Pathfinder 1E What are the advantages to Pathfinder -- for DMs?

[aike]

thx, this topic helped me too

 

[N'raac]

To be fair, a +4 Int item is a significant investment for an 8th level character, it's almost half their wealth by level. Although even a 22 Int wizard is going to curbstomp a lot of encounters, so it really doesn't matter that much.

Oh, I agree that any caster should focus on buffing their save stat. +6 item is 36K, so 18K if you make your own...yea, that is actually doable. Fortunately, my 11th level party isn't that proactive.

18,000 is over half of the character's wealth at 8th level. If he had not started at L8, would he have held on to a bunch of gold waiting for the day he could craft (or buy) this one item? If so, he would have been much less effective at lower levels than a typical character, who has purchased lower level gear with his lower level wealth.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering#TOC-Placing-Treasure[/URL]]Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items.

So, no more than half on any one item, with the balanced approach suggesting no more than 25% on any one category of item. If we follow the guidance offered in the RAW, there's no +4 stat item at 8th level - 16k of 33k is well over the 25% guideline, and 8k (if he's crafting it himself) is still a stretch. [Even so, I think an easy PF fix would be to up the caster level for higher bonuses, but we're drifting from the topic.] I'd certainly compare his items to the other PC's who have built their equipment up over actual play - his wealth shouldn't be a lot more concentrated than theirs.

What other rules are, or are not, in play? Wizards tend to sack STR, but they have those heavy spellbooks to cart around. How's our Wizard's encumbrance looking? Sacked CHA, did we? Let's ensure there are occasions where he needs CHA, and his substandard stat has a negative impact on him. He chose to be weak in some areas to enhance others - don't give him all the benefits of what he did take and let him ignore the costs of what he sacrificed. Sure, the Party Face can take care of some of that - but how does he negotiate for rare magic item components he doesn't understand? And sooner or later, the Wizard actually needs to talk himself, not hide behind the Bard or Paladin.

Consider throwing the PC's up against wizards who have similar feat chains (no Intellect Headband - a Fox's Cunning spell or potion will do the trick). If they're calling out the "unfairness", point out that they just attended the same training academy as the party wizard did - what's the big deal? It's funny how abuses get table ruled when they are used against, not just by, the players.

Or, hey, maybe we could let a PC actually be cool and powerful. Optimization tends to be a problem only if there is a wide power gap between the PC's (sometimes not even then). It's about a fun game for the players - so what do the players enjoy? High save DC's mean the wizard's spells tend to work. How often do we think his main ability - spells - should fail miserably?

 

[TwoSix]

Consider throwing the PC's up against wizards who have similar feat chains (no Intellect Headband - a Fox's Cunning will do the trick). If they're calling out the "unfairness", point out that they just attended the same training academy as the party wizard did - what's the big deal? It's funny how abuses get table ruled when they are used against, not just by, the players.

I throw PCs up against monsters who have whatever spells I deem necessary, and have stats roughly equivalent to what I want the challenge to be. If they say "How?", I say "Custom Template".

I spent two hours a couple weeks ago statting up three lycanthropes for my PCs to fight. Even spending that time, I still ended up making house rule classes for 2 of them because the PF ones are too damn fiddly for NPCs. And the were-liger life oracle just has abilities based around buffing healing, I eschewed any abilities that didn't buff those abilities so I had less to track.

Moral of the story: Even if you're running PF, don't feel like the "NPCs are just like PCs!" has to be in effect.

 

[N'raac]

I throw PCs up against monsters who have whatever spells I deem necessary, and have stats roughly equivalent to what I want the challenge to be. If they say "How?", I say "Custom Template".

Definitely - the main "unfairness" I point to is the very high save DC. If it's OK for Wally Wizard to have a save DC of 10 + 4 (spell level) + 2 (feats) + 8 (INT bonus) = 24, then it's OK for opponents of the PC's to have spells and abilities with a 24 save DC too.

