As the title asks, I'm wondering if Pathfinder has saved high level play from itself. We're considering switching over a 12th level campaign to this rule set from 3.5, so I need your help deciding.
In my experience, high level play devolves to finding and exploiting the low save of your opponent. While that's exciting in rock-paper-scissors sort of way, I'm wondering if YOU feel that HIGH level play is better now and WHY.
FOR ME, my major concern is that Paizo ramped up the power level a bit for the lower levels, so I'm concerned that the high levels are just going to be 3e squared, rather than something that solves some of the previously known problems.
What do you think? Should we switch?
I don't have that much experience of high-level play, but from what I've seen it's been somewhat lessened in that it's harder to get save DC's really high now if just using PF core, since there's fewer splatbooks and the like. It's not a huge difference though.
Also, some SoD/SoS's have been nerfed to more reasonable effects, but there's still many powerful ones and improved initiative is still the caster's most important feat.
Both hit points and non-spell damage has been inflated, but I don't know which is the largest boost of them.
I feel that PF has inflated the lower levels and allowed the core classes to be playable through level 20.
With this being said; and through my experience of switching from an epic level campaign (levels 22+) to a "ramped down" 12th level campaign, did not change the dynamic of the game play. As our group of 8 played, we came to the conclusion that the only difference between the high and low levels was PC wealth and DPR!!
The PC's overall lethality still remained the same across the board. Granted, some classes receivied great abilities or ridiculous spells at certain levels, but all that did was add to the lethality of that character at that level.
To answer your question, I think that you can can go either way with it, high or low level! The reason why people feel PF is so ramped up is because they give you abilities, which translates into options, and its the options that each character has that truly kills. By that, it doesn't matter if your 20th or 12th, the options are there!!
However it's harder (but not impossible) to get your DC's as high as they were in 3.5 so i feel that it makes it a little bit better for avoiding save or die, or save or suck nonsense.
I am running a game in which the party is 18th level. (And for the record, I have not and will not use beholders.)
I have not noticed this particular saving throw issue---although in some cases this is because some high CR creatures have good saves all around. The thing is, both save bonuses are high and save DCs are high... and ultimately, mathematically, I don't find making or breaking saves any worse than they were at lower levels.
The one concern I have started to develop is with DR. Either no one can bypass it--in which it's like trying to slowly whittle down an enemy with a toothpick--or only one or two people can, which makes it sometimes feel like only one member of the party has the "Win Button." It's not a big deal, but I think I may pick some enemies with regeneration or just high HP instead. (OTOH, I am also starting to see why Vital Strike is awesome, because it is likely to do a lot of damage even after DR is accounted for.)
Overall, I think it is a little harder to run high level play--but more just because there is more to remember and preparation takes longer.
But I also find that it's best to be sure not to make it all combat all the time; my campaign has a lot of political and religious roleplay stuff going on and the players' influence as powerful heroes in the world is as important as anything else.
On the other hand, there's that bouncing spell from the apg (make your save twice) that is positively nasty for save or dies.
FWIW, there aren't a lot of actual save or dies left in Pathfinder. Mostly they're save or take a bunch of damages, like 3.5 Disintegrate.
On the other hand, there's that bouncing spell from the apg (make your save twice) that is positively nasty for save or dies.
You are thinking persistent spell -- bouncing targets someone else if the first target fails the save throw.
The maximum DC on spells sits at 34~40 for most characters -- and at least +2~4 of that is extremely high level additions (meaning level 18 and beyond). The current "best" DC that could be managed is 49: 10 base + 10 (9th level spell + focused with trait)+10(con bonus)+13(cha bonus)+4(feats including spell perfection)+1(gnome) from a gnomish rage prophet.
Save bonuses can easily keep pace with that at the 50~95% success rate (on save throws) for PCs. NPCs and Monsters generally sit at 40~70% success against SoS/SoD spells. Also most of the "SoD" spells -- aren't any more.
Consider the list provided above:
Dominate person
Hold monster
Magic jar
Suffocation
Baleful polymorph
Transmute rock to mud + dispel (situational, but no save)
Mass suggestion
Eyebite
Flesh to stone
Of this list no less than 4 spells are held off by a first level spell (dominate person, hold monster, magic jar, and mass suggestion) -- and several other spells besides (un/holy aura for example) and of those all of but one (magic jar) allows additional saves past the first round. Magic Jar requires leaving your body sitting somewhere and hoping you can get someone to fail a save throw. Suffocation requires multiple rounds to succeed, while baleful polymorph is arguably one of the more powerful options offered please note the number of shapechangers has increased and as such the number of creatures that are basically immune to this spell is larger than before. Transmute rock to mud + dispel takes more than one round to work, and you still have to succeed on a dispel check against your own spell (a 50/50 chance generally) with no guarantee that this combo will even do anything. Eyebite has little effect by the time you can cast it -- except on mooks while flesh to stone is a limited target spell with a low enough level that it's not likely to last long as a choice.
