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

[Herremann the Wise]

I see - actually, in a "perfect game" some spell should have drawbacks, like in AD&D. And yeah, magic is very powerful. But martial prowess has his exploits with skilled player. That Devastating Blow, Strenght Surge, or six CD 50 skill checks in a row could surprise you.

Sure it does but imagine crafting a scenario for a group with a powerful wizard skillfully played and then running through the same scenario but with a powerful sorcerer instead. Now Pathfinder has done an excellent job in bringing the sorcerer more into line power-wise with the wizard but for the purposes of this example, they do not have the extreme versatility of the wizard. With the wizard, you have a group that can pretty much solve any problem quite easily. With the Sorcerer, it forces the group to come up with more creative solutions - which I obviously think is a good thing. It allows the rest of the party to get involved where as with the powerful wizard, it is all about what they can do first.

I never said the opposite. But from our post, I understood that you were afraid to over-equip the BBEG to avoid too much loot after the battle, and I was stating that is easily avoidable. That's all.

Easily avoidable but without much logic if you strip the bad guy of all the gear that technically they should have to have reached their position. It's like having a wizard in the party but only throwing sorcerers at them. It tempers their access to magic but it is in my opinion inappropriate use of your DMing powers. My point was that I'm cautious in this regard of kitting the bad guys out inappropriately (either with so much so as to challenge the power level of the wizard, or too little so as the group feels cheated). In the end though, I feel I generally have to be fair and logical and kit them out effectively which tends to exacerbate the downward spiral I mentioned. The only problem is you hit that whole problem of over-challenging or under-challenging the party in combat with a very slippery slope in between. It is much easier to prepare more predicatably challenging high level encounters for a group without a wizard than with one is my essential point. Far easier to keep treasure in line.

Greater dispell CANNOT dispel a whole forbiddance. And no, the fact that if there is a cleric there is a forbiddance is just normal in my world. My players would break their suspention of disbelief in a different situation. Why would an organization decide to be vulnerable? To be different? That's disgustingly gamist. An the DM adjudicates wish. And wish is not spammable.

Dispel magic does not dispel a forbiddance effect unless the dispeller’s level is at least as high as your caster level.

So you either dispel it or if a deity has created the forbiddance, I generally rule wish powerful enough to suppress Forbiddance in concert with a Greater Dispel for a short period of time. In the end, Forbiddance is only a 6th level cleric spell. And sure cults and clerics will have that sort of stuff up and generally it will be the first thing to go dispel-wise. Overdoing the cult/forbiddance thing though gets a little tired is all I'm saying. So in a campaign I would limit the evil cult thing more so than have a powerful evil cult and underplay them.

In other istances, the teleport will be great to RP. If there is a menace that threats the world, be able in the same day to talk with the mage tower and the elven king.

In other istances, it will be useful to just come out from a dimensional trap (the other two, one will be disabled by the rouge, and another will be smashed by the barbarian).

I re-state it: if you say that "teleport is king", IMO, you design the challenge like at level 8. But probably is me.

Teleport is king in that there is nowhere that the PCs cannot travel in an instant. All the challenges from that point become one where "space" is irrelevant. Some DMs hate this, others embrace it (and embracing it is the only way I believe to get the most out of high level play - as I think you agree). Whichever way, the game changes at this point. Challenges start to become more like a game of hide and seek. Unfortunately it means that ambushes one way or the other become the order of the day making combat encounters more erratic in their possible outcome. If the PCs get the drop on the bad guys, I have no choice as DM but to make sure the bad guys have their pants down - the PCs actions and basic logic determines that they deserve it.

I exaggerated saying "screw". But players are interesting creatures. If properl challenged, they come up with imaginative, awesome ways to win. I was only suggesting to keep the challenge tight.

I understood what you meant but it's still waving the DM mallet of doom, over-targeting and attempting to nerf a set of abilities. I agree though that you can almost throw anything at a high level party (with a powerful wizard) and be amazed at how easily they can defeat it.

