Martial classes have a hard time because fantasy companies try to ground them more to reality then caster classes. Yes shooting 11 arrows is more realistic then bending the fabric of reality with your mind.
In some fantasy RPGs, only a person with expert training can make a person bleed with a sword.
In real life, I'd have a hard time hitting someone with something sharp object and not making them bleed...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Martial progression is not linear. Caster progression is not exponential.
Both are discontinuous functions if you want to use a mathematics analogy.
Caster abilities are not merely quantitatively different than martial abilities, they are qualitatively different as well. It isn't that casters are "more powerful" than martial characters, it's more that casters are able to do things that are impossible for martial characters to do, while the reverse is largely not the case. Most casters have the ability to at least temporarily perform in combat in a manner comparable to martial characters, but martial characters cannot warp reality.
This is even true in "balanced" games like 4e, it's just that in 4e the "reality warping" abilities of casters are mostly designed to not be combat abilities and the ritual mechanic makes it nearly impossible for those powers to even be brought into a combat scenario.
Since I hear very little complaint in 4e about how casters' rituals are unbalancing, it seems that the only "balance" concern most people have is what happens in combat. So to balance PF all you have to do is remove or greatly diminish those reality-altering spells which have combat impact.
The problem is that Fighters don't really rock in combat. They rock at physical attack rolls and can support nice armor classes relatively easily (barring touch-AC). By adding archtypes, you can usually make a Fighter that has a new option, but you only do so by removing another option, which still leaves them lacking overall (and since they have few options to remove, their archtypes tend to remove the same things, and you can't be all your archtypes at once).
There is way more to D&D combat than AC and attack rolls. So in my opinion, Fighters aren't even that good at Fighting in D&D. It's too easy for them to get CC'd without very specific gear, and they have virtually no defenses against things that don't target non-touch AC. They have exceedingly limited out of combat utility, and little hybrid scenario utility (situations where you face out of combat situations while also being in combat).
Barbarians have received more love. They can burn 1 round of rage to do some pretty impressive things. They have better all-around defenses. They have methods of mitigating crowd-control. Barbarian is the closest thing to the Fighter in the core rulebook, as it is the only other martial class that doesn't sport magic, and just relies on feats and built-in class features.
Today I told some of my friends I was going to be running a new campaign soon, so they should begin working on some characters. One of them was going to play a Fighter specializing around spiked shields and heavy armor, and wanted to try and be the best super-tank he could be. We looked over his options, and it went from a fighter 20 build to a fighter 5 / paladin 15 build, and eventually Paladin 20 build, because upon considering it further, the Paladin was just hands down better at what he wanted to do. He would have all the feats he needed from human + normal feats, more immunities, better saves, better features due to spells, and would be a way better tank due to the ability to use stuff like shield other. Heck, thanks to Ulimate Combat, he could cast 1 spell and more or less rob the Fighter of his Armor Training class feature (he's thinking of getting a magic item with that spell, and a few others).
EDIT: The biggest thing that has happened for Fighters in Pathfinder is the inclusion of feats like Step-Up. Sadly, much of their battlefield control opportunity has actually been nerfed from 3.x. Stand-still for example used to be the Fighters #1 method for stopping enemies in their tracks. Now it's far less likely to succeed.
There are still few to no feats that are actually equivalent to real class features.
EDIT 2: Worse yet is, a lot of feats become redundant or lackluster after a while. Feats like Step-Up are very underwhelming when 5 ft. stepping isn't what it used to be with people flying around, dimension dooring, or what-have you. Also, 5 ft. steps are kind of "meh" when most of your enemies are large size or better and have reach for days.
This problem are not common to all martial classes?
Well there's the forgotten Cavalier...
I don't understand what people are complaining about this the fighter. If the class doesn't provide what you want, then don't play it. However, this thread is about martials compared to casters. That means barbarians, rogues, ninjas, cavaliers, gunslingers, samurai, rogues, and specific archetypes for rangers and paladins compared to everything else.
As I mentioned before, the biggest thing that would close the gap is forcing the casters to follow the rules as much as the noncasters. It won't eliminate the problem but it will redcuce it to something the GM can reasonably deal with. When the casters are allowed to ignore the rules and the noncasters are forced to obey the letter of the rules, the problem is more of a GM issue than anything else.
