Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

[King of Nowhere]

1 - Animal Companion gets Share Spells, much like a Familiar. If you're a Druid riding your dog / tiger / fleshraker into combat, you can use self-only buffs on yourself and your pet beast, but not on your pet Fighter.

2 - Most Fighters don't qualify for some of the better Druid buffs, stuff like Animal Growth or Greater Magic Fang.

ok, point taken. I don't know much about druids, as I was never comfortable with the class (guess because it's much weaker without all those stuff, and with all those stuff it becomes so good it feels like cheating).

Still, the fighter has a lot of buffs available from other classes. admittedly, it doesn't have animal growth, and enlarge person only provides a +2 to STR, not a +8. greater magic weapon/vestment is there, however. the point is that the fighter should also be buffed. otherwise, as said before, the fighter without magic support is useless.

There is also the point, when discussing multiple buffs, of the effect of losing said buffs to a dispel. Yes, I am aware there are ways to pump your caster level so high that you become undispellable, but most DM won't allow too much CL-increasing cheese; if they did, it costs resources that are not spent at buffing the animal companion. And a fighter is less buff-dependent than an animal companion.

[NineInchNall]

that's just unfair. if the druid is spending all his buffs for his animal companion and none for the fighter, then the druid is a jerk.

I bet that notion wouldn't even cross your mind if the Fighter were replaced by a self-buffing Cleric. It's only the Fighter's relative weakness that triggers feelings of moral entitlement.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Is the Fighter being a jerk by spending all his class features (i.e., feats) on making himself fight better? No, and the Druid is not being a jerk by spending all her class features (i.e., spells) on making herself fight better.

[Troacctid]

I think Sorcerers and Wizards are probably overrated around here because people put too much value on endgame performance and not enough on early game. In a low-level game, I'll take a Warblade over a Wizard hands down.

I can see the argument that Clerics are overrated. I think they can definitely outperform standard martial characters even at low levels, but I'm willing to concede that it's not necessarily trivial for them to do so. They are definitely overpowered, of course, but the degree to which they are overpowered is perhaps sometimes overstated.

Druids are OP as hell and are definitely not overrated.

[King of Nowhere]

I bet that notion wouldn't even cross your mind if the Fighter were replaced by a self-buffing Cleric. It's only the Fighter's relative weakness that triggers feelings of moral entitlement.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Is the Fighter being a jerk by spending all his class features (i.e., feats) on making himself fight better? No, and the Druid is not being a jerk by spending all her class features (i.e., spells) on making herself fight better.

no, it's a different concept. The thing is that the various classes are suppposed to work as a team. this strongly benefits the martials, that can get all manneers of buff spells at the cost of a few low level spell slots that the casters wouldn't have any better use otherwise. The fighter doesn't have class features that can be used to support others, except "being in the front and tanking", which isn't a class feature. if fighters had a feat that let spellcasters near them become more powerful, yes, I'd expect them to take it. I expect teamplayers to teamplay.

Plus,

I bet that notion wouldn't even cross your mind if the Fighter were replaced by a self-buffing Cleric

that attack is low. Just a personal accusation without any foundation. No, I just expect that if we want to compare fights, we either compare everyone starting without buffs, or everyone getting all the buffs they reasonably can expect in a party of their level. Heck, it may even include the cleric getting barkskin from a druid

[Anthrowhale]

if fighters had a feat that let spellcasters near them become more powerful, yes, I'd expect them to take it. I expect teamplayers to teamplay.

While I agree with this as typical, via 'Allied Defense' a Fighter 20 can grant AC+20(Dodge) to an adjacent wizard. A Marshal can also grant significant nonmagical bonuses to allies.

[Cosi]

I find the position that I should be expected to use my character's resources to make up for your character's deficiencies somewhere between stupid and insulting. You rolled a Fighter. You could have rolled a Cleric, or a Druid, or a Gish and buffed yourself to your heart's content. Expecting me to make up for your decision not to do so while you offer nothing in return (no, "I can hit people" doesn't count -- we're looking for something my pet can't do, and ideally something another caster wouldn't do better) is being selfish and mooching off the rest of the party. It's already bad enough that the Fighter doesn't contribute outside combat. Expecting him to rely on the rest of the party to contribute in combat is absurd and indefensible.

