|
Call me an "elitist," but IMO high level play should NOT be for casual gamers. There's a certain amount of commitment to being familiar with the rules, the characters, and the story arcs/threads involved. Anyone who plays sports would say similar things about playing on a team: you practice, you improve your fundamentals, and you improve as a team; those who just want to show up for the games and expect everyone else to make allowances for their lack of ability/familiarity with other team members usually don't make it far. You don't have to be an expert min-maxer or a budding thespian, but is expecting people to know what their character can and can't do (without having to constantly look things up), how to work together, effective tactics and teamwork, and keeping track of what's going on from session to session that much to ask for when your playing heroes who can save or doom the world?
I agree up to a point; I like to see the changes in a group, as the light-bulbs go on above their heads; they learn the rules for a combat maneouvre they've not used before, they promote their PC to a level they've never played before, they qualify for a level of spells they've never used before.
As a group, they start learning to predict each other's tactics, get their heads together to pick spells that synergise.I've had that experience in older games, where we sit back and laugh as everything starts coming together and making sense.
But 3.0/3.5 (and by extension, I fear the same for PF) just does not allow this. The speed of levelling prevents players from exploring all their options before being given new ones.
My SCAP PC levelled twice in 15 minutes of PC time, during 'Thirteen Cages'. OK, so we were nearly at the target xp before we went in, but that just emphasises that we went straight from our current level, right through the beginning of the next level, and right through the level after that, while the buffs were still running, since kicking in the front doors.
Same thing happened in my AOW game, during the back end of '3 Faces of Evil'. OK, in hindsight, I should have given them the benefit of the doubt, loaned them a few bonus xp in advance, and let them be level 5 before the last big push. But again, they went straight through a level (from 4 to 6) without stopping to enjoy the benefits (except for hp, BAB and saves, which I assume are being trained on the go).
And that was even quicker, maybe 5 minutes, as the PCs experienced it.
(Except for one PC, for whom it was even quicker still. He got separated from the rest, I played on his Int of 6 by refusing to let him keep notes, wiping out the map behind him, and spinning it round when he wasn't looking. He got totally lost, jumped by 3/4 of the inhabitants in a running battle, blew all his potions and all his Lay on Hands, and staggered back to the others on 0hp, two minutes later and two levels higher.
Two levels gained.
In two minutes.
How can you plan, or reflect on what you've learned, when you level up so fast?
As a PC, I was still translating spells from books I had liberated 5/6 levels before. I was picking new spells, and advancing, before ever having a chance to use them, even the automatic ones from my speciality school, the supposed core of my PC concept. At level 15, there were 6th level spells I had never used in the heat of the moment. Some items, spells and abilities that were 'essential purchases' were obsolete before they were unwrapped. "Oh, you know that protection I asked you for? I don't need it anymore; I found this item that covers it. Thanks anyway."
But 3.0/3.5 (and by extension, I fear the same for PF) just does not allow this. The speed of levelling prevents players from exploring all their options before being given new ones.
My SCAP PC levelled twice in 15 minutes of PC time, during 'Thirteen Cages'. OK, so we were nearly at the target xp before we went in, but that just emphasises that we went straight from our current level, right through the beginning of the next level, and right through the level after that, while the buffs were still running, since kicking in the front...
This was a part of 3rd Ed. that irked me as well. As a player, I'd level so fast sometimes, I wouldn't even get to try a new ability I'd got yet just a level before.
But remember, in the Beta, it allows for varying speeds of level progression. Hopefully, that stays in the final rules. I'm using the middle level progression in one campaign I run and I prefer it to 3rd Ed.
This was a part of 3rd Ed. that irked me as well. As a player, I'd level so fast sometimes, I wouldn't even get to try a new ability I'd got yet just a level before.
Amen! I'm using the slow progression and it's a lot better... except that if you use prewritten adventures, there is now twice as much treasure as there should be. So if you use the slower progession, make sure to adjust treasure (especially NPC magic items, which ususally represents the bulk of it) downward accordingly -- which nerfs the BBEGs, so you may need to give them a bone on the form of bonus save-boost feats or something similar.
|
Hey Kirth and Housetonderak, did you guys see the new mechanic for casting defensively in the latest Paizo blog. DC is 15 + twice spell level. Caster adds his level and main casting modifier to a d20 roll to beat it.
