I'm in a group of old grognards, all pretty experienced D&D players but new to PF. In a couple of weeks we're starting our first PF campaign and have been discussing how to avoid a party of PCs at wildly different power levels - a problem that too often made our 3.x games less fun after about level 10 and/or turned our poor DM's job into a nightmare. As I have more time to spend nerding through build options than anyone else in the group, I'm putting together the crunch for two of the PC's and help with ideas, conversions, balancing etc for the other two. As a PF noob I would really appreciate your learned input, advice, tips and suggestions on whether I have cause to worry about party imbalance and if so how to tweak the builds to minimize the risks.
Inquisitor, probably human or garuda-blooded archer type. Primary ranged combatant, healer and monster lore specialist.
Human Summoner. Eidolon developing into a "caster-swallowing combat maneuver mike"(?), summoner primary buff, BC and diplomat. (My PC.)
Goliath Crusader, conversions of 3.5 material (non-LA PF custom goliath with 10 RP). Party supertank, combat leader and intimidation specialist.
Oni-Spawn Shapeshifter Ranger, houseruled for full druid Wild Shape instead of animal companion. Primary striker, scout and skill-monkey.
The goal here is to keep everyone in or close to tier 3 while each PC has something unique to contribute with both in- and out of combat. All are 20 point builds. We're starting at level 3 with a modified version of the Kingmaker campaign and will likely continue beyond level 15. Equipment in general and suitable magic items in particular will be scarce (crafting skills and feats are vital).
First, I'm worried about the combat ability of the ranger (I think WS and skills should secure his OoC jobs and give him plenty of flexibility). As the primary striker, his damage output should generally be the best in the party, but even though his full attack certainly brings more pain than a fighter, pally or other ranger could, during most of the earlier levels I'm having trouble bringing him up to par with the eidolon - which isn't even optimized for damage and much less a full PC striker.
1 - Is this to be expected?
2 - If so, any good suggestions on how to avoid having the low-optimized summoner being the party's best caster while his low-optimized eidolon, by itself, is also being the best striker?
More importantly, the few options I've found that may improve the ranger's action economy and combat flexibility are all too little, too late and usually also impossible to integrate with the build. For example, just to get a limited pounce ability he would either have switch primary class (to a mobile fighter or a beast totem barbarian) and/or race (to kitsune). (He's already full of racial alternatives and dips into barbarian and monk for damage and combat versatility).
3 - How can the ranger avoid being left with an awesome full attack but no good way to use it during later levels?
Second, the inquisitor player has perhaps been the most worried about party imbalance, but mainly because of different levels optimization rather than inherent class differences. Although this is highly unlikely to become problematic, the rest of the group would like to ensure his PC has something to shine with in combat. While I think the inquisitor belongs in tier 3 (does it?), I'm having trouble finding that something to make this player feel his PC is just as special as the other members of the party (which already has two superior strikers, an awesome tank and a great buffer). It's very possible I'm missing something simply because I find it hard to estimate how the class performs, so please let me know if that's the case.
4 - What can I do to give the inquisitor something to shine with in combat?
Side note: having read through (I hope) the most relevant changes that separate the PF classes from their old 3.5 counterparts, my impression is that the typical 3.5 class tiers remain in PF and associated problems unfortunately haven't been addressed. On the contrary, it seems most of the precious few options non-casters had in 3.5 that could allow them to step up a tier are gone in PF, while there's nothing to decrease the massive relative advantages casters have. If my impression is correct, I'm in for an even greater challenge than a 3.5 party would've presented... :-(
Please let me know if you think I've got it wrong and why! If not, does anyone know the reason for Paizo's choice to ignore the, IMO, most glaring problem with 3.x?
Thanks!
|
The Rounding out your party tool says: Low on Blasting damage and trapfinding, and low on ranged compared to melee. Otherwise, pretty balanced.
1: Ranger being overshadowed by Eidolon? Yes, that's to be expected.
2: Ban the class? Run combats that hinder him specifically? Give magical items to his buddies to even him out? If he's large, give him lots of tight hallways? Of course, if you aren't DMing, then you can't do much...
