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

[Banshee16]

Nothing was meant as an attack and I'm sorry if I came off that way.

No doubt if we played in each other's games we'd have a much better idea of where the other was coming from.

One question though -- I believe it has been established that in designing PF, one of Paizo's goals was to reign in the power level of casters somewhat (sometimes they did this by bumping up the power level of the martial classes, so it might be more accurate to say that they were trying to "close the gap" between the class types).

Is it your opinion that martial classes are OVERPOWERED in PF? And if not, how is can this be so if you felt they were balanced in 3.5?

- Ron ^*^

I think I've mentioned earlier in the thread that I haven't played Pathfinder yet. I want to run it, or play in a game....but I just haven't had an opportunity yet.

So I can't really say whether I feel martial classes are overpowered in the new game. I think everyone's been bumped up......fighters get some really useful abilities they didn't used to have.....but so do sorcerers and wizards. Frankly, I think the Pathfinder sorcerer absolutely rocks.

So, has more been added to the martial classes than was added to the spellcasters? I suppose I could sit down and do a chart to compare.

I *can* say that even in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5, things were balanced or changed that I questioned, as I hadn't had problems with. Polymorph Other, for example, is one I mentioned. The Hold spells were another sample. The paladin's poke-mount being another. Then there were good changes, like what they did with the ranger. But I didn't like the fact that you could no longer stack Keen properties on weapons, and the bonus from Improved Critical. Whether you're putting a holy enhancement on a sword, or flaming burst, it's still doing extra damage. Seemed like punishing those who took the feat.

So when they further followed that trend in Pathfinder, I just prayed they wouldn't go too far.....admittedly, other people might have had problems with things being fixed....but a lot didn't come up in our games. As I'd mentioned, we are more casual gamers. So the elements being changed might have been problems in some groups, but not all. I've been in enough discussions with other people on these boards where they've said X is unbalanced, or Y has to be fixed....and then someone else comes on, and says it's not a problem in their game.

The fighter gets better attacks, protection against fear, his mobility is improved since he can now move full speed in armor, he gets improved DEX bonus in armor, he gets untyped DR.....these are all pretty valuable things. I think DR 5/- is far more valuable than 10/adamantine for instance....especially now that +4 weapons can bunch through it, even if they're made from regular iron. In play, I don't know.

What do you think?

Banshee

 

[gamerprinter]

I wouldn't say spell casters got nerfed, hell Sorcerer got a big boost with Bloodline powers and spells. Codzilla lost heavy armor and Wildshape got nerfed, and many of the spells lost some of their most potent suck ability, but some spells were empowered.

Yes, martial characters got a boost.

I have played up to 12th level so far, and I have noticed any disparity, but then you already know how I run games, so I don't expect to see it. But I haven't noticed martial characters having the upper hand either.

GP

 

[Votan]

1-Work your game so the 15 minute workday isn't an issue. Use timelines. Conflicting NPCs with goals that differ from those of the PCs. Make there be real consequences for not attending to quest issues in a timely fashion. Maybe there's an organization that is working against the PC's goals, and they want the same McGuffin the PCs want. When the PCs take out the gatehouse encounter, and then leave in order to rest and rememorize and go after the big baddy, their arch enemies from the other organization come in, now that the PCs have so nicely cleared out that gatehouse encounter, and do something to disable or kill the big baddy and steal the McGuffin.

I have never had success with this in the 16 to 20 level range. If I set encounters hard enough that the wizard feels weakened then he'll hide. Sadly, this tendency was only encouraged by the one case of a brave wizard we had (he was also rapidly a dead wizard).

A deadline only works if the players do not think it's suicidal to try and make it.

3-Sometimes (at least at lower levels) simple measures like using caltrops, or marbles can work wonders. A rogue in our party was renowned for carrying bags of marbles, and scattering them all over the floor under the feet of her enemies, forcing saves to avoid falling flat on the ground. DR doesn't protect against it, nor does mirror image if it's an area attack....nor does mind blank or spell resistance, etc. A simple fly spell would work, or levitate..if the wizard had them.

At very high levels, I have yet to see a wizard who isn't constantly under the influence of some spell like Overland Flight. All of the time. Because melee and grapples are just that bad at high levels. I know you specifiy lower levels here but this is part of the capability of high level casters that makes them hard to challenge.

6-Mind Fog, followed by Confusion was often a good combo......depending on whether Mind Blank was already active or not.
[/QUOTE]

I've always seen the wizard with mind blank and moment of prescience once they had 4 or more spells of 8th level. They are just too useful.

In 3.5 the game environment was even more brutal because Disjunction was based on a will save. The wizard and cleric would still have magic items but the fighter and rogue would not (will saves). This actually hurts those classes more as the average wizard can (barely) function at high levels without magical gear. But the average fighter is in deep, deep trouble.

I agree that these tactics can be used and that does help. I also find that it makes sense for creatures with INT 9+ to focus all efforts on the wizard and cleric. It is blindingly obvious that the wizard is the primary threat (consider what the party would do under the same circumstances) and that does make it easier to increase the difficulty of encounters (as the tanks get a few rounds of breathing space).

 

[Werebat]

Banshee, I haven't PLAYED PF yet either, but in reading the rules I like most of the changes I'm seeing. There are a couple of disagreements I have, for example what they did with the spiked chain; but other than that it all looks good.

