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

[Voadam]

+6

Thanks for the correction, we haven't allowed it in our game since 3e back when it first showed up as +3 and then +4 in the FRCS and T&B IIRC.

 

[Votan]

I agree with the above. I ban Persistent Spell, it's a plainly unbalanced metamagic feat, it doesn't care at all what the original duration was, they all get boosted to 24 hours. It amazes me that so few people don't immediately recognize the stupidity in that...

Divine Metamagic is extremely costly, both to obtain (feat cost on top of the metamagic feat you're using it with, for each meta feat you want it with) and use (1 + level adjustment turn attempts per use). I also ban Nightsticks, so there's no cheap supply of stackable extra turn undead attempts. I have never found DMM without these two broken things to be a problem.

Yes. But if you permit the printed (i.e. with online errata) Divine Metamagic (where you do not need the metamagic feat first), persistant spell and nightsticks (which are cheap to make) then a mid-level cleric can be fairly . . . impressive given that one feat investment.

But I think that this was a key issue with 3.5E; it had a lot of moving parts and, sooner or later, one combination was going to do unexpected things.

 

[Votan]

When I played a heavily focused battle cleric this was often the case. You had too many rounds wasted buffing that if you did so you missed half the battle in all but the most extreme cases. Then, by the time you did get in there swinging, someone by then who had been standing toe-to-toe with some critter needed healing.

And on some occasions where we did have some warning of what was about to come my cleric would try buffing just prior. A nice perception roll in some cases by the dragon in the next room and now, even though the cleric was all buffed, so was the dragon.

For very high levels, Quicken Divine Power (8th level) was a marvellous way of avoiding this. You couldn't get the extreme level of buffs up but it wasn't unlikely that the cleric had a free minor action in the first round which avoids much of this problem. The spell scaled rather well with level so it never really became obselete pre-epic.

 

[IronWolf]

For very high levels, Quicken Divine Power (8th level) was a marvellous way of avoiding this. You couldn't get the extreme level of buffs up but it wasn't unlikely that the cleric had a free minor action in the first round which avoids much of this problem. The spell scaled rather well with level so it never really became obselete pre-epic.

Yeah, Quicken was a good way to reduce this buff time.

 

[concerro]

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.

Every group is different. I would play the game first. If you have any issues come to the boards, and go from there. What works for one group may not work for another group.

 

[Aus_Snow]

If you subscribe to the "15 minute work day" popular online rhetoric, then yes - full casters will still be better than halfassed- or non-casters, after some abritrary level or other.

If you don't, I'd say you'll find casters and non-casters pretty much balanced, in actual play.

Take your pick.

 

[Sylrae]

If you subscribe to the "15 minute work day" popular online rhetoric, then yes - full casters will still be better than halfassed- or non-casters, after some abritrary level or other.

If you don't, I'd say you'll find casters and non-casters pretty much balanced, in actual play.

Take your pick.

That was my general opinion as well, I'm mostly bringing this up just because of things I hear other people saying (including my players).

Every group is different. I would play the game first. If you have any issues come to the boards, and go from there. What works for one group may not work for another group.

I haven't been seeing it much, and I've been running PFRPG since 2 weeks after it came out, but most of my players won't play caster classes for whatever reason and I have heard them complain about casters being overpowered in the same way people in the internet often seem to.

They seem to say casters work out fine until level 7 or 8, then they start to be far better than everyone else.

I don't feel that qualified to evaluate level 10+ (with anything beyond just running the numbers) because most of my games only run to level 10 or 11 before the campaign ends.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

In 3.5, I did fine up to level 40. After that, I don't know if things mess up

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I don't feel that qualified to evaluate level 10+ (with anything beyond just running the numbers) because most of my games only run to level 10 or 11 before the campaign ends.

It would seem easy to see who has regularly DMed high level characters (levels 15 and above) and who has not. Simply put, at these levels casters dominate. Pathfinder has made it so that high level non-casters can still do cool stuff which is a good thing. But I find that people who say "I've never experienced the 15 minute workday", or that "jamming in some random encounters" fixes this "perceived" problem have never DMed a group with a powerful wizard smartly played.

Essentially the problems are these:

- A high level wizard chooses when the group has encounters. They stay in a safe place and then magic themselves to the enemy, ready to bug out when necessary. Essentially, gate and greater teleport are too powerful. You can metagame around this as the DM here and there for the main special encounters but by then, the high level cleric can nut out your secrets meaning you're back at square one. While you can also do the whole time limit thing, this can get tired quickly if over-used and half the time, they can go directly to the final encounter anyway. In other words, the party only needs to do a 15 minute workday to achieve their goals the majority of the time.

