The classes at "high level" (14th)

[Friend of the Dork]

Schmoe,

Now, if you ask me, they could have done more (say, shift the casting time of some spell to 1 full round, and nerf more concentration at high levels) but the difference between classes has been narrowed without destroying how the game plays and feels.

Of course, if someone consider it not enough, it's a very legitimate opinion depending from gamestyle... but be sure to evaluate every aspect before drawing such conclusion

If you read my post you would see they already have done so (1 round is actually longer than 1 full-round action), and Before you would succeed most concentration checks at high level automatically but not you have maybe as much as 50% chance of failure which makes casting defensively "icky."

 

[Kaiyanwang]

If you read my post you would see they already have done so (1 round is actually longer than 1 full-round action), and Before you would succeed most concentration checks at high level automatically but not you have maybe as much as 50% chance of failure which makes casting defensively "icky."

I was thinking to change casting time of most spells, barring damaging ones. ut that would mean a too dramatical departure from previous incarnation of the game, so I see why they didn't made changes of this level.

High level concentration is no enough difficult IMHO. BUt aybe I'm too much old school

 

[Friend of the Dork]

I was thinking to change casting time of most spells, barring damaging ones. ut that would mean a too dramatical departure from previous incarnation of the game, so I see why they didn't made changes of this level.

High level concentration is no enough difficult IMHO. BUt aybe I'm too much old school

Hmm which "I win" spells in question do you think need longer casting time? I can see quite a few that has been changed. Also, I don't think making it full-round action will matter that much except annoy the spellcasters a bit.

Old school? I don't know how they handled concentation in 2nd ed. AD&D, but I guess it was something like "roll lower than your int."

How hard to you want them? Making players roll 15+ on d20 to succeed?

 

[Kaisoku]

That's what made it effective, though. Moving to the CMB significantly watered down its power. As the question is "Has Pathfinder narrowed the gap between casters and melee," this is a point to the contrary.

It was abusable against normal targets, and useless against others (larger, stronger targets.. hence why my tripper build took Stand Still).
I see you missed the part where the extra feat makes it so everyone around gets the extra attack. You pay extra in Pathfinder, and get more than in 3.5e.

Also, my main point was that you now have 5 options instead of 1. Overall, for character concept building, that's not a nerf.

If we're talking about relative boosts to classes, the casters were buffed more than the melees. Casters went from 1d4 to 1d6, whereas melees either went from 1d8 to 1d10 (a smaller percentage buff) or weren't buffed at all. Again, Pathfinder buffed casters more than it buffed melees.

It's 20 extra hitpoints for each person. That's the same amount of damage soak for each class. % of health doesn't matter when you are at 100% effectiveness until you hit 0, so each and every class got the same exact amount of extra survivability, and there were more combat classes that got boosted over casters (who aren't typically needing the hitpoints as badly anyways).

.

Arcane Bond adds a hindrance to give a benefit that the Wizard already had in scrolls. It's definitely a nice trick.. but is it a similar boost as what the Fighter ended up getting?

Sorcerers, I will admit got a major overhaul (you didn't even mentioned the favored class option in the APG). I still think they get the short end of the stick with delayed spellcasting, that nothing they've gotten so far can really make up for. But yes, if you are looking for an example of a caster that got a nice boost then the Sorcerer qualifies.

Quite frankly though, I'm surprised you would consider these things at all in the same ballpark as the benefits that the combat classes got. The Fighter is far better at performing as a Fighter than he used to be, even if the Wizard got an extra little trick up his sleeve.

The comment "the gap is closer" means that the melees got more for being a melee than the casters got for being casters. It also means there's still a gap. I'm not trying to say that there's a balance in class tiers.
Yeah, the Sorcerer got a really hefty hike (which they needed, honestly), but every single melee class got a major overhaul in abilities and feat choices (especially with the APG).
The DPR Olympics thread can show a little about what the non-casters are able to pull off in Pathfinder.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Old school? I don't know how they handled concentation in 2nd ed. AD&D, but I guess it was something like "roll lower than your int."

I don't know, for sure, about 2nd Edition AD&D, but as I remember 1st Edition AD&D didn't have concentration. Casting a spell took X number of segments (10ths of a round). During that time, you lost all bonuses to AC and if you were hit during that time, you lost the spell.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

. . . if you were hit during that time, you lost the spell.