 

[Kinak]

Moral of the story: Even if you're running PF, don't feel like the "NPCs are just like PCs!" has to be in effect.

A thousand times this.

If someone developed a simple monster system that interfaced decently with the Pathfinder rules, I'd snatch it up in a second. Alas, the closest I've come is "throw out everything from the description you don't need."

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

(Stuff about the item)

That was really the least relevant part of the character. With a +2 item, his save DC bonus would have been 1 DC less. My own PC (and several others) had +4 items already.

What other rules are, or are not, in play? Wizards tend to sack STR, but they have those heavy spellbooks to cart around. How's our Wizard's encumbrance looking?

I've only been in one campaign that tracked encumbrance like that, with a computer program, and ... it wasn't fun. Spellbooks aren't that heavy, especially when you consider the wizard wasn't really carrying anything else. A headband doesn't weight much, neither do robes or scrolls.

Sacked CHA, did we? Let's ensure there are occasions where he needs CHA, and his substandard stat has a negative impact on him.

1) I'm not the DM of the campaign. I gave up running 3.5 in 2006 and will never run 3.x again. Among other things, I never have to put up with this nonsense. You literally cannot pull this kind of cheese in 4e. (Players want high stats, and 4e pretty much requires your high stat to be an 18. You can't really have less than a 16 or more than a 20, which are only 5% off the curve either way. Said player always plays a 20 stat character in my campaigns.)

2) The player showed up with a character sheet right at the beginning of the session. The DM couldn't prepare encounters, combat and non, for challenging a completely new PC. (He was running an adventure path, and like many DMs, does not have the time to create 3.x/PF-style encounters.)

3) A low Charisma just doesn't matter. Our party already has a face. We also have some low Cha characters (my druid, the barbarian) and that hasn't hurt us at all. If all of a sudden the DM starts punishing low Charisma PCs, it's going to be obvious who the real target is.

4) One of the necromancer abilities lets you "Turn Undead" and that requires a high Charisma to be useful. We even faced a bunch of undead. It didn't matter though. There's plenty of ways for a wizard to deal with undead without using Turn Undead. (We used such measures in 3.x, when necromancers didn't get such an ability anyway.) So I guess there was a cost, but an extremely minor one.

5) I don't think such tactics work well. The DM has to put a lot more effort into challenging this one PC than anyone else. That tells me the problem is the rules.

6) And of course, the player's bad behavior (showing up with an unvetted character sheet) played a role. At least for one session, there was little the DM could do but tell him to get lost. And since we have a multiple-DM group, we don't have a group leader, so nothing like that was going to happen. (We don't game at that DM's house either.)

He chose to be weak in some areas to enhance others - don't give him all the benefits of what he did take and let him ignore the costs of what he sacrificed. Sure, the Party Face can take care of some of that - but how does he negotiate for rare magic item components he doesn't understand?

With his high Int, he'll understand anything about magic. (He's better at that than, say, our witch.) Spell components aren't rare, at least not the ones that don't cost anything within the rules. Also, it's Kingmaker, we can just order lower-ranking NPCs to buy us stuff, although we have to pony up the cash. At least we're supposed to! (We keep up our WBL that way, since it's nearly impossible within the rules to actually keep that up, given we have to sell most loot we find, and aren't motivated to adventure for loot rather than plot reasons. Our face is also very good -- both in and out of game -- at the kingdom management aspect.)

And sooner or later, the Wizard actually needs to talk himself, not hide behind the Bard or Paladin.

Hasn't happened yet, but since he can cast Hideous Laughter he didn't give up Enchantment.

Consider throwing the PC's up against wizards who have similar feat chains (no Intellect Headband - a Fox's Cunning spell or potion will do the trick). If they're calling out the "unfairness", point out that they just attended the same training academy as the party wizard did - what's the big deal? It's funny how abuses get table ruled when they are used against, not just by, the players.