Slay living is nice -- if you think you'll actually kill anyone with it though you are mistaken: 12d6+1 point per caster level isn't going to kill anything at 9th level.
I don't get where people think divine power was really nerfed:
Before it gave you an increase in BAB -- at most this was +5 to hit, at level 20, when you got it at level 7 it's all of a +2 to hit. The +6 enhancement bonus to strength was nice but didn't stack with magical items.
The new divine power gives an extra attack and a minimum +2 to hit and damage, and stacks with magical items that boost strength. At most you'll get the extra hit that divine power could have given, and +6 to hit and damage -- which is +3 more than the strength bonus would have given you, stacks with your +6 belt of giants strength. Now granted it doesn't stack with haste -- but it is still a really nice spell. Finally (though it probably won't matter often) the luck bonus on strength checks is actuall better than what you would have gotten from the +6 enchancement bonus to strength as well.
And in return Righteous Might got a boost -- the con bonus is better than it used to be and you get more DR out of the spell than you used to (15/evil or good compared to 9/evil or good).
As much as people don't want to hear it the easiest (meaning least resource intensive, with the simplest battle plan) way to take out an enemy currently it to kill it with HP damage from a martial character -- and considering there are plenty of martial characters that can be built with the AC to not get hit, the save bonuses to not fail against high DC abilities, the ability to strike (generally with full attacks) at foes, with enough damage to kill in one to one and a half rounds while still having the HP to weather the rare full attack that hits back I don't understand why people would think otherwise. The only explanation I have is not taking the time to actually look at what martial characters are fully capable of.
I don't get where people think divine power was really nerfed:
It's a couple things, mostly around the interactions of things and it's a bit subtle:
Figure your standard 3.5 Clericzilla is going to have one or more pairs of boots of speed if nothing else, which he'll kick on to full attack when he can. From his perspective, getting the haste-like attack out of divine power just saves him boots cash, and he still might even want the boots for the movement and other factors.
Losing the base attack, on the other hand, means a bunch of things. For example, feats like Power Attack don't do as much for you, and you're potentially losing an extra attack (due to higher BAB) that does stack with haste.
Also factor in that your prototypical Clericzilla would have had other spells such as Divine Favor up, one way or another (in the less-cheese-allowed 3.5 games I played, it wasn't odd to see 5th slots sacrificed to quicken it, although there are certainly numerous other options). PF Divine Power doesn't stack with Divine Favor well, whereas the 3.5 versions of the spells stacked together great.
As far as Righteous Might goes, I think you misread the PF version or you and I have different versions of the book or something -- mine tops out at DR 10, not 15. Which is greater than 9, but it's not a big change. The PF version also gives you a DEX penalty. So probably the PF version is a little better (2 CON for 2 DEX is probably a good trade) but overall it's on a pretty even level with 3.5.'s.
On divine power -- you don't stack with divine favor anymore -- that is true -- but I would argue that gaining the stack with the belt is worth that (in my opinion) and you save more on the multiple boots than you'll spend on the belt. I'll agree losing the BAB attack hurts some, but then again I'll also agree that this was one spell that needed pulled in -- especially since the only other comparable spell was transformation -- a sixth level arcane spell that cost you spell casting to use (in addition to a rather expensive potion component).
On Righteous might -- you are correct about the DR -- I might have had a typo but I think I was just reading something wrong, or reading too many things at once. I would also take the Dex penalty for the better Con easily.
Also -- I'll pull out the usual "clerics get 9th level spells, bonus slots for free, channel energy, two domains (with four powers and possible feats), and many of the best wizard spells become available through domain choices -- all this in armor with d8 hit dice and medium BAB while still having just as many excellent SoS/SoD choices as the wizard -- without having to lug a book around" argument.
Also -- I'll pull out the usual "clerics get 9th level spells, bonus slots for free, channel energy, two domains (with four powers and possible feats), and many of the best wizard spells become available through domain choices -- all this in armor with d8 hit dice and medium BAB while still having just as many excellent SoS/SoD choices as the wizard -- without having to lug a book around" argument.
