentioned have their place. But the wizard at the end of the day has a limited number of spells, and for every mind blank he memorized, he had one less Horrid Wilting, for instance. And they weren't always tricked out to the nines in scrolls.

I'm not denying that wizards might be a problem in some groups at higher levels. What I'm saying is that other classes could be just as effective, in different ways, and the tactics that made the wizard better in one group might not work in another.

One of our characters was a monk who specialized in grappling for instance. That character was more of a nuisance in terms of ruining encounters than anyone in the group.

Then we had the experiment with the Vow of Poverty monk (Ew).

As DM, I gave villains every possible advantage where appropriate. If the BBEG had INT 24, he would have a lot of contingencies and backup plans in place, and would have the optimum selection of spells for facing the party, for instance. It's just kind of accepted that I'm not 24 INT myself, so in order to outthink characters that are supposed to have less INT, you give other advantages, like ensuring the villain had spells selected which would be beneficial against the party.

And things like Antimagic Shell? It's 6th lvl abjuration, so, though uncommon, it wouldn't be unheard of. And it gives a huge advantage to some classes like fighter/wizards. If the party is going to spam particular tactics, they'll get the same thing reversed on them. And if someone's going to say "well, yeah, the villains could do that, but the players would get frustrated" then I say "well, why would the villains *not* make use of the resources they have available? Why wouldn't they act in an intelligent fashion? ". Now......the villains weren't always intelligent. Some monsters just aren't that bright. But human opponents tended to be, and would use appropriate tactics.

In any case, I think we're beating a dead horse. Your argument relies upon tactics I never saw implemented in my games. Whether it is because my players weren't optimizers, didn't have enough skill with certain classes, preferred role over roll playing, or something else, I'm not sure. It doesn't invalidate the tactics you've mentioned. Simply establish that it didn't happen that way in my game, and I'd be willing to bet there are other games where it didn't happen that way either.

Banshee
 

Most of the 'there is no disparity' occurs at lower levels.

In almost every high level game I've been in, all 3.5 epic, not a single character in the party was single class. While some casters were multi-class casters, most of the martial classes were multi-classed with sorcerer or psionicist. With the second class serving as a means of self-buffing to become ultimate martial combatants - so the disparity blurs even more. The min/max tactics described above is being done by every party member, not just the casters alone.

If the party is allowed the single encounter for the day, then yeah, the caster goes nova and is dealing out almost a thousand points of damage over four rounds, while the martial ones are getting out somewhere around 600 points of damage in the same period.

Just as the 15 minute adventuring day is missing from my low level games, I don't do that in my high level games either. Most combats are preceded by the 'gate house' a previous difficult encounter intentionally placed before the evenings main encounter as a means of being a challenge, using up some resources, keeping the party form max HP, and using up some caster spells. When the primary combat takes place, the casters can't nova. They deal out 500 points of damage, while the melee guys are still dealing 600 points of damage.

So encounter for encounter martial players are causing the most damage on average. Mind you every player is tricked out in spell effects cast on them, appropriate magic items to self-buff, and min/maxed feat selections with multiclass abilities - so nobody is lacking in the ability to make themselves badass.

The very long post seems to indicate a party with a min/maxing caster and an uncreative majority of martial players who really need to think outside the box to gain the best benefits necessary to survive high level play. Its a disparity in system mastery not caster vs. martial characters.

GP
 

In any case, I think we're beating a dead horse. Your argument relies upon tactics I never saw implemented in my games. Whether it is because my players weren't optimizers, didn't have enough skill with certain classes, preferred role over roll playing, or something else, I'm not sure. It doesn't invalidate the tactics you've mentioned. Simply establish that it didn't happen that way in my game, and I'd be willing to bet there are other games where it didn't happen that way either.

Well, my players tried to optimize tactics quite often, but it ended up with a wizard absolutely killable and high level meleers reliable.

It all depends from how you design encounters and enemy counter measures. If the caster players swears to find any combo, the BBEG will do the same.

BUT the BBEG will have more resources, so it could start to be dire.
 

What makes a game fun is up to the DM and the players and for most, this fun is in the 6 to 11 sweetspot.

Not trying to be a twit and I'm sure you already know, but as I mentioned before, E6 solves a lot of problems. E6 is specifically designed to keep campaigns in that 6-11 sweet spot for their entire duration.

