It seems that discussing concerns about high level play is like beating a dead horse (and raising the horse, killing it, and continuing to beat the dead horse).
It seems one large concern is that spellcasters become more diverse, while some non-spellcasters become more specialized. A high level druid gets access to more powerful spells and more cool abilities, while the fighter focuses on a few feat chains. The barbarian gets some new abilities, but mostly a variation on 'I rage and hit things for a lot of damage.'
A lot of GMs and groups have fun with high level play, which is good. But it seems like the GM and players are responsible for making high level play work to a greater extent than they are for lower levels. The game seems better balanced up to level 10 (an improvement over 3E, which was really only balanced up to level 6).
The spells in PF are much better balanced than 3E, which improves the entire system. In 3E some spells were so powerful they set the standard for PC power at the level those spells were accessed. But in general spellcasters get more options and more powerful options as they gain levels, and non-spellcasters have to specialize to continue being able to do one or two things.
Is there a question here, or do just want us to say if we agree or disagree?
I'd like to hear people's thoughts and observations. I don't think the disparity between casters and non-casters is as great as some threads suggest. It does seem that non-casters have to specialize in order to do a few things, like fight using two weapons or survive long enough to use sneak attack damage. So a full caster can build to take advantage a few spells and get a number of utility spells, while a rogue or fighter or barbarian spends a lot of feats to be good at one thing.
So I'm asking if people agree or disagree, and I'd like to hear counterexamples if I'm wrong or examples supporting the statement. I've made what I believe to be a fairly valid observation, but I'm sure there are examples when it doesn't hold true and examples when it does hold true.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
What can a fighter do outside of combat again?
To me it boils down to how well the .gm manages the power level and party wealth and how willing a group is to self police. I like trying to get as powerful as possible while still feeling like the game is a bit of a challenge. I dislike cheese so that helps my .gm by giving him one less thing to balance/manage because I don't min max even close to 100%. We are also happy not straying beyond the scope of the rules and use the barest minimum of houserules (5 I think?) That are minor and serve to fill gray areas primarily, none are big.
It seems like this high level thing causes alot of folks problems, how about ending the campaign when you feel things are getting out of control for you as a DM?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Fighters can HANDLE ANIMAL!
I think the big problem is that in these worlds High Level Characters and NPCs will only ever make up for maybe and I mean maybe 1% of the world. You are the pinnacle of your class. Unless you have an End Game in Mind you really do not have a drive as soon as you are high level. Your wealth is in millions. Your items are as close to relics as possible. The only drive usually involved is Saving the world or Building a kingdom!
Not for my group if you read my post. 20 is great, it will not be deicide power level though even with 1000000 wbl and capstone abilities.
Pan wrote: What can a fighter do outside of combat again? One might ask the same question of a magus, or a warmage?
The answer... is that there are a ton of things that PC's do that don't need a rules mechanic to oversee.
So to answer your question....
It depends on context. You can interact with NPC's or your fellow party members. there are a lot of interactions that don't involve rolling a maxed out diplomacy score.... or casting dominate.
You can do stuff like make decisions that affect a domain you control.
So the answer to that question depends on the answer to another. "What is there to be done outside of combat?"
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Maybe I'm the only guy that feels this way, but after a few levels of treating my PC like a real person with friends, enemies, goals and worries, I'm not usually worried about the power balance between PCs - I'm more focused on the power balance between my team and the villains. Is a 16th-level wizard villain a bigger threat to my team than a 20th-level fighter villain? Sure, I reckon so - he can come at us in more unexpected ways. Good thing my wizard buddy has me to cover his back against the "send 20,000 Uruk-Hai to their front door" angle while he worries about the more esoteric possibilities... Is he more flexible, more powerful than me? Sure, if he has a few hours to think it over and make an educated guess as to what's in store. Doesn't matter; point is that the people out there don't get to choose which of us to fight; they're gonna fight all of us.
