Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FentonGib" data-source="post: 4514052" data-attributes="member: 77527">Spellcasters are much more powerful now I agree - though I actually see this as a good thing. In 3e wizards and (especially) sorcerers didn't get decent till mid-level. Bards, Clerics and Druids at least could hold their own in melee but spellcasters were quite weak. So spellcasting players often felt a bit underpowered at first. At high levels they were amazing though. When they did go the full course, the players liked the fact that at low levels the fighters could easily kill the enemy (low hps) but wizzies were fairly useless, but at high levels the fighter was fairly useless (1d8+Strength + greater weapon specialisation often does little against creatures with high hp and/or damage reduction/regeneration) whilst the wizzie was the main destroyer.Pathfinder states that it has upped the power curve a bit, ostensibly to make things more heroic. My wizzie player now feels more capable of holding his weight in the group then he did before we upgraded. As they're hitting mid-level the spellcasters are feeling more useful, whilst the melee fighters feel that they're becoming more adaptable and versatile (and more survivability), so they're all happy.My problem with D&D has been that 7 out of the 11 core classes are all spellcasters. When playing low-magic settings (e.g. Ravenloft) that seriously limits options (or makes certain classes VERY common). Personally, I'd love to see a non-magic Bard just like you had the non-spellcasting Paladin and Ranger variants in the Complete Champion book (the Artiste heritage path of my Patrician custom class is a bit of an attempt to address this).I do agree that some things could use a little revising - but then again, it is only a beta system so far, and they have been changing things on their website (e.g. the Paladin was recently upgraded).</blockquote>

Verification