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

[billd91]

If the classes are, as is claimed, all balanced, then all three groups should have equal difficulties. No group should be significantly faster or slower than another.

I believe that is a faulty assumption unless you take balanced to mean that all subsets of 4 characters have the same capabilities (as in skill sets and special abilities) as all other subsets of any 4 characters. Clearly, that is not the case. PC groups are likely to face additional difficulties if they short themselves on their breadth of capabilities. That doesn't necessarily mean that the classes are unbalanced relative to each other. It means that the party composition is out of balance compared to the assumptions that went into the adventure's design and that has little bearing on the actual rules for each character class.

 

[Bluenose]

I believe that is a faulty assumption unless you take balanced to mean that all subsets of 4 characters have the same capabilities (as in skill sets and special abilities) as all other subsets of any 4 characters. Clearly, that is not the case. PC groups are likely to face additional difficulties if they short themselves on their breadth of capabilities. That doesn't necessarily mean that the classes are unbalanced relative to each other. It means that the party composition is out of balance compared to the assumptions that went into the adventure's design and that has little bearing on the actual rules for each character class.

In most RPGs increased versatility is paid for by reduced power. I can't think of many that aren't D&D where increased versatility is compensated for by increased power as well, but that's how D&D/PF casters work.

And I can attest to what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] says, having done just those sort of tests with various editions of D&D (though not specifically with PF). Add more casters, reduce non-casters is massively better in 3e, and significantly better in 2e. BECM and 4e are the closest to balanced in this respect, BECM due to the very restricted spell lists that don't let casters fill every niche trivially, 4e due I think mostly to the design of Roles which prevent characters/classes from being highly competent in more than one area.

 

[pemerton]

it's one of those "inherent to D&D" kind of things.

I think this is another occasion where by "inherent to D&D" you really mean "inherent to 3E".

I don't think that B/X requires you to make a non-caster into a caster in order to be comparable in effectiveness. I know that 4e doesn't.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

On the whole caster balance thing:

Take the following test - choose an 11th level Pathfinder module. Doesn't matter which one. Pathfinder core only, no splats.

Now, run three groups of 4 11th level PC's through it.

Group 1 - Control Group - Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue. That's the baseline that the game was made for.

Group 2 - Caster Group - Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and replace Rogue with either a second cleric or second wizard.

Group 3 - Single Caster Group - Fighter, replace Cleric with second Rogue, Wizard, Rogue.

All characters have appropriate wealth by level and you can choose whatever equipment from Pathfinder Core that fits within that budget. No restrictions, so long as it's core. Standard point buy values for character stats, just to make things even.

Which of these three groups would have the easiest time in the module? The most difficult? Which would take the most time to complete the adventure in game time?

If the classes are, as is claimed, all balanced, then all three groups should have equal difficulties. No group should be significantly faster or slower than another.

Does anyone honestly believe that to be true?

let me go one step further... and since we have already been told D&D HAS to have sertain things in it...

I DID run 4e with no casters in 2 different campaigns, but I will focus on the best (although the other was good as well)

We had a Warlord(Bravo), a Ranger(The controller I think scout), and 2 fighter (One slayer one PHB sword and board). We also had 9 magic items total over 22 levels, and 2 of them were artifacts...

Imagine trying to run any piazo pathfinder mod that way...

I will replace the warlord with a paliden... take a 12th level group of Paliden, Ranger, and 2 Fighters and try to run and 10th level mod (if mods are meant for ANY group of 10th level characters then 12th level characters should have no problem.)

then run the same mod with A druid, a Wizard, a Summoner, and a Magus but make them level 8...

I bet even with a 4 level advantage to team no full caster that team 3/4 caster has a WAY easier time...

almost like there is NO SUCH THING AS BALANCE BETWEEN CLASSES IN PATHFINDER RIGHT NOW...

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think this is another occasion where by "inherent to D&D" you really mean "inherent to 3E".

Well, PF is 3e.

I don't think that B/X requires you to make a non-caster into a caster in order to be comparable in effectiveness.

Maybe not. 2e has roughly the same Christmas Tree phenomenon, but maybe it doesn't go back forever and ever.

I know that 4e doesn't.

Of course it does, to a previously unheard of extent. Power sources, healing surges, and inherent bonuses are all examples of non-casters being made into casters, just in a different way.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which of these three groups would have the easiest time in the module? The most difficult? Which would take the most time to complete the adventure in game time?

I suspect that the group with all four classes covered would have the easiest time, followed by the group with the extra rogue, followed by the group with the extra cleric or wizard.

If the classes are, as is claimed, all balanced, then all three groups should have equal difficulties. No group should be significantly faster or slower than another.

Not necessarily, since balanced does not mean the same. For one thing, covering different functions is inherently valuable; so it's better to have a diverse party.

But regardless of that, the spellcasting characters certainly aren't better on the whole.

 

[Wicht]

The question is flawed, since anytime you remove the healing, you slow down group speed.

The balanced party, I would hazard would be the fastest.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The question is flawed, since anytime you remove the healing, you slow down group speed.

The balanced party, I would hazard would be the fastest.

Even if one changes the group makeup more, though, would a party of all clerics be better than the balanced party? Two clerics and two wizards? Not a chance in my mind.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Of course it does, to a previously unheard of extent. Power sources, healing surges, and inherent bonuses are all examples of non-casters being made into casters, just in a different way.

I believe Pemerton's point is that 4e martial characters don't gain versatility and power in great leaps and bounds by taking wizard levels or by picking up a bunch of wands. 4e fighters, rogues, and so on are awesome just by doing martial stuff.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Power sources, healing surges, and inherent bonuses are all examples of non-casters being made into casters, just in a different way.

It really doesn't. I've yet to throw a Fireball with my 4e Fighter, or have him do anything outright magical.