In fact, the problem is not only the fighter. It's only the class with the poorest options out of combat, but even other classes got problems. Since there are new spells in any book casters got always new option, and often this options cover something that should be done with skill points. This is boring and make the game less balanced. If you think it's ok good for you, but with your way of thinking we should be still playing 3E and not PF. It's from players' feedback that the game can be improved. A lot of people complain about fighter? The answer is not "so don't play the fighter", because this means that a class is wasted.I read a lot of threads about that, then i tested the class and now i have to agree with those people. Fighter is awesome in combat, but this is not a strategy board game.
A rouge also got reasons to complain. 8 skills / level and at middle level a caster can do the same thing or better with one spell. :(This isn't really true though. The barbarian's abilities are mostly for combat and if he is using his non-combat rage abilities, he is diminishing his number of rages for the day.
The cavalier and samurai are both as combat oriented as the fighter. There are 3 orders for the...
Notice that the fighter is the only 2 skill point class among those you talked about. This is the first point. Even if other classes are very combat oriented they got at least double the base skill allotment, plus better class skill list and some features that goes beyond feats, that they could also take, while fighter can't take other classes options.
The second point is that all the "mundane" rules system, (skill and feats) should be improved, so a rogue with 20 ranks in a skill would not be outdated by casters. Skill ranks should grant more bonuses beyond numeric value. Special action, reduced time, etc, something that can't be granted by a spell that gives you +X on a skill.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This problem are not common to all martial classes?
Well most martial classes share some of the drawbacks that the Fighter has, such as the problem all martials share when it comes to move+full-attack, but virtually all of them either have ways to mitigate their problems, or bring far, far more to the table in terms of utility and combat opportunity.
For example, the Barbarian has 100% more skill points from his class than the Fighter does. Her rage powers are exceptional in combat, and barbarians have methods of overcoming the issues of movement and defenses, having options for full-attacking on charges, and defensive qualities like superstition, will bonuses, and so forth. While the most mechanically similar to Fighter, Barbarians typically have more that they bring to the table due to their Rage options.
When comparing Fighters to Rangers and Paladins, both of these martial classes immediately win in the options department. Paladins have easy access to wand usage, are way better tanks, possess immunities, have a wide variety of solid combat spells like grace (which allows movement without AoOs), get a fancy mount or superior weapon, are solid front-liners when they aren't smiting and frightening ones when they are. Their ability to self-heal and recover status is pretty enormous.
Rangers on the other hand, have a ton of skill points, a pet, bonus feats, skill buffs, and a wide variety of spells which have both in and out of combat applications. Both Ranger and Paladin have spells like resist energy on their spell lists, with ranger getting it as a 1st level spell to boot, which improves their overall durability in combat against any spellcasters or creatures that rely on energy attacks. With the addition of splatbooks, both classes have gained even greater options, including the ability to outright steal the Fighter's armor training feature for X minutes per day (allowing them to craft it into items if desired), and the Ranger even gets some strong druidic-like spells. Rangers even get freedom of movement which is essential to avoiding crowd-control effects common at higher levels.
Both the Ranger and Paladin can also use happy sticks (CLW wands) to heal their parties between encounters, etc.
I won't comment on the Cavalier because honestly, I just don't find them to be that interesting. Perhaps someone who is a Cavalier expert can discuss some of their benefits inside and out of combat.
========================================================================
Truthfully, martials in general have not managed to recover from the loss of 3.0 haste since it was drastically altered in 3.5. In 3E, martials didn't have the reputation for being underpowered that they gained in 3.5. Fighters weren't even considered for a revision when 3.5 was coming out, whereas the Ranger, Barbarian, and Bard all got buffs and/or tweaks, because they were considered to be good.
Problem was, martials got stealth-nerfed to heck and back in 3.5 core. Keen + Improved Critical no longer stacked. New Weapon Size rules penalized martials for using differently sized weapons (which in 3E allowed Fighters to spend a EWP feat on Bastard Sword and then 2 hand a large bastard sword for 2d8 base damage). Haste in 3E gave characters an extra standard or move action each round, as well as a +4 to hit, AC, Reflex, and doubled movement speed; which allowed a high level Fighter with boots of speed or other haste effect to move up to twice their normal speed and make a full-attack.
Stealth nerfing killed the D&D star...