Seems so few people appreciate how enormous a game changer this alteration made to game play. How much it powered up spellcasting classes that is when they weren't threatened with losing spells so easily.

It seemed most of us just enjoyed how much it didn't suck anymore to have one's spells vanish. Getting to do stuff on your turn is fun. But I wasn't aware then how effective this could be at keeping spellcasters down.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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?)

My experience in actual gameplay both from a group and individual perspective.


Arcane casters are still the most powerful class in the game followed by divine casters. Which in my opinion is how a fantasy game should be designed because in 99% of fantasy worlds, the arcane caster equivalents are the most powerful beings in the world. And Pathfinder is no different.

Does this mean arcane casters can shine alone? No. They do not shine alone. They have several weaknesses which are often exploited during many important encounters the most notable of which are poor fort saves and weaker hit points.

But because of their diverse spells and ability to do gobs of damage over a large group. their aggregate damage dealing ability is immense. With all the additional abilities given to say Evocation focused wizards and bloodlines, you can make some seriously powerful arcane casters. More powerful than 3rd edition save for the archmage prestige class which just about every arcane caster took. But they brought back a little archmage capability with the Advanced Player's Guide selective spell which helps the arcane caster lay down the AoE smackdown while missing his fellow party members.

All in all arcane casters are still the biggest beasts in the game. If you didn't that aspect of the game in 3.0 plus, it's still there in Pathfinder. I never minded this aspect of the game. I felt it was appropriate. Figures like Gandalf, Merlin, and Raistlin were more powerful than their companions by many degrees and I feel that aspect of the game is an essential part of building a faithful fantasy game. Players who choose to focus too greatly on balance in favor of flavor ruined 4E in my opinion by encouraging the WotC to make sure each class was of fairly the same power rather than making a fantasy game faithful to the trappings of the genre.


Now that being said, fighter-types are still a blast to play. They did improve options and they did empower the fighter-classes. So they are way more interesting and you have far more options for building an interesting fighter-type (save for rogues...they are still the red-headed stepchild of 3.0 plus far less interesting and weaker than any other class).

Fighters: These guys are fundamentally the same with some added perks like Bravery and Armor Mastery. Very powerful damage dealing class and truly the best weapon masters in the game. Two-hander fighters and archer fighters are truly sickening damage dealers that can annihilate encounters in single lucky rounds with crits. They have a few more options for helping the party as well like critical feats and feats like Dazzling Display.


Barbarians: Far more versatile than 3.0. Rage powers can make for some interesting abilities. They have some excellent paths in the Advanced Player's Guide. Truly a fearsome damage dealer and can pick up some nifty abilities with rage powers. Better than the old barbarian by quite a lot.

Rangers: Great against their favored enemies. Ranger archers are pretty harsh. The equal of the rogue if not better when it comes to stealth and scouting. A very potent, well-rounded combatant with helpful spells as well.

Paladin: Somebody at Paizo loves paladins. They received the biggest power boost of all the 3.0 classes. Smite Evil is far better than it used to be both in potency and duration. Their spell list is improved. Weapon Bond can allow for great enhancements on your blade in addition to whatever its base abilities are. You get two good saves: fort and will. You are still immune to fear. You become immune to charm and compulsions as well. Group Smite Evil. Eventual damage reduction. The Pathfinder paladin is beastly.

Monk: More attacks per round. More options with Ki. The incorporation of special maneuvers into the monk fighting style was done well. You can now build a grappler monk that is truly dangerous. You can mix in trip and other special attacks with greater ease. You get more the feel of being a martial artist. Still get all the defensive abilities monks normally get. And up to seven attacks at the highest level. Amulet of Mighty Fists and Brass Knuckles allow you to add enhancement bonuses and special weapon abilities to unarmed attacks. A much more potent monk.

Rogue: The rogue is like the 3.5 rogue. You have a few more options and your sneak attack works on more creatures, but you are still vulnerable to both fort and will attacks. You still have amongst the lowest hit points in the game. You still require the most help from the rest of the party to excel.


Support Classes:

Cleric: Fundamentally the same as before with some added powers from domains. Still a potent class. Some spell changes greatly reduce the ability to make an abusive cleric.