[NineInchNall]

Plus, that attack is low. Just a personal accusation without any foundation. No, I just expect that if we want to compare fights, we either compare everyone starting without buffs, or everyone getting all the buffs they reasonably can expect in a party of their level. Heck, it may even include the cleric getting barkskin from a druid

No, it was an attempt to bring out some of your suppressed premises. And it looks like I was right about those premises, too, as you show with your attempted rationalization.

no, it's a different concept. The thing is that the various classes are suppposed to work as a team. this strongly benefits the martials, that can get all manneers of buff spells at the cost of a few low level spell slots that the casters wouldn't have any better use otherwise. The fighter doesn't have class features that can be used to support others, except "being in the front and tanking", which isn't a class feature. if fighters had a feat that let spellcasters near them become more powerful, yes, I'd expect them to take it. I expect teamplayers to teamplay.

You see, this is exactly the wrong move to make here if you want to rebut either the "personal accusation" or my assertion that Druid player is not being more selfish than the Fighter player.

Accepting your premise arguendo that players are obligated to take and use any options that are beneficial to their teammates to the exclusion of those options that benefit themselves, we merely push the problem back a level. Specifically to the act of character creation. By choosing to play a Fighter, a class with--as you say--no ability to support others, the player is choosing selfishly, opting against an option that would allow what you call teamplay. Thus, in order to satisfy your criterion of teamwork, players must not choose classes that cannot be used to support others.

Unfortunately, your criterion is per se untenable. You believe that party members should help each other out, which is fine, but you also seem to believe that the possession of a buff ability entails a particular sort of obligation. How do you intend to cash that out? If someone has a single-target buff that's 1/day, can they use it on themselves? If it is instead 4/day, may they use all those for themselves, or are some earmarked for party members? If some are earmarked, then using the same logic, must the 1/day person alternate who gets the ability across days? If two party members have buffs that would work better if used on themselves than on others, must they use those buffs inefficiently, thus reducing their ultimate efficacy, or are they allowed to buff themselves and optimize their party's win rate?

Your position also supports my suspicion that were the Fighter replaced by a Cleric the problem would go away. The only reason the Fighter is exempted from your putative moral obligation is his paucity of capacity, his inability to bring anything unique to the team. Were it instead a Cleric, the character would be able to provide spells the Druid can't access and vice versa. Benefit flows bidirectionally between the Cleric and Druid, but only unidirectionally between the Fighter and Druid.

[Gnaeus]

Has anyone ever explored the idea of a feat/acf/archetype that let a no-maj act as a casters familiar or companion for purposes of spell sharing? I think that would be helpful to the problem.

[Peat]

no, it's a different concept. The thing is that the various classes are suppposed to work as a team. this strongly benefits the martials, that can get all manneers of buff spells at the cost of a few low level spell slots that the casters wouldn't have any better use otherwise. The fighter doesn't have class features that can be used to support others, except "being in the front and tanking", which isn't a class feature. if fighters had a feat that let spellcasters near them become more powerful, yes, I'd expect them to take it. I expect teamplayers to teamplay.

Plus, that attack is low. Just a personal accusation without any foundation. No, I just expect that if we want to compare fights, we either compare everyone starting without buffs, or everyone getting all the buffs they reasonably can expect in a party of their level. Heck, it may even include the cleric getting barkskin from a druid

Fighters can take lockdown builds and stand in front of the casters to stop people getting near.

Does that make them selfish if they make an ubercharger that runs off? Or non-selfish because they're killing quicker?

Is a specialised blaster or debuffer caster selfish? Or a druid that uses a ton of personal buffs to extreme damage? Is a poorly optimised healer that's always casting for the party but doing a kinda shabby job of it selfish?

And so on. I'd agree they're meant to be a team, but there's a lot of different ways for most classes to contribute to that team. I'm hesitant to label any of them as intrinsically selfish or bad (although plenty of them do lend to spotlight hogging) - or to say what a reasonable level of expected buff is.

[AnimeTheCat]

In a vacuum of any in-game environmental effects (such as a setting restricting available spells or monsters, or a player w/o wants to actually roleplay a particular type of spellcaster other than a know-it-all wizard, a self-righteous cleric, or a loner druid) then no, full casting progression spellcasters aren't overrated.

In an actual setting where the players don't control their surroundings and there are actual in-game environmental effects, no classes are overrated or underrated. They all have place and purpose.