(I think they needlessly nerfed the spiked chain as it was the only exotic weapon that was really worth a feat in 3.5. A better tactic might have been to bump up the power level of the other, seldom-used exotics. As things stand now I think you'll only ever see people using the exotics for "flavor", unless they're playing a rogue or ranger TWFing with a racial weapon like the Orc double axe).

- Ron ^*^

 

[Glade Riven]

You *are* probably better off asking about this in the Char Op boards. I don't post there, but I've occasionally skimmed, and you see some pretty sick combos, and the players there are flat out better at making game breaking characters than I am. I'm not sure if it's all dependent upon psionics. I'm sure if you look, there are threads about optimum characters using particular books. I've just never had the patience or interest in that type of game, as a lot of the builds are dependent upon getting weird synergy effects from feats, spells, or abilities that are from disparate books that were never really tested for use together.

I'm pretty sure Pun-pun doesn't use psionics...just a few shortcuts to godhood.

 

[Marc Radle]

If it helps, we've been playing Pathfinder exclusively now for about 2 years and I think fighting types have become much more balanced in Pathfinder. The fact remains though that wizard types do simply get REALLY powerful once you get into the level 16 - 20 range, Heck, the game itself can get a bit wonking when you get to those level ranges.

I have played high level fighters though, and I didn't feel under powered - I think Pathfinder did a pretty good job of bringing things more in line.

Of course, if you want to have your cake and eat it too, you can always try out the Vanguard class from Super Genius Games:

http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/s/...niusGuides/classes/v5748btpy8gcp/discuss#tabs

 

[gamerprinter]

Banshee, I haven't PLAYED PF yet either, but in reading the rules I like most of the changes I'm seeing. There are a couple of disagreements I have, for example what they did with the spiked chain; but other than that it all looks good.

(I think they needlessly nerfed the spiked chain as it was the only exotic weapon that was really worth a feat in 3.5. A better tactic might have been to bump up the power level of the other, seldom-used exotics. As things stand now I think you'll only ever see people using the exotics for "flavor", unless they're playing a rogue or ranger TWFing with a racial weapon like the Orc double axe).

- Ron ^*^

I've only used the exotic weapons for flavor (katana/bastard sword anyone?) But I banned the spiked chain as a GM under 3x long ago - that is one broken weapon.

GP

 

[Mostlyjoe]

As with any game I think a LOT of this depends on the types of players your dealing with. Let me give you an example of my players for a "type".

Magical Engineer Commandos -

They operate under a ideology of maximizing their benefit and efficiency in play but not at the cost of 1 player vs the group. They developed Standard Operating Procedures for situations. They equip everyone in play with a key set of magical items (focusing on movement, stealth, and storage of gear). They often 'game' the sub system of traps/poisons, skills, and crafting to develop 'kits' for situations. And everyone contributes, everyone.

As a GM this is fun but daunting. The casters are less interested in leaving the Fighters/Meleeist behind. Which is good, but it's harder ot catch players in their weaknesses because they cross train/equip so much as to fill these issues.

But other groups operate more on a single player/role archtype. They're less worried about teamwork and filling weaknesses. They DO walk into traps and encounters with out thinking/looking ahead. They don't metagame the system because that's not fun to them. So to them the sliding scale of caster utility becomes an issue. While for others, it just doesn't happen.

 

[Banshee16]

As with any game I think a LOT of this depends on the types of players your dealing with. Let me give you an example of my players for a "type".

Magical Engineer Commandos -

They operate under a ideology of maximizing their benefit and efficiency in play but not at the cost of 1 player vs the group. They developed Standard Operating Procedures for situations. They equip everyone in play with a key set of magical items (focusing on movement, stealth, and storage of gear). They often 'game' the sub system of traps/poisons, skills, and crafting to develop 'kits' for situations. And everyone contributes, everyone.

As a GM this is fun but daunting. The casters are less interested in leaving the Fighters/Meleeist behind. Which is good, but it's harder ot catch players in their weaknesses because they cross train/equip so much as to fill these issues.

But other groups operate more on a single player/role archtype. They're less worried about teamwork and filling weaknesses. They DO walk into traps and encounters with out thinking/looking ahead. They don't metagame the system because that's not fun to them. So to them the sliding scale of caster utility becomes an issue. While for others, it just doesn't happen.

Interesting comments. I wouldn't say my group was *that* organized....but they *did* tend to spread the buffing out. The druid and wizard didn't simply buff themselves....a lot of the buffs went onto the warriors and rogue. For instance, it wasn't necessarily the mage flying around. Oftentimes those spells were actually used on warriors to give them mobility to go after flying enemies.

Also, like yours, mine could get ambushed, and would walk into traps etc. The power gamer didn't play as vulnerable, but the others in the party tried to play according to their ability scores. Low INT or WIS could lead to poor choices that would get the rest of the party into trouble, even if the *player* knew something wasn't a good idea.

Banshee

 

[Werebat]

I've only used the exotic weapons for flavor (katana/bastard sword anyone?) But I banned the spiked chain as a GM under 3x long ago - that is one broken weapon.

GP

I've played a spiked chain tripster and had others play them in my campaigns... I've never found it to be OP. It's worth a feat, unlike the other exotic weapons, which are not.