What 4th level caster isn't good? Rangers rock Instant Enemy. Paladins are awesome without their spells, but get a lot of utility from spells like the Angelic Aspect line. Bloodragers are some of the best self buffers in the game.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think he's talking in terms of power, but in terms of enjoyability. Most 6 level casters have a ton of class features, 6 levels of spell casting utility (obviously), and quite often a decent number of skills, which means that they can often contribute, or have something to do in every portion of the game, not just when combat rolls around. And aside from that, they're all really balanced against each other, and against the standards set by the CR system, so that the characters are usually powerful, but not game breakingly so.
4 level casters are usually still powerful, but aren't generally as versatile as 6 level casters.
In general, I think tier 2 is the sweet spot for the game, for my tastes. So I totally agree with you, the 6 lvl casters are great, although I think the chained summoner is a bit of a mess.
I'm having fun playing a 6-level caster, my inquisitor. I agree that probably the most enjoyable classes for me are 6-level casters. Summoner, Magus, Hunter, Inquisitor, Warpriest, all good. That's not to say there aren't other good classes out there, I just happen to like alot of these half-caster, half-martial classes.
I can agree to an extent. I enjoy me some magic, so if I ever go with a character that is actually going to be swinging a weapon, I prefer they have access to magic or supernatural abilities given via the class. That said, I guess I have an unknown stigma for a few of the 6-lv casters, because I've never wanted to play a magus, warpriest and I'm still on the fence about spiritualist. That said, I really like the occultist, alchemist, inquisitor and investigator (though I've read their effectiveness is questionable).
I actually think that the alchemist is the best adaptable class, with occultist coming in a close second. More so when it gets more support in the future. There's just so many different things you can do with them and still be effective.
All that said, I guess I do fall on the side of extra power. I've really enjoyed playing wizards and am looking forward to trying out an arcanist some day.
|
I don't think he's talking in terms of power, but in terms of enjoyability. ...
4 level casters are usually still powerful, but aren't generally as versatile as 6 level casters.
Being less versatile doesn't necessarily mean being less enjoyable. My bloodrager has enough skill ranks to contribute to social and investigative encounters and is our group's only character trained in wilderness survival. And you don't always need relevant mechanics to contribute to an encounter. I've seen some people get very creative about using what they have in unusual ways, like when the party barbarian intimidated an intelligent maze into giving the party directions (said barbarian had a big adamantine hammer). And some situations involve not just spells or skill checks but value judgments that anyone can participate in. Sense Motive can tell you that the succubus offering to save your bacon is untrustworthy (big surprise there) but no skill check can tell you whether you should accept her help anyway.
I do love 6-level casters and think Paizo has consistently done a very good job with them. But they're not the only well-designed classes, and they also can be a bit tricky to use compared to Paladins, Bloodragers, Barbarians, and Slayers, or even some full casters like Sorcerers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually have to agree here, T4/T3 is the best balancing point for the game. Paizo's track record with 6th level casters has been stellar, and personally I think that they should aim for that level of balance if they ever do a PF 2.0.
Borrowing martial design from TOB-esque sources, keeping casters at 6th level casting at best, and starting off 4th level casters at first level would do a lot to help make the entire game more balanced, and I'd love to see it happen. I've had some ideas for a 6th level Wizard that I might write up later.
So the spiritualist is meant to be really well made? Is he now?
And here i stand hoping that when i finally put my hands on the new occult books i can actually agree to that atleast a little.
Borrowing martial design from TOB-esque sourcesTOB?
Tome of Battle (Path of War as well)
There's totally enough room in the cleric spell list to make it a caster, and caster only. It struggles a little bit at the early levels, but that could be fixed by making the channel energy mechanic easier to employ effectively, and maybe upping the viability of some of the domain powers. The fire domain is an example of a good low-level domain power, in that it's a useful ability that'll give you something to do in combat without being overpowered.