I agree again. In 3.0 and 3.5 fighter, cleric, wizard and sorcerer were classes that someone used to take a prestige class. Since PF is almost totally base classe centered it's mandatory to fix it.
Speaking about paladin, his swift heal condition removing it's too powerful, maybe it's worst than smite evil.
It is more annoying than smite evil as a GM, but it is not a disruption in my games so I let it stand.
Of course I could just put barriers between the PC's so touch based heals are harder to use. :)
Barbarians can spend a round of rage out of combat to attempt to spell sunder a harmful effect like blindness deafness off of someone. You can maek it easier for the barbarian by getting a flanking buddy and having the person needing the harmful effect removed by having teh person lay down. Now you can get rid of the condition permanantly by hitting CMD+4. Higher ground helps as well.
It is more annoying than smite evil as a GM, but it is not a disruption in my games so I let it stand.
Of course I could just put barriers between the PC's so touch based heals are harder to use. :)
Maybe should be a standard action even when cast on himself... lay on hands on party members is not so broken.
You know what I'm thinking right now, Fighters are supposed to be trained to handle combat situations of prettym uch any kind. I think it would only be fair for them to have all three good saves. They already have fortitude and i doubt any one would argue that so I'll skip to the next: Both reflexes and willpower seem rather essential to a disciplined combatant, even moreso in a world where people and creatures who can hurl around fireballs and try to take over one's mind are a day-to-day fact.
I would rather give them a bonus to their saves equal to 1/2 their con modifier. I think that all 3 saves being good should be a rare things. Since all fighters, even archers will have a passingly decent con score anyway, and it won't push them into being MAD.
Maybe the entire con score could work, but I would not want the fighter to be dip class like the 3.5 paladin was.
I would rather give them a bonus to their saves equal to 1/2 their con modifier. I think that all 3 saves being good should be a rare things. Since all fighters, even archers will have a passingly decent con score anyway, and it won't push them into being MAD.
Maybe the entire con score could work, but I would not want the fighter to be dip class like the 3.5 paladin was.
To this day I haven't figured out what MAD means.
Also, while we're at it, what is PEACH?
Multiple Attribute Dependency
Please Evaluate And Critique Honestly
So far as I know, PEACH is used on the Giant in the Playground boards, but not on the Paizo boards.
MAd means multiple attribute dependent. Meaning you need lots of good stats to work.
|
I think it really boils down to what you want out of a martial class. The fighter fills that want for many many people. It is the most versatile class out there because of all the combinations you can come up with. Also, people shouldn't underestimate feats and how they are used. Fighters are also the only class that is essentially always "on". With the right weapon in hand they will always get their class features and their feats.
If the fighter doesn't fill that need then choose another class.
Fighters still get good things however honestly I cant see any archtype as worthy for a fighter except (mobile fighter) as you get limited full attacks at level 11 (move + all your iteratives + 1 attack if your hasted, and you can attack at any point during the move action), and full attack action as standards at level 20, along with 40 ft move in heavy armor.
Then again I wouldnt bother with the paladin spell to get full movement in heavy armor its unneeded, you can do a 1 level cleric or inquisitor dip to get 30 ft move in heavy armor and various other advantages (I prefer spell breaker inquisitor, 2d20 for all will saves against mind effecting spells take highest and 30 foot move in heavy armor).
I agree. I pointed out to my friend recently that neither Paladins nor Rangers nor Barbarians need that ability at all. Celestial Chain Armor and Celestial Full Plate armor both see to that pretty well.
The trick is knowing what you need and how to get it, spending gold on special magic items to get things you can attain from 1 level dips is inefficient. Melee classes can be efficient, although straight classing is rarely the best idea for a melee in a campaign that wont reach level 20 as in lower level campaigns the bonuses for 1 level dips is amazing compared to the fact you wont lose capstones (most level 20 capstones are worth getting but if you wont get to 20 multiclassing is extremely viable). In a restricted campaign setting like PFS (level 11 max) I would recommend something like (pal1/inq1/fight4/inqX) as an ideal fighter.
Most of the time, I don't find Armor Training I a good enough reason to dip Fighter. Weapon Training I can be, when you tack on some gloves of dueling, giving you 1/2 a 20th level Fighter's potential for 5 levels of Fighter.
I have only played in 3, but I have GM'd several in that range.