That's my 2 cp worth.

[Silva Stormrage]

I think people in this thread are focusing too much on combat... Sure most tables find that combat consumes the most time in campaigns, especially in 3.5 with it's lengthy turn timers. But the major problems between the tiers in my campaigns focus on out of combat utility.

If there is every a situation regarding, travel, locating someone, sneaking into a location etc etc. All the non spellcasters can pretty much just suggest one option IF their build is built around it (Mundane stealth, use gather information, etc) but otherwise just twiddle their thumbs while the tier 1 spellcasters discuss their 30 different options to solve the problem.

Lets look at a specific example I had in a previous campaign. The players were hunting for a specific text to discern more information about the divination warded villain they were fighting. The text was halfway across the world in a city. The mundane player suggested a boat but that would of taken too long so the spellcaster rested for a day and teleported to the city and used divinations to find the text as soon as they entered the city.

They were too late however as the BBEG had stolen the text already from the library where it was held (He had a mindlink to one of the player's characters and thus intercepted the text before they could reach it). The mundane player sighed and was about to try to search for a different option but the spellcaster simply used a modify memory spell to allow the librarian (Who had read the text before) perfect memory of the section they wanted allowing them to get the info.

The mundane player had 0 options to solve that puzzle while the spellcaster had numerous different paths and things to think about.

While yes out of the game the mundane players can discuss options regarding the spellcasters I find that players can become bored when discussing things that their character can't influence in anyway.

And yes this was mid levels (10ish I think) but the same thing pops up in anything past level 5-7 though. Some players like the simplicity of options that mundane characters grant them but when all you have is a hammer you are going to run into situations where you can't hammer anything and the guy who has a whole warehouse of tools is going to overshadow you a bit.

[King of Nowhere]

No, it was an attempt to bring out some of your suppressed premises. And it looks like I was right about those premises, too, as you show with your attempted rationalization.

You see, this is exactly the wrong move to make here if you want to rebut either the "personal accusation" or my assertion that Druid player is not being more selfish than the Fighter player.

Accepting your premise arguendo that players are obligated to take and use any options that are beneficial to their teammates to the exclusion of those options that benefit themselves, we merely push the problem back a level. Specifically to the act of character creation. By choosing to play a Fighter, a class with--as you say--no ability to support others, the player is choosing selfishly, opting against an option that would allow what you call teamplay. Thus, in order to satisfy your criterion of teamwork, players must not choose classes that cannot be used to support others.

Please. You are grasping at straws here, AND you keep being rude. You also take what I write in a completely different direction than intended.
For I am merely stating that you have plenty of low level spell slots and no other real use for most of them, so there's no reason not to buff some allies out of combat. It doesn't literally cost you much, you have no reason not to do it.
There are also metagaming considerations there: if you are playing a druid, and buffing your animal companion so that it's stronger than the party fighter, and then you are refusing to buff the fighter, then you are being a jerk to the player, because you are intentionally trying to outshine his character to the point of humiliation.
But mostly, I simply argue that it is a moot point to consider a buffed character against an unbuffed one, because in actual gaming you generally buff the whole party if you have time, or nobody if you don't. You are about to break the door and face the boss? everyone cast all the buff spells available. You get ambushed? nobody has buff spells except the longer duration, and casting them in the heat of the battle is generally an inefficient use of an action (some few exceptions to this). So a situation where you have a fully buffed animal companion and a completely unbuffed fighter, and the druid player is not trying to show off, is extremely unlikely.
It would be like arguing for fighter superiority because the fighter can slit the druid's throat while the druid sleeps - happens all the time, since the fighter has to get guard turns while the casters must enjoy a full night of rest. No, you don't argue power based on a specific set of circumstances; you must argue generally, and that means arguing the most common situation at the table, i.e. everyone is fully buffed, or no one is except for long duration.
Now, if you want to claim that the fighter can only get buffs because he is lucky to have the other party members, then this pretty much proves the whole point of the thread: caster superiority in theory is much greater than it actually is at the table.

Fighters can take lockdown builds and stand in front of the casters to stop people getting near.

Does that make them selfish if they make an ubercharger that runs off? Or non-selfish because they're killing quicker?

Is a specialised blaster or debuffer caster selfish? Or a druid that uses a ton of personal buffs to extreme damage? Is a poorly optimised healer that's always casting for the party but doing a kinda shabby job of it selfish?