3: It happens. A lot of melee don't get full attacks every round, but they have to deal. Personally, I love lunge to deal partially with this problem, if pounce is not an option.
4: If he's the only ranged guy, then he'll have something to do, particularly in long ranged or flying combats. Don't worry about him, worry about the three melee guys who may be stepping on each other's toes.
Sounds pretty balanced. No dedicated healer or divine caster, but that's not a coffin nail since you're a summoner.
It sounds like a fun party that's going to whip some tails. Don't stress over the eidolon, it becomes like any other animal companion (forgotten by level 10) except this one you can dismiss for cooler stuff and it won't pee on the rug in retaliation ;)
Is the summoner a DMPC? just wondering, if so you might want to change that to avoid having your brain oozing out your ears.
The Inquisitor's teamwork feats are very meaty and make the class viable in combat. Use them.
Not "doing everything you can do in one round to its fullest" is part of the game. The ranger character is weird and house-ruled and sounds like it should really be a druid not a ranger. Sometimes too many ingredients blanch the broth- it seems this one is trying to do too much with too many options and should be revised or re-envisioned to simplify matters.
A lot of house rules seem to be in-play, maybe elaborate on them to help the community help you? All in all, they all sound fun to play, very personal and intricate in design.
And sometimes "wildly different" power levels work themselves out over the course of a campaign (ask wizards). Parties that mesh find their own strengths and niches in-play, not simply in a build or "on paper." Have fun!
Thanks! Regarding trapfinding, the ranger has Disable Device as class skill (Wisdom in the Flesh trait) and usually gets 7+ skill points/level. I think you're absolutely correct about blasting and ranged/melee balance, we'll have to develop some flight abilities to compensate. :-)
A few follow-up comments/questions:
1: Even if said ranger would overshadow any other melee striker PC? If so, I guess my summoner will have to focus his buffs on the ranger until the eidolon can specialize on maneuvers...
2: Actually, it was the DM that suggested the class... Which I still think was the right call, considering my original idea was to play a wizard. I'll still try to tone my summoner down, without actually nerfing his abilities.
3: Well, this guy will be large during most fights, and I guess a little lunging could improve things a bit. Still annoying though, especially when comparing to what the other party members are capable of in higher levels.
4: Well, he certainly won't go unemployed, that's true. I hope that it'll be enough for him. Regarding the three melee guys: the crusader loves having company at the front and isn't much into damage (more into forcing the enemy to attack him and surviving while boosting his melee partners), and the eidolon will develop abilities to swallow medium creatures and make combat maneuvers rather than damage as soon as possible. But it'll often be a bit crowded, especially in a few levels when two of them can easily become huge...
personally, i banned outright the classes alchemist, summoner, monk, ninja etc for many reasons.
The alchemist, monk, ninja, smaurai etc for flavor reasons. This is not a wuxia game, and it is not Chinese nor Japanese.
The Summoner flat out because the Eidolon outshines the party warrior most of the time. That I will not have. Nobody wants to feel useless.
Right now, I am teaching a bunch of newbies to play, they've never really gamed before. So to keep things simple, we've stuck with the classic 4 classes: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. However, some spice has been added with funky races like the orc, goblin, aasimar, and customized elf. Used the 3.5 Forgotten Realms deity Sharess (Goddess of Gettin' It On) for the aasimar cleric, and the goblin rogue loves to sneak around, prank via alchemy, and generally lunatic physical humor. The whole group has darkvision, and has class access to Stealth.
Tried to talk the guy playing a Fighter into taking a Barbarian version of He Man, but he refused to bite. Didn't like the behavioral restrictions of not using his sword vs most enemies. I am trying to come up with a version of Conan for him, just for fun, but the people on my thread are arguing with each other about base classes.
Sounds pretty balanced. No dedicated healer or divine caster, but that's not a coffin nail since you're a summoner.
I thought the inquisitor was as much of a divine caster as the summoner is an arcane one (both 2/3 casters). Have I got something wrong?