Pre-3E games actually leveled "fast enough" if you were following the rules. Every gp your character got was +1 XP point. Killing a dragon was worth maybe a few thousand XP. The real XP came from the treasure along with him. A lot of people thought it was stupid to gain XP by getting money, so they house-ruled that away.
On a side note, a triple-multiclass is incredibly slow to level period. You're splitting your XP 3-ways, and it's painful. Even in Baldur's Gate I & II, triple classing is usually only worthwhile if you're soloing the game, and even then it can be painful. :P
If you're having trouble landing your sleep spells, your party can try and help out with that, and usually positioning spells isn't extremely difficult. My biggest concern is the 1-round cast time on sleep, which generally means prior to casting you want to A) get behind cover (such as a friendly party member), B) hit the dirt and fall prone (+4 vs missile fire). :P
|
|
On a side note, a triple-multiclass is incredibly slow to level period. You're splitting your XP 3-ways, and it's painful. Even in Baldur's Gate I & II, triple classing is usually only worthwhile if you're soloing the game, and even then it can be painful. :P
Except that, at least in tabletop play (particularly in 1E)-- you usually weren't too far behind your single-classed buddies, because of how experience costs per level worked out on the old tables. Not sure if that's reflected in Baldur's gate or not, although back in the AD&D days, hardly anyone I gamed with actually went for more than two classes on a multi-class character-- so I might be misremembering that by a little bit.
Except that, at least in tabletop play (particularly in 1E)-- you usually weren't too far behind your single-classed buddies, because of how experience costs per level worked out on the old tables. Not sure if that's reflected in Baldur's gate or not, although back in the AD&D days, hardly anyone I gamed with actually went for more than two classes on a multi-class character-- so I might be misremembering that by a little bit.
On a side note, a triple-multiclass is incredibly slow to level period. You're splitting your XP 3-ways, and it's painful. Even in Baldur's Gate I & II, triple classing is usually only worthwhile if you're soloing the game, and even then it can be painful. :P
It worked out pretty much the same. To my knowledge, Baldur's Gate uses the same XP tables to my knowledge (doubling each time, essentially) and uses different XP progressions based on class (wizards require a ton, thieves level quickly, paladins and rangers level slower than Fighters, etc).
Multiclass characters usually aren't so bad since you're splitting XP between 2 classes, but when in a group of 4-6 players, you're looking at very little XP points from actually fighting. If you drop a kobold worth 7 XP, split 6 ways, you're not getting much XP. Even a ghoul worth 650 XP or so is little XP at that moment. When you need a few thousand XP on each side to level, it can take a while.
If you gained 1 XP per gold piece acquired in Baldur's Gate I & II, you'd level up waaaaaay faster. :P
Back in 2e days I played a couple of multi-class characters. A fighter/cleric and a fighter/thief. The fighter/cleric was in a party that reached level 14. Until he hit level max (which I think was 10/10) he marched along pretty well with the human characters. What killed him was not the level progression, but the non-human max level limitations.
As I recall. Maybe that was 1e... brain gets fuzzy...
Back in 2e days I played a couple of multi-class characters. A fighter/cleric and a fighter/thief. The fighter/cleric was in a party that reached level 14. Until he hit level max (which I think was 10/10) he marched along pretty well with the human characters. What killed him was not the level progression, but the non-human max level limitations.
As I recall. Maybe that was 1e... brain gets fuzzy...
I hated those. I'm an elf which means I have infra-vision, immunity to sleep, a chance to spot secret doors without searching and the ability cast in armour.
To balance those amazing abilities I get hurt on strength (16 str for a girl and 18/75 for a guy back in the days when your attack and damage increased from +2/+3 to +3/+6 over the 18/76 to 18/100 range.). Could only be a fighter, magic user, thief or assasin (other classes weren't allowed). Was limited in the levels I could get in a class fighters with less than 17 str could only reach level 5 (all female elves), those with 17 str are limited to level 6 and those with more than 17 strength are limited to level 7. Magic users are limited to level 9/10/11 on the same ability scale e.g. a 17 int = level 10 maximum.
Although I could go unlimited in thief, of course if I was a multiclass it meant I couldn't specialize in a weapon costing me another +2/+3 (I think) in my attacks/damage and I still had to put XP in the other class after I hit the level limits with no return for it.
Yes I'm still bitter and of the opinion that 1st ed in particular was designed to make the human male the epitomy of awesomeness since he could dual class his way to a level 20ish in multiple classes 18 in all stats demi-god type figure.
