6th level caster class game - What am I missing?

[Renchard]

So I have a pet theory that goes like this:

The 6th level caster classes are the absolute sweet spot in terms of Pathfinder design.

All of these classes have a strong but not overpowered spellcasting chassis, along with numerous class features with a diverse suite of options included.

The inclusion of 7 new 6th level caster classes between ACG and Occult Adventures has lead me to the point of thinking a game with only those classes now has more the enough options to be viable for my next spin at DMing.

Bard
Magus
Inquisitor
Alchemist
Investigator
Skald
Hunter
Warpriest
Occultist
Mesmerist
Spiritualist
Summoner (only if Unchained keeps it as a 6th level caster, the current version is a bit too strong).

My question is, are there any major class features that are missing between these classes and all of their available archetype options? I want my players to have a pretty full range of thematic options, just with a limited mechanical chassis. Obviously, Full BAB and 7+ level spells, but I consider that a feature, not a bug.

Just as an example, wild shape is an option, by taking Feral Hunter. Rage powers are available via the skald. Witch hexes are available via Hexcrafter magus. Sneak attack is available via the vivisectionist alchemist. And so on.

[Claxon]

If you concern is too much power, just ban 9th level spellcasters from your game and Summoners. And don't argue on this one, summoners are 9th level spellcasters disguised as 6th level spellcasters. They get earlier access to so many spels its silly.

Otherwise, let players play what they want. If they want to play full BAB classes with no spell casting, or play a monk, brawler, slayer, fighter, etc why is it a problem? Spell casting is usually what breaks a game, so I can get behind the idea of restricitng spell casting access. I can't get behind banning the monk, even if it isn't mechanically effective as others.

[Renchard]

Claxon wrote:

If you concern is too much power, just ban 9th level spellcasters from your game and Summoners. And don't argue on this one, summoners are 9th level spellcasters disguised as 6th level spellcasters. They get earlier access to so many spels its silly.

Otherwise, let players play what they want. If they want to play full BAB classes with no spell casting, or play a monk, brawler, slayer, fighter, etc why is it a problem? Spell casting is usually what breaks a game, so I can get behind the idea of restricitng spell casting access. I can't get behind banning the monk, even if it isn't mechanically effective as others.

It isn't a problem. It's an experiment. We've been playing Pathfinder for 5 years, 6 by the time my turn DMing pops up. I like to keep it fresh.

The last time I ran a game, 4 of the 6 players were 6th level casters, and I noticed that the game ran really well from the mid levels even into the upper levels. The only classes that caused a problem were the paladin (as a high level melee buzzsaw) and the witch, once high level spells came into play. All of the other characters contributed well but not overpoweringly so. Good damage, good survivability, good out of combat contributions.

So I want to try a game that has most of the options that are normally available, but with what I saw was a real sweet spot in terms of capability.

[Deighton Thrane]

I think the only problem would be the fact that a lot of these classes play pretty similar to each other, and eventually the players might not like the fact that none of their characters seem unique. If your whole party buffs, heals, and dukes it out in melee, your character who buffs heals and dukes it out in melee might just start feeling like a number, not a unique character.

[TimD]

So are you eliminating them from your game world or just restricting which options players have?
If the former, then you may have some "downstream" effects that may affect your continuity if not addressed.
If the latter, as long as you get buy-in from your players, I don't see how it would be a problem. Your best bet would probably be to ask them about it and let them know you want to try it as an experiment. If you write in some sort of in-game explanation to give them a bit more plot / investment, they may even get excited about it (family traditions, all being members of the same order, all being reincarnated heroes of the appropriate classes, etc.).

-TimD

[Renchard]

TimD wrote:

So are you eliminating them from your game world or just restricting which options players have?

If the former, then you may have some "downstream" effects that may affect your continuity if not addressed.
If the latter, as long as you get buy-in from your players, I don't see how it would be a problem. Your best bet would probably be to ask them about it and let them know you want to try it as an experiment. If you write in some sort of in-game explanation to give them a bit more plot / investment, they may even get excited about it (family traditions, all being members of the same order, all being reincarnated heroes of the appropriate classes, etc.).

Any instances of level 7+ spells would be eliminated, outside of some prestige classes. The most powerful casters only have 6th level spells. (Obviously, this game won't be set in Golarion, it's a homebrew.)