It sounds like a fun party that's going to whip some tails. Don't stress over the eidolon, it becomes like any other animal companion (forgotten by level 10) except this one you can dismiss for cooler stuff and it won't pee on the rug in retaliation ;)
Is the summoner a DMPC? just wondering, if so you might want to change that to avoid having your brain oozing out your ears.
Although I have a hard time seeing how the huge eidolon could be forgotten by level 10 (it seems it can remain powerful all the way up to level 20), I guess monster summoning will become increasingly important as more specialized creatures will be required in increasingly complex encounters. And no, I'm not the DM. (Summoner really would be a poor choice of DMPC...)
The Inquisitor's teamwork feats are very meaty and make the class viable in combat. Use them.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind when helping out with building the character.
Not "doing everything you can do in one round to its fullest" is part of the game. The ranger character is weird and house-ruled and sounds like it should really be a druid not a ranger. Sometimes too many ingredients blanch the broth- it seems this one is trying to do too much with too many options and should be revised or re-envisioned to simplify matters.
Well, the problem here is, as I see it, that the other classes in this party all gain powerful ways to get more out of their turns (the summoner being the most obvious example) as they level up, while the ranger (like all the other non-caster classes in PF) will be left in the dust without ways to develop equally powerful action economy and combat flexibility. While I believe your advice about too many ingredients is generally a good one, I find it hard to apply in this case. Though I guess I should add that even though the build is weird it's numbers are quite static and it should be straightforward in combat - not many special abilities or even iterative attacks to worry about (all attacks have full BAB). Druid is out of the question, considering it's a tier 1 class and a full caster.
A lot of house rules seem to be in-play, maybe elaborate on them to help the community help you? All in all, they all sound fun to play, very personal and intricate in design.
Thanks! Most of the house rules are actually quite simple and don't add much, unless you count the whole crusader class from ToB of course. The only house rule that affects the ranger is the full WS ability and the lack of an animal companion, something that will increase his OoC flexibility enormously but doesn't change his combat abilities (he'll always be better off not using WS).
And sometimes "wildly different" power levels work themselves out over the course of a campaign (ask wizards). Parties that mesh find their own strengths and niches in-play, not simply in a build or "on paper." Have fun!
Yeah, that is the perfect scenario. Unfortunately, many of our 3.x parties experienced the exact opposite, even though they otherwise usually meshed fantastically well. (Sometimes too well, perhaps...) More than anything else, it showed us that full casters tended to quickly become the most important members of the party (capable of solving most problems and having the most impact on combat performance) and later growing such superhero powers the non-caster party members were pretty much irrelevant in terms of mechanical abilities. We still had a great time and loved our characters of course, but the mechanics of the classes made our game less fun and the DM's job of challenging us all nearly impossible after level 12 or so. This time, we're looking at what the PC's will be capable of at level 10 and 15 as well as level 3 when they start.
The Summoner flat out because the Eidolon outshines the party warrior most of the time. That I will not have. Nobody wants to feel useless.
Hmm... I'm thinking I should maybe nerf my eidolon during the first levels to ensure it won't outshine the ranger. Does this problem usually remain in higher levels, in your experience?
Your game sounds fun, btw.
If the ranger has full druid wild shape, he should eventually be able to get pounce through that.
Except that battling in WS seems to be foolishly dangerous and would degrade this ranger's overall combat prowess. But I could very well be wrong - are there any particular WS variants better than say a good fighter? Or is there a way for the ranger to get pounce without being in WS?
Alternatively, I noticed that you had a crusader. If this wasn't a single specific exception, if he has a decent acrobatics score, he could take a single level in Warblade and pick up sudden leap. Jump as a swift action, leaving his standard + move action open to full attack.
That's a very nice suggestion! Thanks! I'll look into it and discuss it with the DM.
The Summoner flat out because the Eidolon outshines the party warrior most of the time. That I will not have. Nobody wants to feel useless.Hmm... I'm thinking I should maybe nerf my eidolon during the first levels to ensure it won't outshine the ranger. Does this problem usually remain in higher levels, in your experience?
Your game sounds fun, btw.