And so on. I'd agree they're meant to be a team, but there's a lot of different ways for most classes to contribute to that team. I'm hesitant to label any of them as intrinsically selfish or bad (although plenty of them do lend to spotlight hogging) - or to say what a reasonable level of expected buff is.

Yeah, I got overcarried there. I was just arguing that when you consider buffs, you should assume that both parties are buffed, or none is.

EDIT:

I think people in this thread are focusing too much on combat... Sure most tables find that combat consumes the most time in campaigns, especially in 3.5 with it's lengthy turn timers. But the major problems between the tiers in my campaigns focus on out of combat utility.

If there is every a situation regarding, travel, locating someone, sneaking into a location etc etc. All the non spellcasters can pretty much just suggest one option IF their build is built around it (Mundane stealth, use gather information, etc) but otherwise just twiddle their thumbs while the tier 1 spellcasters discuss their 30 different options to solve the problem.

Yes, we are aware of that. I think somebody mentioned it before, but it wasn't discussed in more details because nobody would ever consider denying it.

Actually there are several incidences where using a skill is better than using magic - for example, mundane hiding works better than invisibility if there is anyone around with a detect magic - but still magic has just a lot of variety. To beat magic, one must be highly skilled in something, and one cannot be skilled at everything. While one can have every relevant spell available.

[NineInchNall]

Please. You are grasping at straws here, AND you keep being rude. You also take what I write in a completely different direction than intended.

I defy you to identify any iota of rudeness in what you quoted.

[King of Nowhere]

I defy you to identify any iota of rudeness in what you quoted.

I did by PM. let's not derail this thread over personal matters.

[Doctor Awkward]

Greetings, all!

I am familiar with the 10 Commandments of Practical Optimization and the 10 Commandments of Optimization. In my 15ish years of playing 3.x and Pathfinder, I noticed discrepencies between 'forum logic' (as our current GM calls it) and the game in practice. My favorite character class for a long time has been Wizards, and I've played a variety of them, but even after reading and enjoying Treantmonk's guide a decade ago, I felt like high-tier characters, most notably tier 1 and 2 casters, were somewhere between balanced and weak due to the campaign never reaching above level 10 and rarely above level 6. In short, I felt like I was entranced by the potential[ of these classes and builds much more than the practicality of them, especially before level 11 or so.

Meanwhile, tier 3 and below classes have gotten a bad reputation from forumites over the decades (and I have echoed some of this logic largely in ignorance) while having greater stamina and greater immediate effect. For example, in the Red Hand of Doom module, I played a Wizard/Hathran/Incantatrix as a main character with a Hood cohort. The cohort, despite being 2 levels below the party, soloed a boss in one round meant to challenge the group due to this cohort's tremendous damage output while the main character died (perhaps by being one-shot) in the campaign despite her high defenses.

I've also noticed that low level high-tier classes generally don't get to do much over the course of the adventuring day. Wizards (and to some degree also Sorcerers) are the extreme example since their competence is mostly in their spell slots, though Archivists and Psions are similar. Druids don't do much until Wild Shape or Natural Spell depending on details, though their animal companions do more. Clerics cast (often healing and buffing) and attack physically sometimes. Artificers? Unsure due to too little experience with them.

Meanwhile, a multiclassed Wizard/Warblade or such can attack each round and still be more competent in more situations (in practice from my experience) than a full Wizard.

What say you?

It always starts with the DM.

Literally everything about the performance and viability of any class, build, and player, is totally and completely dependent on the DM, most of the time on decisions they make before anyone even rolls up a character.

It depends on what kind of game the DM is going to run: the central conflict, the setting, the method through which players will most frequently solve their problems.

It depends on the sources the DM will allow in their game: in a core-only game, expertly played Druids will dominate, followed closely by well-played Wizards. If Complete's are added, Clerics, Rangers, and Bards just got a lot of varying degrees of more viable. Once various other arcane sources are added, Sorcerers quickly catch up as well. Tome of Battle makes all melee classes much more viable with the option to dip. The performance of psionics can largely depend on how much of Complete Psionic is treated as gospel.

Lastly, it depends on the particular house rules each DM will enforce: targeted bans of specific spells or feats will knowingly or unknowingly bring down spellcasters. Even forbidding specific uses of spells can streamline them into not working.

