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

[knottyprof]

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.

Well, to be honest the actual direction given in the Core rule book is that it is up to the group to decide what rate fits you best which makes it sound like a group decision as to which one is chosen. Granted that the rules imply that the same track will be used by everyone it isn't necessarily ban the possibility of different character classes using different tracks in the same group.

First off I personnally feel that should be a DM decision more than a "group" decision. If players do not like or want to follow the DM's guidelines on this issue they can just find another game that is more to their style of play. Being a person that began playing in the 80's I was a bit shocked at the unilateral XP chart when I started back up a few years back with 3.5. Granted that some of the 1st edition XP charts (especially the classes in the Unearthed Arcana book) were way out their in left field, for the most part I still think that separate XP tables based on class are somewhat viable, especially if the DM is giving communal XP (where everyone gets an equal share regardless of what was done or not done).

As far as the multi-classing issue, the whole fraction thing seems to complicated to me. If a player wants to expand to a class that has a slower rate then I say that rate applies to all class levels taken. If the character starts out with a fast track and decides to switch to a class with a longer XP track then I would say they would have to earn that much more XP before they can take a level in the other class. So if a 4th level fighter (fast track) wants to take a level in Wizard he would actually have to earn 23,000 XP to get to 5th level at that point rather than 10,000. This would represent the time and experience required to learn the basics of the class. Just my opinion anyway, your campaign and you can do it any way you want.

 

[gamerprinter]

While there are many tweaks, the basic game whether 3x or PF is pretty much the same. Since the PF isn't a completely different game: martial-caster disparity certainly still exists. In my opinion, however, the disparity starts at a higher level, so the martials can be on nearly equal footing for a while - maybe 15th level, maybe. If you're looking to escape the disparity altogether, PF won't do that for you. It is better, though. And our table used to mix 3x with PF, but over the last 2 years, it's been PF only.

You could certainly house rule your way to removing disparity, but in general our group uses almost no house rules at all, mostly going by the book in all things (though we don't allow all things...)

 

[Sage Genesis]

Incorrect.

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

If one's gaming style is such that casters are overpowered in 3.5, then they will also be overpowered in PF.

So in an objective sense you're correct, but in a subjective sense relative to the OP, casters will almost certainly become overpowered once more as the levels tick by.

 

[billd91]

There have been some notable improvements made, including:

Magic item creation - it may cost an extra feat (Master Craftsman), but non-casters may now craft arms/armor and wondrous items to their heart's content without needing caster levels at all. Spellcasters are no longer the gatekeeper to this ability.

Casting Defensively - a bit harder, the DC is now calculated as 15+(level of spellx2)

Polymorph/Wildshape - significantly controlled, no more druid characters dumping physical stats anticipating being in a higher-stat animal form most of the time, the stats are based on the initial character + modifiers, not the animal or other creature whose shape the character assumes

Fighters - gain some caster-countering feats

Save or Die - somewhat curtailed in effect

Prestige Classes - there are definitely benefits to staying single classed including potent capstone abilities, so no more caster prestige classes that offer no significant trade-off for taking them

 

[Tuft]

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.

My opinion is that this has a lot to do with gp, rather than xp.

Or rather, whether you are stingy or generous with magic items.

Magic items, especially Wondrous Items, pretty much duplicate the utility value of spells; "Wings of Flying" are pretty similar to a Fly spell - except they are open to non-casters. That means that a generous dose of magic items will be much more of a power-up for non-casters than casters. If a wizard picks up one of the available flight items rather than using a spell, he has saved a spell slot, but not gained much in capability beyond what he already could do.

Now, the first house-rule when someone tries to run a "low-magic" (usually called "gritty") campaign is usually to limit magical items. What this does is simply to hand over a pure "utility monopoly" to the casters.... something I doubt was intended . Such a monopoly of course makes the casters stand out as the proverbial sore thumb. And since the campaign supposedly was "low-magic", well, it was probably already sensitive to anything magical, so you gain a "spotlight" besides the monopoly.