Well, the major malfunctions with the class are as follows:
1 The Eidolon outshines the party warrior, almost all the time, no matter the level of the party. And it doesn't matter as much if it dies, because you can just resummon the beast later. Compare that to losing the party Paladin, and you see what I mean from a game balance perspective. This makes the thing a suicidal kill-o-matic, and that's no fun.2 If there's a PC that can both cast spells AND physically kick more butt than the party warrior, AT THE SAME TIME, that's a problem. I don't like it when one player basically hogs the spotlight, as it makes for a disgruntled pack of players.
3 If you haven't heard about the Synthesist variant of the Summoner being massively broken, feel free to look around here.
4 Why not just take a Wizard Conjurer and have done with it? It's a heck of a lot simpler to pull off. At least those monsters don't outshine the party warrior.
Really, I try to ensure everyone has their time to show off, and generally enjoy themselves. If a class in of its very nature tends to hose over the other players, then you can bet I won't allow it. Hell, I even take requests of what the players want to see in game.
Oh hey, here's a neat trick.
Take a Wizard, and get it up to level 3. Then take your 4th level in Fighter. Use the free feat to get Arcane Armor Training.
Now you get some nice physical skills, +2 Fort Save, a little extra hp, proficiency in some decent weapons, and never have to cast Mage Armor or spend buku gold to up your AC. Just throw on a mithral chain shirt to minimize the ACP, and enchant the heck out of it.
The cost comparison is fantastic. 17100gp for a +4 mithral chain shirt versus 64000 for a Bracers of Armor +8. BUT, it costs you a caster level.
Also, even if a class doesn't have proficiency in shields, so long as it doesn't cast arcane spells you can get away with using a mithral heavy shield with no penalties whatsoever. That also means you can enchant it. I frequently do this for Rogues.
Lots of good tips, thank you all! And please continue... :-)
@Elosandi & kyrt-ryder: Getting enough jump distance is no problem and will, as you said, scale pretty nicely over the levels if a little effort is put into it. This alone could really up the combat flexibility of the ranger. Regarding his combat style, he's using primary natural attacks, starting with two claws and a bite (tiefling racial ability + Aspect of the Beast) plus 1 level barbarian for rage. At level 6 he takes a second level barbarian and gains an additional gore through Fiend Totem while raging (which he'll be able to do virtually every round of every combat with extra rage). 2 levels monk (currently lvl 9 and 10) plus Feral Combat Training adds Dragon Style and Boar Style as bonus feats through Master of Many Styles (armor prevents him from using Flurry anyway). I'm perhaps thinking that this should be replaced with warblade. With Form of the Bear, Enlarge and rage, his strength goes up to 30 at level 8 (w/o items), and with monk and Improved Natural Attack his 4 full BAB attacks increase to 2d6/claw, 1d8 bite and 2d6 gore, +2d6 bleed damage most rounds. Add in a +1 Holy Amulet of Mighty Fists made by his caster allies and his full attack should net about 100 damage vs a CR 10 opponent with AC 24, which is better than anyone else in the party is capable of (including the eidolon).
@Piccolo: I see. Applying your wisdom to this party, I get:
1. The eidolon primarily threatens to outshine the ranger during lower levels. I should therefore nerf the eidolon during those levels. (I believe any PF warrior would feel underpowered in this party, especially at higher levels - a fighter simply cannot match the crusader in or out of combat.)
2. My main concern with the summoner. Though I believe it's still minor compared to what the tier 1 classes can do a few levels later.
3. Haven't checked here, but when reading about the synthesist on the OGC pages I kept feeling like I was missing something vital that would make it less OP. Seems that feeling was both wrong and well founded, unfortunately. But it would perhaps fit in a powermad party with, for example, a cleric, a witch and a human sorcerer?
4. Oh, I do think any reasonably built and played wizard (especially a conjurer) massively outshines any warrior, as well as the rather powerful tier 3 PCs in this party. Maybe not in the earlier levels and not in terms of physical combat (not until higher levels), but most certainly in terms of being capable of solving any problem more effectively, being the party's "key person" and hogging the spotlight, which I believe are the most important factors. As far as I know, anything a party of 4 warriors could do, a party of 4 wizards could do better while also doing tons of stuff the warriors wouldn't even dream about, probably from as early as level 5 and upwards. How could the summoner get even remotely close to that?