In all of this, my point is still that a high level wizard distorts every aspect of DMing preparation at that level, streets ahead of just about any other class except maybe the cleric/druid but still well in front of them. It's all about what the wizard can do first and foremost. YMMV but why I cannot fathom.
It becomes almost impossible to "kill" the wizard without programming it. Comparatively, every other class has more naturally exploitable weaknesses that do not require the specific level of targeting. You can throw a particular "thing" at them and know it will challenge them. Much harder when there's a high level wizard around.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: and the whole point of all of this back and forth is that because the wizard dominates, the other characters start to feel like they're his sidekicks or even pawns rather than peers and equals. It becomes a situation where challenging them almost requires a quiet chat with the wizard's player to "let the other kids play with the toys this time".

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Sure it does but imagine crafting a scenario for a group with a powerful wizard skillfully played and then running through the same scenario but with a powerful sorcerer instead. Now Pathfinder has done an excellent job in bringing the sorcerer more into line power-wise with the wizard but for the purposes of this example, they do not have the extreme versatility of the wizard. With the wizard, you have a group that can pretty much solve any problem quite easily. With the Sorcerer, it forces the group to come up with more creative solutions - which I obviously think is a good thing. It allows the rest of the party to get involved where as with the powerful wizard, it is all about what they can do first.

How many spells you make the wizard find each level? One could argue that he would make it just with scrolls. Fine. But this is not even the point. You are going around what me and other people said. The point is that at high level, if you solve it with a spell is not a problem. A REAL problem should need several knowledge checks and several spells just to find it out (barring evident exceptions. "what's that?" "Balor. Balor Special Edition.").

And again, aven a well delivered crit or a well placed series of skill can do wonders. What we can do? Forbid powerful PC to act? Or must they have the same ability to influence the world than in early levels? If so, why play at high level? To sa that "I'm 18 level" when my effectiveness didn't changed from level 1?

Easily avoidable but without much logic if you strip the bad guy of all the gear that technically they should have to have reached their position. It's like having a wizard in the party but only throwing sorcerers at them. It tempers their access to magic but it is in my opinion inappropriate use of your DMing powers. My point was that I'm cautious in this regard of kitting the bad guys out inappropriately (either with so much so as to challenge the power level of the wizard, or too little so as the group feels cheated). In the end though, I feel I generally have to be fair and logical and kit them out effectively which tends to exacerbate the downward spiral I mentioned. The only problem is you hit that whole problem of over-challenging or under-challenging the party in combat with a very slippery slope in between. It is much easier to prepare more predicatably challenging high level encounters for a group without a wizard than with one is my essential point. Far easier to keep treasure in line.

I can agree here. I just not see this so difficult.. or at least, not at the point to force people to avoid high level play. Because this is the point of the discussion. All we know that wizzies are powerful. All we know that high level PCs can do wonders. But are high level games unplayable? At least, regardless the gamestyle of the party?

So you either dispel it or if a deity has created the forbiddance, I generally rule wish powerful enough to suppress Forbiddance in concert with a Greater Dispel for a short period of time. In the end, Forbiddance is only a 6th level cleric spell. And sure cults and clerics will have that sort of stuff up and generally it will be the first thing to go dispel-wise. Overdoing the cult/forbiddance thing though gets a little tired is all I'm saying. So in a campaign I would limit the evil cult thing more so than have a powerful evil cult and underplay them.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the dispel would normally only dispel the spell in his area, not the whole forbiddance in general. And you are talking about a generous interpratation of wish. I wonder if you don't concede too much to your spellcaster (If you say that they are troublesome).

Ad overall, it seems I show that the game has conter measure for troubles; you say that you don't want use counter-measure BUT you find the spells troublesome. I really don't understand. Use the remdies and all will go well. And forbiddance can be used by a rogue guild too. Steal a scroll of it + UMD.