Only after all the ground rules are laid down does player skill enter into it.

This is when the skill gap comes into play.

The skill gap, as it pertains to competitive games, is the measure of success that will be enjoyed by someone who has put effort into learning the system. I don't think it's inaccurate to say that most people who engage in tabletop RPG's do not want to "work" for their entertainment. They want to sit down at a table with friends, relax, throw some dice, tell a story, and just have a good time. But for competitive people, that extra work is the entertainment, colloquially known as "the journey". Depending on the game design, the skill gap will reward players who have put more time into learning the nuts and bolts of the game than someone who has not.

Bear in mind when I say "competitive players" I do not mean people who favor tabletop PvP or combat over roleplaying. I mean players who view system mastery itself as the competition.

It should go without saying that there is nothing wrong with either of these approaches to D&D, but I am saying it anyway.

I would also postulate that most people who choose to optimize fall somewhere on the spectrum of competitive players, whether they are competing against the dungeon, the other players, or the campaign world itself. Regardless of their intentions, the goal of optimizing is always the same: to reduce uncertainty in outcome, otherwise known as "luck".

It's hard to judge your own competence at the game if you are constantly getting killed by random NPC's or the dice always seem to turn against you at the crucial moment. On the other hand, luck is great for the non-optimizer because it protects their ego. They can attribute their successes to skill, and blame their losses on chance ("Well sometimes that's just how the dice go"). There's never a need to question your own ability so everyone is happy.

...That is until they start to get bored and make the game more interesting by raising the stakes. Whenever anything besides pure mindless entertainment is at stake, things are likely to be changed to adjust the influence of luck. Optimizers tend to react positively to changes that reduce luck, while non-optimizers favor changes that increase it.

This, in turn, influences the types of house-rules that are likely to be adopted when said optimizer or non-optimizer runs their own games.

The consequence of lowering the skill gap in D&D, through material allowance, critical fumble tables, and whatnot, is that the optimizer is going to fail more often. While games that have targeted enforcement against so-called "munchkinism" are certainly more accessible, they also aren't as interesting to the crowd more adept at working with the system.

So I rambled quite a bit, but the point is how much success a Tier 1 class enjoys will depend firstly on the kind of game the DM is running, and secondly on the ability of the player running it.

In a vacuum, they outperform everyone exactly as advertised. That's why they are Tier 1.

[Aetis]

^This man speaks the truth.

[skaddix]

I don't think its especially hard to hit a good degree of optimization allowing most Full Casters to dust Martials.
Its not that hard to go on the internet and find a guide that will basically tell you have to make a broken Full Caster with little investment.
But it easily achieved usually with little dipping and mostly some archetype abuse.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But as you recently pointed out, Martials are often spending a lot of that gold just to keep their numbers up. How much spare do they have to start selecting items to boost their tier?

It depends on player skill. Like every other part of the game, system mastery pays dividends on how you spend your wealth. For example; for nearly the same cost, you could have either a +5 longsword or a + 1 binding blindsighted longsword and a tooth of Leraje. In either case, you get the +5 to-hit and damage but the latter gets you two other useful abilities for a paltry 3600gp difference.

The expectations set by the design team are a bare minimum level of competence. It just happens that, at least on this forum, most of the people that have really nailed down mastery of class building have barely scratched the surface of WBL optimization. There are a number of factors that go into why that is; strategies being class dependent, the commonality of DMs dispensing with wealth in-spite of the default rules, the scattered nature of the resources available, etc and so on.

I hate to say this, because I really like the book, but this is one of the problems caused by ToB. Ever since martial adepts became a thing, exploration of non-caster optimization just about stopped and that includes making the most of wealth for the classes to whom it mattered most. T1s and T2s don't give a damn about their wealth beyond a few spellcasting trinkets (Pearl of power, metamagic rods, runestaves, etc) and T3s can get by with fairly minimal stuff to cover the basics (basic arms and armour) but T4s and lower demand you spend their money wisely to get the most out of them. Guess where most people put the marital adepts. Flash got ahead of substance, the martial adepts got touted as "melee done right" even though only the swordsage is even arguably T3 when you put 'em under a microscope, and everything else that's non-magical melee (except whirl-pounce barbarians) fell away in the minds of the community. Even the paladin and ranger, who are both certainly as powerful and more versatile than the crusader and warblade, got dumped for the shiny new classes.