Agreed. Almost nobody liked the stupid level limits based on ability scores, and fewer still liked the sexist rules either. Bioware cut out the level limits in Baldur's Gate I & II, and humans were still the powergaming race of choice, because of their ability to dual-class.
Agreed. Almost nobody liked the stupid level limits based on ability scores, and fewer still liked the sexist rules either. Bioware cut out the level limits in Baldur's Gate I & II, and humans were still the powergaming race of choice, because of their ability to...
I once legitimately rolled three 18's and still didn't qualify to play a ranger because I needed 4 stats to be high enough. I'm so glad that those restrictions are mostly gone. They now only exist for casters and they aren't as restrictive as before.
Not if those armors aren't available in a campaign. Not all campaigns are Magic Items To Order.I agree. I pointed out to my friend recently that neither Paladins nor Rangers nor Barbarians need that ability at all. Celestial Chain Armor and Celestial Full Plate armor both see to that pretty well.
Craft Magic Arms & Armor. If that's not available in your campaign, then please refer to the automated house rule desk down the hall. We do not care about your house rules, your home brews, or your GMing blues, when discussing what classes have compared to each other. Balance between all classes change when the game starts changing.
Craft Magic Arms & Armor. If that's not available in your campaign, then please refer to the automated house rule desk down the hall. We do not care about your house rules, your home brews, or your GMing blues, when discussing what classes have compared to each other. Balance between all classes change when the game starts changing.Not if those armors aren't available in a campaign. Not all campaigns are Magic Items To Order.I agree. I pointed out to my friend recently that neither Paladins nor Rangers nor Barbarians need that ability at all. Celestial Chain Armor and Celestial Full Plate armor both see to that pretty well.
Stating that these armors are automatically available on demand is as much a house rule as saying they aren't at all. For most standard campaigns the vast majority of gear is found, not bought. Maybe you won't have players who want to devote feats to crafting. Not all groups are going to have people who want to spend feats the way you assume they are.
Learn to take your OWN assumptions with a grain of salt.
If you want to get anal about it, there's nothing guaranteeing that you can get a longsword, or a falchion, or anything else in the rulebook; only the assumption that you will be able to buy or craft them.
Also...
Magic Items: Of course, the discovery of a magic item is the true prize for any adventurer. You should take care with the placement of magic items in a hoard—it's generally more satisfying for many players to find a magic item rather than purchase it, so there's no crime in placing items that happen to be those your players can use! An extensive list of magic items (and their costs) is given in Magic Items.
An adventurer's primary source of income is treasure, and his primary purchases are tools and items he needs to continue adventuring—spell components, weapons, magic items, potions, and the like.
Magic items are valuable, and most major cities have at least one or two purveyors of magic items, from a simple potion merchant to a weapon smith that specializes in magic swords. Of course, not every item in this book is available in every town.
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion. The GM should keep a list of what items are available from each merchant and should replenish the stocks on occasion to represent new acquisitions.
The number and types of magic items available in a community depend upon its size. Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community. In addition, the community has a number of other items for sale. These items are randomly determined and are broken down by category (minor, medium, or major). After determining the number of items available in each category, refer to Table: Random Magic Item Generation to determine the type of each item (potion, scroll, ring, weapon, etc.) before moving on to the individual charts to determine the exact item. Reroll any items that fall below the community's base value.
If you are running a campaign with low magic, reduce the base value and the number of items in each community by half. Campaigns with little or no magic might not have magic items for sale at all. GMs running these sorts of campaigns should make some adjustments to the challenges faced by the characters due to their lack of magic gear.
Campaigns with an abundance of magic items might have communities with twice the listed base value and random items available. Alternatively, all communities might count as one size category larger for the purposes of what items are available. In a campaign with very common magic, all magic items might be available for purchase in a metropolis.
Nonmagical items and gear are generally available in a community of any size unless the item is particularly expensive, such as full plate, or made of an unusual material, such as an adamantine longsword. These items should follow the base value guidelines to determine their availability, subject to GM discretion.
It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.
PCs get treasure. Treasure is used to purchase magic items. Without the options to buy and craft magic items, treasure is effectively useless, as there is no help in the rules for determining stuff of a purely roleplay nature, such as the prices for lands, titles, armies, houses, etc.
