Fixing to start playing a Pathfinder campaign.
I was wondering if they have done anything to balance the classes any ?
Mainly referring to the later levels and the magic users dominating all the action.
While there have been a few changes to classes, Pathfinder is still basically 3.5 D&D. Spellcasters still dominate.
While there have been a few changes to classes, Pathfinder is still basically 3.5 D&D. Spellcasters still dominate.
Maybe after they get to level 20 and are creating entirely new planes of existence ex nihilo. I do wonder what people think should be happening in a fantasy cosmos when one person is able to bend and revise reality itself using his mind and the other character has always just been a well-muscled soldier... Kids these days and their false notions of what the word "balance" is supposed to mean...
Before level 10? A half-decent Barbarian can TPK five players and a Rogue is the non-combat god. between 10 and 15 is when the classes are in various forms of balance with each other in PFrpg.
Adding to what Jeraa said - for any class that can nova (i.e., spend all of it's resources quickly to dominate a battle) you'll want to avoid the "15 minute" adventuring day in favor of extended time in the field requiring careful spending of limited resources.
There should be an occasional day where the barbarian is not raging every encounter, the bard is saving his songs and the wizard is saving his most powerful spells for when they truly need them.
Fixing to start playing a Pathfinder campaign.
I was wondering if they have done anything to balance the classes any ?
Mainly referring to the later levels and the magic users dominating all the action.
Casters are next to worthless in the early levels and dominant in the later ones (though not quite as much as people seem to think given SR and relatively high saving throws).
Martial types are utterly dominant in the early levels and next to worthless in the laters ones (though not as much as people seem to think given once they've been loaded up with magical gear).
There's your balance. Levels 7-12 is really the only time the martials and the casters are relatively even though even then its comparing apples to oranges.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there has to be some clarification on what area of expertise you're asking about. Melee don't seem particularly behind at high levels in raw damage-dealing capability. In the versatility department, of course, casters reign supreme.
But really, the great wyrm red dragon doesn't give a rat's arse if you can create a demiplane or not. :p
-Damage spells were nerfed, fireball ect are still around but do less damage then in 3.5. If your goal is pure damage/round, a good fighter build can often put out as much damage or more then most wizards for a longer part of the game. Although this is sometimes overstated on the forums; wizards can still wreck house with good damage spells.
No they weren't. Fireball does the exact same thing in Pathfinder as it did in 3.5. Same with the other damaging spells I've checked.
(Some) Save-or-dies were nerfed. They now do 10 points of damage/level instead of outright killing the target.
Damage spells were nerfed (relatively) in the transition from 2e to 3.0 and have remained more or less the same ever since.
Damage spells were nerfed (relatively) in the transition from 2e to 3.0 and have remained more or less the same ever since.
But still stayed the same from 3.0->3.5->PF.
And as you said, they were only relatively nerfed from 2e to 3.0. Really, damage stayed the same, it was just that hit points increased. (Easier to get Constitution bonuses to hitdice, Con bonuses were larger, and no hit die cap at roughly 9th/10th level.)
If anything, damaging spells got a little bit more powerful in PF as compared to 3.X, at least for some characters. Like the half-orc favored class option that gives +1 fire damage/2 levels, or the sorcerers Draconic bloodline (+1 damage per die rolled).
Magic users still reign supreme. Nothing says I win like taking 20 on initiative and always acting in the surprise round. The barbarian is about the only class that can withstand the onslaught of a decked out wizard and bring combat to a draw / win more often than naught.
I feel that the games true balance is in the lvl 8 to lv 14 range. At this range the melee is not more powerful than spell casters but the spell casters have yet to get their truly "I Win!" spells / abilities.
Myself, I've just DMed a Pathfinder campaign from 1st to 16th level, and I have to say that the game was not really dominated by any one class. The rogue pulled fancy stunts at the start and at the end and all the way through the middle. The full casters did their mojo here there and everywhere, but weighted it toward dealing with the boss-fights. The melee characters basically turned anything in front of them to chutney.
Ultimately there is a need to damage the enemy, and the melee classes in Pathfinder do that and do it very well. They don't do much else, but they do that one vital thing well. They stay relevant and have equal spotlight time right up to the end, I found. Ultimately the party's coordination is what makes it work - if you have a party of players all determined to outshine one another, then the casters will dominate but encounters will be hard; if you have a party that cooperates then the encounters will be much easier and everyone will have spotlight time.
I think there has to be some clarification on what area of expertise you're asking about. Melee don't seem particularly behind at high levels in raw damage-dealing capability. In the versatility department, of course, casters reign supreme.
But really, the great wyrm red dragon doesn't give a rat's arse if you can create a demiplane or not. :p
Funny, but Great Wyrm's are casters. So that just proves magic users must beat magic users.
Direct damage spells were majorly nerfed in the transition to 3.x but were also somewhat impacted in Pathfinder by some of the changes to monster saves. With most monsters generally getting slightly superior saves than their 3.5 versions and in some cases more HPs there is often even less reason to use direct damage spells in Pathfinder unless you are ridiculously custom built around a small number of spells like scorching ray.
Unfortunately Pathfinder still has the casters as the king of the heap unless the group consciously applies both encounter design and social contract rules to keep the caster from being as dominant. The peaks have been leveled some and the weaker classes are almost all significantly better than their 3.x alternatives but there are still differences that can be noticeable with higher levels of system mastery.