It honestly saddens me. Some of us could teach courses on class building at a community college but almost nobody knows how to make the most out of the more-than-a-million gold a typical 20th level character goes through.

[Peat]

Yeah, I got overcarried there. I was just arguing that when you consider buffs, you should assume that both parties are buffed, or none is.

Its a good argument but maybe not when comparing fighters and spellsharing companions/familiars, who access their buffs in different ways.

I'm still not completely sold on always assuming it with fighters and self-buffing casters either tbh. I know that at a lot of tables Fighters getting buffs is a way of life but its not a universal. Sometimes my 5e Paladin buffs the party - sometimes he buffs himself (usually depending on my assessment of what helps the party more). The full arcane casters mostly blast and the Cleric mainly heals the suicidal Monk that charged off by himself immediately. Well. The Cleric did. Not sure what happens now the Monk got his wish. Not a shining example of an optimized party I'll admit.

The self-buffer always has theirs if they want them. The fighter doesn't. I don't like accounting them like the fighter always doesn't, but I don't like accounting them like the fighter always does either.

Has anyone ever explored the idea of a feat/acf/archetype that let a no-maj act as a casters familiar or companion for purposes of spell sharing? I think that would be helpful to the problem.

I feel that accomplishes something but I'm not sure it does as much for versatility and utility as it does raw power. Could easily be wrong though.

It depends on player skill. Like every other part of the game, system mastery pays dividends on how you spend your wealth. For example; for nearly the same cost, you could have either a +5 longsword or a + 1 binding blindsighted longsword and a tooth of Leraje. In either case, you get the +5 to-hit and damage but the latter gets you two other useful abilities for a paltry 3600gp difference.

The expectations set by the design team are a bare minimum level of competence. It just happens that, at least on this forum, most of the people that have really nailed down mastery of class building have barely scratched the surface of WBL optimization. There are a number of factors that go into why that is; strategies being class dependent, the commonality of DMs dispensing with wealth in-spite of the default rules, the scattered nature of the resources available, etc and so on.

I stand educated and enlightened.

I hate to say this, because I really like the book, but this is one of the problems caused by ToB. Ever since martial adepts became a thing, exploration of non-caster optimization just about stopped and that includes making the most of wealth for the classes to whom it mattered most. T1s and T2s don't give a damn about their wealth beyond a few spellcasting trinkets (Pearl of power, metamagic rods, runestaves, etc) and T3s can get by with fairly minimal stuff to cover the basics (basic arms and armour) but T4s and lower demand you spend their money wisely to get the most out of them. Guess where most people put the marital adepts. Flash got ahead of substance, the martial adepts got touted as "melee done right" even though only the swordsage is even arguably T3 when you put 'em under a microscope, and everything else that's non-magical melee (except whirl-pounce barbarians) fell away in the minds of the community. Even the paladin and ranger, who are both certainly as powerful and more versatile than the crusader and warblade, got dumped for the shiny new classes.

It honestly saddens me. Some of us could teach courses on class building at a community college but almost nobody knows how to make the most out of the more-than-a-million gold a typical 20th level character goes through.

This echoes something I've previously thought but never really been sure enough to put into words - too much attention for things that don't (insofar as I can see) really solve the versatility, particularly OOC versatility, problems.

[unseenmage]

...

It honestly saddens me. Some of us could teach courses on class building at a community college but almost nobody knows how to make the most out of the more-than-a-million gold a typical 20th level character goes through.

The issue I think is that the GM is under no obligation to provide optimizable equipment.
Which isn't true of the bulk of class optimization options.

[Necroticplague]

No. If anything, I usually see them as underrated. The simple fact is, the higher tier characters have abilities that qualitatively change how the game plays in sizable ways as they level, while lower level characters simply lack such. I usually see this factor as relatively sidelined in favor of pointing out how far they exceed the lower characters in their competencies, while I really believe it should be emphasized more strongly. Lower tier characters, by and by large, are doing actions similar actions at higher levels and lower levels, just more competently. However, higher teir characters can pull of things that weren't even remotely possible at lower levels, not just in terms of scale, but in type. I've had to drastically rearrange campaigns on both ends of the scale due to this problem before (i.e, no full-casters meant the parties lacked basic abilities the campaign had planned to include (plane-hopping), and others where the higher-level appropriate abilities of full-casters short-circuited campaigns that, looking back, were really just lower level campaigns with bigger numbers).