The classes are removed from the game world in the sense that I won't give non-monstrous NPCs abilities that the players wouldn't eventually have access to. I don't tend to design NPCs using PC rules, so the class "existing" in the world isn't really relevant to my needs.

[Bob Bob Bob]

This is all assuming summoner is left out because the other people are right, summoner has 9th level spellcasting that they crammed into 6 levels.

Teleport apparently only comes online at 5th level spells, and then only for a Magus. So 13th level character.

Planar Binding/Ally only exist for a bard fiddling for their soul. Oh, and I guess Warpriest, always forget that one (since it's just cleric but only below 7).

Those are off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more campaign affecting spells out there that are wizard/cleric only. I think because most of the 6th level casters were developed later, they kept most of the odder and more problematic spells out of their spell lists. Simulacrum, for instance, is wizard and summoner only.

As far as running a game like this, no, probably won't notice any big issues (aside from the teleport thing). Your necromancers will be warpriests instead of clerics/wizards, your enchanters will be bards instead of sorcerers, your blasters will be... magus? It helps a lot that the warpriest gets "the cleric list, but only the first two-thirds".

[DrDeth]

You will need a few NPC temples or other methods for things like Restoration, Cure Blindness, Raise dea, etc that the party will get several levels after they will normally need them.

Other than that, it's a good idea.

[Bob Bob Bob]

Oh right, just realized a biggie. Bards get Blindness at level 4 (2nd level spell). Permanent blindness. The cure comes at level 7 (3rd level spell). So similar to what DrDeth said, look for things where the cure is either unavailable or a higher level than the afflict. Especially since monsters are probably based on the sorc/wizard versions, and therefore would get blindness as early as CR 3.

[Petty Alchemy]

I like it, everyone gets a good amount of breadth, and these are the classes unique to Pathfinder (not legacy from 3.x).

[Dragonchess Player]

It can work fairly well. The PCs can have a lot of magical options at a flatter/lower power curve. Other classes like the paladin (i.e., mercies) can help with alleviating status conditions and can be viable options for those who want even fewer (or even no) spellcasting ability until higher levels than many "caster-heavy" games.

Alternately, you can go a bit more "old school" and just ban the 9-level divine casters; the 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D (and BECMI D&D) cleric and druid (and 1st Ed illusionist) spell lists only went up to 7th-level, after all. "You want to cast the most powerful spells? You have to be an arcanist, sorcerer, witch or wizard, with all of the weaknesses (poor BAB, spell failure in armor, etc.)." Basically, the inquisitor and warpriest (possibly with an archetype) fill in for the cleric in church hierarchies, while the hunter replaces the druid.

[Dreaming Psion]

Death effects will become more powerful, as resurrection will be out. (And you need resurrection to recover from death effects.)

Many monsters will need to be taken out or altered (if you are applying this restriction to NPCs) because almost all of them cast spells as one of the 9 level casters.

You might allow much needed but hard to get recovery spells (and stone to flesh) to be used as rituals/incantations (like from the Unearthed Arcana rules or converted over from 3.5x in a few third party publications) or via feats (like they do in E6).

You might alter some of the spell requirements for various magical items and golems to fit the altered spell lists.

Also, you may also want to look at the monster summoning monster lists to weed out any monsters that might be able to get around your restrictions (and perhaps put some tighter guidelines on planar binding/planar ally for the same).

[Renchard]

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Oh right, just realized a biggie. Bards get Blindness at level 4 (2nd level spell). Permanent blindness. The cure comes at level 7 (3rd level spell). So similar to what DrDeth said, look for things where the cure is either unavailable or a higher level than the afflict. Especially since monsters are probably based on the sorc/wizard versions, and therefore would get blindness as early as CR 3.

Yea, that's a good catch. Never been a big fan of the perma-blindness. I'll have to think how I want to approach that. I think I'll just lower cure blindness to 2nd level. Seems to fit better there anyway.

[DrDeth]

Renchard wrote:

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Oh right, just realized a biggie. Bards get Blindness at level 4 (2nd level spell). Permanent blindness. The cure comes at level 7 (3rd level spell). So similar to what DrDeth said, look for things where the cure is either unavailable or a higher level than the afflict. Especially since monsters are probably based on the sorc/wizard versions, and therefore would get blindness as early as CR 3.

Yea, that's a good catch. Never been a big fan of the perma-blindness. I'll have to think how I want to approach that. I think I'll just lower cure blindness to 2nd level. Seems to fit better there anyway.

Or just make the Duration One day. or both.