Right now channel energy is in a rather sad spot: it's either an out-of-combat wand-saver, an incredibly cheesy way to daze-lock all living enemies, or it's just sitting there worthlessly.
And honestly, while I absolutely adore the wizard, I feel like it might be better for the game if he was replaced wholesale by the sorcerer.
I've seen some people get very creative about using what they have in unusual ways
Me too. But then, those same players, when they use their creative skills with more versátiles clases, shine even more.
This is akin to say that a sword is not a better weapon than a pencil, because a martial artist máster with a pencil can be more dangerous than the average person with a sword. While that might be true, the martial artist máster with a sword is going to be orders of magnitude more dangerous than the average person with a pencil. In order to compare tools, you have to even everything else.Not all the 6lvl classes are equally good, and they are not the only well designed classes. But if we make an average of all martials in a group, all 4 lvl casters in other, all 6 lvl in other and all 9 lvl in other, I feel that the 6 lvl wins.
It's not just that Paizo is good at making balanced 1/4 and 2/3 casters, but rather that Pathfinder (and D&D 3.X) is a very bad system for full martials and is too good of a system for full casters.
Dunno that I'd agree with that. The game is certainly different when you play high-level casters, but I don't think different is the same as bad.
Trying to play high level wizards and clerics in a group containing high-level rogues and fighters is unlikely to end well though, I'll give you that.
That said, I'm totally on board with cutting away all the 'pure martial' classes. Rangers, paladins & bloodragers would be as low as it went - even people of NPC classes would have a few innate SLAs, relative to their level.
Pathfinder could be a very interesting setting if everyone were spellcasters.
People could be born without powers, but they'd pretty quickly wind up as clerics or even adepts, because the practice of magic is deeply ingrained in the culture, and not having it would be akin to being Handicapped in the real world. A set-back, to be sure, but also with a social stigma attached that is not a direct consequence of the inability, but rather society's reaction to them being 'wierd'.
Me and another guy in my home group are currently working on altering all casting classes so 4th-level casters become 3rd-level casters (but get casting at 2nd level), 6th-level casters become 5th-level casters (but get a new class feature each to compensate for the lost spell level) and 9th-level casters become 7th-level casters (again gaining new stuff to compensate). The idea behind this is rather based on Paizo's approach to their 6th-level casters; class features are more fun and easier to balance around than both BAB and casting, and so reducing the importance of at least one of those to a class seems like a potentially neat way of making intra-class balance more accurate, while still retaining enough uniqueness to each class to make them fun, viable options.
I think I do agree overall that the fundamentals of the system make being a non-magical martial a bit tough and being a 9-level caster a bit too good. Hence the above approach on my personal homebrew front.
Cheers,
- Gears
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, pure martial can be totally ok in design, IF, they follow the same "it's cool to do things" premise.
A barbarian has 4 skill points. Also have some unique and interesting powers with his rage. IF you make a martial class with enough skill points, and resources to spend (like Grit or Panache or Rage, but with more oomph and les superfluous prereqs) then it could work. Problem is the Devs still think it's necesary to saddle up martials with prereq, but not casters. You can't get beast tótem power III without I and II, while you can get dominate person without charm person or charm monster.
This is the biggest issue. Martials are binded not only by "reality", but also by artificial rules, that forbid them tovtrip unless they know how to defender, and don't ley them sunder magic unless they are superstitiuos. While casters can Greater Dispel Magic without Dispel Magic.
To be honest, pure martial can be totally ok in design, IF, they follow the same "it's cool to do things" premise.
A barbarian has 4 skill points. Also have some unique and interesting powers with his rage. IF you make a martial class with enough skill points, and resources to spend (like Grit or Panache or Rage, but with more oomph and les superfluous prereqs) then it could work. Problem is the Devs still think it's necesary to saddle up martials with prereq, but not casters. You can't get beast tótem power III without I and II, while you can get dominate person without charm person or charm monster.