Yeah, I think you're probably right about low tier 2. Just the summon ability gives the class the most flexible spell of every level all the way to 9, and lets the summoner use it with a low action cost more times/day than any other arcane caster can expect to pull off. Add in the "free super-fighter" and the best limited spell list I've seen (haste lvl 2, seriously?) and the summoner is definitely above anything in tier 3. But it might not fit with the old description of tier 2 classes (having "10 nukes"), rather I think it's in tier 2 because of great action economy and more flexibility than any other 2/3 caster.
Another good reason to nerf my eidolon.
EDIT: IMO, they're still a long way from the wizard in tier 1 though.
Sounds like great advice if you want to learn the rules and get a feel for the core classes, but considering how little in PF that differs from 3.5 (AFAICT), a game this group is knows very well, I doubt such limitations are necessary.
On the contrary, I believe that limiting the material simply makes it harder for us to build balanced characters and still play the type of PCs we want to play. For example, using only the core rulebook, the party would consist of something like a cleric, a wizard, a fighter and an archer ranger. Not a very balanced party and therefore also very likely to give us the same type of problems we've experienced in 3.x. None of us are interested in having a PC overshadowing the others or making life hard for our DM.
As a note, I've restricted my summoner to only core and no extra mechanical bling (traits etc), while the other PCs are more pimped up with campaign related stuff, 3.5 conversions, houserules etc. Through this, and by optimizing the crap out of PF's ranger chassis, I hope to bring the PC's power levels closer.
So, I will go out on a limb and say that Paizo actually did a good job of flattening the disparity between the top and bottom classes. There is still a significant difference at the higher levels, but it's been greatly reduced from 3.5, especially if you continue to avoid the 15 minute workday and force the casters to draw out their resources a bit more.
The Summoner, while certainly powerful, is not that bad on the field. The Summoner itself usually casts a buff or two, maybe throws out a summon, and then lets the eidolon do most of the combat work. The eidolon can sometimes outshine the melee, but you have to kind of work at it (pumping everything into Str, AC, and natural attacks). Give it a couple utility options instead (as it was intended), make sure it's legal (many people miscount the evolution points), and it is brought back to a balanced class ability. It gives you great action economy, but no worse than a Druid or a Ranger with an animal companion.
@The Vulture: The thing that mostly surprised me is Paizo's choice to keep the martial classes close to the core 3.5 instead of adding options of similar power to those found in ToB (which could IMO not only have greatly reduced the class disparity, but also opened for more varied, tactically interesting and complex martial play styles). I think I disagree with you about Paizo having done a good job, but I don't really have enough grasp of all the differences from 3.5 yet.
Regarding the eidolon, I certainly won't go for optimizing his combat performance. Still, with none of the 6 evolution points spent at all, my biped eidolon starts at level 3 with two primary attacks and str 17, dex 13 and con 13. By spending only 2 points on offense, the eidolon gets 4 primary attacks and a higher DPR than even the super-opted ranger (which in turn is a considerably more powerful striker than an optimized fighter). That's before the eidolon even has added feats. What I mean by this is that even if I give it more than "a couple of utility options", the eidolon will still kick major butt.
@Atarlost: I'm not worried about the difficulty building the summoner (I kinda enjoy all the new toys to play around with), but I am a bit worried about the inherent power of the class. And maybe tier 2 is misleading, but I guess it's the closest thing we have to describe the two tier 3 classes.
Well, if you don't realize you're not exactly promoting party balance if your eidolon is outshining your martial companions, then I guess you're right. But since that's obviously not the case here, and that risk is much more pronounced with a full caster like the cleric, why would the summoner be any more difficult to build or play than for example a wizard or a druid?
Because spells are self contained while evolutions interact. Every problem eidolon has been found to be incorrectly built and GMs who haven't complained about specific problem eidolons have said that everyone they've had try to build a summoner has done it incorrectly the first time.