Much harder, and should negate that automatic pass effect we've seen.
Plus they hint at the move mechanics that allow for feats that can prevent 5-ft step and cast.
All these little changes are bringing the gap between fighting types and casters much closer, you'd have to agree.
Cheers
This was a part of 3rd Ed. that irked me as well. As a player, I'd level so fast sometimes, I wouldn't even get to try a new ability I'd got yet just a level before.Amen! I'm using the slow progression and it's a lot better... except that if you use prewritten adventures, there is now twice as much treasure as there should be. So if you use the slower progession, make sure to adjust treasure (especially NPC magic items, which ususally represents the bulk of it) downward accordingly -- which nerfs the BBEGs, so you may need to give them a bone on the form of bonus save-boost feats or something similar.
I'm making my own adventures w/ that group. Well actually, I'm putting my own take on an old basic D&D adventure: "Rahasia". I actually enjoy the converting.
Hum.
Did my group make up a house rule and I never noticed?
Because I've never been in a game where you could level more than once a session. And typically, no matter how much xp gathered, you only did that at the end/between sessions.
I thought it was a rule in 3.x that if you gained enough xp to raise 2 or more levels you were instead left 1 xp shy of that second level.
That's how we've always played it.
I agree that it would be silly to gain that many levels that quickly. Which is why we've never done it. ;)
|
Hum.
Did my group make up a house rule and I never noticed?
Because I've never been in a game where you could level more than once a session. And typically, no matter how much xp gathered, you only did that at the end/between sessions.
I thought it was a rule in 3.x that if you gained enough xp to raise 2 or more levels you were instead left 1 xp shy of that second level.
That's how we've always played it.
I agree that it would be silly to gain that many levels that quickly. Which is why we've never done it. ;)
I think this is a houserule (not sure of official published rules on the topic), but one we've used for the length of my career with my current group (pushing 10 years now)
Also: on the note of "uber-hardcore-min-maxing-geniuses" and "noobs" playing in the same group; if the more technically savvy player refuses to slow down his character (even if he has the ultimate win-button move available, he chooses to do something else) or <gasp> plays a support character, thats a PLAYER problem, not a game design problem.
you wouldn't ask Tiger Woods to play, say, me, in golf, for money, and expect any kind of fair competition. I would just get angry and leave, most likely. Similarly, if you have a less savvy player in a group of rules experts, those players need to make allowances for the "weaker" member; helping with decisions about feats/powers/spells is one option, or simply allowing him to succeed/fail on his own decisions is another.
As such, these groups have an additional meta-game component to the table, where a section of the group is working towards one goal, another section is working towards a second goal, and possibly a third (generally the DM and any other players who also DM) is working towards yet a third goal. The end result, however, should really be the same: all parties involved enjoy their time playing the game in one anothers' company. If that is not the case, it's time to find a new game, new group, or new activity altogether.
-t
OT: With the new Casting Defensively tricks, changes to Cleric spells and overall changes to Wizard/Sorcerer classes, I think the PF Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger are approaching similar levels of utility, well through the mid and high level range. I have yet to see a Monk played out through any real range of levels, but there's one in our current Second Darkness game, so I am interested to see what he can do as we level.
I have yet to see a Monk played out through any real range of levels, but there's one in our current Second Darkness game, so I am interested to see what he can do as we level.
"...take the claw to the face, roll on the ground and die."
I need to watch Kung Pow again...
|
|
To Snorter et al. in regards to fast levelling.
That may be a result of your play style as much as anything else. My group play fortnightly for between 4 and 6 hours a session. Only once in the entire age of worms campaign that we've played for the last 2 1/2 years did we level two sessions running (and that was low levels, around 2nd and 3rd I think). On average it took us about three sessions to level a character. That represents 6 weeks of real life, and we did a bit of roleplay through email with our characters between sessions. It let us develop our characters and learn their tricks over a nice spread of time.
Of course if we had played weekly, and for longer sessions then that would change, but we really don't have that time to spare.
I guess the standard 3.5 levelling system was pretty quick in low levels, but it sure seems to slow up at around 15 through 20 as we've been about 8 months on those levels now. Of course each session now only gets through a small amount of roleplay and usually one or two high level fights that seem to take ages with all the variables and oponents in them.
I agree that the variable xp advancement will help make wider groups happy.