This is the biggest issue. Martials are binded not only by "reality", but also by artificial rules, that forbid them tovtrip unless they know how to defender, and don't ley them sunder magic unless they are superstitiuos. While casters can Greater Dispel Magic without Dispel Magic.
See Spheres of Power.
See Spheres of Power.To be honest, pure martial can be totally ok in design, IF, they follow the same "it's cool to do things" premise.
A barbarian has 4 skill points. Also have some unique and interesting powers with his rage. IF you make a martial class with enough skill points, and resources to spend (like Grit or Panache or Rage, but with more oomph and les superfluous prereqs) then it could work. Problem is the Devs still think it's necesary to saddle up martials with prereq, but not casters. You can't get beast tótem power III without I and II, while you can get dominate person without charm person or charm monster.
This is the biggest issue. Martials are binded not only by "reality", but also by artificial rules, that forbid them tovtrip unless they know how to defender, and don't ley them sunder magic unless they are superstitiuos. While casters can Greater Dispel Magic without Dispel Magic.
That's not much of a solution though.
That's not much of a solution though.
Why do you say that? It's not a universal solution because not everyone is willing to use it, but it fixes the quoted problem quite thoroughly.
|
|
I've seen some people get very creative about using what they have in unusual waysMe too. But then, those same players, when they use their creative skills with more versatile clases, shine even more.
This is akin to say that a sword is not a better weapon than a pencil, because a martial artist master with a pencil can be more dangerous than the average person with a sword. While that might be true, the martial artist master with a sword is going to be orders of magnitude more dangerous than the average person with a pencil. In order to compare tools, you have to even everything else.
So how does this actually affect enjoyment of the class?
I have never found my enjoyment of a martial or 4-level caster impeded by their lack of the ideal abilities to handle a non-combat challenge.
I have found my enjoyment of a 6-level caster impeded by difficulties in contributing to significant combat encounters, thanks to diverting a little too much in the way of stats, feats, or gold into non-combat pursuits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I tend to agree with most of the above points, I will say that some of the "I can do anything with my toolkit" mentality of the six-caster level classes falls flat when faced with the reality of certain spells that can be almost necessary for an adventuring party at high level. As someone who enjoys mid-to high level play (9th-15th level), I can't count the number of times when casting a Heal, Harm, Wind Walk, Teleport, Plane Shift, or the like was necessary to either survive an encounter or to advance the plot. I'm not saying that these classes are weaker than the straight caster classes, but the adventures' design seems to dictate at times the inclusion of certain spells which these classes would not have access to until four levels after they are expected to be there. Just an observation.
Full casters tend to get ridiculous abilities, especially endgame.
Martial characters tend to struggle figuring out what they're supposed to do when they can't walk up and punch something.
People keep saying that with some kind of mantra.. Maybe that's true for the bad GMs that gave them that impression... or maybe the player who can't imagine doing anything that's not from an optimizer's mechanic.
But it's not the universal truth they think it is. It's true where GM's give the nod to caster players, and are simply not strict with magic. Or haven't realised that you build your campaign to your players. I've played the gamut from non-casters to 4th, 6th, and 9th. The thing is ... no matter what you play, the key is to make your own fun.
What do you mean, 'strict with magic'? Are the GMs you speak of making up houserules or something? I get that a wizard who is the only wizard in a universe that has no arcane scrolls in it might be in trouble, but that does absolutely nothing to deter clerics or druids, for example.
While I tend to agree with most of the above points, I will say that some of the "I can do anything with my toolkit" mentality of the six-caster level classes falls flat when faced with the reality of certain spells that can be almost necessary for an adventuring party at high level. As someone who enjoys mid-to high level play (9th-15th level), I can't count the number of times when casting a Heal, Harm, Wind Walk, Teleport, Plane Shift, or the like was necessary to either survive an encounter or to advance the plot. I'm not saying that these classes are weaker than the straight caster classes, but the adventures' design seems to dictate at times the inclusion of certain spells which these classes would not have access to until four levels after they are expected to be there. Just an observation.
