Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

[RoboEmperor]

Spellcasters do not dominate the game.

I'm not saying that they do because good people don't do that. I'm saying they can if they wanted to while mundanes have no choice in the matter.

[ZamielVanWeber]

At low levels? Generally yes. Full casters can crush encounters but need help from martials to clean up the mess before their magics wear off. The only exception is the druid: it has a strong chassis and a nice all around spell list and two great non casting features that both scale decently. Heck, by RAW the animal companion is expendable with only minor agitation to the player. (The Wis casting only makes the entire package more attractive honestly).

Edit: okay that was typo Inferno...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes and no.

On the one hand, a full T1 caster being played to the hilt by a skilled player is a staggering challenge for a DM. The sheer variety of abilities available to them really does mean they -can- handle just about anything you could throw at them.

At the same time, actually gaining and applying the skill to do that is a tremendous challenge to a player. Most people will fall well short of actually reaching that level. It takes a hell of a lot more than just skimming a few class guides.

Further, low tier classes tend to be dramatically underestimated. It is often argued, seemingly in earnest, that the druid's animal companion is the equal of any T5 or lower class. This is absurd even on the face of it. Indeed, that facile absurdity is -why- it gets brought up as a way to highlight, hyperbolically, how powerful druids are; "gets a better fighter than the fighter class as a class feature."



In a nutshell, most tables aren't going to see the disparity between the high and low tier classes expressing itself in any noticeable, much less problematic way. The idea that it -is- a problem rather than merely a potential problem very much does get overblown. The underlying potential problem is certainly there though.

[ericgrau]

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?

Absolutely. The tiers often refer more to forum level optimization than to most gaming groups who don't use forums.

They also often refer to number of options available because that's what helps you pull the crazy game breaking tricks that I've never actually seen or used in practice. And more options often means more fun too. At least for building the character if not also playing it. So then if you cut that out and try to make games tier 3, it hurts fun a great deal.

I can totally see how you can make demiplanes to hide away in and execute a long involved plan. Or call and capture genies for NI wishes. Or arguably stack 97 explosive runes in one place. I just don't do it in practice even when I'm trying to be effective and putting together a strong build. Cuz it's dumb. And likewise any DM I've played with, and if I DMed myself, would instantly say "Lol no" (in the unlikely event that a player even brought it up). There isn't even slight confusion over it, nor a need to house rule it out in advance. Milder, hard to notice power creep from splatbooks is a far greater threat to balance in practice than what "tier" you are. At least in every single game I've ever played in or witnessed. Maybe some of the games being run in the forums are different, I don't know.

[Lans]

Barbarians start off near (but not at) the top, due to the ability to OHKO encounters meant for the whole party. They fall off by level 5, as their damage doesn't increase as fast as enemy HP, and anti-melee countermeasures like flight become more common.
s.

I think the warblade is just better than the barbarian, it can take punishing stance and get +d6 to damage, and then still has a few other maneuvers it can use.

Further, low tier classes tend to be dramatically underestimated. It is often argued, seemingly in earnest, that the druid's animal companion is the equal of any T5 or lower class. This is absurd even on the face of it. Indeed, that facile absurdity is -why- it gets brought up as a way to highlight, hyperbolically, how powerful druids are; "gets a better fighter than the fighter class as a class feature."

.

I think the correct equation is roughly buffed optimized fleshraker>Reach Fighter>Greatsword Fighter=optimized AC>standard animal companion> 1 handed fighter>>dire rat

[Endarire]

ericgrau & Kelb: Well said!

[Peat]

Are we discounting the part the DM takes into all of this?

Yes and no.

I think it is widely agreed that GM and Players make far more of a difference to what happens than Class. I don't think I've ever seen that disputed. In particular, the point that playing a powerful Wizard takes a lot of game knowledge and good predictions of the next day's events is often made.

But when it comes to talking about class power, its far far easier to talk about an assumed average than to talk about how it goes at every single type of table out there. So that's what people do. I tend to assume there's a silent "GM, Players and Group Playstyle not withstanding" at the front of every post talking about balance.

Maybe people assume the average GM is more tolerant of caster shenanigans than they actually are. Or that flexibility is more useful than it is, or that GMs cater less for the party's Martials than they do.

But that's the argument there - not that people are unaware that there are tables where the Monk reigns supreme.

Although I'd add that I don't think the argument for caster supremacy rests solely on chain-gating Solars and the like. A good many of the potential encounter ending/avoiding spells aren't considered that OP as far as I can tell.

