I'm trying to bring down the relative power of high level casters. Has anyone considered, or used, a house rule like this? I'm not talking about removing the spell slots from 9th level casters. Just removing the spells themselves. 9th level casters would have to use metamagic to fill their upper level spots.
Would it be feasible? Could you play an AP this way?
If you're gonna do that, may as well just ban all 9th level casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not a fan of the idea whatsoever. It's up to a GM to learn to work with what is in the mechanics of the game whether it's high level spells or a powerful feat if someone can't do that as a GM then they need to let someone run the game.
At that point, you might as well just ban 9-level casters, because they will basically be getting nothing compared to their 6-level counterparts (inquisitor, magus, bard) beyond a slightly better spell list. And seeing how much they add for loosing those top 3 levels of spells...
At that point, you might as well just limit a campaign to level 12 and bellow.
As for APS, I've never played one, but they seem tob e mostly built around "average" expectations, so unless the AP ends before level 12, there could be some trouble.
I tried it once, but ultimately the game never got to high enough level for it to really matter.
Also note that the spell slots existed, but the spells did not ... so you could metamagic lower level spells for those slots, or prepare lower-level spells in them. The spell progression didn't just stop cold.
Ultimately, though, I just decided to through the spell list and ban all the problematic spells, rather than capping things like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not a fan of the idea whatsoever. It's up to a GM to learn to work with what is in the mechanics of the game whether it's high level spells or a powerful feat if someone can't do that as a GM then they need to let someone run the game.
*snort*
No. If something doesn't fit in your game, whether it be thematically or for power/broken reasons, it is the DM's job to either alter it or throw it out. I would go so far as to say it's his responsibility and his duty.
It might work, as long as they can get the slots. In other words, you can use your 1-6th level spells with Metamagic feats.
I have suggested something a little similar- Spellcasters get 9th level spelll only as 20th level capstones, and spell level progression to 7th and beyond is delayed accordingly.
Banning Simulacrum is a Good idea.
It might work, as long as they can get the slots. In other words, you can use your 1-6th level spells with Metamagic feats.
I have suggested something a little similar- Spellcasters get 9th level spelll only as 20th level capstones, and spell level progression to 7th and beyond is delayed accordingly.
Banning Simulacrum is a Good idea.
I feel many people are misunderstanding my question. So, I am quoting deth here. Knave seemed to understand and so do Zhayne.
9th level casters would retain their spell slots. Only, the 7h, 8th, and 9th level spells would not exist. You would have to apply metamagic to fill the slots. So, maximized cones of cold could be used in the wizard's 8th level spell slot.But, call construct is not an option for an 8th level spell slot.
The indirect question is whether or not metamagic can fill the void of spell levels. And, whether or not there is a power jump in upper level spells.
Not a fan of the idea whatsoever. It's up to a GM to learn to work with what is in the mechanics of the game whether it's high level spells or a powerful feat if someone can't do that as a GM then they need to let someone run the game.*snort*
No. If something doesn't fit in your game, whether it be thematically or for power/broken reasons, it is the DM's job to either alter it or throw it out. I would go so far as to say it's his responsibility and his duty.
To each their own I say. Ultimately there is Rule 0 where the GM can make any call that they want at their table. My main point is more that there isn't really a need to nerf the casters in that manner, there are plenty of other options available to someone who understands the mechanics of the game and has a good imagination.
It might work, as long as they can get the slots. In other words, you can use your 1-6th level spells with Metamagic feats.
I have suggested something a little similar- Spellcasters get 9th level spelll only as 20th level capstones, and spell level progression to 7th and beyond is delayed accordingly.
Banning Simulacrum is a Good idea.
I feel many people are misunderstanding my question. So, I am quoting deth here. Knave seemed to understand and so do Zhayne.
9th level casters would retain their spell slots. Only, the 7h, 8th, and 9th level spells would not exist. You would have to apply metamagic to fill the slots. So, maximized cones of cold could be used in the wizard's 8th level spell slot.But, call construct is not an option for an 8th level spell slot.
The indirect question is whether or not metamagic can fill the void of spell levels. And, whether or not there is a power jump in upper level spells.