I also like the DM level as you want rule. Now that xp costs are gone from crafting items, tracking your xp is far less important than it used to be (excpet maybe for organised play).
Cheers
Responding to recent posts:
In our instance, we never leveled up during a session, but always between sessions. We would average leveling up every 2.5 sessions.
However, the DM would need to throw encounters of a higher CR at us to give us a challenge. So we got more XP per encounter and needed less encounters to level up. We would level up after only 4 encounters sometimes.
I took Improved Disarm one time and didn't get the opportunity to use it until 2 levels later!
Very few encounters + very few foes at the time eligible to try it on = Not able to try my new ability.
Looking at the "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Preview #2".
Give some take some with the melee classes. While the beta did add some new abilities they almost equally nerf them with some key feats. I feel that this has not changed.
A level 14 fighter only has the capability to power attack for +4 damage... this seems EXTREMELY suspicious, but oh well.
A level 14 fighter only has the capability to power attack for +4 damage...
Plus normal Str modifier (I'm guessing you mean the fighter has 18 Str) for a total of +8. If using a two-handed weapon, the benefit for Power Attack is doubled to +8 on top of the normal +6 (Str mod x 1.5), for a total of +14; Backswing and Overhand Chop can raise that to +16 on a single attack or +20 on the first iterative attack (before adding enhancement bonuses, extra damage from weapon abilities, Weapon Specialization, etc.).
A level 14 fighter only has the capability to power attack for +4 damage...Plus normal Str modifier (I'm guessing you mean the fighter has 18 Str) for a total of +8. If using a two-handed weapon, the benefit for Power Attack is doubled to +8 on top of the normal +6 (Str mod x 1.5), for a total of +14; Backswing and Overhand Chop can raise that to +16 on a single attack or +20 on the first iterative attack (before adding enhancement bonuses, extra damage from weapon abilities, Weapon Specialization, etc.).
I am sorry, but what is your point?
3.5 a 14th level fighter could do -14 hit, +14 damage/24 damage two handed, with one feat...
with 3 feats they could do -14 AC, +14/24 damage, making doing damage much easier.
|
|
Just as an aside:
Just ran several combats in PFRPG Beta with many melee-centered characters. Party Level was 5 CR 9's (everyone lvl 9 with 1 Bugbear lvl 8).
Key melee characters were: Fighter 8 (1 kill, following many arrows to soften up the target), Fighter 6 (Hasted, shooting longbows @ +10/+10/+5 for 1d8+3 each), and Orc Barbarian 6's.
The Fighters were able to take out a Wizard (not killed, but driven from the combat before he could be) and most of a Cleric (lots and lots of arrows brought him into fullattack damage range for the Fighter 8)
The Barbarians were particularly nasty with the "Power Attack + Surprising Accuracy" trick, or "Charge + Power Attack + Powerful Blow" trick. Sure, as NPC's I could be a little more free with the Rage points and not really caring if they all died, but putting out 2d6+27 on a single blow was rather significant (Str 6x1.5+6+12).
The ranged spec Fighter in my group is consistently putting out about 15-20 damage per hit, critting about 1/turn (Holy Rifle, Spec/Greater Spec, Imp Crit, and ranged combat feats) while the Melee fighter is all but impossible to hit (Good Dex, animated shield, Dodge, etc.) except with dedicated brute characters...which is where she SHOULD be, absorbing the hits for the squishier characters.
Long story short (and with anecdotal evidence), the melee based classes are showing themselves effective when tactics are used to their benefit, when targets are chosen with care, and when key support is used to leverage their combat power up into the high-threat-range (in this case, rage points or simple Haste spells)
-t
Long story short (and with anecdotal evidence), the melee based classes are showing themselves effective when tactics are used to their benefit, when targets are chosen with care, and when key support is used to leverage their combat power up into the high-threat-range (in this case, rage points or simple Haste spells)
-t
That's all well and good.
I am not sure that anyone is debating that mid-level fighters (etc.) can hold their own against mid-level casters.
I think the usual mantra is:
Low level favors the melee (casters rely more on crossbows than spells and their spells are weak anyway).
Mid level breaks about even.
High levels (at least the low teens on up, and some say even level 11-12) favor the casters (they finally have killer spells, great defenses, and so many spells prepared that they don't run out).
I'm glad to hear that your findings support the general consensus.
Now, also, fighting arena-style is very much in favor of the casters. They can happily drop all their best spells in the first few rounds without worrying about what they will cast in the next encounter.