It really depends on how the GM runs the game, and how the character is built. Fighters can do more than fight, as an example, but you have to build them to be able to do so.
The game does have a 'shift' point where none spell casters become peripheral and magic becomes dominant. For everything. Too much so. And that point is at a fairly low level I reckon (c. 7th-8th).
The solution I think (and this only delays the inevitable) is the low-magic campaign, whereby the most magic item reliant classes (the spell users) are given less opportunity to spend their way to overcome their weaknesses.
Meh you know what they say about opinions. Anyway, with masters starting out weaker than everyone else, benefits gained at higher level are a sweet reward else why take the risk?
Conundrum wrote: Meh you know what they say about opinions. Anyway, with masters starting out weaker than everyone else, benefits gained at higher level are a sweet reward else why take the risk? I would not say casters start out weaker. They just can't adventure as long since they have very few spells at first.
One sleep spell can end an encounter. So can color spray, but it is risker.
Lincoln Hills wrote: Maybe I'm the only guy that feels this way, but after a few levels of treating my PC like a real person with friends, enemies, goals and worries, I'm not usually worried about the power balance between PCs - I'm more focused on the power balance between my team and the villains. Is a 16th-level wizard villain a bigger threat to my team than a 20th-level fighter villain? Sure, I reckon so - he can come at us in more unexpected ways. Good thing my wizard buddy has me to cover his back against the "send 20,000 Uruk-Hai to their front door" angle while he worries about the more esoteric possibilities... Is he more flexible, more powerful than me? Sure, if he has a few hours to think it over and make an educated guess as to what's in store. Doesn't matter; point is that the people out there don't get to choose which of us to fight; they're gonna fight all of us. I think the wizard would be much better off against the 20k Uruk-Hai than a fighter.
High level fighters main strength is that they can do ridiculous DPR and end most enemies with a full round attack.
Low level casters are hardly "weaker" than evyeryone else. They can wreck/change the complexion of an entire encounter with one spell.
They're balanced by the fact that they're relatively fragile and have to actually consider their spells per day limit when acting.
wraithstrike wrote: Conundrum wrote: Meh you know what they say about opinions. Anyway, with masters starting out weaker than everyone else, benefits gained at higher level are a sweet reward else why take the risk? I would not say casters start out weaker. They just can't adventure as long since they have very few spells at first.
One sleep spell can end an encounter. So can color spray, but it is risker. my wife plays a gnome witch with the sleep spell and slumber hex, needless to say more then half the goblins of Brinestump marsh were left to whatever maniacal dreams goblins dream, she has had great fun with it
strayshift wrote: The game does have a 'shift' point where none spell casters become peripheral and magic becomes dominant. For everything. Too much so. And that point is at a fairly low level I reckon (c. 7th-8th).
The solution I think (and this only delays the inevitable) is the low-magic campaign, whereby the most magic item reliant classes (the spell users) are given less opportunity to spend their way to overcome their weaknesses.
A "low-magic" campaign that has spell casters in it is the opposite of a solution.
Spell users are the least magic item reliant classes because they have, well, spells to cover their weaknesses. At best you slow them down as they spend some of their spells per day on buffing their defenses.
Take your magic weapons, armor, AC boosters, and save enhancers away from non-casters and they've got next to nothing they can do to compensate for it.
The point I'm arguing is that the disparity between casters and non-casters is not necessarily huge, for me the bigger problem is that full casters have spells that make them at least as effective as non-casters and a lot of utility/versatility. The fighter spends a lot of feats being good at a few combat styles and combat maneuvers, while the wizard, cleric, druid, summoner, and oracle have comparable or greater dpr and fun, versatile spells. So every time a new spells level is accessed, the caster gets combat ability and versatility. 5th level arcane spells include cone of cold, baleful polymorph, passwall, feeblemind, and teleport. If an opponent fails a save against baleful polymorph or feeblemind that can end an encounter, and the arcane caster can bypass areas of a dungeon or castle and transport the party large distances. At level nine and ten the fighter gets a feat and improved BAB, but does not greatly increase the range of options. The arcane caster also gets a feat at level nine, the feat could be used for spell focus or spell penetration ti increase effectiveness of some spells or used for fluff, the arcane caster gets access to more power and versatility from new spells and gets the option of optimizing for casting or adding fluff.