I think you would have to be very specific about it. Not simply Spells of 7+ don't exist but narrow it down to a specific "Any spell that appears on the Wizard/Sorcerer or Cleric/Oracle or Witch list that is 7th level and above do not exist in this world on any spell list."
That lets you deal with issues like some classes having those spells as lower level spells.
Summon Monster VII doesn't exist
Doesn't matter that it's a 5th level spell for a Summoner the Spell simply doesn't exist, nobody gets it, ever no matter what class they are.
To each their own I say. Ultimately there is Rule 0 where the GM can make any call that they want at their table. My main point is more that there isn't really a need to nerf the casters in that manner, there are plenty of other options available to someone who understands the mechanics of the game and has a good imagination.Not a fan of the idea whatsoever. It's up to a GM to learn to work with what is in the mechanics of the game whether it's high level spells or a powerful feat if someone can't do that as a GM then they need to let someone run the game.*snort*
No. If something doesn't fit in your game, whether it be thematically or for power/broken reasons, it is the DM's job to either alter it or throw it out. I would go so far as to say it's his responsibility and his duty.
And I disagree entirely, as the DM shouldn't have to resort to having to twist every encounter to nullify an overpowered game element. It's as bad as every single villain in comics carrying around a chunk of Kryptonite. It'd be better to just reduce Superman's power level to something reasonable to where a ham-handed shutdown isn't necessary.
If you do this, you'd better give out bonus metamagic feats.
If you do this, you'd better give out bonus metamagic feats.
I would tend to agree with this. Feats are always in high demand, and not evryone necessarily spends them on metamagic feats.
I better understand the OP's idea, and while this would work from a pure COMBAT perspective, I would never play a wizard/cleric/sorcerer/oracle at such a table. They would be losing their funnest toys. And the other classes would lose nothing. At that point, might as well just remove them.
Although clerics/oracles would survive better (because they have actual combat skills) they would be considerably worse off than their less-casty counterparts.
By merely banning the classes, you DRASTICALLY reduce the effort needed to adapt, without allowing gimped classes.
Then again, a most games rarely get far enough for this to be a problem.
I'm not in favor of the idea, but I'm curious as to what has led you to believe this is necessary. Are high level spellcasters doing things that are damaging to game balance in your game regularly? Is it a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, oracle? What are they doing that is damaging (e.g. what spells are causing problems)? Do you have much experience with high level play?
I'd be happy to offer commentary on any spells of those levels you find to be problematic. Often times the solution is strict reading of the spell within the limits of its description, or within the logical limits of a game world.
I agree with peter stewarts comment. It was a concern of mine before, but a bunch of people (including SKR) chimed in to say that much of the high-level spells are a lot weaker than thought; or their limits are poorly understood. Which leads to MADNESS!
I'm not in favor of the idea, but I'm curious as to what has led you to believe this is necessary. Are high level spellcasters doing things that are damaging to game balance in your game regularly? Is it a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, oracle? What are they doing that is damaging (e.g. what spells are causing problems)? Do you have much experience with high level play?
I'd be happy to offer commentary on any spells of those levels you find to be problematic. Often times the solution is strict reading of the spell within the limits of its description, or within the logical limits of a game world.
Fair enough. It is about disparity mostly. Not necessarily a specific point of discontinuity. On one side is a level 17 fighter. On the other is wish, time stop, trap the soul and more. To even this out I would need to do one of two things: raise one side or drop the other.
Instead of raising the arms race, for example by grafting Arcana Evovled combat rites or Book of Nine Sword maneuvers on the fighter and similar classes. I am interested in reducing the other side down.
So I don't feel it is anything specific to a single spell.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. It is about disparity mostly. Not necessarily a specific point of discontinuity. On one side is a level 17 fighter. On the other is wish, time stop, trap the soul and more. To even this out I would need to do one of two things: raise one side or drop the other.
Instead of raising the arms race, for example by grafting Arcana Evovled combat rites or Book of Nine Sword maneuvers on the fighter and similar classes. I am interested in reducing the other side down.
So I don't feel it is anything specific to a single spell.
I'm curious. Are these actual problems you've seen in a game, or theoretical problems you've seen discussed?