They don't even exist for casters. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from making a wizard that's too dumb to cast even zero level spells.Agreed. Almost nobody liked the stupid level limits based on ability scores, and fewer still liked the sexist rules either. Bioware cut out the level limits in Baldur's Gate I & II, and humans were still the powergaming race of choice, because of their ability to...I once legitimately rolled three 18's and still didn't qualify to play a ranger because I needed 4 stats to be high enough. I'm so glad that those restrictions are mostly gone. They now only exist for casters and they aren't as restrictive as before.
You're not really a caster if you aren't casting. It's like O'Douls. The old slogan was "what beer drinkers drink when they aren't drinking beer." If you aren't drinking beer, you aren't a beer drinker.
I still wish I could have played that ranger. Instead I ended up having to play a fighter. I had a great time with him, but my heart was set on the ranger.
It's not really that difficult. If you're really concerned, then have multiple encounters in a day instead of fifteen minute workdays. Then ambush the party at rest, after the fighter is healed up, before the casters have prepped/got their spells back.
Fighters at least need rest to heal as well. If you ambush them at night, you will encourage the 15 minute workday (if it exists) to become a 5 minute workday, as PCs rest earlier than they would have for fear of being caught with their pants down. Likewise, if you keep ambushing them enough that casters cannot regain their spells, then you have to deal with fatigue and exhaustion with your fighter types, which effectively makes them useless (strength and dex penalties, can't run or charge, etc).
Also, fighters generally need those casters to be able to heal up, because they have no methods of doing so themselves in a more mundane fashion rather than receiving a heal check and hoping they get some rest too.
It is not so much about spotlight time, but what each class can or can not do. Someone playing a caster can steal another class's spotlight, even without trying at times.
I do believe that the issues don't show up for most people until higher levels, and most people who can run high level games well, are good at hiding it well.
|
|
It is not so much about spotlight time, but what each class can or can not do. Someone playing a caster can steal another class's spotlight, even without trying at times.
I do believe that the issues don't show up for most people until higher levels, and most people who can run high level games well, are good at hiding it well.
What exactly is "the spotlight" to one person may not be the same for another. If I play a fighter and I damage a creature and I am happy with that then it doesn't matter how long of a turn another player gets.
What is the "spotlight" defined as anyway?
I think this varies from group to group to be honest.
It is not so much about spotlight time, but what each class can or can not do. Someone playing a caster can steal another class's spotlight, even without trying at times.
I do believe that the issues don't show up for most people until higher levels, and most people who can run high level games well, are good at hiding it well.
What exactly is "the spotlight" to one person may not be the same for another. If I play a fighter and I damage a creature and I am happy with that then it doesn't matter how long of a turn another player gets.
What is the "spotlight" defined as anyway?
I think this varies from group to group to be honest.
I agree. I am happy just playing, and being useful, but some people want "me" time.
Perhaps then, it would be advisable to not run high level casters until you're comfortable with them? No offense to anyone, merely an observation.
Or perhaps the secret is to make sure the people playing high-level casters have no idea of their full potential, and thus play them much less effectively? No offense to anyone, merely an observation.
Just because a player *can* do something doesn't mean they should. All players should know this.
So, if you're saying the game works fine if and only if you force the players to strictly adhere to some kind of gentleman's agreement not to use the casters' full abilities, then why not just limit those abilities through houserules?
Whatever works for you. Personally, I'd much rather have rules that didn't require such a baroque system of implied permissions.
From what I've seen on the boards, I'm one of the more liberal GMs when it comes to what I will allow because it exists. I don't mind high level games, and I've GMed some that have gone post 20th level that included a party of almost all spellcasters + 1 barbarian + 1 warblade without the Barbarian feeling overshadowed. The only one who felt overshadowed at all, was the Warblade, and he was jealous of the BARBARIAN! Haha.
The thing is, I think the fact I don't try to keep my PCs on such tight little leashes actually enhances the balance of the game. I'm entirely fine using the item creation rules as intended which benefit martial characters way more than they do spell-casters in terms of potential.
Do I think casters are innately stronger than non-casters? "Yes" multiplied by "absolutely". Problem is, the difference is stretched further because "fighters can't have nice things"; including custom magic items, nice armors, and so forth. Just look at these threads. Look at what other people describe. Look at the artificial limits people put on skills. Look at how much rage they have for using the item creation rules. Look at how much disdain they show to martials for doing inhumanly amazing things at inhumanly powerful levels. Just look at some of the people around here...