I quite agree with this. However, I don't think the point is that high-level parties shouldn't depend on 9s spellcasters, more that 6s make excellent wholesale replacements for the martials, and maybe even the 4s.
|
|
Full casters tend to get ridiculous abilities, especially endgame.
Martial characters tend to struggle figuring out what they're supposed to do when they can't walk up and punch something.
People keep saying that with some kind of mantra.. Maybe that's true for the bad GMs that gave them that impression... or maybe the player who can't imagine doing anything that's not from an optimizer's mechanic.
But it's not the universal truth they think it is. It's true where GM's give the nod to caster players, and are simply not strict with magic. Or haven't realised that you build your campaign to your players. I've played the gamut from non-casters to 4th, 6th, and 9th. The thing is ... no matter what you play, the key is to make your own fun.
Isn't admitting that you have to change the way the game is played or however you're 'more strict with magic' to make things fair? Also you're calling everyone who has problems with this a bad GM instead of possibly assuming that MAYBE there's a problem with the game.
As for 'building your campaign for your players', a lot of people use APs, and doing that isn't really feasible, so yeah, maybe in the way you run games with players who aren't using the rules the way others are, it's fine for you. But you have this needless air of superiority to how you play the game that's not helpful in conversations like this and painfully antagonistic towards people who play the game differently from you that you seem to bring into all conversations on the subject.
This thread was meant to talk about what the game does best, not to bash others for having problems with a game that most will admit isn't perfect, and I agree that the 6th level casters are a bright spot in design that I myself greatly admire. Keeping new designs around this level would be great, and personally I'd love to eventually see 9th level casters phased out.
Full casters tend to get ridiculous abilities, especially endgame.
Martial characters tend to struggle figuring out what they're supposed to do when they can't walk up and punch something.
People keep saying that with some kind of mantra.. Maybe that's true for the bad GMs that gave them that impression... or maybe the player who can't imagine doing anything that's not from an optimizer's mechanic.
But it's not the universal truth they think it is. It's true where GM's give the nod to caster players, and are simply not strict with magic. Or haven't realised that you build your campaign to your players. I've played the gamut from non-casters to 4th, 6th, and 9th. The thing is ... no matter what you play, the key is to make your own fun.
Isn't admitting that you have to change the way the game is played or however you're 'more strict with magic' to make things fair? Also you're calling everyone who has problems with this a bad GM instead of possibly assuming that MAYBE there's a problem with the game.
As for 'building your campaign for your players', a lot of people use APs, and doing that isn't really feasible, so yeah, maybe in the way you run games with players who aren't using the rules the way others are, it's fine for you. But you have this needless air of superiority to how you play the game that's not helpful in conversations like this and painfully antagonistic towards people who play the game differently from you that you seem to bring into all conversations on the subject.
This thread was meant to talk about what the game does best, not to bash others for having problems with a game that most will admit isn't perfect, and I agree that the 6th level casters are a bright spot in design that I myself greatly admire. Keeping new designs around this level would be great, and personally I'd love to eventually see 9th level casters phased out.
That last bit I can't agree with, at all.
High-level D&D is bending the universe and doing horrendously overpowered things to the horrendously over the top villains - the only thing that's wrong with this picture is that the rogue and the fighter doesn't get to join in on the funsies.
Low-level d&d logic shouldn't be extended into high-level d&d adventures. Rather, the classes who aren't given the tools to participate should be phased out, in favor of like classes who can, such as the 6th level characters.
Honestly, if you want to stick around at the lower levels of play, E6 is a wonderful system which sits right there. It's my goto when I don't want to deal with the glorious insanity that is high-level d&d. With some optimization, and a slightly bigger party than is standard, you can run encounters at CRs all the way up to at least 13, which is plenty for telling whatever story you want.