[ericgrau]

Although I'd add that I don't think the argument for caster supremacy rests solely on chain-gating Solars and the like. A good many of the potential encounter ending/avoiding spells aren't considered that OP as far as I can tell.

The encounter ending spells aren't actually encounter ending though. They are good. Especially the ones that help you team up with the martial characters. This seems to be more a problem with bragging than anything. Calling the aforementioned martial character your janitor rather than calling the wizard a support character.

[King of Nowhere]

the whole argument about tier 1 breaking the game reminds me strongly of counting cards at blackjack to beccome rich.

It is possible, by using strategies related to counting cards, to have favorable chances against the casino at blackjack, and in theory you could become rich by doing that. However, most people who try it don't have the required mathematical skill, and end up losing a lot of money. Furthermore, the DM croupiers are trained to recognize those attempting to count cards, and have the autority to kick them out.

[Nifft]

the whole argument about tier 1 breaking the game reminds me strongly of counting cards at blackjack to beccome rich.

It is possible, by using strategies related to counting cards, to have favorable chances against the casino at blackjack, and in theory you could become rich by doing that. However, most people who try it don't have the required mathematical skill, and end up losing a lot of money. Furthermore, the DM croupiers are trained to recognize those attempting to count cards, and have the autority to kick them out.

Where can I find these trained DMs?

[King of Nowhere]

Where can I find these trained DMs?

they are simply the ones that will stop you when you try to chain-gate solars.

Incidentally, now that somebody dropped the fleshraker name, I could figure out finally how can someone claim an animal companion is stronger than a warrior. Yeah, I can agree with that, because they made a ridiculously overpowered animal companion. 3 poison attacks per round? A free trip attempt on a charge, with pounce? A starting AC of 20? And all that for a cost of only -3? Utterly ridiculous.

Even then, the whole exercice always assumes that the animal companion is buffed to the sky and the warrior is not. A simple something to grant poison immunity, and the flashraker only deals a handful of d6 before it's vaporized

[Kelb_Panthera]

The encounter ending spells aren't actually encounter ending though. They are good. Especially the ones that help you team up with the martial characters. This seems to be more a problem with bragging than anything. Calling the aforementioned martial character your janitor rather than calling the wizard a support character.

Everybody's always assuming it's the ridiculous theoretical stuff that shifts the balance. It's not. That stuff is just icing. Take simple forcecage as an example. For 1500 gp, this encounter ends -now- unless the enemy can teleport, planeshift, or disintegrate the cage by spell or rod of cancellation. For most foes it's just a no-save "LOL, nope." At that point, just drop a cloud kill and walk away.

At the lower end, glitterdust is basically a save or lose. It'll last for the remainder of a fight by level 5, if you extend it then level 3. Blinded enemies can't effectively fight or flee so it's just a matter of the melees mopping up. It turns a tough fight into a perfunctory task.

That's just two off the top of my head. The list goes on.

The simple fact is, a caster that knows what he's doing means the DM has to work around him much more than the rest of the party even if he's not outright breaking things.

[zlefin]

re: op
no, I don't think they're overrated (depending on which rating system you're using ofc, not by the general description of the one you seemed to be using; there are some people that overrate the effects at times). There's a clear and substantial difference, which sometimes causes problems, and sometimes doesn't.
if they don't cause problems at your table, for whatever reason; that's great, you don't need to worry about it.

[Anthrowhale]

they are simply the ones that will stop you when you try to chain-gate solars.

Incidentally, now that somebody dropped the fleshraker name, I could figure out finally how can someone claim an animal companion is stronger than a warrior. Yeah, I can agree with that, because they made a ridiculously overpowered animal companion. 3 poison attacks per round? A free trip attempt on a charge, with pounce? A starting AC of 20? And all that for a cost of only -3? Utterly ridiculous.

Even then, the whole exercice always assumes that the animal companion is buffed to the sky and the warrior is not. A simple something to grant poison immunity, and the flashraker only deals a handful of d6 before it's vaporized

Traditionally, you use Venomfire (or possibly Maximized Empowered Fiery Blistering Heightened Searing Energy Substitution[Fire] Venomfire) to get around poison immunity. Even a plain Druid 20 can make a Fleshraker that can threaten to one-shot CR20 opponents. This is relevant after level 5 when Venomfire becomes available.