So you basically say I should be aware of the risks of messing my numbers up on my first attempt, be extra careful and not take anything for granted when building/playing my eidolon? That seems like very good advice I will try to follow.
Druids may be harder to run because of the breadth of wildshape forms, but each of those forms is a single defined creature with immutable attributes and therefore doesn't require the apparently confusing construction limits the summoner has.
Hmm... Personally, I find the druid frustrating because of that breadth of WS forms, each with their own specific bunch of stats you need to keep readily available during sessions and have a grasp of in order avoid completely halting the game each time you WS. The eidolon seems closer to a PC in play, and as we always level up between sessions, I have plenty of time to carefully compare options and look up how the resulting mechanics actually work, whether a second head also may give a second gore etc. I guess Evolution Surge can mess things up though...
@The Vulture: The thing that mostly surprised me is Paizo's choice to keep the martial classes close to the core 3.5 instead of adding options of similar power to those found in ToB (which could IMO not only have greatly reduced the class disparity, but also opened for more varied, tactically interesting and complex martial play styles). I think I disagree with you about Paizo having done a good job, but I don't really have enough grasp of all the differences from 3.5 yet.
The Fighters got Weapon and Armor Training, both of which actually help a lot in terms of their damage and survival. It does limit them a bit in terms of the weapon they can use to do their best, but it is certainly no worse than they had in 3.5, and they do a lot more with what they have than they did in 3.5. WBL increases help the martials more than the casters. Rangers got buffs to Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain, and animal companions got changed a bit to scale more, so they stay relevant longer and are less broken when you first get your bear. Monks are...good with archetypes. Rogues aren't in a great place, but can be good at general purpose skill use and decent at damage.
In return, a lot of loopholes for casters and a lot of SoDs got changed to be less powerful (obviously there still are quite a few). On top of that, their damage potential isn't as high as it was in 3.5, and they have trouble matching a Fighter, Barbarian, or Ranger with FE in terms of straight damage.
Again, casters still get a lot more options later, and there still is a problem with the exponential growth nature of having more and more spell levels to work with. But overall, the power curve of casters has been flattened, and the power of martials raised.
Regarding the eidolon, I certainly won't go for optimizing his combat performance. Still, with none of the 6 evolution points spent at all, my biped eidolon starts at level 3 with two primary attacks and str 17, dex 13 and con 13. By spending only 2 points on offense, the eidolon gets 4 primary attacks and a higher DPR than even the super-opted ranger (which in turn is a considerably more powerful striker than an optimized fighter). That's before the eidolon even has added feats. What I mean by this is that even if I give it more than "a couple of utility options", the eidolon will still kick major butt.
16 Str and 12 Dex at 1st level, but yeah, same effect.
The big difference being that the 2H Fighter can charge straight in and do his full damage, and your eidolon requires a full attack to do so. The Fighter also gets more AC and more HP (can have a higher Con more easily) for a while.
*Edit* Woops, thought you were saying 1st level. My bad. But Fighters don't really fall behind for a while, and get more benefit out of things like haste, as an extra swing with a giant sword gives more than even another primary attack.
Hmm... Personally, I find the druid frustrating because of that breadth of WS forms, each with their own specific bunch of stats you need to keep readily available during sessions and have a grasp of in order avoid completely halting the game each time you WS.
This is really not an issue with Wild Shape in PF, as it is now based purely on polymorph spells that, mechanically speaking, do nothing more than boost your physical stats based on size, grant you a natural attack or five and maybe even a special ability. A billions times simpler than 3.x.
Arcane Armour training also eats your swift action for the round. It's not a huge deal at low levels, but once you start wanting to use quickened spells it can be a pain.It's especially annoying with the Eldritch Knight's capstone since unlike arcane strike, you can't just not use it on a round that you want to use a quickened spell.
Yeah, I know. But most Wizards I've had in my games prefer to go for the gusto, so no Quicken Spell feats. Most are too busy with their feats anyway to think about offense, especially when under double digit levels.