The concept isn't all that new - PFS itself effectively runs E12, for example, although they haven't got an advancement system in place for post-12th.
|
|
This thread was meant to talk about what the game does best, not to bash others for having problems with a game that most will admit isn't perfect, and I agree that the 6th level casters are a bright spot in design that I myself greatly admire. Keeping new designs around this level would be great, and personally I'd love to eventually see 9th level casters phased out.
That last bit I can't agree with, at all.
High-level D&D is bending the universe and doing horrendously overpowered things to the horrendously over the top villains - the only thing that's wrong with this picture is that the rogue and the fighter doesn't get to join in on the funsies.
Low-level d&d logic shouldn't be extended into high-level d&d adventures. Rather, the classes who aren't given the tools to participate should be phased out, in favor of like classes who can, such as the 6th level characters.
Honestly, if you want to stick around at the lower levels of play, E6 is a wonderful system which sits right there. It's my goto when I don't want to deal with the glorious insanity that is high-level d&d. With some optimization, and a slightly bigger party than is standard, you can run encounters at CRs all the way up to at least 13, which is plenty for telling whatever story you want.
The concept isn't all that new - PFS itself effectively runs E12, for example, although they haven't got an advancement system in place for post-12th.
The level of power for 7th and higher level spells is needless, and really doesn't work for most narratives aside from super high powered ones. I don't agree that the power level of spells should be as over the top as it is, although a lot of that stems from many core spells breaking the power curve.
The top end of 6th level spells is already pretty 'setting breaking' too, and things like Wish, Gate, and Miracle are breaking the game in a way that isn't helpful, an artifact-like way that shouldn't be in player hands. That's my opinion at least, although I do know people who enjoy the mega powers at the top of the ladder. I just don't think they work well for game balance.
Isn't helpful to what? I've found that wish, teleportation circle, create demiplane and the like are fantastic tools for when you want to make lasting, monumental changes to the environment, and society at large.
Is that a lot of narrative (actually, scratch that, this goes way beyond narrative, don't know what to call it now) control to hand over to the players? Yep. But if they agreed to play at these levels, they agreed to take responsibility for that.
I mean, balance in pathfinder is a joke. The only somewhat useful yardstick you can use is if people are having fun. Mechanically, 'fun' often equates to options, so as long as the people who aren't full casters still have relevant things to do, I really don't see the inherent problems in the 9's 'breaking' the setting. It's there for them to play with, after all.
I do agree that high-level casters shouldn't exist in the same world as low-level characters, in the same manner that parties always just so happen to be surrounded by level-appropriate monsters.
But still Golarion isn't made for high-level characters, so maybe it's for the best that they take off for the Abyss, or whatever? The only high-level casters sticking around on Golarion are those who're stuck (I.e. big final bosses for at least two APs I know of) or those who want to play around with being a big fish in a small pond.
Full casters tend to get ridiculous abilities, especially endgame.
Martial characters tend to struggle figuring out what they're supposed to do when they can't walk up and punch something.
People keep saying that with some kind of mantra.. Maybe that's true for the bad GMs that gave them that impression... or maybe the player who can't imagine doing anything that's not from an optimizer's mechanic.
But it's not the universal truth they think it is. It's true where GM's give the nod to caster players, and are simply not strict with magic. Or haven't realised that you build your campaign to your players. I've played the gamut from non-casters to 4th, 6th, and 9th. The thing is ... no matter what you play, the key is to make your own fun.
Isn't admitting that you have to change the way the game is played or however you're 'more strict with magic' to make things fair? Also you're calling everyone who has problems with this a bad GM instead of possibly assuming that MAYBE there's a problem with the game.
As for 'building your campaign for your players', a lot of people use APs, and doing that isn't really feasible, so yeah, maybe in the way you run games with players who aren't using the rules the way others are, it's fine for you. But you have this needless air of superiority to how you play the game that's not helpful in conversations like this and painfully antagonistic towards people who play the game differently from you that you seem to bring into all conversations on the subject.
