The classes at "high level" (14th)

[Stormonu]

I've always tried to run a sort of low-power game of D&D and looking back, notice my campaigns tend to end in the 12th-14th level range, and I have no desire to change that. This means, of course, PC spellcasters top out with 6th, maybe 7th level spells.

While I have the PF rules, I haven't played but a short (1st-2nd level) campaign with the changes PF has brought about. With all of that in mind, are the PF classes much closer in power and am I unlikely to see issues with the melee/martial classes being outshined by spell casters at the top levels?

Also, has anyone mixed in portions of the Complete books from 3.5? Anything from those books I should avoid (beyond persistent spell from Complete Divine?)

 

[Dark Mistress]

Closer in power? Yes I think Pathfinder narrows the gap between melee and casters. I do still think casters are more powerful at higher levels but the gap has narrowed.

Nope not using many 3.5 books, only a few spells, gear and the like. Mostly just core Pathfinder and the new 3pp Pathfinder stuff.

 

[Stormonu]

Nope not using many 3.5 books, only a few spells, gear and the like. Mostly just core Pathfinder and the new 3pp Pathfinder stuff.

That'd be a shame for me, I've got two shelves of just Wotc books. I suspect I'd have little to no trouble with monster books, but I'm curious to see if classes like Warlock, Swashbuckler and the like hold any water in PF, or if folks have run into problems with their use in a PF game. Also, while I'm thinking about it, how do the PHB2 classes fare in PF? (As a side note, I intend to burn my Tome of Battle book)

 

[kitsune9]

From my experience with Pathfinder so far, I think the complaints about 3.5 at high levels are still pretty much there. While I don't have a problem with high level gameplay, I don't think there was any real solution, at least nothing jumps out in the rules that says, "This is more balanced here and there".

Anyways, I am allowing all the WotC builder books, Magic Item Compendium, and Spell Compendium in my current Pathfinder game. In my next campaign though, we're definitely going to be Pathfinder only because Paizo is coming out with their own builder stuff (already the APG is out)

 

[Dark Mistress]

That'd be a shame for me, I've got two shelves of just Wotc books. I suspect I'd have little to no trouble with monster books, but I'm curious to see if classes like Warlock, Swashbuckler and the like hold any water in PF, or if folks have run into problems with their use in a PF game. Also, while I'm thinking about it, how do the PHB2 classes fare in PF? (As a side note, I intend to burn my Tome of Battle book)

Oh you can use 3.5 books with PF, i do just not a lot. Monster books are obviously a bit easier to use as is. Just need to add in the CMD etc, though some of their CR's might be a little off.

But to be fair I was that way before. I would use core rules than cherry pick the stuff I wanted to add to get the campaign flavor and feel i wanted. Doing the same now, but if their is a PF 3pp that has a version of the 3.5 thing I like, i get the new one to save me the conversion work.

As for the new APG classes I think they stack up well and fit in nicely filling in some niches. Of course not everyone agree's. i seen someone in this forum talk about how weak the witch was, while I have seen other threads mostly on Paizo talking about them being over powered. Same with just about all of the new classes, which to me suggest they are likely pretty well balanced.

 

[concerro]

It really depends on your group. Some DM's have to houserule things, but some games run great without modifications.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Even if classes are different, the power gap has been significantly lessened IMHO. Moreover, noncaster have more "nice things" in high level feats and class features.

I play Core + APG, I cannot say for mixing with complete. Said this, take a look in the Paizo boards, there are conversions there for updating old classes (generally pimping them up).

 

[concerro]

That'd be a shame for me, I've got two shelves of just Wotc books. I suspect I'd have little to no trouble with monster books, but I'm curious to see if classes like Warlock, Swashbuckler and the like hold any water in PF, or if folks have run into problems with their use in a PF game. Also, while I'm thinking about it, how do the PHB2 classes fare in PF? (As a side note, I intend to burn my Tome of Battle book)

Tob works quiet well. The fighter and paladin are now able to fight along the ToB classes in most people's games without feeling useless. Most people don't like the Warlock even in 3.5. The scout does ok, and so does the factotum with some conversion work. As for PHB2 classes I never saw the dragon shaman or the knight in play so I don't know. The duskblade is pretty decent though.

 

[Schmoe]

While I have the PF rules, I haven't played but a short (1st-2nd level) campaign with the changes PF has brought about. With all of that in mind, are the PF classes much closer in power and am I unlikely to see issues with the melee/martial classes being outshined by spell casters at the top levels?

I think PF may have actually exacerbated the discrepancies. Melees haven't been given anything to make them more relevant in high-level combat, and spell-casters have actually been beefed-up in power.

 

[ruemere]

I think PF may have actually exacerbated the discrepancies. Melees haven't been given anything to make them more relevant in high-level combat, and spell-casters have actually been beefed-up in power.

I happen to run games for 13+ level characters. Off the top of my head, stuff for martial classes:
- reworked _all_ martial classes
- critical masteries for fighters (and bravery special ability)
- high level auras and mercies for paladins... aura of justice is very powerful
- Greater Willpower feat

Many signature spells were nerfed. A lot. Spellcasters got more abilities, but those powers often are not as powerful as spells (or cannot be used during spellcasting).

Care to explain your opinion?

Regards,
Ruemere