That was exactly a solution I proposed. However, that requires lot of work. (Note that NPCs usually get less gear than PCs, at the very least.) I thought having NPCs not constantly be surprised to be a better solution though. Sometimes we ambush NPCs but not always. I don't recall ever being ambushed by NPCs.

Or, hey, maybe we could let a PC actually be cool and powerful. Optimization tends to be a problem only if there is a wide power gap between the PC's (sometimes not even then). It's about a fun game for the players - so what do the players enjoy? High save DC's mean the wizard's spells tend to work. How often do we think his main ability - spells - should fail miserably?

There was a wide gap. That's to be expected to some extent; it doesn't matter that our barbarian can literally put out over 100 damage per round (when fully buffed with his alchemist abilities and Hasted) if his wizard friend can simply tie up multiple people with Black Tentacles and put someone out of the fight with a single action ... while invisible no less.

 

[amethal]

Whenever I get fed up of cocky PCs who have 7s for their mental stats, I throw in a bunch of crysmals.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/elemental/crysmal

Or vampiric, advanced, half-fiendish crysmals at higher levels.

Or if I'm feeling even less subtle, NPC spell casters with very good touch attacks that spam (Maximised is optional) Touch of Idiocy.

If you want to actually kill characters, rather than reduce their Int, Wis and/or Cha to 1, a group of 20 bog standard derro can also be horrific.

"20 Fortitude saves please"
"Phew, made all 20!"
"Great, you aren't stunned. Now take 20d8 points of sonic damage ..."

 

[N'raac]

That was really the least relevant part of the character. With a +2 item, his save DC bonus would have been 1 DC less. My own PC (and several others) had +4 items already.

And later

That was exactly a solution I proposed. However, that requires lot of work. (Note that NPCs usually get less gear than PCs, at the very least.)

But the gear, as you note, is a tiny component. A single Fox’s Cunning spell will give them the same +4 INT for the duration of the combat – and the enemy doesn’t need to maintain that bonus over a full day.

I've only been in one campaign that tracked encumbrance like that, with a computer program, and ... it wasn't fun. Spellbooks aren't that heavy, especially when you consider the wizard wasn't really carrying anything else. A headband doesn't weight much, neither do robes or scrolls.

It’s not the rules’ fault if you find an imbalance when you don’t apply the rules. Encumbrance gives STR some relevance to non-melee characters. 8 STR gives you Light encumbrance at 26 lb, and heavy from 54 – 80. Do you want that 30’ move? Then stay under 26 lb. Backpack 2 lb; 2 scroll cases 1 lb; 1 day rations 1 lb; waterskin 4 lb; spellbook 3 lb; clothes say 4 pounds (2 if you wear monk or peasant gear), component pouch 2 lb.

That’s 17 lb – well over half way to Medium. No weapon (waste of that Elvish bow proficiency) or light source, nothing to write with or on, no camping gear and one day’s food and water (all that other stuff can go on a mule – or a Barbarian – unless you want to carry the light source or weapon).

One spellbook? How many spells you got? 1 page for each cantrip, plus another for each spell level, fills 100 pages pretty quickly.

It’s do-able. You don’t need THAT much gear. But you don’t have much gear, and as your level (and junk carried) rises, you get to spend gold on carrying items. And this ignores the possibility your character might actually carry non-combat items – a bedroll, tent, cooking pot, mess kit, etc., but we’re ignoring any flavour to max out combat effectiveness anyway.

2) The player showed up with a character sheet right at the beginning of the session. The DM couldn't prepare encounters, combat and non, for challenging a completely new PC. (He was running an adventure path, and like many DMs, does not have the time to create 3.x/PF-style encounters.)

A short term problem, and a question of group style.

I trimmed or moved some of your points – I don’t think I changed their thrust (hope not). I removed the 3e vs 4e discussion, as I don’t want to be in an edition war.