I ask because my experience tells me that at a given table most of these so called imbalances rarely come up. Wish is a rarely used spell because of its tremendous cost, time stop is a once or twice a day reaction (at the highest levels) to something going horribly wrong, while trap the soul almost never comes up because it is so expensive (and when it is used it is typically used on a party villain, not a random schmuck).
Most of the commentary I've seen argues about narrative power rather than combat power - which is the most convincing argument I've seen. It argues that spellcasters can do things that non-spellcasters cannot in a non-combat sense that alters the game negatively. My experience has been that typically these powers simply facilitate plot and allow characters to work together to do things that would otherwise be impossible. Assuming characters have been together for many levels and have built relationships the 'narrative power' of a given PC should function as narrative power of the party as a whole (in the same way that combat power functions for the party as a whole).
I'll also note that a 17th level character's resources and abilities should go far beyond their combat abilities and the spells they have access to. High level fighters should have powerful individuals that owe them favors, friends in high places, and access to other assets that don't necessarily end up on character sheets. Maybe they helped save the High Mage of the Tower of Wizardry and as a result he owes them a few favors. Maybe the king hopes his daughter will marry that great hero, and is willing to help out the fighter within his kingdom. He probably has friends in every tavern in the kingdom that feed him information. Father's hope their sons grow up to be as as strong as said fighter. Soldiers and sellswords both are wary of drawing steel or giving offense to this man capable of fighting off entire battalions barehanded. All of this to say nothing of the powerful allies he has in the form of the party.
Though spellcasters probably buff and provide protections it is usually, at the end of the say, he who cuts off the dragon's head, he who cut down the Champion of Demogorgon for his crimes against his people, he who cast down the balor and smote his ruin upon the mountaintop. This character should have a reputation. He should have titles. He should be a hero and recognized as such.
A 17th level fighter is a lot more than just a full attack - or should be at any rate. Even if they aren't a full attack is a lot more conceptually than just a lot of damage. It's the ability to slice the wings off a passing fly. It's strength and precision such that almost no task of physical prowess is beyond them. They can hit a pigeon in flight at a thousand feet with a bow. They can effortlessly defeat every guardsman in the keep without killing a one of them - bare handed. Even armed with a non-magical blade it is the ability to beat back a group of hill giant mummies single-handedly (true story, happened in my campaign with a 12th or 13th level fighter). Its the durability to fall out of an airship and get back up after that two hundred foot fall. It's the strength to face the worst horrors of the world head on with nothing but their body and mind and come out alive. Don't sell a 17th level fighter short.
I'm curious. Are these actual problems you've seen in a game, or theoretical problems you've seen discussed?
Theoretical problems being discussed. I have a group that wants to form. I told them about APs, and they were super-excited about it. Among the group is a WoW player with no DnD/pathfinder, two 2e/3e/3.5e/Pathfinder players, a Hero player, and two 4E players.
Anyway, the WoW, and 4e players are used to a certain balance to classes across the board. Those games were made that way. The DnD players and the hero player are used to what a high level caster can do (and agree that it can get out of hand). Honestly, if you were listening as an outsider, you would say the group unofficially agrees to E6, E8, and E12 fairly unanimously.
So this is a win-win exercise for me. Either I can make E12 stretch across an AP. Or, I find another way to make the default work for everyone.
Well, I guess option three is no-one likes the answer and the exercise becomes moot. =)
Well, if you and your players enjoy the style of play present in E6/E8/E12 then I won't try and convince you by any means that is wrong or bad fun. I will say one last time that my experiences in play lend towards the theoretical problems not frequently turning up when in the hands of a good GM (especially along the rails of an AP). I'd encourage you to try an AP as is then, if it starts to fall apart, you make such a change. Do it in response to a problem rather than a theory.
I think otherwise you risk throwing away a lot of interesting aspects of play.
To be honest, I am in agreement with the OP to remove access to 7th-9th level spells.
It gives Metamagic Feats more usefulness, firstly, and secondly, it greatly helps Martials still remain relevant to the fight, in comparison to Casters, which by that point can "LOLTime Stop," throw out a bunch of Save or Suck/Die Spells, or "Doesn't Matter, You Can't Hurt Me" spells, and trivialize Martials.
Even removing those spells, the Casters still have spells and abilities that outshine Martials.