- A high level wizard is unkillable unless you program their death. There are too many spells and too much magical equipment that simply shuts down certain attack or spell patterns. Add in some assistance from the cleric and nothing is killing that wizard unless you completely metagame it - something I will never do as a DM as its basically saying, forget the game, I'm going to kill your character.

- The difference in what a party can handle if the wizard sits on their spells or if they go nova is too great. Increase the difficulty to challenge the wizard and you risk killing other party members. Try to challenge the party members and the wizard can walk all over the encounter. In other words, the outcome of an encounter is centred around the wizard rather than the rest of the party. The problem is, the line that you tread here is too narrow meaning it's too easy to slip one side (insta-death for everyone) or the other (well that combat was a waste of time). At these higher levels, a wizard has too many spells, too many rings of wizardry and too many pearls of power to be left dry. Smartly played, they distort every aspect of DM preparation.

However while this may seem doom and gloom, if you only play up until about 11th level, Pathfinder really hums with the focus on what a group can achieve, rather than what the individuals in that group can achieve. Beyond this and the cracks are still there.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Kaiyanwang]

It would seem easy to see who has regularly DMed high level characters (levels 15 and above) and who has not. Simply put, at these levels casters dominate. Pathfinder has made it so that high level non-casters can still do cool stuff which is a good thing. But I find that people who say "I've never experienced the 15 minute workday", or that "jamming in some random encounters" fixes this "perceived" problem have never DMed a group with a powerful wizard smartly played.

Not to be offending but.. OR they simply DMed smarter than the wizard? See below.

- A high level wizard chooses when the group has encounters. They stay in a safe place and then magic themselves to the enemy, ready to bug out when necessary. Essentially, gate and greater teleport are too powerful. You can metagame around this as the DM here and there for the main special encounters but by then, the high level cleric can nut out your secrets meaning you're back at square one. While you can also do the whole time limit thing, this can get tired quickly if over-used and half the time, they can go directly to the final encounter anyway. In other words, the party only needs to do a 15 minute workday to achieve their goals the majority of the time.​

In my experience, the above happens when one designs high level adventures like the ones at level 1. The game has changed, and powerful spells (as well ass the occasional 300 damage crit that blows up the ring from Sauron's hand) or are needed to MOVE the plot.

You MUST teleport or the princess will die. You MUST gate the Angel in that specific place to purify an ancient evil.. maybe the party must fight his way, reach the place, dispel the forbiddance, the warrios must be ready to attack any interloper...
​

A high level wizard is unkillable unless you program their death. There are too many spells and too much magical equipment that simply shuts down certain attack or spell patterns. Add in some assistance from the cleric and nothing is killing that wizard unless you completely metagame it - something I will never do as a DM as its basically saying, forget the game, I'm going to kill your character.

This is quite true - there are powerful spells. But the DM has control on what items are available in the campaing. Of course the wizard could craft them, but has he always the time to do it? MOreover, past level 11, the PCs are veri famous or infamous. If their deeds are famous, is possible that their enemies learn how to fight them.

And what PC use, BBEG can use, sometimes even more.

The difference in what a party can handle if the wizard sits on their spells or if they go nova is too great. Increase the difficulty to challenge the wizard and you risk killing other party members. Try to challenge the party members and the wizard can walk all over the encounter. In other words, the outcome of an encounter is centred around the wizard rather than the rest of the party. The problem is, the line that you tread here is too narrow meaning it's too easy to slip one side (insta-death for everyone) or the other (well that combat was a waste of time). At these higher levels, a wizard has too many spells, too many rings of wizardry and too many pearls of power to be left dry. Smartly played, they distort every aspect of DM preparation.

I see that the number of spellslot available is somewhat the "clock" of many advetures.. but meleer's sacrifice and skill makes the use of those slots optimal.

Mooks can be wiped by spell combos, but true enemies, if well designed, hold well. In my experience, Outsiders are particularly nasty and need far more the support of buffed meleers.

One could say that high level game needs more preparation.. I concede it easily. But the all of nothing phenomenon.. can happen, but is not the mandatory rule for every encounter.


OP, I was sincere, above, when I talked about the level 40. I reall managed a campaing until that level. And we stopped for personal issues, not for problems with the game.

Today, whan people meet and happens they talk about that campaign, I'm moved to see their eyes shine talking about the epic, awesome deeds their heroes accomplished. Moving castles, abominations killed with a blow, forests awakened, a dragon stolen from the City of Brass.

Depending from what comes out, high level can be playable or not. My suggestion: if happens, try it out. The eyes of our players could be worthy of the sweat.