[Cosi]

For 1500 gp, this encounter ends -now- unless the enemy can teleport, planeshift, or disintegrate the cage by spell or rod of cancellation. For most foes it's just a no-save "LOL, nope." At that point, just drop a cloud kill and walk away.

forecage is a 7th level spell, so you'd expect to be fighting CR 13 monsters. There are six non-dragon CR 13 monsters*, not counting the Celestial Charger or Golden Protector, because those are monsters advanced with class levels and I will freely admit the results that system produces are very often stupid. Of those, three have teleport or greater teleport (ghaele, glabrezu, and ice devil), so you're already wrong. The Iron Golem loses, but it's a closet troll that loses to silent image anyway, so whatever (also, technically you need something other than cloudkill to gank it). Simply caging a twelve-headed pyrohydra won't win the fight because it can still breath on you. The Storm Giant gets control weather and rock throwing so you're going to fight it in adverse conditions and/or from way the hell beyond the range of forcecage.

Basically, forecage is not an auto-win against level appropriate opposition. It is an auto-win against equal-level Fighters, but that is only because Fighters are not level-appropriate opposition.

*: I could do the dragons too, but between size, flight, casting, and breath weapon's they do pretty well, and doing all the lookups is annoying.

At the lower end, glitterdust is basically a save or lose. It'll last for the remainder of a fight by level 5, if you extend it then level 3. Blinded enemies can't effectively fight or flee so it's just a matter of the melees mopping up. It turns a tough fight into a perfunctory task.

I'm not sure how you're extending a 2nd level spell at 3rd level, but sure.

The simple fact is, a caster that knows what he's doing means the DM has to work around him much more than the rest of the party even if he's not outright breaking things.

You got that backwards. It's not that the DM has to work around the caster, it's that non-casters are nearly totally incapable of actually doing anything. A Fighter doesn't have any options to change the tactical landscape meaningfully, and he certainly doesn't have any strategic options.

[King of Nowhere]

Basically, forecage is not an auto-win against level appropriate opposition. It is an auto-win against equal-level Fighters, but that is only because Fighters are not level-appropriate opposition.

It's an auto-win against a fighter without any equipment.

Because a fighter of that level that doesn't have any kind of contingency against a forcecage should not be adventuring.

It's unfortunate that martials do need so much magic support to become useful. But if they have it, they become quite difficult to neutralize.

[RoboEmperor]

It's unfortunate that martials do need so much magic support to become useful. But if they have it, they become quite difficult to neutralize.

That's like saying "It's unfortunate that soldiers need so much technology (guns, rpgs, tanks, jet planes) to be useful."

Of course they need so much magic support. Man is only as good as his equipment.

[NeoPhoenix0]

And the thing about getting magic support from items or minions is you have to assume the wizard has access to just as much due to WBL and then has thier own magic.

[Peat]

The encounter ending spells aren't actually encounter ending though. They are good. Especially the ones that help you team up with the martial characters. This seems to be more a problem with bragging than anything. Calling the aforementioned martial character your janitor rather than calling the wizard a support character.

Maybe you and I mean different things by encounter ending, but I've used Colour Spray to that effect a few times. Not often, more often there's a bit more than just CdGing unconscious folk, but sometimes it gets them all.

[darkdragoon]

Even then, the whole exercice always assumes that the animal companion is buffed to the sky and the warrior is not. A simple something to grant poison immunity, and the flashraker only deals a handful of d6 before it's vaporized

1. It's inherently easier to buff an animal companion.

2. There are ways to bypass immunity, some are not terribly practical, but neither is the friendly Cleric who appears out of the DM's pants to hand out Heroes Feast right before you go after Slithery Sam and his Kobra Kommandos.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And the thing about getting magic support from items or minions is you have to assume the wizard has access to just as much due to WBL and then has thier own magic.

I've begun to question this recently.

Much of what there is to spend gold on is either irrelevant or redundant to casters; either giving boosts to mechanics they simply don't use or producing the effects their spellcasting already gets them. The few things that do seem tailored to then are typically exorbitant in price.

Non-casters, on the other hand, haven't much use for things like metamagic rods and pearls of power (unless they have spellcaster friends) but huge segments of the rest of the catalogue either give them new abilities or sharply improve the ones they already have, even more so if they have UMD and can access the casters' tricks in limited fashion.

To whit: it's largely undisputed that the artificer is one of the big six T1 classes; perhaps the least of the 6 but one of them nonetheless. Their casting mechanic is weaker than even the bard's at a glance, though a few potent effects bring it well past that point. A large part of its power though, comes from its unparalleled ability to squeeze more power out of its gear than any other -build-. Note that I said -build- rather than class there. The artificer -class- gets more out of its gear than any -build- that doesn't include artificer as its core.