[NeoPhoenix0]

It depends on player skill. Like every other part of the game, system mastery pays dividends on how you spend your wealth. For example; for nearly the same cost, you could have either a +5 longsword or a + 1 binding blindsighted longsword and a tooth of Leraje. In either case, you get the +5 to-hit and damage but the latter gets you two other useful abilities for a paltry 3600gp difference.

The expectations set by the design team are a bare minimum level of competence. It just happens that, at least on this forum, most of the people that have really nailed down mastery of class building have barely scratched the surface of WBL optimization. There are a number of factors that go into why that is; strategies being class dependent, the commonality of DMs dispensing with wealth in-spite of the default rules, the scattered nature of the resources available, etc and so on.

I hate to say this, because I really like the book, but this is one of the problems caused by ToB. Ever since martial adepts became a thing, exploration of non-caster optimization just about stopped and that includes making the most of wealth for the classes to whom it mattered most. T1s and T2s don't give a damn about their wealth beyond a few spellcasting trinkets (Pearl of power, metamagic rods, runestaves, etc) and T3s can get by with fairly minimal stuff to cover the basics (basic arms and armour) but T4s and lower demand you spend their money wisely to get the most out of them. Guess where most people put the marital adepts. Flash got ahead of substance, the martial adepts got touted as "melee done right" even though only the swordsage is even arguably T3 when you put 'em under a microscope, and everything else that's non-magical melee (except whirl-pounce barbarians) fell away in the minds of the community. Even the paladin and ranger, who are both certainly as powerful and more versatile than the crusader and warblade, got dumped for the shiny new classes.

It honestly saddens me. Some of us could teach courses on class building at a community college but almost nobody knows how to make the most out of the more-than-a-million gold a typical 20th level character goes through.

I don't know about that, we have an entire guide about wisely spending gold. it focuses explaining the different things characters should have and gives a variety of price point that vary on effectiveness depending on what you can afford. The focus is a bit on the defensive side since that is the most universal application of wealth, but it even explains that some items are just too expensive compared to other items to ever buy with no appreciable increase in effectiveness. when you go back through the ages on this site we have looked at optimizing pretty much every aspect of this game.

[Esquire]

Got a link to that guide? I'd read it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Got a link to that guide? I'd read it.

http://http://www.giantitp.com/forum...ry-Magic-Items
Ugly link on phone sorry.

[Gazrok]

Personally, if you only play to around 10th level or so, you are probably better off playing a multi-classed Wizard.

Since most of the good spells are 1st through 3rd anyhow. Pairing this up with a class that fills in the weaknesses helps. I personally like doing a Wizard/Rogue, because they both can wear no armor but still have a god AC, and the skill monkey aspect with a high INT is a good party filler.

Use Weapon Finesse to take advantage of that high DEX, and you actually don't suck if you have to mix it up in melee too.

With a multi-class wizard, you have to also think of spell durations. I personally love spells that last for HOURS (like Mage Armor, Protection from Arrows, False Life, Floating Disc). All of these can be cast before even going into a dungeon. So you don't waste precious fight time.

Also, 2nd level spell like Cat's Grace can really boost that Rogue attack ability now. (with the Weapon Finesse). (or do a Sneak Attack from being Invisible). Just so many ways to combine this.

[Esquire]

Thanks! That's really helpful.

[Efrate]

All the things a rogue wizard can do a wizard can just do better. Need info? Divination spells over gather. Need to talk your way into something? Glibness. Sneak attack? Unless yer doing something with totemist for a lot more attacks, just polymorph into a hydra; higher damage per round with no conditions or immunity stopping you. Stealth? Silence and invisibility. Want weapon finesse? Heroics. Don't have those spells? Buy a scroll. Borrow a spell book.

A dip for some skills is fine but unless you are desperate for evasion or uncanny dodge it's likely a one level class. Level 2 is maybe the trough for a wizard. Sleep isn't as good, color spray still is tho, and that will get you through to level 2 where game changers like invisibity, silence, glitterdust reside. Command undead gets you a semi permanent undead minion for a slot every 3 days that is totally expendaple and takes no resources. Even scorching ray for 4d6 damage still is better than a lot of stuff. Ranged touch is much more reliable than flanking or immunity with twf and sneak attack.