3) A low Charisma just doesn't matter. Our party already has a face. We also have some low Cha characters (my druid, the barbarian) and that hasn't hurt us at all. If all of a sudden the DM starts punishing low Charisma PCs, it's going to be obvious who the real target is.

Sure. The one guy we’re upset with who sacked Charisma – it’s OK for everyone else to sack CHA, though. Why is that?

4) One of the necromancer abilities lets you "Turn Undead" and that requires a high Charisma to be useful. We even faced a bunch of undead. It didn't matter though. There's plenty of ways for a wizard to deal with undead without using Turn Undead. (We used such measures in 3.x, when necromancers didn't get such an ability anyway.) So I guess there was a cost, but an extremely minor one.

What did the Druid and Barbarian sacrifice?

Hasn't happened yet, but since he can cast Hideous Laughter he didn't give up Enchantment.

Sounds like it hasn’t happened to the Druid or Barbarian either. And to me, Enchantment spells to resolve social situations aren’t risk free. Any more than the Druid threatening to sick a bear on the locals, or the Barbarian threatening to beat them half to death. I’m not overly familiar with Kingmaker, but I would think “we have 5 guys running the kingdom but only one ever talks to anyone” seems a little off.

5) I don't think such tactics work well. The DM has to put a lot more effort into challenging this one PC than anyone else. That tells me the problem is the rules.

Is it? Or is it that your DM is more skilled at challenging melee monsters than spellcasters? I can’t speak to your group. High save DC’s have never been that big an issue in ours. So our GM’s are not finding the same need for more effort to challenge casters.

What’s the save DC for his L4 spells? 10 + 4 + 8 + 2 (that 2 in only one school) = 24. 8^th level character will have +6 good saves, +2 weak saves, plus stat bonus, so fat chance making a weak save, maybe 25% chance to make a good save. So the Wizard’s spells, especially his higher level spells, will generally work. Take them out of that one school, and we get better save odds (how well does enchantment work against the Undead?).

I’d be more concerned if the Wizard’s only real ability – his spells – only succeeded on rare occasions.

With his high Int, he'll understand anything about magic. (He's better at that than, say, our witch.) Spell components aren't rare, at least not the ones that don't cost anything within the rules. Also, it's Kingmaker, we can just order lower-ranking NPCs to buy us stuff, although we have to pony up the cash. At least we're supposed to! (We keep up our WBL that way, since it's nearly impossible within the rules to actually keep that up, given we have to sell most loot we find, and aren't motivated to adventure for loot rather than plot reasons. Our face is also very good -- both in and out of game -- at the kingdom management aspect.)

He has a high INT so he’s good at INT skills. Not that surprising. Elves are skilled and knowledgeable about magic. Are you suggesting the Witch has no advantages in other areas? I’m not sure where the WBL rant comes from, especially since we seem to have established gear is not the big issue.

I thought having NPCs not constantly be surprised to be a better solution though. Sometimes we ambush NPCs but not always. I don't recall ever being ambushed by NPCs.

Another campaign dynamic/GM skill thing, but I’d agree a spellcaster benefits quite a bit from getting a free action to prepare for or initiate combat - more so than a melee monster.

There was a wide gap. That's to be expected to some extent; it doesn't matter that our barbarian can literally put out over 100 damage per round (when fully buffed with his alchemist abilities and Hasted) if his wizard friend can simply tie up multiple people with Black Tentacles and put someone out of the fight with a single action ... while invisible no less.

Once he casts an offensive spell, he’s no longer Invisible. You’ve harped on save DC’s consistently, but Black tentacles has no save. By the way, Witches also have that spell on their list. Is your Witch ineffectual?

I don’t think the problem is that the Wizard is optimized. I think it may be that he is more optimized than the other characters in the same game and/or that he is violating unwritten and unspoken table rules about how spells are used in a manner that your DM is having difficulty coping with. But that’s largely speculation on my part.

6) And of course, the player's bad behavior (showing up with an unvetted character sheet) played a role. At least for one session, there was little the DM could do but tell him to get lost. And since we have a multiple-DM group, we don't have a group leader, so nothing like that was going to happen. (We don't game at that DM's house either.)