To be clear, I don't think clerics are terrible now or anything remotely of the kind -- but I do think the "fighting cleric" angle has lost half a step vs. 3.5. In the 3.5 era I saw a lot of different cleric builds, but most of them were set up to do most of their combat via weapon -- the "casting offensive spells is most of how I'm going to kill things" cleric was more of an anomoly. In PF, it feels to me like the balance has tipped a bit more towards the "casting cleric." I don't know if you want to say that's a good or bad thing or neither.
for High level play a cleric's armor helps him zero. Clerics get channel energy, and all the other stuff you mentioned, and thy run around with a party that they are healing most of the time. So that awesome channel ability they get, they have to use, so they aren't getting to use all those other cool powers at the same time cause their friends are all shouting "medic!". Now if there are two clrics that's a different story. But why not play a fighter that does tons of dmg, or a pally that can dish it out and heal himself in a pinch instead of the second cleric?
Seriously you want to go here?
I'll play.
Dwarf Cleric 16/ Holy Vindicator 4
Str 14 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 10 (20 point buy)
After racial:
Str 14 Dex 10 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 8
Level adjustments go to Wisdom
Str 14 Dex 10 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 23 Cha 8
Domains: Rage (clarity of mind, superstitious), Defense
1st: shield focus
3rd: power attack
5th: toughness
7th: alignment channel
9th: combat casting
11th: steel soul
13th: extra rage
15th: quicken spell
17th: extra rage power (witch hunter)
19th: extra rage
+5 weapon
+6 belt of physical perfection
+6 headband of wisdom and charisma
+2 book of Con
+4 book of strength
+5 book of wisdom
Celestial plate
+5 light shield
Greater metamagic rod of persistent spell
+5 ring of protection
+5 amulet of natural armor
Phylacary of channel positive energy
Ioun Stone (caster level boost)
So after equipment we have:
Strength 24 Dex 16 Con 24 Int 10 Wis 34 Cha 14
with 28 rounds of rage.
Our save throws are as follows:
Fort +23 Ref +13 Will +27
Against spells and spell like we have:
Fort +27 Ref +17 Will +31
When raging against spells:
Fort +31 Ref +21 Will +35
BAB: +16 HP: 280
AC: 54 (10 base +12 armor +7 shield +5 deflection +5 natural +12 sacred +3 Dex)
With a single round we cast righteous might and quickened divine power:
+4 str(now 28) -2 Dex(now 14) +4 Con(now 28) +6 luck to attack and damage, extra attack.
And the round after we rage and attack:
+4 strength(now 32)+4 con(now 32) -2 AC (AC 50 now)
So our full attacks now look like:
Attack bonus: BAB +16 Str +11 Luck +6 Large -1 Power attack -5 Magic weapon +5
Damage: +11(str)+10(PA)+6(luck)+5(magic)+3(witch hunter)
For an attack line like this:
+32/+32/+27/+22/+17 (large weapon damage +35)
Add to this I have the following spells:
true strike, rage, shout, disintegrate, implosion, antimagic field, deflection, mind blank, and prismatic sphere added to my existing spell list with a maximum DC of 31.
Without the armor I would have 12 less points of AC, which would drop me into auto-hit range. With it I can close and tear things up with just about anyone, and if I don't want to close I can instead blow them up at range with my spells and metamagic rod (if I wanted I could drop an extra rage feat and instead simply take persistent spell).
The only thing the wizard has on me is teleport -- and I can simply forbiddance that.
Edit: @ dire mongoose -- I feel that the cleric can easily fill everyone's shoes still (as seen above) and I don't like that. However he has taken a slight step back from where he once was... but he is far from having been actually nerfed hard like the wizard has been when it comes to spell effects (though to be clear the wizard has benefited from the hit dice increase, the favored class update, and the ability to cast banned spells as well as school powers -- it's just that several of these things cost him to have whereas all the cleric's powers come for "free" basically *yes the cleric must obey a god -- but that's not so hard to do in most games*).
for High level play a cleric's armor helps him zero. Clerics get channel energy, and all the other stuff you mentioned, and thy run around with a party that they are healing most of the time. So that awesome channel ability they get, they have to use, so they aren't getting to use all those other cool powers at the same time cause their friends are all shouting "medic!". Now if there are two clrics that's a different story. But why not play a fighter that does tons of dmg, or a pally that can dish it out and heal himself in a pinch instead of the second cleric?
Because in-combat healing is for chumps.
CoDzilla all your posts should come with the disclaimer of "results not typical and do not nessecarily represent actual gameplay".
Now if you play like CoDzilla and use massive point buys and bring in a lot of material from 3.5 while completely ignoring the average monster statistics, giving the monsters much more wealth than they should have at their CR, and completely ignoring what a martial character can do at 20th level then you might have issues.