That wouldn't matter unless gear -could- bring a character up several tiers by itself. Masterful use of scrolls, wands, rods, and wondrous items can make a powerful character out of a weak build but it's just icing on a wizard's cake.

TL; DR: since items are only a boon if they're not redundant, WBL is more useful to non-casters than it is to casters.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I've begun to question this recently.

Much of what there is to spend gold on is either irrelevant or redundant to casters; either giving boosts to mechanics they simply don't use or producing the effects their spellcasting already gets them. The few things that do seem tailored to then are typically exorbitant in price.

Non-casters, on the other hand, haven't much use for things like metamagic rods and pearls of power (unless they have spellcaster friends) but huge segments of the rest of the catalogue either give them new abilities or sharply improve the ones they already have, even more so if they have UMD and can access the casters' tricks in limited fashion.

To whit: it's largely undisputed that the artificer is one of the big six T1 classes; perhaps the least of the 6 but one of them nonetheless. Their casting mechanic is weaker than even the bard's at a glance, though a few potent effects bring it well past that point. A large part of its power though, comes from its unparalleled ability to squeeze more power out of its gear than any other -build-. Note that I said -build- rather than class there. The artificer -class- gets more out of its gear than any -build- that doesn't include artificer as its core.

That wouldn't matter unless gear -could- bring a character up several tiers by itself. Masterful use of scrolls, wands, rods, and wondrous items can make a powerful character out of a weak build but it's just icing on a wizard's cake.

TL; DR: since items are only a boon if they're not redundant, WBL is more useful to non-casters than it is to casters.

this is very true, because a wizard already has a bunch of magic before wealth they will instead choose to use their wealth to expand their options even further cover flaws that they either can't or it is easier to do with a magic item and generally improve in different directions. while a mundane will often use some of their wealth to gain options that a wizard already has, and improve what it does. Mundanes will improve relatively more than a wizard but a wizard is still improving. an example of something a clever wizard might invest in is items that nullify major weaknesses that they have which may in turn neutralize some of the investment done by a mundane that is opposing them, which in turn brings them closer to their original level.

basically when generalizing you have to assume that WBL naturalizes itself out, even if the gear makes the fighter effectively 4 times better it the wizard can add an amount of power or versatility to itself with it's own WBL that may not multiply it's own power but still probably nullify someone else's WBL gains.

[icefractal]

No and yes.

No, in that full casters legitimately are quite powerful, and at a quite moderate level of optimization can still punch way above their supposed level while still handling a broad range of situations and not being easy to shut down. All classes can do the first with enough optimization, but casters have a much easier time doing the latter two as well. And this doesn't require high-level - casters go from "contributes reasonably well" to "above par" to "could easily be MVP" within the single digits, if you know what you're doing. And even if you have an ubercharger or something in the party that solos combat, casters are guaranteed a role on the strategic level.

Yes, in that many places (such as this forum) assume a ridiculously high level of competence for casters, including that they'll be more optimized than non-casters or enemies in the same campaign. Stuff like "Wizard 1 vs Omni-Gestalt of all Non-Casters 20? Obviously the Wizard 1 wins." A non-optimized caster, Sor/Wiz especially, can be extremely weak. Even at higher levels of optimization, non-casters remain contributing party members in practice, because most groups won't want to follow a "multiple days of divination and preparation for every one day of adventuring" standard. Or people will have casters use NI loops "just a bit" to get the desired level of invincibility - at which point we're not really talking about the strength of casters any more, we're talking about the use of "god mode".

TL;DR - powerful? Yes. The most powerful classes? YMMV, but often yes. Obviates all other classes and wins everything forever? Not so much in practice.

[Peat]

I've begun to question this recently.

Much of what there is to spend gold on is either irrelevant or redundant to casters; either giving boosts to mechanics they simply don't use or producing the effects their spellcasting already gets them. The few things that do seem tailored to then are typically exorbitant in price.

Non-casters, on the other hand, haven't much use for things like metamagic rods and pearls of power (unless they have spellcaster friends) but huge segments of the rest of the catalogue either give them new abilities or sharply improve the ones they already have, even more so if they have UMD and can access the casters' tricks in limited fashion.

To whit: it's largely undisputed that the artificer is one of the big six T1 classes; perhaps the least of the 6 but one of them nonetheless. Their casting mechanic is weaker than even the bard's at a glance, though a few potent effects bring it well past that point. A large part of its power though, comes from its unparalleled ability to squeeze more power out of its gear than any other -build-. Note that I said -build- rather than class there. The artificer -class- gets more out of its gear than any -build- that doesn't include artificer as its core.