It's by E6 (or perhaps E12, somewhere in that region) where being a Martial is a complete joke, where it gets worse, and becomes all about the other Planes, Magic, Spells, etc. being the only means to get anywhere. And since Martials can't just poof it out of thin air...
I'd vote yes. Casters don't have D4 Hit Points anymore, they still have plenty of defensive spells that trivialize Martials like no other (whether by obsoleting the need for Martials with Bodys by Summon spells, or using spells that make the Martials fail to do their job), and it's not like the Casters can't make use of their Spell Slots for Heightened versions of their most common spells, or Maximized Empowered Amplified versions for that matter.
|
I suggested this exact scenario a while back and was also roundly disparaged for it. My main difference was that I slowed the spell progression of 3/4-BAB full casters like clerics so their spell progressions and BAB exactly matched that of bards. This also meant that only sorcerers, wizards, and witches even got 7-9th level spell slots.
The biggest argument I got (beyond "you've obviously never played high level and you probably shouldn't with that kind of attitude") was that if you implemented such a change, nobody would choose to play as a "nerfed" class. It's a fair point-- how would you feel if you could see all those spells in the rulebook that you're just not allowed to play? It's the same issue with Evil Clerics-- there are the evil patron deities right there in the CRB, there's the cleric spell list and evil spells are on it, there's the rule that says you can Channel Negative Energy and spont-cast Inflict, and it all looks like it'd be fun to stat up and take for a test drive... but you can't. Not because it's against the rules, but because your GM and the other players don't want you to.
If Pathfinder had been published this way, with only 6th-level spells and wizards being the true kings of metamagic thanks to their souped-up spell slots, I'm sure people would enjoy it. But to have 9th-level spells exist but be off limits? That's a psychological punch that it'll be hard to get players behind.
If your playgroup wants to play it like that, I have no doubt it would work just fine. I can't imagine there's any monster or encounter out there that becomes unsolvable without those spells-- if there is, there really shouldn't be. Just talk it over with them first before you spring it on them.
And if you make it to level 17, let us know how it works out for you!
Even armed with a non-magical blade it is the ability to beat back a group of hill giant mummies single-handedly (true story, happened in my campaign with a 12th or 13th level fighter).
Going to call B.S. on this one.
They were gryfadon mummies.
XP 25,600
LE Large Undead (Fire, Reptilian)
Init +1; Senses Darkvision, Low-light, Perception +18
Languages Draconic, Sauron
Aura Despair (DC 21 negates paralyzed 1d4 rounds)
_____________________________________________________________
AC 27 (+1 Dex, +17 natural, -1 size) touch 10, flat-footed 26, combat 39
hp 142 (15d8 + 75); DR 5/-
Immune fire
Weak cold
Fort +13, Ref +6, Will +11
_____________________________________________________________
Speed 30 ft.
Melee Gore +26/+21/+16 (3d6 + 24 /19-20) and
2 slams +21 (1d8 + 16 plus mummy rot)
Ranged Sarcophagus +26 (4d8 + 24 plus 1d6 fire)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Base Atk +11; Combat +28
Special Actions Power attack (-3, +9)
_____________________________________________________________
SQ Rapid strike
Abilities Str 43, Dex 13, Con -, Int 10, Wis 22, Cha 18
Feats Brutal Throw, Cleave, Great Cleave, Greater Overrun, Improved Critical (gore), Improved Initiative, Power Attack, Toughness
Skills Athletics +20, Craft (weapon) +8, Intimidate +15, Perception +18
_____________________________________________________________
Mummy Rot Fort DC 21
Rapid Strike Gyoradons can make iterative attacks with their primary natural weapons.
Toss Those struck by a gyoradon's gore attack are subject to a combat maneuver check. If successful, they are tossed 1d6 x 5 ft. away.
Even armed with a non-magical blade it is the ability to beat back a group of hill giant mummies single-handedly (true story, happened in my campaign with a 12th or 13th level fighter).Going to call B.S. on this one.
They were gryfadon mummies.
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, ok, whatever. Einar wrecked those guys pretty much single handedly in no time flat with that stupid magic aura'd sword he thought was like a +7. I remember Lavinia going down when they threw a sarcophagus at her, then Einar sweeping into the room like a cyclone of death to wreck bloody vengeance.