It isn't for everyone, unfortunately. I'm running an E6 game right now and I'd say 2 out of the 5 current players aren't into E6. <shrug>

I personally love it, and would love it as a player too.

- Ron ^*^

(It may be worth mentioning that I had privately decided to have this campaign end at level 12 before I read about E6 and got my players to try it; After running a previous game to level 16 or so I had decided I just had no interest in doing so again. I'm much in line with Herriman's way of thinking about what happens to campaign dynamics after level 12 or so.)
 
Last edited:

The very long post seems to indicate a party with a min/maxing caster and an uncreative majority of martial players who really need to think outside the box to gain the best benefits necessary to survive high level play. Its a disparity in system mastery not caster vs. martial characters.

GP

I would agree with this statement.

Banshee
 

I would agree with this statement.

Banshee

If that statement is so true, why is it always a full caster class that the min/maxer is playing? Why do we never hear about the min/maxing guy at the table playing a ranger, or a fighter, rogue, etc?

Why is the min/maxer in these cases always playing a full caster?

Could it be because min/maxers know how to min/max?

- Ron ^*^
 

If that statement is so true, why is it always a full caster class that the min/maxer is playing? Why do we never hear about the min/maxing guy at the table playing a ranger, or a fighter, rogue, etc?

Why is the min/maxer in these cases always playing a full caster?

Could it be because min/maxers know how to min/max?

- Ron ^*^

You say always like it's the natural choice in every game? I can only attest from what I saw in the games I have been in. We had min-maxers play a vow of poverty monk, a grappling monk, and a fighter, in different games. Never a single-classed wizard. We *had* a single classed wizard....but he wasn't run by the min-maxer. We also had a druid who wasn't run by a min-maxer, but nevertheless became one of the most powerful characters in the party.

Really, the only character that was a problem in terms of being so unbalanced against the rest of the party was the vow of poverty monk. I had to increase the challenge of encounters to such a degree, in order to challenge him, that the encounters were killing most of the rest of the party members.......actually, the single-classed wizard was killed by an encounter I'd beefed up in order to try and balance against the vow of poverty monk.

I would contest that min/maxers know how to min/max. But that there are many choices for how to do so....not just single-classed spellcaster. And that by no means is that the only choice for someone seeking to dominate the game.

Banshee
 

If that statement is so true, why is it always a full caster class that the min/maxer is playing? Why do we never hear about the min/maxing guy at the table playing a ranger, or a fighter, rogue, etc?

Why is the min/maxer in these cases always playing a full caster?
That is not the case.

Min/maxers have always been known to play all kinds of classes. 3e is no exception to that.
 

The very long post seems to indicate a party with a min/maxing caster and an uncreative majority of martial players who really need to think outside the box to gain the best benefits necessary to survive high level play. Its a disparity in system mastery not caster vs. martial characters.

To clarify. The wizards in question were not "optimized", or at least were not as far as I can tell. Once you reach high levels, it becomes natural for the wizard to look for spells that protect them - otherwise they die very easily. Mind blank, Moment of Prescience, Spell Turning, Spell Resistance and Mirror Image are all basic core defensive spells. Together they form a very difficult barrier to get through. If this is min/maxing then my understanding of the term (seeking every possible advantage to outweigh every possible disadvantage so as to be the most optimised in a focused area) must be off.

As for uncreative martial players, I think you are wrong here too. I have not even mentioned particular martial characters yet because they are out-powered by the wizard, you seem to think they are uncreative or not thinking outside the box. A little harsh in terms of judgment perhaps? Martial characters (even to the point of a tricked out monk) do not have the defensive capabilities of a well played but not necessarily optimised wizard.

You seem to equate damage capacity with power level which is something I disagree with. At high level, defensive capacity is the be all and end all, not how much damage you can achieve as such damage can be easily foiled. No point dishing out 600 points of damage if none of it counts - or even worse if such damage is unleashed upon your allies through being dominated. Martialists will generally have weaknesses that are far easier to "reasonably" be challenged than the wizards I mention.

This unfortunately is inherent in the system. It is the nature of magic to be very powerful and do things that non-magical characters simply cannot equal although as I have mentioned, Pathfinder has done an excellent job in improving the lot of the martialists. Unfortunately though, the gap at high levels still remains - such is my experience thus far with 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 

Remove ads

Top