That wouldn't matter unless gear -could- bring a character up several tiers by itself. Masterful use of scrolls, wands, rods, and wondrous items can make a powerful character out of a weak build but it's just icing on a wizard's cake.

TL; DR: since items are only a boon if they're not redundant, WBL is more useful to non-casters than it is to casters.

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?

[Calthropstu]

My experience is this:

Level 1:
Wiz/sor tends to get 1 shotted. Spend quite a bit of time face down in the dirt whether because an archer out of range of his 1-2 spells shot him in the face or a fighter smacked him in the head or the cleric channeled negative energy... the wiz/sor goes down. Often.
The cleric can take a couple hits and has high ac so stays around but doesn't generally do much in the way of damage. Needs to spend actions to get the wiz/sor back on their feet. Melee types are the primary damage and kill source. Rogues can usually take a hit and can get the team through some tough spots with flanking. The druid is great for a fight, but their animal companion will often flat out get killed taking them completely out of play for some time while they get another.

Level 2-4:
The wizards and sorcerers can now add some survivability to their builds. Protection from arrows or mage armor or shield... they can raise their ac, get some dr vs ranged, go invisible. But if they do that, their usefulness becomes negligible. Either they spend time trying to save their own hides and have few spells available to contribute or they use actions to do decent damage and get targeted by melee and ranged and spend some more time in the dirt. Clerics and druids do very well at these levels as their heals become the mainstay of the group and melee continues to dominate.

5-6: Wiz/sor finally gets some decent stuff. Fireball for mass damage, fly to get the fighter into melee against those pesky flying monsters, dispel for the worse magic effects, haste to group buff. Too bad they can only do this a couple times and then they're out. In a dungeon or other area featuring high numbers of combats that pretty much guarantees the wizard spends rounds saying "I fire my crossbow." Clerics continue their healing sprees, ranged becomes seriously viable as a melee alternative and melee fighters continue to be the primary damage and kill source.

7-8: Now we're getting somewhere. 4th level spell utility is fantastic, and the 3rd level spells now have enough uses to be used more liberally. 2nd lvl spell utility peaks and 1st lvl spells can be spammed liberally. Mobs can now be handled with ease... though melee remains the primary damage source especially against boss types who now begin picking up sr. Clerics/druids start picking up buff spells and the combination of buffs and melee gets fairly devastating. Bards truly come into their own now with them adding buffs with spells as well as their song. They can make a tough boss battle easy.

9-10:
5th lvl spells are no joke. 1st lvl spells for sor/wiz get some serious power behind them. Magic missle, a great damage mainstay for them, maxes out. They can now spam 1st and 2nd lvl spells like candy, 3rd level spells are their primary and 4th get used more too. 5th spells can trivialize entire quest lines (teleport, lesser binding, etc). Clerics/druids gain some great utility and pick up flame strike, a good mass damage spell as well as numerous other abilities. Melee is still important though and your front line now takes a pounding that the cleric spends a lot of time fixing. Now it's the front line often in the dirt.

11-12:
Yeah, 6th lvl spells are the game changer. Instagib spells for both clerics and mages, druids are wrecking things in both melee and spell combat and the noncasters are struggling to contribute. Granted, they can still bring things down but they more contribute with mop-up to save the casters from using too many high level spells.

13-14:
7th level spells are the nail that closes the coffin on melee. 5th lvl spells become spammable and you can buff the hell out of everyone. Few things pose a serious challenge unless they have high dr and sr.

15-16: Wait what do you mean the campaign is over? I wanted to planar bind a planetar!

17+: Yeah, no.

[Gnaeus]

Traditionally, you use Venomfire (or possibly Maximized Empowered Fiery Blistering Heightened Searing Energy Substitution[Fire] Venomfire) to get around poison immunity. Even a plain Druid 20 can make a Fleshraker that can threaten to one-shot CR20 opponents. This is relevant after level 5 when Venomfire becomes available.

Agree. And that’s only at a high optimization level. A wolf isn’t compared with an optimized fighter, he’s compared with an unoptimized monk and he comes out very well. The optimization floor on most animals is pretty decent, getting stuff like pounce or trip for free. The level 1 wolf has 50 move, 2 saves at +5. He’s pretty comparable to a low op monk or ranger, and he also gets to share the Druids spells. The higher op the muggle, the higher op the companion and the better the buffs they are likely to be sharing.