I'm curious. Are these actual problems you've seen in a game, or theoretical problems you've seen discussed?
Theoretical problems being discussed. I have a group that wants to form. I told them about APs, and they were super-excited about it. Among the group is a WoW player with no DnD/pathfinder, two 2e/3e/3.5e/Pathfinder players, a Hero player, and two 4E players.
Anyway, the WoW, and 4e players are used to a certain balance to classes across the board. Those games were made that way. The DnD players and the hero player are used to what a high level caster can do (and agree that it can get out of hand). Honestly, if you were listening as an outsider, you would say the group unofficially agrees to E6, E8, and E12 fairly unanimously.
So this is a win-win exercise for me. Either I can make E12 stretch across an AP. Or, I find another way to make the default work for everyone.
Well, I guess option three is no-one likes the answer and the exercise becomes moot. =)
Be careful with theorycrafting as discussed here. Either it relies upon strained interpretations of the rules, or it's not really played that way, due to issues as Peter noted. Sometime they rely upon "Schrodinger's Wizard" or upon the DM letting them nova & rest, nova & rest. If you simply make sure there are around 4 encounters a day, most problems are solved. Mind you, a few cool loot drops if you see some member of the party struggling has always been a DM tool.
For example, the "snocone wish machine" few think it was meant to work that way in practice. And, it's easy just to ban that one spell.
Sure, some of the 9th level spells can be game breakers. Note that few AP's get there.
Look, the AP's have been playtested pretty extensively, and with iconic parties. The warriors were still contributing and a valued part of the team until the end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player if you took all of my high level spells I would want something in the bargain or I would just never play a full caster. It's just way to many dead levels with nothing new to do. You can't do something like this and have it be all stick no carrot. Maybe bonus feats? Or free access to a prestige class? You have to give the full casters something in trade other then you can do more of the same things over the final 6 odd levels of your career.
I have to agree with Peter Stewart on this one. Don't worry too much about theoretical problems at high end play. Especially if you are using an AP. For some of the most problematic spells/situations sometimes the Devs even foresee the issue and come up with handy solutions in-case a high level caster uses that 'god-like' power.
From my own personal experience, in my Ways of the Wicked group, it isn't the 13th Level Conjurer our GM has to worry about in most encounters, it is the 13th Level CAGAM Barbarian that is Pouncing with a his +1 Furious Dispelling Falchion, and even if he doesn't get a charge lane, he still has Improved Crit (Falchion) to help him crit 25% of the time.
As for Narrative Power in the group, it isn't the Wizard using spells that drives many of the social encounters it is either the 13th AntiPaladin with tons of Intimidate or the 13th Oracle with tons of Diplomacy moving things along.
If many of the players of the group remember that Pathfinder is a Co-Operative game (which in my experience MOST do), you needn't worry about it. Also, if you have a player using a 9-level spell progression caster, don't be afraid to come to a "gentlemen's(or gentlewomen's) agreement to not purposefully try and derail the game with some of the "broken" high level spells instead of trying to homebrew out a core mechanic like the 9 level spell progression for full-casters (which CAN have unintended consequences)
EDIT: I would also like to note that the Wizard in question was essentially built using Treantmonk's God Wizard guide plus using some of the other material out there to enhance upon it.
I have played a fighter up to 10th or 11th level and I was having a grand old time. It was really gratifying to wreck fools with my sweet war hammer. Of course I couldn't fly like the sorcerer or raise people from the dead like the cleric, but I still got my moments to shine and they go theirs.
Plus, there's something to be said for some of the classes being just plain simpler. I am a relatively new player, compared to the average level experience in my group, and sometimes I wish I were playing a fighter, just so that my job and mechanics would be simpler. No tracking spell durations, no deciding which of my 40 spells to cast…just mowing down baddies.
And don't forget RP. I favor RP over rules and mechanics. Regardless of what toys the wizards have, sometimes I just wanna play a fighter-type character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my own personal experience, in my Ways of the Wicked group, it isn't the 13th Level Conjurer our GM has to worry about in most encounters, it is the 13th Level CAGAM Barbarian that is Pouncing with a his +1 Furious Dispelling Falchion, and even if he doesn't get a charge lane, he still has Improved Crit (Falchion) to help him crit 25% of the time.
