Pathfinder 1E So what do you think is wrong with Pathfinder? Post your problems and we will fix it.

[Wicht]

...Holy cow...such bizarre specificity...there are no words.

Someone please tell me that these options were at least published in a DM's splatbook? Please?

All but the last are from Inner Sea Combat (a book I don't have). Archetypes can get pretty specific. But they are optional and always at DM discretion.

As I said before, a GM has to be able to know when to say "Stop" to player options.

 

[Wicht]

That is a pretty interesting Wizard archetype, might have to look into that if I ever get around to playing a Wizard.

If you do use it, let us know how it goes

 

[EnglishLanguage]

If you do use it, let us know how it goes

Will do, even if it is a while before I get to it. Currently playing a Rock'n'Roll Dirge Bard that I don't intend to ditch, and already have a Kamen Rider-esque Aegis planned as my back-up character.

 

[oxybe]

you know, i'm still waiting for people to fix my game beyond going "You're the GM, you figure it out!"

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have seen a single wizard at 9th level with abou a dozzen scrolls 3-4 wands and a magic ring out damage the fighter out stealth the rogue and out talk the bard...

I have seen a Druid who had spells and more skills then anyone but the rogue at the table have a pet with compair able (just below) combat skill to the fighter

My mystic theurg took a LA hit and was still a 1 man party at level 11 (3/3/5) in a game with 12th level pcs

I have seen a 10th level monk annihilate a druid, a 37th level fighter slay a dragon, a 9th level rogue take over the game, and a 3rd level barbarian smash everything in sight while the party watched. Stuff happens. Can't say I've ever seen a primary spellcaster even be the most powerful character in a group, but I'm sure that happens too. Doesn't mean those things need to be fixed.

Except for the PF barbarian, whose rage powers definitely need to be removed. I've tried replacing them some handy bonus feats and some less "power"-y rage benefits built on improving speed and stamina.

I also run above average games

Don't we all?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Can't say I've ever seen a primary spellcaster even be the most powerful character in a group, but I'm sure that happens too.

I played through the Legacy of Fire adventure path, and there was no question that the sorcerer was the star of the show - nigh single-handedly defeating every combat and winning social encounters thanks to a massive Charisma score. I'd been fairly skeptical about the caster-dominance phenomenon before, but it turns out that when you follow their enforced guidelines for encounters and wealth, it actually does come out how everyone says it does.

Well, it did for us, at least.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

All but the last are from Inner Sea Combat (a book I don't have). Archetypes can get pretty specific. But they are optional and always at DM discretion.

As I said before, a GM has to be able to know when to say "Stop" to player options.

Yes, yes, everything is at the DM's discretion, and banning UP/OP options is an effective (if harsh) way to keep the game somewhat sane. We're all aware of this.

I just wanted to know that the PF team didn't waste page space on those archetypes in explicitly player-oriented books.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'd been fairly skeptical about the caster-dominance phenomenon before, but it turns out that when you follow their enforced guidelines for encounters and wealth, it actually does come out how everyone says it does.

Well, it did for us, at least.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't mean much. To say that it plays out that way in such a restricted set of circumstances is much like saying that a hot new cancer drug works in laboratory settings. Call me back when it works outside the lab environment. The world is more complicated, and likewise D&D games are a lot more diverse than those guidelines.

I don't think I've ever run or played in a game that had ability scores as low as the standard array, wealth as low as the guidelines, or combat encounters that would even come close to the EL/CR the DMG advocates. I don't see a ton of that on the boards either.

If I had to guess, I'd say that those parameters would favor the spellcasting characters. The less special everyone is, the more special magic seems. The easier the challenges, the better glass cannon characters look. If we ran everyone on the nonheroic array, spellcasters would look like gods (at least until they reached the point where they couldn't access their highest level spells). To my mind, that's all the more reason not to play at that power level and that challenge level; those guidelines are ill-conceived for more purposes.

That being said, you'd think if the spellcasters were so great they'd play that way for everyone all the time. Or at least some of the time.

 

[Zardnaar]

Pathfinder is some sweet sweet D&D from around level 1-6, after that big problems. The m,ain offenders.

1. Complexity. Game requires to much effort to run. I will play it, not very keen on DMing it.
2. Balance. Not so much spell casters being supreme but everything is more or less broken (except the suck classes). Last party was fighter, ranger, paladin and bard and they were dominating PF APs. Went back to OSR D&D where 1d8+5 damage works.

 

[MoonSong]

Anyhow, making material components difficult to find might create a hassle for casters, but any caster is just one feat away from solving 99% of that problem. Heck, sorcerers get it for free!

I just plain dislike this "spellcasters are overpowered" vibe of people like you and [MENTION=6774827]EnglishLanguage[/MENTION] mainly because it unjustifiedly accuses all casters of being broken overpowered niche breakers. In principle I don't dispute your claims, mainly because I'm far fra away from playing that way or hanging out with people who do. But I do dispute your blanket statement "all casters are overpowered" as a needless overgeneralization. Case in point, replace wizard with sorcerer, can you break the game in the same way? The simple answer is no. A sorcerer who knows knock, and invisibility, and many of the 'rogue replacing spells' is not intending to make the rogue meaningless, is intending to act as a rogue and has little spells known left to attempt to replace the fighter. On top of that a sorcerer lacks the "Me smart, game smash" pretext wizard players use to acts as munchkins. And a similar thing applies for the oracle and bard -heck bards lost a lot of power in the transition to pf-