I would take warblade over wizard for combat at level 1 or 2, or barbarian, but if there is other stuff to do I'll just stay as wizard. Or druid. Riding dogs are very good early, fleshrakers better even without buffs, and I can still do other stuff.

[Troacctid]

It honestly saddens me. Some of us could teach courses on class building at a community college but almost nobody knows how to make the most out of the more-than-a-million gold a typical 20th level character goes through.

It's true, spending WBL efficiently is always the hardest part of character-building IMO.

[icefractal]

WBL optimization is important, but also extremely fiddly, and not that reliable past the starting point in most campaigns.

So is ... I'm not even sure there's a term for it. "off-screen action optimization"? The usage of in-game actions taken either prior to game start or during downtime. Some examples:
* Being venerable, and getting reincarnated to fix your physical stats.
* Crafting items yourself, and using things like the PF Downtime rules to do so at a lower price (assuming non-rigid WBL, the more common situation IME)
* Use of Simulacrum for utility minions (worth it even if you're paying full price, IMO)

Casters have a lot more access to it, but anyone can get in on the action with enough gold.

[King of Nowhere]

All the things a rogue wizard can do a wizard can just do better. Need info? Divination spells over gather. Need to talk your way into something? Glibness. Sneak attack? Unless yer doing something with totemist for a lot more attacks, just polymorph into a hydra; higher damage per round with no conditions or immunity stopping you. Stealth? Silence and invisibility. Want weapon finesse? Heroics. Don't have those spells? Buy a scroll. Borrow a spell book.

to be fair, most things cannot really be replicated with magic. Stealth? silence and invisibility will only carry you until you don't stumble on detect magic. Even if you can make those spells undetectable, the moment someone notices his own steps aren't making noise anymore he'll realize someone is silencing the area. Not to mention that if someone is using a true sight spell, he still won't see somebody sneaking. There you go, a simple skill check beats a 6th level spell. In general, there are many more ways to screw a wizard trying to go invisible, than there are of screwing a rogue trying to hide mundanely.
Info? divinations only carries you so far, and can be countered in a variety of ways. dominating/charming the guard could be done in a pinch for a quick interrogation, but anyone who can afford to have 9th level casters as enemies will make a periodic sweep of his guards with detect magic to make sure they are not under compulsion. Whereas befriending a guard can get you better info over time, without rasing any suspicion, or being easily detected. "detect magic" is a cantrip, I've never seen a "detect high diplomacy modifier" spell.

This is a general thing about magic, I noticed. Magic is easier to counter. You have a plethora of ways to detect someone invisible, but many less to detect someone sneaking mundanely. There are ways to make yourself completely immune to several spells, to elemental damage, and to virtually anything an enemy caster can do to you (just consider mind blank + freedom of movement + death ward, it covers a large amount of negative effects. Maybe add spell turning to cover anything that has a specific target). Yet there really isn't a reliable way to block a sword; you can buff your AC, but a martial of your level will always have a good chance to hit you. You can get miss chance in many ways, but true sight or dust of apparition counters like 95% of those. You can fly, but so can anyone with a potion. Stoneskin takes away some damage, but it doesn't make much difference against a power attack or sneak attack.

I use this general consideration to explain why powerful casters still keep mundanes around and sometimes even (gasp!) treat them as peers. Magic is flashy, powerful, versatile, but unreliable. Magic can be countered by other magic, or by some good thinking. Of course, even non-magic can be countered in lots of ways; but use powerful magic in combination with somebody who is damn good at what he does, and you can do stuff that you could not do with magic alone.
And I found this consideration so central to establishing that all classes retain a range of usefulness, that I'd mercilessly houserule to ensure things remained that way if confronted with spells that violate this status quo. Which I don't remember happening often, though. I can't think of a single spell that can really replace actual skill without leaving a lot of holes open.

It's true, spending WBL efficiently is always the hardest part of character-building IMO.

Also the least predictable, because it depends entirely on how the DM doles out loot. Some DM give you free shopping for everything you can afford, others have low level items being freely on sale but the most exotic or rare items being a damn nuisance to find and worth a quest by themselves, others just state those specific items aren't available, period. And you can have a high magic campaign where you can expect to have more whealt, a low magic campaign where you can expect less whealt, and some more exotic options.