Another possible difference in unspoken expectations - some groups require absoolutely that characters be provided in advance for vetting, and others just work on a "show up and play" basis - as long as it's rules-legal, it plays. Is there some reason this player would be less familiar with your group dynamics? Normally I'd suspect someone new to the group, but some of your comments imply he's played a number of other games with you.

One other element - the other characters, at least the ones you note, are probably better suited to deal with several encounters a day. If the wizard is allowed to get away with an encounter then a rest period, he can blow all his powerful spells in every encounter. The 15 minute work day can be a definite issue in balancing resource-constrained characters with less constrained characters (like a Witch whose hexes just keep on working, battle after battle).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

But the gear, as you note, is a tiny component. A single Fox’s Cunning spell will give them the same +4 INT for the duration of the combat – and the enemy doesn’t need to maintain that bonus over a full day.

Given that our DM rarely surprises us with enemies (only happened once that I recall, and not really a surprise, but certainly prevented us from prepping), I don't think that would work well in that campaign. The enemy has to have at least 1 round of warning to have a low-duration spell like that ready.

It’s not the rules’ fault if you find an imbalance when you don’t apply the rules. Encumbrance gives STR some relevance to non-melee characters. 8 STR gives you Light encumbrance at 26 lb, and heavy from 54 – 80. Do you want that 30’ move? Then stay under 26 lb. Backpack 2 lb; 2 scroll cases 1 lb; 1 day rations 1 lb; waterskin 4 lb; spellbook 3 lb; clothes say 4 pounds (2 if you wear monk or peasant gear), component pouch 2 lb.

That’s 17 lb – well over half way to Medium.

I don't get it. 17 pounds isn't encumbering him. I doubt he's carrying much more than that either.

In the aforementioned campaign, where we used a computer to track encumbrance (the DM was a computer science major), I was playing a ranger. The computer kept saying I was carrying too much gear, prompting me to throw away my spear, tent (even though I told the DM I'd drop it one combat starts), bedroll, etc. All I had was leather armor, one short sword, a longbow, and a bunch of arrows. I don't think I even had a backpack! D&D isn't realistic, or at least no campaign I was even in was, so otherwise I've never been in a campaign where encumbrance comes up a lot.

Maybe encumbrance is sneakily needed for preserving game balance, but that's not explained in the PH or DMG and I don't think it's a "fun" way of preserving game balance either. Strength 8 isn't even unusually low for a wizard. If said wizard had started with Int 16 instead, and Strength 8, they'd also be "punished" for having the gall to play a scholar as realistically not being fit.

No weapon (waste of that Elvish bow proficiency) or light source, nothing to write with or on, no camping gear and one day’s food and water (all that other stuff can go on a mule – or a Barbarian – unless you want to carry the light source or weapon).

He doesn't carry a bow or sword. It's not like he's playing an elf for any reason but the Int bonus, and also because he likes Eberron elves (his character worships ancestors, much like those elves). His melee attack bonus is so weak a sword is pointless, although he does have a "grave touch" ability that he can use often. It doesn't do damage, but spells don't need to do that. Pathfinder wizards rarely need to do that "crossbow" thing, since each specialty gives you a spell-like ability you can do a few times per day, and that's actually enough to fill in your rounds even at 1st-level. (Glad to see Pathfinder came up with a way to keep 1st-level wizards from being wimps.) Of course, some of those specialties (and the universalist) have wimpier ones than others.

He's got a pebble he can cast a Light spell on. (IIRC, that's a cantrip in PF, so he can have one ready at all times, and he has low-light vision anyway.) He doesn't need to carry much food or water because, between the druid and barbarian, we never fail Survival checks. A high Wis druid, with a +2 bonus due to Nature sense, can't fail the DC 10 + 2 per PC checks needed most of the time, and if he rolls a 1 and can only feed most of the party (bear companion and mounts included, when we bother with the latter) the barbarian's check is nearly as good. We end up with too much food, prompting the druid to preserve what's left and take breaks on hunting so we're not killing off the local wildlife. Good thing we keep on the move.