And of course the comparison is between a buffed AC and an unbuffed martial. The AC has his own buffbot who is sharing his buffs.

[King of Nowhere]

I've begun to question this recently.

Much of what there is to spend gold on is either irrelevant or redundant to casters; either giving boosts to mechanics they simply don't use or producing the effects their spellcasting already gets them. The few things that do seem tailored to then are typically exorbitant in price.

Non-casters, on the other hand, haven't much use for things like metamagic rods and pearls of power (unless they have spellcaster friends) but huge segments of the rest of the catalogue either give them new abilities or sharply improve the ones they already have, even more so if they have UMD and can access the casters' tricks in limited fashion.
That wouldn't matter unless gear -could- bring a character up several tiers by itself. Masterful use of scrolls, wands, rods, and wondrous items can make a powerful character out of a weak build but it's just icing on a wizard's cake.

TL; DR: since items are only a boon if they're not redundant, WBL is more useful to non-casters than it is to casters.

I am running a high magic campaign where everyone (including npcs) is way above wbl. In my experience, it helps martials a lot. Granted, the party is not very optimized, and the barbarian is the better optimized of all; but the point remains that if I want to kill the wizard I just need someone to cast a destruction/finger of death in the surprise round, or charge and get a good leap attack (common defences against those effects are mostly rendered moot by the easy availability of true sight effects).

I can't do the same to the barbarian. He has over 200 hp, an AC over 40, and his saving throws look something like +22/+17/+18 at level 14: he's buffed enough that even his low saves are nothing to sneeze at. Plus he's immune to most of the nastiest will-targeting effects. A ring of freedom of movement stops a huge monster from grappling it, and he has several single-use effects to teleport, so forcecage is also pointless.

Sure, a prepared wizard still wins a straight-out fight, but it's more like "spend half your spells to keep the distance from this unstoppable behemot and the other half to slowly wear it down" than "effortlessly liquidate the matter with a spell or two". And woe on the caster if he's not prepared, or if it has to fight two opponents at once.

Agree. And that’s only at a high optimization level. A wolf isn’t compared with an optimized fighter, he’s compared with an unoptimized monk and he comes out very well. The optimization floor on most animals is pretty decent, getting stuff like pounce or trip for free. The level 1 wolf has 50 move, 2 saves at +5. He’s pretty comparable to a low op monk or ranger, and he also gets to share the Druids spells. The higher op the muggle, the higher op the companion and the better the buffs they are likely to be sharing.

true enough. It's just that it does not really matter the level of optimization here, only whether the fleshraker is available. Lacking MM3, I looked at the standard list of druid critters and couldn't really do much with it. Seen the fleshraker, it became obvious.
Now, there are no fleshrakers in my campaign world, as there are no dinosaurs in general, so that leaves druids in a tight spot. But even if there were, I'd change its modifier to druid level to -6 at least, maybe -9. It lacks the durability, but it is at least as dangerous as a dire bear on offence, and it scales better with level.

And of course the comparison is between a buffed AC and an unbuffed martial. The AC has his own buffbot who is sharing his buffs.

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.
And true, a fighter alone would not have buff spells, but the point is moot; of course martials are useless without magical support.

[Gnaeus]

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.
And true, a fighter alone would not have buff spells, but the point is moot; of course martials are useless without magical support.

Of course it’s unfair. Druids are made of win.

The first problem with your argument is that the fighter can’t use most of the Druids buffs. Most fighters use weapons, not natural attacks. Most Druid buffs are for natural attacks. Also, the Druid can use personal range day Long buffs on the pet not the fighter.

The second problem is that an optimized Druid spent a feat for companion spellbond and he isn’t buffing the pet. He is buffing himself with his normal buffs and sharing them with the pet.

[Nifft]

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.
And true, a fighter alone would not have buff spells, but the point is moot; of course martials are useless without magical support.

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.

[Elkad]

It's an auto-win against a fighter without any equipment.

Because a fighter of that level that doesn't have any kind of contingency against a forcecage should not be adventuring.

It's unfortunate that martials do need so much magic support to become useful. But if they have it, they become quite difficult to neutralize.

Yup. A mere 50gp* and a standard action negates a 7th level spell. And a lot of other things, including grapples, webs, etc. The fighter who doesn't have that (or something similar, like an Anklet) by L5, much less L13, probably should have dumped his int lower than 8, because he's an idiot.
Any creature with non-random possessions and a decent intelligence should be similar.

*300 without psionics available, and difficult to use in a grapple - get the Anklet instead.