However with the maximum save DC basically set and the average CR 20 monster having a bonus of +30 an AC 52 is not auto-hit range -- especially since auto hit is hitting on a 2 or better -- needing a 20+ is not a 2+ and therefore not auto hit -- I would think you would know this CoDzilla. The average AC of a CR 20 is 36 by the way, so the cleric isn't in auto hit rage either.
I'm wondering how you manage to get Save DC's to a point where they actually work moer often than half the time and how you've always managed to always have just the right save throw targeting spell for the foe you face as well.
But then that's something you never seem to be able to explain.
How are you figuring Balors/Pit Fiends get 137,000 gold for upgrades?
The treasure/encounter chart on Paizo's site lists the treasure for a CR 20 encounter as between 44,000 and 100,000. The d20pfsrd.com Balor stats show a Balor as having normal treasure, and ~27,000 gp of its treasure is already taken up by the unholy sword and flaming whip in its stat block.
Treasure per Encounter table is about halfway down this page
Balor at d20pfsrd.com
Clearly we are pulling numbers from different sources. Mind citing yours?
Also...
I assumed no 3.5 material in that assessment, only PF material. PF hands out + save DCs and things like Persistent Spell like candy.
Are you referring to anything other than that PF hands out more Feats? I can't think of or find any Core PF Items that increase your Spell Save DCs, other than the stat boosting items.
As the title asks, I'm wondering if Pathfinder has saved high level play from itself. We're considering switching over a 12th level campaign to this rule set from 3.5, so I need your help deciding.
In my experience, high level play devolves to finding and exploiting the low save of your opponent.
Whut? Aren't you mistaking high-level play for low-level play? In high-level play, nearly all opponents don't have low saves. And in optimized 3.5 high-level play, you can pretty much assume, that most of the serious opponents save on 2. There is a reason why so many of the best arcane caster builds relied on metamagic whoring to drop immense damage/ridiculous number of negative levels on their opponents, once the game got into two-digit level range.
Whut? Aren't you mistaking high-level play for low-level play? In high-level play, nearly all opponents don't have low saves. And in optimized 3.5 high-level play, you can pretty much assume, that most of the serious opponents save on 2. There is a reason why so many of the best arcane caster builds relied on metamagic whoring to drop immense damage/ridiculous number of negative levels on their opponents, once the game got into two-digit level range.
I think the OP means their relatively low save.
If we go back to the Balor from the previous posts, its saves are Fort +29, Ref +17, Will +25, unbuffed.
Its 'bad' save, at only +17, is 60% easier to hit than its 'good' save. So since by that level you can memorize a variety of SoD/SoS spells, you should always have a couple on hand to target the enemies 'bad' save. In this case, if you have a spell DC of 37, its a guaranteed hit on the Balor's Reflex.
Your average lower level monster tends to have much less of a gap between its highest and lowest saves, so its a little more about just keeping your save DCs as high as possible and not about having to target one particular save or else waste the spell.
"I'm wondering if YOU feel that HIGH level play is better now and WHY."
I can't claim that much experience with high level play. I haven't spent much time past about 15th level. But I would say that Core Pathfinder is much better then core 3.5. (Note: things like the Spell Compendium introduced all kinds of problems, but that is another issue...)
Melee types are much more relevant at high levels. There are many feats and class abilities that are appropriate for high level melee characters. Paladins, Rangers, Monks, and Barbarians are MUCH stronger classes at higher levels then they once were. (Monks and barbarians got more needed help from the Advanced Players Guide).
Several high level spells that used to straight kill you now deal 10hp/level damage instead, and many SoS/SoD effects allow more saves, or are not as debilitating as they once were.
With that said, you can still find ways to come up with what I consider game-breaking SoS/SoD casters. Also, casters still get tones of high level spells at the highest levels, and a wish or miracle type spell is still crazy powerful. It is fairly easy to prevent most balance issues, but if you look to stretch the rules, you will eventually find something.
"What do you think? Should we switch?"
Well, that is what I think. You should switch, because the SRD is free, so it won't even cost you a dime. If you find you don't like it, just switch back. Nothing to lose, and in my opinion a great game to gain!
I removed a post. Harassment is unnecessary.
Also, I'd like to remind everyone that trolls thrive on attention, negative or otherwise. Attempting to prove that they are incorrect, or that you know they are a troll, only encourages them to continue.
Instead, simply pretend the post isn't there. If it violates our messageboard rules, please flag it. Don't call them out. Don't tell them you're going to ignore them. Just continue the conversation as if there were not there, just like a child throwing a tantrum.
Thank you for making the Paizo messageboards a more friendly and civil place.