Teleport is king in that there is nowhere that the PCs cannot travel in an instant. All the challenges from that point become one where "space" is irrelevant. Some DMs hate this, others embrace it (and embracing it is the only way I believe to get the most out of high level play - as I think you agree). Whichever way, the game changes at this point. Challenges start to become more like a game of hide and seek. Unfortunately it means that ambushes one way or the other become the order of the day making combat encounters more erratic in their possible outcome. If the PCs get the drop on the bad guys, I have no choice as DM but to make sure the bad guys have their pants down - the PCs actions and basic logic determines that they deserve it.

Teleport is one spell (I agree with the embrace things). But you can decide that magic in your world is too "wild" for "navigation" so you can teleport safely only, say, between ancient elven circles of runed stones.

And suddenly you can enjoy other parts of high level play. This is hinted in the spell. Reread it.

I understood what you meant but it's still waving the DM mallet of doom, over-targeting and attempting to nerf a set of abilities. I agree though that you can almost throw anything at a high level party (with a powerful wizard) and be amazed at how easily they can defeat it.

They can do great thing even without the wiz Magic is powerful. And you should realize that "the children are grown"

In all of this, my point is still that a high level wizard distorts every aspect of DMing preparation at that level, streets ahead of just about any other class except maybe the cleric/druid but still well in front of them. It's all about what the wizard can do first and foremost. YMMV but why I cannot fathom.

See, putting thing in this way, the situation is even worse, because the rogue can beat 50 on a lot of skills, and approach an angry fighter means take 300 damages if goes well. What does it means? That the Unapprochable Tower now can be robbed by the party thief, that enemies should watch out because that guy is not longer a guardsman. They are bad ass.

I agree with you that spellcaster can be MORE troublesome, (I wish more drawbacks in spellcasting and spells more difficult to cast) but the point is that they are stronger now. The paradigm changed.

It becomes almost impossible to "kill" the wizard without programming it. Comparatively, every other class has more naturally exploitable weaknesses that do not require the specific level of targeting. You can throw a particular "thing" at them and know it will challenge them. Much harder when there's a high level wizard around.

Maybe the specialist diviner can be troublesome. I don't know. Our DM style are different I guess.

PS: and the whole point of all of this back and forth is that because the wizard dominates, the other characters start to feel like they're his sidekicks or even pawns rather than peers and equals. It becomes a situation where challenging them almost requires a quiet chat with the wizard's player to "let the other kids play with the toys this time".

See above. So, if the Barbarian can grapple a Balor and the Balor don't overlooks him other pepople feel like sidekicks? Shouldn't they feel that they became a party of legends?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

How many spells you make the wizard find each level? One could argue that he would make it just with scrolls. Fine. But this is not even the point. You are going around what me and other people said. The point is that at high level, if you solve it with a spell is not a problem. A REAL problem should need several knowledge checks and several spells just to find it out (barring evident exceptions. "what's that?" "Balor. Balor Special Edition.").

Spells found per level varies. Essentially though because I like to provide room for growth, I encourage a lot of downtime otherwise you end up with the level 1 to level 20 in as many weeks syndrome. This does mean that the wizard has lots of time to put spells in his spellbooks, and that casters have plenty of time to craft the nice stuff.

I agree with you that a "real" problem is one not instantly solved by a single spell. Finding a "real" problem that cannot be solved by the wizard alone or by the wizard mainly is something I have found difficult to implement. He can do things that other characters simply cannot and so he is perfectly setup for finding the quickest, most painless, and resource-lite way of solving the problem. I have found high level play without a wizard a completely different kettle of fish and in the main one where the whole party was more involved.

And again, aven a well delivered crit or a well placed series of skill can do wonders. What we can do? Forbid powerful PC to act? Or must they have the same ability to influence the world than in early levels? If so, why play at high level? To sa that "I'm 18 level" when my effectiveness didn't changed from level 1?

You obviously cannot forbid powerful characters to act and non-casters can still provide meaningful input into the game. It is just that these moments are generally overshadowed by a high level wizard's input.

I can agree here. I just not see this so difficult.. or at least, not at the point to force people to avoid high level play. Because this is the point of the discussion. All we know that wizzies are powerful. All we know that high level PCs can do wonders. But are high level games unplayable? At least, regardless the gamestyle of the party?