Balance is restored somewhat if you make sure every combatant has to fight 4 full encounters before they can rest - that's the balance the game's creators were shooting for. If you do this, then those casters have to hold back some of the good stuff for the other encounters, which really helps tip the scales back towards the melee guys.
That's the right way to set up meaningful tests at any level.
A level 14 fighter only has the capability to power attack for +4 damage...Plus normal Str modifier (I'm guessing you mean the fighter has 18 Str) for a total of +8. If using a two-handed weapon, the benefit for Power Attack is doubled to +8 on top of the normal +6 (Str mod x 1.5), for a total of +14; Backswing and Overhand Chop can raise that to +16 on a single attack or +20 on the first iterative attack (before adding enhancement bonuses, extra damage from weapon abilities, Weapon Specialization, etc.).I am sorry, but what is your point?
3.5 a 14th level fighter could do -14 hit, +14 damage/24 damage two handed, with one feat...
with 3 feats they could do -14 AC, +14/24 damage, making doing damage much easier.
His point is that the new rules give you -4 hit, +8 damage. Or better yet: +20 damage. Which is far superior for regular use on real threats. Saying it takes a couple more feats to get that level of utility isn't much of an argument because a human fighter now gets, what, 22 feats?
I had issues with power attack when I first looked at it, but I've been swayed. Also, a 14th level fighter would be limited by either base attack or strength mod. You're level 14 with only strength 18? Maybe you should consider some strength boosting items, or giving up on power attacks if +20 damage isn't satisfying enough.
|
|
Now, also, fighting arena-style is very much in favor of the casters. They can happily drop all their best spells in the first few rounds without worrying about what they will cast in the next encounter.Balance is restored somewhat if you make sure every combatant has to fight 4 full encounters before they can rest - that's the balance the game's creators were shooting for. If you do this, then those casters have to hold back some of the good stuff for the other encounters, which really helps tip the scales back towards the melee guys.
That's the right way to set up meaningful tests at any level.
This is a pretty relevent point Blake,
When PC's come up against major enemies, it seems to be that they can pull out all stops and do the big bang thing, but players always need to keep something in reserve as there's usually some form of other encounter coming along.
Resource management foor players versus resource management for NPC's is not the same thing. It's one of teh reasons why the CR rating falls apart at higher levels. Imagine 4 encounters where each one has a caster of equal level to teh party. While the party is having to conserve their big guns in order to survive, the DM feels free to let off the whole shebang for their NPC's knowing they're probably going to die (but are trying hard not to). Certainly this is where many of teh casters are overpowered/fighters are underpowered arguments stem from as far as I can tell. Casters as enemies can go Nova with impunity and chew up all their resources (if able to without PC interference of course).
Fighting types can do similar things with magic items etc, but it tends to appear much less devastating than a caster doing so.
While I find fighter types and caster types are fairly balanced for play as characters, I certainly take much more care with how the caster baddies are played in higher levels as I beleive they can be a threat higher than their CR would stipulate, purely becasue of this Nova syndrome.
On that note, I also believe that its a little unrealistic to expect every caster met in combat to be fully buffed, and preppeed for combat. There has to be some form of expendiature on spells just for daily things, or maybe rituals they've done to perpetrate teh evil that's causing the PC's to attack them. If the game is set in a war zone say, then no problems. But if it is the isolated wizard in the forest whose condcting research on the greatest undead golemn zombie ever known, why are 90% of his slots taken up with uber PC takedown spells? (I've heard lots of counters to this, which I'm sure are about to poop back up, but its certainly worth thinking about.)
It seems that NPC fighting types are portayed much more reaslistically than NPC magic using types, at least in this regard.
Hope that made sense.
Cheers
On that note, I also believe that its a little unrealistic to expect every caster met in combat to be fully buffed, and preppeed for combat. There has to be some form of expendiature on spells just for daily things, or maybe rituals they've done to perpetrate teh evil that's causing the PC's to attack them. If the game is set in a war zone say, then no problems. But if it is the isolated wizard in the forest whose condcting research on the greatest undead golemn zombie ever known, why are 90% of his slots taken up with uber PC takedown spells? (I've heard lots of counters to this, which I'm sure are about to poop back up, but its certainly worth thinking about.)
You have hit this nail right on the head.