This thread was meant to talk about what the game does best, not to bash others for having problems with a game that most will admit isn't perfect, and I agree that the 6th level casters are a bright spot in design that I myself greatly admire. Keeping new designs around this level would be great, and personally I'd love to eventually see 9th level casters phased out.
LazarX is well known for being... well... unique... and not very mild, even if he is wrong... alot...
But still Golarion isn't made for high-level characters, so maybe it's for the best that they take off for the Abyss, or whatever? The only high-level casters sticking around on Golarion are those who're stuck (I.e. big final bosses for at least two APs I know of) or those who want to play around with being a big fish in a small pond.When Fighters want to retire, they build a castle by the sea and lay on the beach to get some sun. When Wizards want to retire, they skip the castle and beach part and just go straight to the sun.
This thread was meant to talk about what the game does best, not to bash others for having problems with a game that most will admit isn't perfect, and I agree that the 6th level casters are a bright spot in design that I myself greatly admire. Keeping new designs around this level would be great, and personally I'd love to eventually see 9th level casters phased out.
That last bit I can't agree with, at all.
High-level D&D is bending the universe and doing horrendously overpowered things to the horrendously over the top villains - the only thing that's wrong with this picture is that the rogue and the fighter doesn't get to join in on the funsies.
Low-level d&d logic shouldn't be extended into high-level d&d adventures. Rather, the classes who aren't given the tools to participate should be phased out, in favor of like classes who can, such as the 6th level characters.
Honestly, if you want to stick around at the lower levels of play, E6 is a wonderful system which sits right there. It's my goto when I don't want to deal with the glorious insanity that is high-level d&d. With some optimization, and a slightly bigger party than is standard, you can run encounters at CRs all the way up to at least 13, which is plenty for telling whatever story you want.
The concept isn't all that new - PFS itself effectively runs E12, for example, although they haven't got an advancement system in place for post-12th.
The level of power for 7th and higher level spells is needless, and really doesn't work for most narratives aside from super high powered ones. I don't agree that the power level of spells should be as over the top as it is, although a lot of that stems from many core spells breaking the power curve.
The top end of 6th level spells is already pretty 'setting breaking' too, and things like Wish, Gate, and Miracle are breaking the game in a way that isn't helpful, an artifact-like way that shouldn't be in player hands. That's my...
I agree with this. Spells from 8th to 9th probably should be plot hooks.
I think maybe 7th level could work for pure spellcasting classes (ie: Wizard), while 6th lvl spells could work for those classes that do other things beyond spellcasting, as the magus.This would "cap" the spellcasting power at limited wish, instead of wish.
with the wizard being dead last in power
How so? Didn't he have access to spells like Gate, that allow you to summon monstruosities? Didn't he have access to metamagic?
But I agree. If you ban Magic item creatiomñn, or things like undetectable (or mind blank + invisibility, for that matter, which works the same and is not mythyc), or if you ban, I fon't know... spells, the gap closes. Specially with mythic, that allow mundane fighters to be not so mundane. But then, that means the gap is close in that ruleset, without Magic item creation, Undetectability, and spells. Not in the normal Pathfinder ruleset (even without simulacrum and blood money)
Other than that, it's not close.
Another 6 level caster Paizo recently developed that I am totally in love with is the Mesmerist. I don't like any other classes in Occult Adventures, but for me, the Mesmerist was so well done and full of flavor. My new favorite character concept is a Demon-Blooded Tiefling melee Mesmerist.
The Mesmerist is like a Bard that debuffs enemies instead of buffing allies, and doesn't need to perform. Great for those of us who hate the idea of effeminate lute players in an adventuring party.
I am playing an Inquisitor in my groups long running King Maker campaign and it is by far the most enjoyable class I have played in Pathfinder, with Bard being a close second.
@HeHateMe: Who are you calling "effeiminate"?