As for Narrative Power in the group, it isn't the Wizard using spells that drives many of the social encounters it is either the 13th AntiPaladin with tons of Intimidate or the 13th Oracle with tons of Diplomacy moving things along.
This actually pretty closely matches my experience. My wizard's most powerful tool (at 15th level) is often her high charisma and focus on Diplomacy (circlet of persuasion, class skill, skill focus, max ranks, 20 Charisma). It's a tool available to everyone else in the party as well (and one that everyone uses to some extent).
In terms of combat frustration for the GM, it's more frequently the two party fighters (15th level each) who create GM headaches with the amount of damage they can dish out in a brief time. It makes it relatively difficult to have encounters that last more than a round or two. Most recently he (the GM) was forced to go to tremendous lengths to make a fight with Warduke a dangerous and memorable one. Even so, he was shocked by the amount of damage the party fighters dished out (something along the order of 1,300 damage in two rounds). A fight he had intended to be utterly overwhelming very nearly turned into one in which the party carried the day (for those curious, the party lost and were forced to flee, abandoning treasure and a party fighter's prized sword to Warduke in favor of saving their own lives).
The ability (and inclination) of a duo of high level fighters to dish out upwards of 500 points of damage a round is a larger practical headache than the party wizard or sorcerer theoretically having access to obscure spells and odd combinations of powers. This is especially true since the casters can simply have a problematic spell denied, while the martials would require a complete rebuilding of the system from the ground up without the full attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you doing that much high-level play?
Its not until after 12th level that the disparity really begins to make its presence known and I find that the vast majority of actual play ends up taking place in the 1st - 12th range anyway.
I'm also not one who worships at the altar of balance at all costs. Some people are just more powerful than others - its up to the GM to ensure that everyone has a role to fill and an opportunity to shine. the Justice League has Superman, Batman and Green Lantern - but it also has Batman and Green Arrow and the writers always seem to find an appropriate niche for each to fill and be important.
No one in the Fellowship of the Ring ever whined that Gandalf was more powerful then them, they were grateful to have him on their side ('we have the White Wizard - that's got to count for something').
In my opinion, rather than radically altering your game to punish casters who may not even exist yet, ensure as a GM that you are able to give everyone the chance to shine and ensure you have players who are interested in cooperative play instead of competitive play. Things will run a lot smoother.
That or stick to lower level games where the disparty is nowhere near as significant. Its the rare group that plays the same characters and the same adventure from 1st to 13th or beyond anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a very large difference between a medium in which the writer has total control over all the characters and one where a different person controls a different character, to the point where you're comparing apples and carburetors.
Why didn't anybody in the Fellowship complain? Because Tolkien didn't want them to. He didn't have to worry about Frodo's player feeling ineffective or how broken Legolas was (and Gandalf was his DMPC). Comic book writers can contrive situations easily (see TV Tropes 'Forgot About His Powers'), not so Game Masters. Thor and Ant-Man in the same group works fine in comics, not so in gameplay.
That said, I'm in rough agreement with Wiggz. Just say that 12th level is as high as the game goes; after that, it's new game time. Though there are a number of lower-level spells you'll probably want to ban anyway.
Ud everybody know in advance i see no problem in it. I would happily play a wizard in your game. But this solution is not gonna make the problem go away it will only change it sligtly. But it sounds like fun!
In terms of combat frustration for the GM, it's more frequently the two party fighters (15th level each) who create GM headaches with the amount of damage they can dish out in a brief time. It makes it relatively difficult to have encounters that last more than a round or two.
[...]
Even so, he was shocked by the amount of damage the party fighters dished out (something along the order of 1,300 damage in two rounds)
What's this? I'm pretty sure it was like a five round fight, and I'm pretty sure that total you gave as the fighter's total is actually the party total, and would never have happened without the casters unraveling Warduke's defenses. In fact I'm pretty sure that before you started casting at him my fighter hit on a grand total of one of his first nine attacks - and that was swinging with five or six buffs already active, else it would have been natural 20s only.