It becomes a matter of where you encounter the NPC mage.
Is he safely in his tower, working on building his ultimate zombie? Does he have no idea the PCs are coming? Then its safe to say that only a few of his slots are prepared for combat. Maybe half, since he's smart enough to be prepared for anything. But much of the rest should be filled with spells to aid his research, aid his crafting, and provide simple creature comforts and rewards to his cronies.
Is he out hunting in the deep dark woods, looking for that rare shazzleracket that he needs to build his ultimate zombie? Well, then he's hunting, so his spell slots are loaded for bear. Or loaded for PCs. Of course, it's still possible that he blew some, or even most, of his spells earlier hunting that elusive shazzleracket.
Is he out shopping in the town's bazzar? If so, he may have a few disguise spells, or other spells to deceive or even cheat the vendors out of their goods. But he knows he's out, exposed, far from his defenses, so again, most of his spell slots are loaded with PC-killers.
What if you catch him snoozing? Maybe all, or nearly all of his spell slots were used up today, hunting, divining, crafting, partying. Nearly all gone but a couple magic missiles. Now that's a good time to fight him.
|
|
It becomes a matter of where you encounter the NPC mage.Is he safely in his tower, working on building his ultimate zombie? Does he have no idea the PCs are coming? Then its safe to say that only a few of his slots are prepared for combat. Maybe half, since he's smart enough to be prepared for anything. But much of the rest should be filled with spells to aid his research, aid his crafting, and provide simple creature comforts and rewards to his cronies.
Is he out hunting in the deep dark woods, looking for that rare shazzleracket that he needs to build his ultimate zombie? Well, then he's hunting, so his spell slots are loaded for bear. Or loaded for PCs. Of course, it's still possible that he blew some, or even most, of his spells earlier hunting that elusive shazzleracket.
Is he out shopping in the town's bazzar? If so, he may have a few disguise spells, or other spells to deceive or even cheat the vendors out of their goods. But he knows he's out, exposed, far from his defenses, so again, most of his spell slots are loaded with PC-killers.
What if you catch him snoozing? Maybe all, or nearly all of his spell slots were used up today, hunting, divining, crafting, partying. Nearly all gone but a couple magic missiles. Now that's a good time to fight him.
Yep, and that's where good PC strategy can and should be taken into account.
This isn't really done in published adventures for the obvious reason that they need to present the baddies as if they are loaded for bear, making the combat easier for DMing.
I've had major NPC's caught out with no spells or many of their best used up becasue the PC's waited or set diversions. It's actually very fun for my players when this happens, as they take a lot of time planning such tricks. They play an evil party, and they once set up a situation where they hired a good aligned party to take on mr Bad, who wiped them out. Then they ported in behind the now dead party and caught Mr Bad with his pants down. Very clever, and quite evil.
I'm guessing this is not the norm though, given the things I've read on these boards. (I could be wrong though)
Also, magic classes like this could just as easily be played like a PC, conserving big slots until they're aware the threat is very high. Initially, they may not go Nova as they may believe the PC's are not much threat, or maybe they're concered they will have more fights after this one. This doesn't realy work though and is quite tough to get balanced just right. I've played baddies whose arrogence got in the road of their superior intelligence, much to their detriment.
I guess in summary, my perception is that as player characters the balance is pretty good between the classes. As NPC's it can be swung to favour casters quite heavily if allowed to by metagaming them as DM.
Cheers
A level 14 fighter only has the capability to power attack for +4 damage...Plus normal Str modifier (I'm guessing you mean the fighter has 18 Str) for a total of +8. If using a two-handed weapon, the benefit for Power Attack is doubled to +8 on top of the normal +6 (Str mod x 1.5), for a total of +14; Backswing and Overhand Chop can raise that to +16 on a single attack or +20 on the first iterative attack (before adding enhancement bonuses, extra damage from weapon abilities, Weapon Specialization, etc.).I am sorry, but what is your point?
3.5 a 14th level fighter could do -14 hit, +14 damage/24 damage two handed, with one feat...
with 3 feats they could do -14 AC, +14/24 damage, making doing damage much easier.
His point is that the new rules give you -4 hit, +8 damage. Or better yet: +20 damage. Which is far superior for regular use on real threats. Saying it takes a couple more feats to get that level of utility isn't much of an argument because a human fighter now gets, what, 22 feats?