Most Wizards, for example, end up taking the following: Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, Extend Spell, Ectoplasmic Spell, Consecrated Spell, Improved Counterspell, Combat Casting, Dodge, Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Improved Initiative. That's because they want flexibility, and are defensively orientated, because I run really nasty beasties who have NO problem being complete dicks who kick you when you are down. They ARE "villains" after all!
That's why few end up taking more specific feats, like say Spell Mastery. Dungeon crawls are nasty, and WILL kick your character's butt. Only a matter of time.
You need to know something important, given your inexperience in Pathfinder and your experience in previous versions. I'd bold this, but I don't know how yet.
TAKE COMBAT CASTING, SPELL PENETRATION, GREATER SPELL PENETRATION, IMPROVED COUNTERSPELL, AND DON'T HAVE A FAMILIAR.
Why? Take a look at the casting defensively move, you know, the one that prevents the free attack if you cast next to an enemy? Now, if you think THAT is bad, try checking out how to get past Spell Resistance. I shall pause for a bit while your head explodes.
.....
Combine Imp Counterspell with the ability to cast any spell in your spellbook once a day. Nasty and very useful versus enemy spellcasters. This only works with a straight up Wizard, but it's best if you are a Universalist.
So your wizards sit around readying counterspells just to get it off once a day?
No, I cant agree with most of your advices at all, even if wizards in your games are forced to be played defensivly. Dodge? Consecrate spell? Seriously, you an do so much earth shaking stuff with your wizard, dont give your precious feats for dodge or counterspelling.
The Fighters got Weapon and Armor Training, both of which actually help a lot in terms of their damage and survival. It does limit them a bit in terms of the weapon they can use to do their best, but it is certainly no worse than they had in 3.5, and they do a lot more with what they have than they did in 3.5. WBL increases help the martials more than the casters. Rangers got buffs to Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain, and animal companions got changed a bit to scale more, so they stay relevant longer and are less broken when you first get your bear. Monks are...good with archetypes. Rogues aren't in a great place, but can be good at general purpose skill use and decent at damage.
In return, a lot of loopholes for casters and a lot of SoDs got changed to be less powerful (obviously there still are quite a few). On top of that, their damage potential isn't as high as it was in 3.5, and they have trouble matching a Fighter, Barbarian, or Ranger with FE in terms of straight damage.
Again, casters still get a lot more options later, and there still is a problem with the exponential growth nature of having more and more spell levels to work with. But overall, the power curve of casters has been flattened, and the power of martials raised.
These are good changes, I agree. But a lack of damage potential, AC and/or gold was rarely the problem with the martial classes to begin with, and not the reasons only the martial adepts from ToB and the WS ranger managed to climb above tier 4 in 3.5. The problem is, as you say, the old linear vs. exponential growth and that this difference is most pronounced when it comes to flexibility and a class' ability to apply its primary strengths to a wide variety of in-game situations and problems. AFAICT, only the fighter archetype Mobile Fighter (correct name?) and the Beast Totem barbarian has anything that even remotely addresses this problem and it's only combat related, not nearly enough and far too late IMO. (Even in 3.5, a barbarian could get pounce by level 2.)
And yes, avoiding the 15 minute work day helps, at least in theory. And a DM could of course litter adventures with lower CR battles and hope the grind takes its toll on the casters. But does that make the game any more fun, for anyone? And does the fighter really feel like shining because she's better at fighting kobolds all day long, when still only the wizard and the cleric can slay the dragon at the end?
This is really not an issue with Wild Shape in PF, as it is now based purely on polymorph spells that, mechanically speaking, do nothing more than boost your physical stats based on size, grant you a natural attack or five and maybe even a special ability. A billions times simpler than 3.x.
Yes, a significant improvement IMO. Still a lot of options to keep in mind and readily available, but not nearly as daunting as WS was in 3.5, I agree.
SR and stuff.
So your wizards sit around readying counterspells just to get it off once a day?
No, I cant agree with most of your advices at all, even if wizards in your games are forced to be played defensivly. Dodge? Consecrate spell? Seriously, you an do so much earth shaking stuff with your wizard, dont give your precious feats for dodge or counterspelling.
