Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5510756" data-attributes="member: 11300">Again if you played it with just Pathfinder you would perhaps see differently or otherwise just see what you are looking for. Cleric's can go supernova if they have the time to prepare but otherwise not, and casting spells AND trying to get into melee (cleric's are very limited at range) is actually pretty tough. The fighter/barbarian handily outdoes them in most general circumstances. As for the Druid, my main issue with it is summoning and the meta-effect that has on the game. Summoning is still something I would like addressed, otherwise from my extensive play and GM experience with Pathfinder, I really beg to differ.I think you have done a good job of blinding yourself to the changes they made. However, if your DM is not pressuring the casters with concentration checks, then I can understand why you see little difference to 3.5.A lot of people on the Paizo forums who have a greater experience with the system than you would significantly differ with your opinion here. I'm just one of them. That you have a different opinion is cool, but it does not invalidate those with vaster experience of the two versions. The style of play is different to 4e even though they are both fun. Perhaps you are reacting to this because of your vast preference to 4e; to which both 3.5 and Pathfinder don't satisfy your gaming urges? At highest levels (16 to 20) those 8th and 9th level spells are significant but at the levels where the majority of people play (1st to 13th) you cannot really break the system in half. However, there is a degree of system mastery and so it can be just as easy to craft a highly specialised PC that is very powerful in some circumstances but not others. In play though, such characters be they fighters, barbarians, monks or druids do not break the game (and DMing my players with a broad range from Ultra-power-gamer to completely casual), I'd put forward that I have had to contend with extremes in this regard. The game does not break and has been enjoyable for all.Again the impression I get is that that you are basing this on your experience of 3e play (I ran an Age of Worms 3.5 campaign where the wizard powered up by all the splats completely dominated after 13th level). If you played Pathfinder (without the 3.5 splats most importantly) with a variety of casters/non-casters or DMed it for a campaign and truly got to feel the changes, I think you would not be quite as cavalier in your estimations.My own experience applicable to 3e and Pathfinder has been that a good selection of wands/scrolls keeps the wizard on par with the other party members at lower levels.As a Pathfinder/4e GM/DM, so am I. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Aegeri, I don't think I am going to change your mind on this one and your statements are not going to cast some modify memory spell on my experiences with Pathfinder either <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />. All I can say is that if the play-problems of 3.5 were not addressed; surely Pathfinder would not have been as successful as it has been. It is not some con as you suggest above but genuine change and fixes. Obviously a lot of people have found that Pathfinder is enjoyable or has possibly even fixed a lot of the issues that they had with 3.5. Is it perfect? Obviously not. I can still list many issues I have with it compared to my ideal game; but it did fix a lot of things: one being balance of classes at regular play levels.If you want to discuss this further, perhaps you could start up a thread in the Pathfinder forum. This thread doesn't really need a further tangent.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification