It goes without saying that at 1st level a tyical Martial is infinitely more powerful than a typical Caster... and at 20th level a typical Caster is infinitely more powerful than a typical Martial - so where does the flip happen? Where is that 'sweet spot' where the two character's effectiveness are in sync?
For the sake of argument, let's compare a traditional Fighter to a traditional Wizard, since martial classes that can cast spells tend to blur the line a bit. In our campaigns we tend to be fairly low magic so the things casters can do are truly wonderous, but the mechanics of the game make them so tedious to play at lower levels that its almost impossible to do so and enjoy.
If Wizards (for instance) were given a single spell that could be used in combat every round as a standard action, something simple like a 30' ranged single target energy spell-like ability that deals 1d6 damage x the highest level spell they can cast... that would make them infinitely more useful and fun to play at lower levels without making them overpowered at higher levels. The version we're considering makes it 1d6 x the highest level spell available, meaning that as higher spells are cast, the Wizard's overall magic begins to wane in power as well. The point of this thread isn't really to reccomend a 'fix', but I thought I'd throw that out there.
The biggest disparity is in the late game, but don't you find that high level play tends to be pretty rare? PFS tops out at 12th, and even AP's usually cut off somewhere between 14th and 17th... so it seems like the lower level disparities are a more needed fix, wouldn't you say?
|
Traditional fighters (straight-damage dealers) start falling off around 7? Properly built diverse fighters and monks can battlefield control and damage at a wizard level throughout the PFS series-levels; I can't really speak for high level campaigns (as I've never played above 14).
As far as damage, melees always stay above; wizards shine when you compare their ability to "save or effectively die" at high levels (in addition to the theorymath of infinite money and such that again I've never seen allowed).
So overall, I think melees and mages are fine. It's the skill-classes and partial-classes that are "behind the eight ball" (rogues, bards, inquisitors, and maguses); and the right maguses and bards aren't even too terrible.
Personnally, I'd say when casters get 7th level spells they pull ahead.
Even worse with 8th and 9th level spells that ignore verisimilitude and break any law of physics there is.
Wish (+limited), Miracle, Time Stop, traveling to other planes like it's next-door, spells to create your own demiplanes, ... and quite a bunch more... this basically gives you the ability to tamper with "reality" damn close to godhood.
Whenever 5th level spells are accessed. Varies with class.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a very subjective question. Many of my impressions were formed back when I was a newbie playing 1e/BECMI, so some of these transitions may be less stark than they used to be (imagine playing a 1st level wizard with random spells in your book, 1 first level slot[no bonus spells] and darts and that's all).
To me "equality" starts at level 5. The caster has enough spells to have some staying power, and interesting things like fly are coming online. The fighter still outdamages the wizard and survivability is about equivalent (wizard can become nigh invincible, but in short bursts, fighter's good AC and hps last all day).
I think casters start to pull ahead at level 9. Now, I'm not a proponent of "martials are terribad at high levels," but once things like teleport and raise dead are in play the utility of the pure combat warrior begins to lag. Fighters are still single traget damage kings though.
So I guess (after writing this) that I tend to look at caster longevity and out-of-combat utility when comparing these things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that this gets complained about in theory more than in practice. In a higher level game I was in last semester, the martial classes on our team were doing about the same damage, if not more, than my sorcerer. Though we had a highly specialized pistolero gunslinger (who we found out later was squeezing in an extra three attacks per round via rule misunderstanding), a rogue who we splashed Greater Invisibility on liberally, and a barbarian who we Enlarged at the first sign of danger. I feel that I did more total damage, but it was to areas of effect as opposed to single targets, which the martial classes still decimated.
A lot of it depends on the encounters, really. Specifically, the number of encounters.
I'm playing in a 3.5 game where the casters solve pretty much everything. Why? Because we know that we'll face one (very hard) combat encounter per day, at most, and so they are able to invest a lot of spell slots in that fight. They can buff themselves, and the martials, have the necessary offensive spells, and still have enough resources to transport the party around and solve non-combat problems with magic. That's currently at 19th level, and the casters are regularly using two spells a round in combat, often plus some free actions granted by the spells they cast before combat began. Being able to go into almost every combat already buffed helps a lot as well; the casters rarely spend actions buffing during the fights.
There's a 6th level Pathfinder game I'm in where the casters can't do a whole lot other than combat with their spells, because we don't have enough resources available for that yet. Two decent fights will burn my wizard mostly dry, and I haven't yet built up a serious selection of utility spells.
In a 15th-level Pathfinder game, we regularly only have one encounter per day, but our arcane caster being a sorcerer means we do less problem-solving with his magic than if he were a wizard (at least a wizard played by that player). And more of the problems we face there can't just be solved with the application of magic.
Basically, the more the casters are able to use their highest level spells for whatever they want, rather than conserving them for a later encounter, and the less time they spend in combat casting support or buff spells, the more they're going to dominate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 3.5,with all supplements, it can be very early. But in PF, in PFS, I’d say it’s around level nine. From 5-8 is the sweet spot where both types are more or less equal.
Yes, even at the very high levels, a martial class can still out DPR a Spellcaster. But he depends somewhat on being boosted by a Spellcaster. Mind you, that’s the way it should be, since D&D is a game of teamwork.
As for your request, well, many Specialist Wizards and or Sorcs get a small attack, much like that which can be used 3+ Int bonus per day. They also get cantrips, which can be more useful than you think.
One of the features of D&D is that at the lower levels warriors are stronger, whilst at the highest levels, wizard become nigh all powerful (OTOH, few games get that high). That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. We shouldn’t try to get rid of it. What we should do is what PF did- make the “sweet spot’ more levels, and the levels that are played often.
Let us not go down that road, eh?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have to say I can't see the "flip" in my rounds. Yes the caster got more Dmg Potential but SR, Saves, Evasion etc. negate it so much that sometimes my Fighter with the big 2H Hammer (2d6 + 20 Dmg) simply outshined the caster dmg wise
I've played in a campaign that went to 30th level, and the Fighter-types in the party were holding up just fine. They were lacking a bit in options compared to the casters(obviously), but as for actual in-game mileage, the players were still kicking butt and having fun.
I think the "flip" happens, when full casters start getting spells that manipulate reality and can last all day, probably when the group is around 9th level maybe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure I completely accept the premise here, but for the sake of participation, I'll play.
First it's not as clear as crossing a line where the casters suddenly overshadow the martials. There's more than one line being crossed here.
Around level 5 most casters cross a line where they become able to dominate at least a single encounter per day. But the martial characters still are more effective overall throughout the day, and a poorly played caster might blow their limited spells such that they don't have them when they need them.
Around level 9 or so casters are able to dominate most, if not all, encounters the party has. However, at this level usually the most effective way to do that is with buffs, enhancements and healing that allow the martial characters to still shine.
Around level 13 casters can pretty much become the whole game.
I tend to prefer playing somewhere between level 5 and level 13, and that's not coincidental.
I wouldn't omit them all that high. Maybe keep level 6th spells, as you really can't deny a hard working mage from learning a spell like Chain Lightning and really contributing to the DPR game. But I see what you're going for.
I have always said about 10th level the switch happens. A non-optimal melee build will start to fall off a bit early, but assuming the character is built to be optimal (not min/maxed, just a really solid character) then they will find that the switch gets flipped around this level. This is where the big guns start to fall and the crazy manipulation of the battlefield starts to happen. Without a competent caster in the group then the part will find themselves at a severe disadvantage against even the most basic of casters from this point on as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A smart caster will about equal a martial in the early levels.
Yeah, that's not true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much of this also depends on the play style. If you typically use the "15-minute work day" where the party has a single encounter and then rests to replenish - the flip happens somewhere between 4th and 5th level spells.
If you keep the pressure on a party and they fight all day the flip happens much later or not at all.