High level play is different but certainly not unplayable. DMing it is incredibly challenging and you need to have the "right" kind of players on board to make it zing. DMing a disparate party with a high level wizard is incredibly difficult. I have found it a constant challenge to make high level combat challenging to all rather than just challenging to some. Similarly non-combat challenges are still difficult to ensure that all players get satisfactory input - it is just the nature of high level play that a particular player will usually be the focus.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the dispel would normally only dispel the spell in his area, not the whole forbiddance in general.

If I was a player and the DMed interpreted it that way, I would play along with it but would feel a little cheated. You're targetting the spell and thus if your caster level check is good enough, then you would expect the Forbiddance spell to end. Nothing that 6 rounds and a little cash won't fix I suppose. Although 6 rounds is generally enough for the PCs to do their thing and bug out.

And you are talking about a generous interpratation of wish. I wonder if you don't concede too much to your spellcaster (If you say that they are troublesome).

You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment, at the GM’s discretion.)

I don't think 25,000gps worth of diamond is too much to ask for the effect in question in terms of temporary suppression. However, wishes and deities generally means the DM gets to do something nasty in the deity's name. This is where things can get real fun - although generally the ascended just gets their arse kicked in - which of course is still fun.

Ad overall, it seems I show that the game has conter measure for troubles; you say that you don't want use counter-measure BUT you find the spells troublesome. I really don't understand. Use the remdies and all will go well. And forbiddance can be used by a rogue guild too. Steal a scroll of it + UMD.

You could have the Thieve's Guild ally with a powerful cleric to have the effect imposed upon their domain or alternatively the guild if powerful enough can just force the issue as payment - although having scroll's of Forbiddance just lying around to be stolen seems a little weird.

And just to explain, I'm happy to have a counter-measure or two - ending up in the wizard possibly being slightly discomforted but not suitable challenged. What I was saying though is that you have to have a specific series of counter-measures to get through their defences and truly challenge them. i don't like having this specific set of counter-measures performed here and there as it is unrealistic. I just accept that the wizard is "unkillable" unless another wizard is specifically going after them (and wizards generally don't do that unless they know they can win and at that level, a wizard does not have that guarantee).

Teleport is one spell (I agree with the embrace things). But you can decide that magic in your world is too "wild" for "navigation" so you can teleport safely only, say, between ancient elven circles of runed stones.

And suddenly you can enjoy other parts of high level play. This is hinted in the spell. Reread it.

Greater Teleport basically says that the teleportation works as long as you have an inkling of where you're going. I have mucked around with this to make it difficult and that was fun. But it's not a trick you can pull out again unless it's deserved. You can change the world but this is perhaps falling into the syndrome you mention of trying to keep things as they were before the party could ignore spacial distance. Even the tuning fork thing with Plane Shift just gets circumvented by casting it as a limited wish (thus providing the necessary focus automatically). I just accept that there are no longer such boundaries.

They can do great thing even without the wiz Magic is powerful. And you should realize that "the children are grown"

Sounds cool.

See, putting thing in this way, the situation is even worse, because the rogue can beat 50 on a lot of skills, and approach an angry fighter means take 300 damages if goes well. What does it means? That the Unapprochable Tower now can be robbed by the party thief, that enemies should watch out because that guy is not longer a guardsman. They are bad ass.

But not as bad ass as the wizard.

I agree with you that spellcaster can be MORE troublesome, (I wish more drawbacks in spellcasting and spells more difficult to cast) but the point is that they are stronger now. The paradigm changed.

Maybe the specialist diviner can be troublesome. I don't know. Our DM style are different I guess.

See above. So, if the Barbarian can grapple a Balor and the Balor don't overlooks him other pepople feel like sidekicks? Shouldn't they feel that they became a party of legends?

All cool. I'm not saying that other players don't get their characters to do cool things - they do. I have just found that the spread of coolness is more even when a high level wizard ain't there.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Herreman, I guess that we should simply agree on the fact that we disagree.