In a beer and pretzels game with less mastery needed or desired Pathfinder tends to be a rather dynamic and fun game but if the social contract breaks down in your group and the power gamers gravitate towards caster concepts that emasculate other character concepts then Pathfinder has many of the same problems that haunted 3.x and AD&D before then.
In pathfinder I have found it isn't pure spellcasters that dominate as much as it is the mixed casters. Druids, Summoners, Magi, Battle Oracles, and Clerics are top of the heap. They have the umpth to do well in early levels and still get most of the fun powers at high levels. More and more I dont see the wizard at the top of the heap anymore, but instead the guys who can do a little bit of everything (or in the case of the summoner and druid a lot of everything).
I think the key advantage of the Wizard is more that their spell list is so large and can basically be customized as needed per day (or even to a degree per encounter) and that so many spells that they have can basically be used to bypass or dominate encounters. Spell scrolls can handle the contingency items and reserve the majority of the effective spell load for encounter bypass or encounter winning spells. Spontaneous casters simply don't have the flexibility that practiced casters do although they often have some very nice tricks up their sleeves. 1/2 casters just don't get real ultimate power in the way that full casters do.
Clerics are still really nice but definitely less awesome than 3.x clerics due to most of the spell changes and the closure of bogus powerups like divine metamagic. Being a practiced caster even with a smaller spell list is really nice especially if you can avoid healbot duties.
I find that casters are as much 'supporters' and 'enablers' as they are 'doers' in pathfinder. There's no spamming 'I win' spells, rather they pull out the spell that helps the rest of the party carry the fight in most encounters.
There is some truth to that Dabbler especially at lower levels but once some of the calling spells start showing up the Caster + buddies for a day can really destabilize party balance mainly because alot of called outsiders are effectively fighter + casters in one package.
It depends if you are going to go in for summoning in a big way, I guess. I have not seen a specialist Conjurer in action at high level I do confess. Then again, why conjure a monster to do a job somebody in the party is already doing.
In pathfinder I have found it isn't pure spellcasters that dominate as much as it is the mixed casters. Druids, Summoners, Magi, Battle Oracles, and Clerics are top of the heap. They have the umpth to do well in early levels and still get most of the fun powers at high levels. More and more I dont see the wizard at the top of the heap anymore, but instead the guys who can do a little bit of everything (or in the case of the summoner and druid a lot of everything).
Very true. The misery of the lower levels tends to put a lot of people off of Wizards in particular and full casters in general... but if you're starting a campaign off in the teens, a lot of Wizardly eyes will light up.
It depends if you are going to go in for summoning in a big way, I guess. I have not seen a specialist Conjurer in action at high level I do confess. Then again, why conjure a monster to do a job somebody in the party is already doing.
Calling creatures is really just a symptom of how dysfunctional many games can get. For some group calling an ally is a relative rarity and generally doesn't detract from the martial characters. In some groups it's used to bring a large outsider that is often better than the martial character.
Ultimately this gets in to the social contract aspect of gaming. If the group is more cooperative in nature then most casters look to maximize the group results by using magic that enhances the group (buffing) or makes it so that the group is more resistant to the opposition (debuffing).
In other groups the players often try to one-up each other which can be bad with really experience caster players with a lot of system knowledge. If the fighter and rogue don't get the expected level of caster support in the form of buffs then they tend to get wrecked by CR appropriate foes (WBL rarely shores up all weaknesses of martial characters- they really do need some caster resources to shine at times). The problems with 3.x and to a lesser extent is that selfish casting can be incentivized within the rules to a degree so that Godwizards and Batman Wizards are possible (although Pathfinder has fixed many of those issues).
One interesting effect is that after a certain class level a full caster party is almost always superior to a more traditional party. Full BAB is nice but it's overrated and the "need" for it can almost always be mitigated by mid-level parties and higher. This further destablizes groups because 4 caster parties are often more powerful than most adventure paths assume and this can result in the need for the GM to modify encounters to actually challenge the party. More preptime needed from GMs is a major complaint with 3.x/PF.
In short there are definitely oddities with class balance within the game but they don't have to derail a game as long as the group thinks in a cooperative mode and adheres to the established design norms of a balanced party. Yes you field an unbalanced party of selfish casters and it can be extremely effective but the net enjoyment for the group typically goes down as the GM doesn't like the headaches and not every player likes playing full casters all the time.
I've had good groups and bad groups, playing a game like PF with a good group can be really fun but playing it with a bad group can just be an exercise in frustration.
I've had good groups and bad groups, playing a game like PF with a good group can be really fun but playing it with a bad group can just be an exercise in frustration.
This is true of any gaming system. Gaming with douchebags is always frustrating, and should be avoided.
I've run several high level games and I haven't found casters to be dominating. They are powerful but the melee classes are just as much so. Where I find casters out shine the melee types is in versatility and out of the box thinking. The reason melee types end up being so powerful though is because of casters though. Between the buffs/debuffs and battle field control a wizard can make a fighter unstoppable. Well not unstoppable but 10 times the fighter they were.
So as far a balance between the classes there is no issue.
A party of high level character is hard to game for because they just are beyond the realm of mortals. Like the other night we one rounded a CR 23 encounter. The GM was surprised but honestly the only reason we could do that was action economy and some really big spells and the melee guys hammering on it.
At the end of the day, it's spotlight time that needs to be balanced, not relative class power.