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

Sylrae

First Post
I remember back in the 3.x days, there were people who complained that casters were better than noncasters at accomplishing anything. I'm not sure I buy that, especially with limited spells known and most not being spontaneous casters. But those 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells are pretty powerful.

Are spellcasters better than nonspellcasters after level 6? Like with my CoDZilla post, please use examples and comparisons.

Useful information for a GM to have before deciding what to houserule and how to houserule it.

Thanks guys, let's see what the thread churns out.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That 's still true...

Is there a perceived disparity between martial classes and arcane classes above 6th level? Yes, Pathfinder didn't really fix that, wanting to be backwards compatible and all. However, I've never really seen the disparity, because I use random or wandering monster encounters in all my game. Which forces spellcasters to use their spells on them, then when the party runs into the real pre-made encounter, spellcasters can't Nova will their spell load, as much of it has been used already. Since Fighter/martial class abilities aren't limited on number of 'spells' to cast - they can do their thing all day long.

When a spellcaster hasn't had his 'spells' and resources used on lesser encounter,then they go Nova on their single attack and show off their over powered unbalance in the game. The 15 minute adventure day grants spellcasters their overpowered Nova capability.

Just drop the 15 minute adventure day concept, make sure you have 2 or 3 lesser encounters before your main one, and the disparity disappears and the characters become more balanced.

GP
 

I'm coming up to the end of my first campaign DMing Pathfinder. The characters started at 1st, are currently 10th and I expect at least two more levels before we finally wrap.

The party consists of:

Half Orc Barbarian 10th.
Human Ranger 10th.
Half Elf Sorcerer 10th.
Dwarf Cleric 10th.
Half Elf Rogue 8th/Duelist 2nd.

So far I've been very pleased because the characters have felt so much more balanced under Pathfinder than they did under 3.X, the Sorcerer especially. She is playing a combat caster basically and she has yet to overshadow the barbarian who is their main combatant. The biggest benefits seems to be the ever renewing 0-level spells. Being able to rely consistantly on those spells has led to the sorcerer holding back on the big damage spells and enchantments until needed and has reduced the new to constantly keep seeking resting points.
Pathfinder seems to have balanced the base classes out better, though bard still seems a little weak IMO. We haven't tried a wizard yet so I can't comment there.
 

For the record, the Cleric no longer can be superior to a Fighter by casting 3 buff spells, so it's not that bad as it was in 3.5.
 

So casters are overpowered if you get to rest after every fight, but not otherwise? (That would explain why I hear about the problem alot but don't see it much.)

I've heard it said that if you start having that many encounters the melee types can't keep up with healing to last long enough for it to matter if the caster can't go nova. Thoughts on that?
 

One of the complaints was that wizards (and to some extent other casters) could load up on lots of cheap low level scrolls of utility spells and handle most non-combat situations.

The wizard as batman concept.

Any reason to think that would no longer be a plausible case under Pathfinder?
 

Why shouldn't wizards be batman? ;)

The bag of holding is like batman's utility belt with all the low-level gadgets, as long as they never come up with the Shark Repellent spell I'll be happy.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_B_n-Rbros"]YouTube- 1960s Batman - The Shark[/ame]
 

I've heard it said that if you start having that many encounters the melee types can't keep up with healing to last long enough for it to matter if the caster can't go nova. Thoughts on that?

Bah, in this case - it'd seem that 15min/day dependency has rubbed off on martials. Healing potions + healing skill & kits (treat deadly wounds). Problem solved.

It's one of the unintentional yet important lessons in cRPG's, and some pre-made adventures, when you find healing potions around, often next to a skeleton. What the hell was that chap saving it for?

One of the complaints was that wizards (and to some extent other casters) could load up on lots of cheap low level scrolls of utility spells and handle most non-combat situations.

The wizard as batman concept.

If DM keeps track of it and PC's wealth, this means this character has significantly less gp's to spend on equipment, so it's a fair trade - you get some extra juice here and now, alas you cannot resell this stuff. You get yourself a nice pearl of power and this is an asset in itself. Like gp's of Spell Slots.

If a character chooses to be cheap and suboptimal - it's his call, but the spell scrolls, wands and tanglefoot bags are not only for NPC's to use. Of course you have to be careful not to overdo it - opening a tube of scrolls and finding this one among 127 others is no easy (or quick) feat, so DM and player should keep track of it (like item slots in cRPG's). And let's not forget that being hit with a fireball while covered in scrolls, head to toe - might be somewhat troublesome.
 

The tiers* haven't really changed that much (except that the disparity is a bit less), however that never made the game unplayable.

In my own personal experience, the casters tended to be much more necessary because of their unique problem solving skills, but they could never just do everything on their own, and so still needed others on hand.

The game is designed more around the action economy and "4 main roles", such that a balanced 4 person party is often the most successful across the widest variety of situations.

A lot of the complaints I've seen about castes vs non-casters is from posts or comments that start with "The rules say...", or "I played one session and...".
These are often either unique or rare occurrences that people get up in arms about, or more likely, just theory being tossed around without seeing what happens in actual play. Something might look horrifying on paper... but plans never survive first contact with reality, because abilities and spells can't be looked at in a vacuum.

As for how things are in Pathfinder...

- Melee classes were given a boost up in abilities, especially later in the game. Many got new endcap stuff that are along the lines of save-or-die.
Most got new abilities that made them more versatile, instead of just more bonus (directly affecting how they fit on the tiers).

- With skill consolidation, the elimination of cross-class skill costs, retroactive skillpoints on Intelligence bonus, and favored class bonus all made it so pretty much anyone can be more versatile (skills-wise) than before, which helped the 2 skillpoint classes like the Fighter or Paladin.
A human fighter with 10 Int can get 4 skillpoints per level, and putting points into non-class skills only means he's behind by 3 points.

- While casters got some class abilities and unlimited cantrips, this only really improved versatility at lower levels (where they didn't feel quite so magical).
On the higher end of the scale, many "encounter-ending" spells were toned back with either changing away from automatic success, or adding in extra saves, or basically allowing additional methods of surviving.
For example, a death spell might have been changed so that instead of "target dies", it does tons of hitpoint damage, which can be mitigated, survived or otherwise circumvented (like a shield other spell).

All these play a factor in making casters a little less "all powerful" and non-casters a little more "capable". The tiers are still there (Wizards are still batman), but playing a straight classed Fighter to level 20 no longer feels like playing a chump.


*For those who don't know what I meant by "tiers":
It's the idea of rating classes based on how well they can handle a wide variety of encounters or situations. Casters tend to favour highly on such a scale, because the way spells work, you've got a lot of options. Feats and skills tend to be static once gained, and so non-casters tend to be on the lower end of the scale.
 

Nice response Kaisoku.

So the disparity is still there, but it's less of a problem than it used to be?

You mentioned the way skills work now. Everyone gets that though, so casters get the extra skills as well.

Is the main problem that casters have too many options, or that casters options are too powerful?

For anyone who has tried, how would you buff melee classes or weaken casters to bring them to be more in line, and is how necessary is it?
 

Remove ads

Top