Though I'm a PF noob, I'm aware of both casting defensively and spell resistances, and I agree with Wasum - many of the feats you suggest are a waste. Unless both you and the rest of the people you play with lack basic tactical skills, stuff like counterspells and dodge shouldn't be worth their costs. And unless you have some special ability to help you against SR or choose spells based on how cool their name sounds or something, the majority of your slots should be occupied by spells that are effective regardless of SR. The Spell Penetration feats are still necessary I guess, at least for full casters.
And no familiar? Seriously? Hint: Have you seen any imps flying around your home lately? You know, those cackling little fiends doing impish stuff like stealing your candy and making fart noises when you have company? No? That's because they're damn good at hiding and you're not even aware you should be looking for them! ;-)
So your wizards sit around readying counterspells just to get it off once a day?
No, I cant agree with most of your advices at all, even if wizards in your games are forced to be played defensivly. Dodge? Consecrate spell? Seriously, you an do so much earth shaking stuff with your wizard, dont give your precious feats for dodge or counterspelling.
No. If you have the Imp counterspell feat, and the arcane focus object, you can save that extra spell per day as a free "I stopped your nasty spell, nyaaaaaaaah!" stunt.
Consecrate spell means you can toss a fireball and NOT care if you hit your party warriors. Think about it.
I've spent a lot of time picking on arcane spellcasters because they have horrible AC when they aren't paying attention to it. My players have gotten paranoid about it as a result, and good for them!
How many DM's have staged a midnight ambush just to catch the warrior types without their armor on? Same goes for arcane spellcasters.
And no familiar? Seriously? Hint: Have you seen any imps flying around your home lately? You know, those cackling little fiends doing impish stuff like stealing your candy and making fart noises when you have company? No? That's because they're damn good at hiding and you're not even aware you should be looking for them! ;-)
Dungeon crawls are deadly, to EVERYONE. And I run my games old school, which means if I can, I will nail each PC to the proverbial wall with villains, because that is the nature of bad guys. Maniacal laughter and all. Saving throws get important, particularly in the upper levels when the difference between your good and bad class saves are extreme. Spell Penetration and Combat Casting ensure there are few, if any, spell fizzles. Those tend to really ruin your day, when you are counting on your opponent getting hit hard.
Gotta be Evil aligned to have an Imp, hombre. Or some other specific alignment. Either way, I didn't include that because of that tidbit.
Spell Sunder and pounce availability put them far ahead of the other martial classes. Pounce helps them actually use their full attack more often, and spell sunder is a nice unique ability that's also useful outside of combat.
This is very much my impression as well. Barbs rock. Hard.
Gotta be Evil aligned to have an Imp, hombre.Yep. Thought that might suit you:
Dungeon crawls are deadly, to EVERYONE.
I will nail each PC to the proverbial wall with villains, because that is the nature of bad guys. Maniacal laughter and all.
:-)
Sorry, just couldn't resist... Done being impish now.
The imp was just an example I happened to remember, but I think I saw quite a few other little guys on the improved familiar list with great abilities to keep them out of harm's way (combos of high fly speed, good stealth, invisibility at will etc). Are every one of those really restricted to evil characters (by RAW)?
Regarding the spell feats etc, I think the games you run are quite different from ours. We regularly have encounters with very high CR etc, and it's very challenging and easy to die if you don't think carefully and plan ahead, but perhaps not in the same way as in your games.
Well, I tend to run horror/old school games more often. And to balance it out, I throw in lots of goofy jokes, bad guys who fall for goofy scams, etc. Like someone casting Hideous Laughter and telling a really corny joke, so I up the DC of the enemy saving throw, or someone having an insanely high Bluff roll and the bad guys falling for the worst lines ever.
Ayup, planning ahead saves PC lives. I try to instill that in my players as often as possible by encouraging such behavior, and if they basically counter the enemy strategy, they get easy fights with unprepared enemies.
Basically, I take prewritten adventures and use the encounters to best pound on the PC group, that way there are limitations on enemy potency.
Also, since lots of my players are new to gaming, it helps to have goof proof character setups. Teaching them to work together in a fight, etc.