D&D 3E/3.5 (Coming from 3.5) Are casters still the most powerful in PF?

[airwalkrr]

My current weekly 3.5 campaign is coming to an end. The big bad evil guys are almost defeated and the player characters are approaching epic level. It is time for me to start planning my next campaign. I have been considering converting to Pathfinder for my next campaign, if for no other reason than that it will make some of my players happy (some have requested it and the others don't care) and I might persuade some new players to join. The group is small and while it has been a rocking campaign, I miss having more players at my table. When I invite people to my game, they often lose interest when I tell them I am running 3.5 and not Pathfinder. The system doesn't make a huge different to me. But I only have a little experience with Pathfinder.

So here is a question to all you Pathfinder aficionados out there with more experience than I: are spellcasters still the most powerful characters in the game in Pathfinder? This is something that is very true of 3.5 and I have plenty of ways to deal with it to keep the players on par. If I were to run Pathfinder, I would like to know what to expect. While it seems the fighting classes got a power boost in Pathfinder, the spellcasters seemed to have gotten just as much. Does the system compensate for this to a reasonable degree so that it is less of a problem? Or is it just as much of or greater a problem in your experience? I would be limiting my players to just the core rulebook to start with, so bear that in mind. I may allow other things on a case-by-case basis as I gain more experience with the system.

Your replies are appreciated.

 

[Mad Hamish]

Yes they are.

 

[airwalkrr]

Only one reply so far, but I was thinking of a way to handle this which wouldn't require me to really tailor encounters so much.

According to a well-respected (to some anyway) tier system, there are six tiers of classes. Bear in mind this was for 3.5 but I imagine much of it will be true for PF. As I see it, if you stick to the core rulebook alone, there are three tiers 1) 9th-level casters, 2) bards, 3) everyone else. Pathfinder benefits from having three different advancement columns. I was thinking of somehow taking the three advancement XP tables and integrating that as a form of balance. Tier 1 classes would use the slow advancement table. Tier 2 classes (which at the moment would consist of only bards) would use the medium advancement table. And Tier 3 classes would use the fast advancement table. This is kind of old-school in a way and I kind of like it.

How to handle multiclass characters? Determine a character's XP needed to level up depending on what tier his classes are in and cut it into fractions. A 5th-level wizard/1st-level fighter would need 16,333 XP to level up (5/6 the amount needed to level up to 7th from the slow column and 1/6 the amount needed to level up to 7th from the fast column). A 5th-level fighter/1st-level wizard would need 13,500 XP to level up (5/6 the amount needed to level up to 7th from the fast column and 1/6 the amount needed to level up to 7th from the slow column). Just ignore the row totals and focus on the difference required between levels. I usually track XP myself and tell the players when they can level up so this would all go on behind the screen. The players would be aware of the rule, but they wouldn't have to worry about the math of what they need to level up. Since I believe it is almost universally acknowledged that prestige classes are better than base classes, then prestige classes would all use the slow column. Really weird builds like bard2/fighter6/wizard3 might be a bit unwieldy but presumably the player is doing this because he perceives some benefit from it. And if it is just a roleplay thing, he probably doesn't care about some differences in XP.

Let's say we have a party consisting of a bard, a fighter, and a wizard (no multiclassing for the sake of example). By the time the characters earn 2.4 million XP, the fighter will be 20th, the bard will be 18th (just shy of 19th), and the wizard will be midway between 17th and 18th. That's not a huge discrepancy in levels, but it does slow down the progression of spell levels earned by spellcasters a bit which helps flatten out the balance curve. The fact that monsters don't give out varying XP depending on the level of the player in PF makes the math work.

I once used different XP tables in 3e for this (I gave them XP tables reminiscent of AD&D XP tables) and it met with mixed results from the players, but was accepted and well-received for the most part and acknowledged as an acceptable way to handle the power curve.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The disparity is still a problem. Some of the martial classes got a boost, so it takes longer for spellcasters to overtop them (a few more levels), but that's it.

Wizards start off stronger right out of the gate (they need it) due to getting spell-like abilities based on specialization (or being a universalist). Note that some of these spell-like abilities are weaksauce though. A 1st-level necromancer is still going to be picking up a crossbow a lot.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Yes they are.

Incorrect.

Depends entirely on the game style, DM, and situation.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I've been using a number of PF rules for a while, and I find that the general disdain for dead levels and the capstone abilities have significantly improved the 20-level viability of previously neglected base classes, of which fighter was perhaps the most predominant example. There's a number of new feats and special abilities. PF also nerfed a fair number of spells, and in various supplements presents UA-like variant rules, a number of which add more depth to combat or make spellcasting harder.

My experience with the PF classes is that it's probably a slight net gain for the martial characters relative to the casters. Then again, I never give much thought to this issue when I'm actually playing; I'm more concerned with adding depth to the martial characters than with powering them up.

 

[Kinak]

Bringing back different XP tables is interesting. It's not the route I'd go, but it should work.

In practice, they're close enough that your players' choices will matter a lot. In my current (10th-level) game, the bard is the out-of-combat specialist and the cleric is pure support. So the fighter and ranger really carry the group in combat and feel, if anything, overpowered.

I do have two house rules in play that help them out some: max hit points at every level (rather than rolled) and not rolling to confirm crits (all crits just auto-confirm). The latter probably helps them more than the former, increasing their damage output noticeably and giving them the occasional "oops, I just won the battle" that casters get.

My experience with the PF classes is that it's probably a slight net gain for the martial characters relative to the casters.

This is my experience as well. Martial characters got a huge boost and casters got a slight boost.

I still won't say they're balanced, but it's a lot better than 3.x up at least into the mid levels.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Alzrius]

Bringing back different XP tables is interesting. It's not the route I'd go, but it should work.

To be clear, Pathfinder has three different XP tracks, based on how fast you want the PCs to advance, but once you pick a track it's supposed to apply to all PCs.

 

[Kinak]

To be clear, Pathfinder has three different XP tracks, based on how fast you want the PCs to advance, but once you pick a track it's supposed to apply to all PCs.

Thanks for clarifying that. I've jumped between those advancement tracks some myself, but always kept everyone in the party the same level.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[sheadunne]

Damage output for casters has decreased, especially with the removal of most of the save or die spells, but there are still tons of save or suck spells, which pretty much end fights (with the martials cleaning up the mess). The disparity between martial and caster isn't in damage though, it's in utility. Casters still have the ability to do all the things that martials only dream about doing, such as flying, turning invisible, teleporting, etc.

I would say that Pathfinder attempted to balance by making martials kings and queens of damage, and casters gods of action economy and utility. This can still make the game seem unbalanced though, since battlefield control, buffing, and other utility spells can take away the fun for martials. But I find that's more of a group thing rather than an inherent problem with the system.

I would avoid using different XP for characters though, since it won't really solve any issues. I wizard only needs to be 5th level to be effective (haste, fly, mirror image, invisibility, stat buffs, area effect spells, see invisibility, etc) and a decrease in clerical healing will hurt the martials more than help them.