Or to better explain, we don't disagree too much, we probably see the same events in different manners, with few changes that could be worthy or unworthy depending from our point of view.

I hope a person that wants to try an high level game reads our discussion as an adivice on actual, common risks, and not a discouragement!

cheers!

 

[Jhaelen]

One impression I got reading wizards rule fighters drool threads is a lot of people seem to have spent a lot Of tiime making out encounters specifically difficult for melée types. With out a similar amount of time devoted against wizards. Really the fighter will only "suck" if he's deliberately put into such situations.

Maybe. I think it's also because there aren't many standard monsters in the higher CR ranges that are easy to beat by fighters.

After reading the MM for the first time, I immediately noticed that starting at about CR13, there's not really anything I'd like to encounter...

Currently in my game CR15 and CR16 monsters are becoming the norm. The only fighter type doing well in my game is the Lasher (a 3.0 prestige class I decided to allow, although I should have knoen better) because of his superior reach and a powerful weapon of legacy.

I'd also like to note, that the caster pcs typically don't get to use a lot of their offensive spells. They are usually busy casting defensive spells, buffs, dispels, etc. to keep the rest of the team in the game.

So, the fighter types actually _are_ still important and relevant for the party's success.

Note, that these are observations from a 3.5 game, not Pathfinder. It's quite possible, melee types work better in Pathfinder games.

 

[Mojo_Rat]

Really? At the cr 15-16 range the fighter should have devastating strike the improved vital strike or similar with enlarged person he should hit like a truck 9d6 + 30 for example with reach. The new stuff from the apg a basted fighter could be dropping ooo al over the battle field with I think combat patrol.

I have admittedly not played to this level but it seems pretty good.

 

[Kaisoku]

I think you missed the part where he said he was talking about 3.5e.
But you do showcase where Pathfinder really did seem to give the Fighter more options on the higher level spectrum.

I haven't seen a high level Pathfinder Fighter in action yet, unfortunately, but the theory seems to hint at a better selection anyways.

 

[Shisumo]

Recently we had a fight against an advanced elder storm elemental with 500 hp (DR 10/-). Now matter how well you optimize a fighter, it will still take him quite a few rounds to bring it down to 0 hp.
The cleric killed it with a single destruction spell. Sure, he was lucky that the elemental failed the save, but it was still something a fighter type could never do.

While this post was made some time back, I wanted to hop back to it because it's actually a good example of how the caster/noncaster balance has shifted with Pathfinder. While destruction is a save-or-die in 3.5, it's a save-or-take-lots-of-damage spell in Pathfinder. A 15th level cleric deals 150 hp worth of wounds with destruction on a failed save, which is hefty, and probably more than the fighter could dish out with a single full attack, but its a long, long way from the instakill that it was in 3.5, and the fighter would definitely have a job to do in this instance...

 

[Jhaelen]

Really? At the cr 15-16 range the fighter should have devastating strike the improved vital strike

But you do showcase where Pathfinder really did seem to give the Fighter more options on the higher level spectrum.

While this post was made some time back, I wanted to hop back to it because it's actually a good example of how the caster/noncaster balance has shifted with Pathfinder. While destruction is a save-or-die in 3.5, it's a save-or-take-lots-of-damage spell in Pathfinder. A 15th level cleric deals 150 hp worth of wounds with destruction on a failed save, which is hefty, and probably more than the fighter could dish out with a single full attack, but its a long, long way from the instakill that it was in 3.5, and the fighter would definitely have a job to do in this instance...

Thanks for pointing out the differences between 3e and Pathfinder!

It really looks as if Pathfinder mighth be better suited to deal with the problems fighters had in 3e. After reading the Pathfinder rulebooks I didn't feel they changed much to help high-level play, but apparently the devil's in the details and it would probably be wrong to judge it without some actual playtesting.

Maybe I can can convince some of the 3e fans in my group who don't like 4e to DM a couple of Pathfinder test sessions.

 

[Dandu]

It really looks as if Pathfinder mighth be better suited to deal with the problems fighters had in 3e.

You mean the crippling lack of options it had?