A typical greatsword barbarian at level 1 with a decent build can drop a level 1 BBEG in a single hit.
The game is swingy at low levels due to hit point damage and it's swingy at high levels due to Save or Suck spells.
I'm not so sure it does go without saying.
At all levels, Martial characters are equipped for some roles, casters for others. At higher levels, it becomes possible for a well-planned caster to fill or obviate martial roles, because the caster role is based around crazy utility, and the martial role isn't.
So, I'm not sure a flip is the right way to characterize it.
To take a swat at the question anyway, it varies with the system mastery of the players involved. A really intense wizard player knows which low-level spells will outright win fights quickly. That can happen at level one. The same player can get a lot out of a fighter in early levels. (finish the post before you accuse me of Schroedinger's Wizard, please)
So... with a high level of system knowledge, the "flip" starts are 1st, and gets worse from there.
A GM who is actively managing class balance in his campaign (encounter prep, not house rules) will seriously decrease this disparity. Mainly by organically preventing the caster from preparing for every eventuality, and forcing the occasional setback. Such is life.
So, my rationale: Suppose my group consisted of a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. Further we are walking along when suddenly we are transported into a giant arena where we are staring down four identical dopplegangers of ourselves that we immediately know we must defeat. No surprise round.
At what level would "kill the wizard first, at all costs!" seem like an absolute (remember, my group knows exactly what our mirrors are capable of)???
For me, it's fifth. Third level spells are where the breakpoint is.
Every level is "kill the spellcasters" because they are force multipliers for everyone else.
It's also a logical move because if you have the drop on them, the fighter will charge and has a good chance of dropping the wizard in one blow. Has nothing to do with the power of the wizard,it's just good tactics.
I don't see this as "kill the spellcasters", I see this as "neutralize the spellcasters so we can kill the real threats!"
At low levels spellcasters can be fairly easy to neutralize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ussually say that level 10. Its arbitrary (as it depends on the specific classes and the optimization level, but "double digits" is a fairly close break point
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue, Cleric, Wizardvs.
Fighter, Rogue, Cleric
Wow. I gotta think about that one.
I think it depends on initiative and how "sticky" the fighter is.
If the fighter has Step Up, that might actually decide the fight.
But... what do I know? Great question. Anyone want to bust out Conflict PVP and settle this (a few times)?
So, my rationale: Suppose my group consisted of a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. Further we are walking along when suddenly we are transported into a giant arena where we are staring down four identical dopplegangers of ourselves that we immediately know we must defeat. No surprise round.
At what level would "kill the wizard first, at all costs!" seem like an absolute (remember, my group knows exactly what our mirrors are capable of)???
For me, it's fifth. Third level spells are where the breakpoint is.
That's an interesting way of looking at it and I like that approach.
Let's pretend, for a moment, that not everyone in the party got teleported, and further that not everyone in the party got cloned. Which team do you think has a better chance of winning:
Rogue, Cleric, Wizard
vs.
Fighter, Rogue, Cleric
And how much of it is build dependent?
ypu should take out the wizard. Not only because he is powerful, but because he is fragile.
In videogames with pvp, going against the fighty guy is a mistake, because normally he is tough.
Let's suppose for a moment that both the fighter and the wizard do comparable offensive output. Would you rather miss half your attacks vs full plate and big hp, or take down the low AC mage?
Never...at least not in terms of damage. Just in my experience every one of my campaigns has been dominated in combat by a martial or martial caster combo like an eldritch knight or dragon disciple...in terms of utility and wide ranging abilities, casters start to dominate games around 10th level.
The low level caster can still cast encounter ending spells like Color Spray, Sleep, and Grease, as well as spam the Daze cantrip.
The low level caster can still cast encounter ending spells like Color Spray, Sleep, and Grease, as well as spam the Daze cantrip.
But only a couple times per day. It's a difference compared to a 10+ level wizard, which can do it pretty much every time they have an encounter, due to quadratic power