IMO the difference in power between casters and non-casters is not game-wrecking, groups can manage the difference and have fun. But a martial character has to focus the majority of their feats on combat effectiveness, and a full caster can have comparable combat effectiveness without spending the majority of feats on optimization.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I like high level play. I like playing it, and I enjoy DMing it even more. It's a different kind of game. The PCs (and by extension, the players) have much more control over the game world and what happens in general.
I've never had players upset over any perceived disparity between the casters and the martials, even at level 20. The martials still get to wreck the faces of the bad guys, which seems to be what they sign up for when they roll the character at level one. If a player wants to wield world shaping magic, they play a caster, not a fighter. The player who wants to be the big tough guy who can take a hit and shatter mountains with a swing of a hammer picks a martial. Even if a wizard could accomplish the same effect (destroying a mountain), the imagery just isn't the same.
Is this about general high level play or just another high"martial<caster disparity" thread because I am sick of these types of arguments.
I don't think it'd be unreasonable to hijack the thread to "derail" the discussion to match the title.
One of the things I find different for high level play is that you don't plan the game based on what you expect the PCs to do, and you don't try to balance and counter-balance encounters. You present the situation, add some appropriate-ish CR encounters, and turn them loose. It takes a very careful balance between a loose grip and knowing when to reel them back in, but the game ends up being a much more shared experience, and honestly it gets easier to GM (imo). As always, YMMV, mostly because every gaming group is different.
Martial/caster disparity is a part of high level play, and I'm arguing that the disparity in power level is not a problem (at least not an insurmountable problem). I'm arguing that it is easier for some classes to have adequate combat ability and to have out of combat versatility/utility, and the disparity between necessary specialization for some classes causes a greater (for me) disparity than difference in power levels.
That said, I don't have enough experience with high level PF to say this with certainty. Several posters have stated that high level play is fun. I like Riuken's comment that some players enjoy hitting opponents for lots of damage with weapons and have fun with martial characters at high levels.
So there are strong counterexamples to my argument that the specialization of martial characters vs. the power and utility of full casters causes great disparity.
So let's open the discussion to examples of various classes at high levels (12+). The gunslinger is a cool class IMO, but is shooting things for 20 levels fun? Is it a matter of self-selection, a player who wants to play Roland from the Dark Tower will have fun but 12+ levels of gunslinger is not for everyone? Bard and druid seem easy to make effective and versatile, does anyone have stories of a magus or summoner being more versatile in the long run than a bard or druid?
Oh boy. My post 12th experience while extensive dates only as recently as the release of 4e at which point I took a year off and I am just now about to hit 12 in pf for the first time in a couple days. Granted it will be with 4 characters so my experience with various classes at high levels in pf will accumulate rather quickly. Bear in mind I have run at least 4 characters to at least level 20, and two past level 30.
It seems that my assertion that the disparity in specialization and versatility is greater than disparity in power might hold true in some causes but definitely does not hold true in other cases. Now I'm hoping for an interesting (not the same thread as we've seen a lot of times before) discussion on high level play.
I have had characters go for as long as the GM would allow. I believe it is all up to how you DEVELOP your character. Their story, motives, goals, ambitions! Mechanically, sure, the fun taps out after a while, but take a well thought out character and the possibilities are only limited by imagination.
I had an elven wizard play all the way to level 14 and could have played him more if the campaign lasted longer. While another had a superstition against magic (spells, items, etc.) and his ability to maintain effectiveness was to about level 7 or 8.
If anyone's interested, I started a build thread to test versatility at higher levels http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pua1?New-Build-Thread-InterestingVersatile-and -Not
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