You'll see what I mean. :o
I'm running a group that just hit level 21 and will probably see level 23. There haven't been any problems with one character overshadowing another because of class. We have a wizard, inquisitor, paladin, barbarian/rogue, ranger/sorcerer/shadow scout/arcane archer, shield fighter, and a two-handed weapon fighter. The fighters have been able to hold their own and have been having as much fun as the rest of the group.
I don't have any custom items (other than what are provided in the AP). I use only a handful of house rules (keen & improved critical stack, maximum hit points, Critical Hit & Fumble decks). I know that the house rules I am using favor non-casters but that is not why they were chosen. The Age of Worms AP is insanely hard at the higher levels and they need maximum hit points since they don't have much healing (the paladin is a non-caster). I have always liked keen/improved critical. My players like the critical hits and fumbles.
I'm pretty lenient as a GM. I encourage my players to think outside the box. They can get pretty creative. The only thing I enforce with that is that the spells do what they say they do and nothing more. You can get creative within those descriptions, but the spells do much beyond their descriptions. I also enforce reality with casters as much as with non-casters. Fireballs don't work under water for example.
I haven't had any problems with high level play with casters and non-casters in the same group. I can see that there are some potential problems, but those aren't nearly as bad as some people claim. Simply enforcing the rules is often enough to reduce most of the problems. If adding in house rules, the GM needs to know the impact those rules will have on the game. Some of the house rules can impact the game in unforeseen ways and the GM needs to be ready to deal with that. I've never seen a group without at least a couple of house rules.
I'm running a group that just hit level 21 and will probably see level 23. There haven't been any problems with one character overshadowing another because of class. We have a wizard, inquisitor, paladin, barbarian/rogue, ranger/sorcerer/shadow scout/arcane archer, shield fighter, and a two-handed weapon fighter. The fighters have been able to hold their own and have been having as much fun as the rest of the group.
I don't have any custom items (other than what are provided in the AP). I use only a handful of house rules (keen & improved critical stack, maximum hit points, Critical Hit & Fumble decks). I know that the house rules I am using favor non-casters but that is not why they were chosen. The Age of Worms AP is insanely hard at the higher levels and they need maximum hit points since they don't have much healing (the paladin is a non-caster). I have always liked keen/improved critical. My players like the critical hits and fumbles.
I'm pretty lenient as a GM. I encourage my players to think outside the box. They can get pretty creative. The only thing I enforce with that is that the spells do what they say they do and nothing more. You can get creative within those descriptions, but the spells do much beyond their descriptions. I also enforce reality with casters as much as with non-casters. Fireballs don't work under water for example.
I haven't had any problems with high level play with casters and non-casters in the same group. I can see that there are some potential problems, but those aren't nearly as bad as some people claim. Simply enforcing the rules is often enough to reduce most of the problems. If adding in house rules, the GM needs to know the impact those rules will have on the game. Some of the house rules can impact the game in unforeseen ways and the GM needs to be ready to deal with that. I've never seen a group without at least a couple of house rules.
I'm not surprised. Keen + Improved Critical stacked in 3E too (but not 3.5) and martials were considered a lot nicer back then. In Pathfinder where few things are immune to critical hits, it's even nicer. The maximum HP bit is even sexier as well, since it almost doubles the amount of HP that martial characters will receive, since the average HP for 20 levels on a d10 is 110, but maximum is 200, a full 90 HP more. Barbarians would have 110 HP more. It's a nice boost. Critical hit charts aren't my thing, but if you've got keen + improved critical stacking, I imagine they're kind of sexy for crit-fishers.
One thing I did want to point out however is that you may not be aware, or maybe just don't care, but spellcasters can cast fireballs under water. It's just harder.
Fire: Nonmagical fire (including alchemist's fire) does not burn underwater. Spells or spell-like effects with the fire descriptor are ineffective underwater unless the caster makes a caster level check (DC 20 + spell level). If the check succeeds, the spell creates a bubble of steam instead of its usual fiery effect, but otherwise the spell works as described. A supernatural fire effect is ineffective underwater unless its description states otherwise. The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell. If the caster has made the caster level check to make the fire spell usable underwater, the surface still blocks the spell's line of effect.