I'm also pretty sure that last time my fighter personally ventured forth from the arcanists' apron strings to fight without wizardly support he (and two other PCs) got roflstomped by an NPC caster of lower level than all three of them (in an encounter lasting - I think - seven or eight rounds), so I'm not sure that Kain finds it hard to challenge my fighter at all or provide him long fights. That experience would seem to indicate that in and of himself he is notably easy to challenge.
Now, if you would say that he sometimes finds it hard, especially with single enemies, to challenge a 14th/15th level party which includes two fighters, a sorcerer, a wizard, a bard and a cleric, then I could agree with you, as long as you did not then go on to argue that the fighters are the root of the difficulty, rather than, say, a large party who buff each other into the stratosphere.
Even so, he was shocked by the amount of damage the party fighters dished out (something along the order of 1,300 damage in two rounds)What's this? I'm pretty sure it was like a five round fight, and I'm pretty sure that total you gave as the fighter's total is actually the party total, and would never have happened without the casters unraveling Warduke's defenses. In fact I'm pretty sure that before you started casting at him my fighter hit on a grand total of one of his first nine attacks - and that was swinging with five or six buffs already active, else it would have been natural 20s only.
It is true that the dispelling of the buffs directly led to the sick sick damage output inflicted upon Warduke. Had I designed Warduke according to actual CR parameters instead of based off of my experience with the group, he would have been smeared immediately, even prior.
I'm also pretty sure that last time my fighter personally ventured forth from the arcanists' apron strings to fight without wizardly support he (and two other PCs) got roflstomped by an NPC caster of lower level than all three of them (in an encounter lasting - I think - seven or eight rounds), so I'm not sure that Kain finds it hard to challenge my fighter at all or provide him long fights. That experience would seem to indicate that in and of himself he is notably easy to challenge.
I remember this. You, the bard and the cleric sat in a cloudkill for several rounds, while the undead sorcerer and his skeleton were unmolested. It seems poor tactics lost the day there, however, rather than a specific caster/martial imbalance.
In general, I have found that the massive damage the fighters deal is harder to control than anything spellcasting does. Spellcasting seems to get out of hand when spells aren't used how they are intended to. But it hardly seems likely that a fighter's attack and damage bonus aren't working as intended when they make mincemeat out of any AC/hp combination in the bestiary inside a couple rounds.
On the topic of the thread, if you have found it necessary to nerf high level casters, I've often wondered if it weren't the proliferation of lower level spell slots that contributes to casterly combat power as much as the highest level stuff. I don't really love the idea of banning the highest level spells - there's frankly a lot of stuff up there that is fun to cast, and I think that from a practical standpoint it could be pretty disappointing to be playing a spellcaster and not getting any new spells after 11th level.
Partly I feel that there are a lot of spells - particularly but not only buffs - in the lower levels that are balanced as a choice when you first have access to them, but become unbalanced once you have so many spell slots that choosing to prepare/cast them no longer represents much of a cost, or when you can have a dozen low level spells all running at once.
This is combat wise. Narrative power (as Kirth would put it) often does rest in the highest level stuff you have access to. So it may come down to a question of whether you are finding your casters to be problematic in combat, or in a narrative power sense.
I remember this. You, the bard and the cleric sat in a cloudkill for several rounds, while the undead sorcerer and his skeleton were unmolested. It seems poor tactics lost the day there, however, rather than a specific caster/martial imbalance.
I'm pretty sure that was actually a spell to keep me in the cloudkill, not a tactic. A Reflex save effect (that I failed) that prevented me from moving long enough for him to block off the exit to the room.
Spellcasting seems to get out of hand when spells aren't used how they are intended to. But it hardly seems likely that a fighter's attack and damage bonus aren't working as intended when they make mincemeat out of any AC/hp combination in the bestiary inside a couple rounds.
I guess I partly agree with this though (and partly don't). I think it's easy to stop the damage, but the damage is typically more than enough when not stopped. As for spells, I don't know. I think in combat, spells often can reach pretty high power working exactly as seems to be intended. On the other hand, a lot of the silly out of combat simulacrum stuff and whatever is clearly not.
I'd just recommend you try playing E6 or E8. I have the rules for you if you'd prefer. It'd get rid of all the chaos.