My experience with playing in a 3.5 up to level 20 was that a generous helping of magic items went a long way for the non-casters. Hearsay from simultaneously played "low-magic" campaigns, and the effect of a the single PC wizard therein showed me the flip-side.

As far as Pathfinder goes, we are only up to lvl 7, but combat maneuvers so far seems like a significant boost to anyone who has the resources to sink a bunch of feats into them (aka "the fighter"). A judicious combo of combat maneovers can deliver quite the suckage to an opponent, providing if not "save or suck", then "get hit and suck".

 

[billd91]

Now, the first house-rule when someone tries to run a "low-magic" (usually called "gritty") campaign is usually to limit magical items. What this does is simply to hand over a pure "utility monopoly" to the casters.... something I doubt was intended . Such a monopoly of course makes the casters stand out as the proverbial sore thumb. And since the campaign supposedly was "low-magic", well... you gain a spotlight besides the monopoly - and the cry of "Caster Edition!"

Well that's just people being foolish about the meaning of low magic. If the first rule is to limit magic items, the second one is to curtail spell casting to something reasonably in line with low magic.

 

[Tuft]

Well that's just people being foolish about the meaning of low magic. If the first rule is to limit magic items, the second one is to curtail spell casting to something reasonably in line with low magic.

Kind of my point... I hear a lot about (1) but not about (2)...


Another common thing people seem to do to "limit magic" is to forbid Item Creation Feats and item purchases.

Guess what - the casters still get to pick their Utility Powers freely through their spell selection... but suddenly you are denying the non-casters the the freedom to do a free choice.

 

[gamerprinter]

When trying to run a low fantasy setting, we've invoked the old school requirement of having specific spell components to any spell at all, and then just limiting access to spell components. Now a wizard can't cast any spells he knows, unless he possesses the correct spell components. Some of the playing goals become acquiring certain components in order to cast spells. Limiting magic items is only the first step towards making a game low fantasy.

The Kaidan setting of Japanese horror, by Rite Publishing, for example, is primarily designed as a gritty, low fantasy setting (of course you don't have to play it that way.) One thing, using historical Japan to base things, not anyone can be a wizard. The ministry of onmyodo is the branch of the imperial government that grants training and licenses to use magic in the empire. There are sorcerers and witches (mahou tsukai), but these are illegal practitioners, and if caught practicing magic without a license, they will be executed. In Kaidan, you can use magic, but you have to keep it on the down-low or it could get you in trouble with the authorities. While there are no such things as 'magic shops' in Kaidan, there are arcane crafters, but like being an open caster, it's done quietly, thus magic items and spell casting are much less available than in other settings. However, in other way, is the game unaffected to lessen magic.

 

[billd91]

Kind of my point... I hear a lot about (1) but not about (2)...


Another common thing people seem to do to "limit magic" is to forbid Item Creation Feats and item purchases.

Guess what - the casters still get to pick their Utility Powers freely through their spell selection... but suddenly you are denying the non-casters the the freedom to do a free choice.

I'm generally not fond of item creation feats and item purchases. But then, when I do limit item creation and purchase, I also follow 1e-style guidelines on placing treasure - consumables, weapons, and armor are the most common. I think this is one area that 3e's family of games didn't offer enough advice on - what the implications are when you change something and how to compensate. I'd like to see Paizo address some of this in the upcoming Ultimate Campaigns book.

 

[Tuft]

I'm generally not fond of item creation feats and item purchases. But then, when I do limit item creation and purchase, I also follow 1e-style guidelines on placing treasure - consumables, ...

Well, if you are supplying just arms and armor, you are giving the non-casters the necessary plusses, but denying them them the free selection of utilities - and difference in utilty choice is a common theme when caster-noncaster imbalance is discussed.

Here I am assuming that you are not similarly restricting spell selection.


But, it is choices like these that make balance just as much an issue of play style as of the system.