I had issues with power attack when I first looked at it, but I've been swayed. Also, a 14th level fighter would be limited by either base attack or strength mod. You're level 14 with only strength 18? Maybe you should consider some strength boosting items, or giving up on power attacks if +20 damage isn't satisfying enough.
Yes, and my point was that with 1 feat you get -1 throught -14 (Your choice) for one feat. And the number of utility feats is VERY important as +20 damage with a -4 to hit, vs +28 damage with -14 AC is a significant point of comparision considering it costs the same amount of feats.
So while yeah -4 to hit with +20 damage. three feat buy, is superior to a 1 feat buy of power attack, and it should be, the question is is it superior to a three feat buy with the older system. The lost of both utility, choice, and higher possible maximum really worth the better ratio?
I mean with a 2 feat purchase in the old system you get a 1:3 power attack ratio, with the option at 14th level of getting 42 damage with -14 to hit at the max, and have the option of toning it down to as little as +15 damage with -5 to hit.
P.S. This strength based power attack, if it still is strength, it has nudered TWF a little more, as not only does it cost a ton of feats, you now need Dex, Strength, and Con, to play, while the older vision you only needed Dex and Con.
Yes, and my point was that with 1 feat you get -1 throught -14 (Your choice) for one feat. And the number of utility feats is VERY important as +20 damage with a -4 to hit, vs +28 damage with -14 AC is a significant point of comparision considering it costs the same amount of feats.
So while yeah -4 to hit with +20 damage. three feat buy, is superior to a 1 feat buy of power attack, and it should be, the question is is it superior to a three feat buy with the older system. The lost of both utility, choice, and higher possible maximum really worth the better ratio?
I mean with a 2 feat purchase in the old system you get a 1:3 power attack ratio, with the option at 14th level of getting 42 damage with -14 to hit at the max, and have the option of toning it down to as little as +15 damage with -5 to hit.
P.S. This strength based power attack, if it still is strength, it has nudered TWF a little more, as not only does it cost a ton of feats, you now need Dex, Strength, and Con, to play, while the older vision you only needed Dex and Con.
I was well aware of your point, I just didn't necessarily agree with it. ;)
Comparing the three feats vs three feats power attack rules is much more valid, but to my mind still strongly favors the -4/+20 set. -14/+28 is just not going to hit most serious threats. (This is keeping in mind that -4/+20 is conservative.) I have personally created and played a lvl 13 Fighter in PFRPG. His total power attack for one strike (no other feats or class abilities, just PA) is -5/+28.
That's just the one feat. (I actually made him when they had the 1 combat feat a round rule, now he'd be a nightmare.)
It was pretty roundly agreed that the Frenzied Berzerker was broken. If that's what you're referencing with the 1:3 ratio, I don't know what to say. I liked the class, I played the class, I acknowledged that I was abusing the rules.
O.o
Power Attack... has always been based on Strength? OH! I just realized what you mean. Well, I suspect that the designers wanted to reinforce a reasonable limitation. It IS called POWER attack! If you were squeaking by with a strength 13 and getting a -14/+42 with power attack, I submit that you were using the relatively gentle prerequisites of the feat to deliberately break the spirit in which it was intended. And that the creators of PFRPG had that kind of shenanigan in mind when they altered it.
|
I don't think that npc spellcasters having all their spells is such a problem. I agreed at first but when I thought about it, they are probably only going to last a few rounds. Which means that they are going to be tossing power around in ways the players can't, but that's also all they are probably going to do.
The only real problem I can see is if there are a lot of spellcaster encounters in a day. In that case, the party is probably going to be hit with a lot of powerful abilities, and that might be to draining on their resources. But that is the same deal as fighting 4 dragons in seperate encounters in a day.
I don't think that npc spellcasters having all their spells is such a problem. I agreed at first but when I thought about it, they are probably only going to last a few rounds. Which means that they are going to be tossing power around in ways the players can't, but that's also all they are probably going to do.
The only real problem I can see is if there are a lot of spellcaster encounters in a day. In that case, the party is probably going to be hit with a lot of powerful abilities, and that might be to draining on their resources. But that is the same deal as fighting 4 dragons in seperate encounters in a day.
I was thinking much the same thing. Any time I have a caster BBEG, they pretty well know that death is shaped like the PCs and they bring out the big guns. Doesn't mean they last more than around three rounds. =/