Bard: Fundamentally the same with some skill streamlining. Incorporating skills like Bluff and Diplomacy into Performance skills was a very wise decision. It improves class flavor.

Oracle: Nicely designed support healer that scales well.


So though Arcane classes are still the kings of power in Pathfinder, the other classes are by no means uninteresting or lacking in options save for the rogue, which is still poorly designed as far as power scaling goes. More of a flavor class that I would never recommend anyone playing as a single class. The rogue does not stand well on its own.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

. . . if you were hit during that time, you lost the spell.

Seems so few people appreciate how enormous a game changer this alteration made to game play. How much it powered up spellcasting classes that is when they weren't threatened with losing spells so easily.

It seemed most of us just enjoyed how much it didn't suck anymore to have one's spells vanish. Getting to do stuff on your turn is fun. But I wasn't aware then how effective this could be at keeping spellcasters down.

Agreed. I actually like the 3.x initiative & casting system. Casters (especially arcane) always seemed just barely able to survive in AD&D. And, they still die easily in 3.x (including Pathfinder) without the rest of the party protecting them.

A potential houserule: To make the 3.x/PF casting and initiative system similar to AD&D, I suggesting changing the casting time of spells that are a 1 standard action casting time to begin on the casters initiative count, but not go off until a number of initiative counts laster equal to the spell level. For example, Bob the Wizard decides he will cast fireball (a 3rd level wiz/sor spell). His acts on initiative 14. So, he begins casting the spell on initiative count 14, but he doesn't complete the casting until count 11 (since we start from the highest initiative and work down). So, anyone acting from the time Bob begins casting on initiative counts 14 until he completes the casting on count 11 may interrupt the spell. The higher level the spell, the longer it takes to cast and the more vulnerable it is to being interrupted.

Side note: An interesting thing, to me, is the idea that the changes to the initiative system and the casting time of spells from edition to edition can possibly be tied to the events surrounding Vecna's activities. The idea that the actions of PCs and/or NPCs in the game can possibly result in major rules revisions is fascinating.

 

[concerro]

The rogue works quiet well, but how well depends on the group's style of play, and the player in question.

 

[Celtavian]

The rogue works quiet well, but how well depends on the group's style of play, and the player in question.

And to counter that, the other classes work quite well regardless of the group's playstyle and player in question. No caveats when it comes to every other class. No worries about flanking. No worries about moving into position. Just move and attack. You'll probably kill whatever you're fighting or have it half dead by the time the rogue perform's Dirty Trick, moves into position, or does whatever it is rogue's do to be effective.

And past level 10 and the following occurs:

1. Fighting all those nasty AoE fear creatures,

2. level drainers

3. Nasty arcane and divine casters with their fort based damaging attacks that are targeting you first because they know you're weak in both

4. Creatrues with nasty poison and poison is much worse in Pathfinder so it is a threat.

5. Creatures with ACs that really start to make that five point lower BAB hurt and you with no means to elevate your attack roll like full BAB flurry, judgments, spells, or full BAB like a ranger.


6. All those will based attacks like charm, dominate person, fear, hold, confusion, and the like including gaze attacks where you're saving every round.

7. Simple spells like Blur and Invisibiilty making your sneak attack useless on top of the creatures immune to crit innately.

8. DR you can't punch through very well.

9. Less attacks than everyone else because of lower BAB and two weapon fighting being too feat intensive and lowering your already weak chance to hit.



If you ever decide to play a straight rogue, better hope for some of the following:

1. Your group never makes it past lvl 10 or so.

2. Your DM is really into roleplaying encounters that require skills. A rogue can really shine in a skill-based campaign with a lot of traps.

3. Your party is full of people that don't know how to optimize their characters.

4. Your clerics don't mind focusing their counter support spells on keeping you clean of charms, fears, poison, and the like.

5. Your DM doesn't play enemies like arcane casters and powerful outsiders, dragons, and undead intelligently enough to focus on the weak fort and will save classes first even though they have genius intellects and more experience fighting mortals than mortals have fighting them.


I will never recommend anyone playing a single class rogue in a campaign going beyond 8th to 10th level without a DM that takes the time to create rogue friendly encounters. Not worth it as a player to spend that much time to build up a character only to have other character's around you shine so much brighter as they come into their own at high level.