He doesn't have camping gear. The encumbrance system pretty much ensures no one ever does things like that, not even high Strength fighters. We just rough it. I don't know how the soft wizard without Survival gets along with that, since he's not abusing Rope Trick or other such spells, but that applies to other untough/unSurvival-trained PCs as well.

One spellbook? How many spells you got? 1 page for each cantrip, plus another for each spell level, fills 100 pages pretty quickly.

It’s do-able. You don’t need THAT much gear. But you don’t have much gear, and as your level (and junk carried) rises, you get to spend gold on carrying items. And this ignores the possibility your character might actually carry non-combat items – a bedroll, tent, cooking pot, mess kit, etc., but we’re ignoring any flavour to max out combat effectiveness anyway.

The entire party does that actually. I'm pretty sure my druid has to cup water from a stream to drink. No pots. What do we do if we find a well without a bucket?

We're also not "adventuring for loot". I personally can't stand that style of play. We use loot to buy magic gear, but that doesn't weigh more than regular gear. I suspect we have a Bag of Holding. My PC doesn't, but druids are self sufficient. He carries a stick, wears armor and clothing, the latter frequently unnecessary due to how long wild shape lasts (but he does anyway, he can't be a bear all the time), and has some low-weight material components/foci.

Sure. The one guy we’re upset with who sacked Charisma – it’s OK for everyone else to sack CHA, though. Why is that?

It turns out we have two guys with Charisma (a paladin and the magus). It's okay to sack Charisma due to the whole "party face" thing. There's no rule saying the guy without Charisma who doesn't make skill checks ever actually fails those checks, any more than my druid would be expected to make Pick Lock checks.

What did the Druid and Barbarian sacrifice?

The druid's wild empathy score is low. The barbarian has low Intimidation. The latter isn't any kind of cost; the party likes fighting, and doesn't like scaring enemies into not fighting, unless they're so weak it's not worth our time.

Sounds like it hasn’t happened to the Druid or Barbarian either. And to me, Enchantment spells to resolve social situations aren’t risk free. Any more than the Druid threatening to sick a bear on the locals, or the Barbarian threatening to beat them half to death. I’m not overly familiar with Kingmaker, but I would think “we have 5 guys running the kingdom but only one ever talks to anyone” seems a little off.

Kingmaker isn't at all realistic. If it were, we'd all have our spheres of responsibility (technically, we do) but we still travel as an adventuring party. Which means, among other things, we're out of contact with our kingdom much of the time!

We've hired a good bureaucracy though. There's no food riots. There is religious conflict, but that was mainly because a bard was using Scrolls of Mass Charm (or maybe it was Song of Discord) to force people into beating up priests, so social skills were less relevant. We weren't always able to calm the populace, but we could certainly find that bard and do away with him. (He's currently alive, and in jail. Pretty sure that's a DM innovation, and not part of the adventure path.)

Is it? Or is it that your DM is more skilled at challenging melee monsters than spellcasters? I can’t speak to your group. High save DC’s have never been that big an issue in ours. So our GM’s are not finding the same need for more effort to challenge casters.

1) Yes.
2) I haven't run D&D 3rd Edition since 2006 or thereabouts, but I never had to deal with crazy save DCs like that. Of course, I was much less permissive about what I allowed into the game. 28 point buy, and nothing like star elves.

What’s the save DC for his L4 spells? 10 + 4 + 8 + 2 (that 2 in only one school) = 24. 8^th level character will have +6 good saves, +2 weak saves, plus stat bonus, so fat chance making a weak save, maybe 25% chance to make a good save. So the Wizard’s spells, especially his higher level spells, will generally work. Take them out of that one school, and we get better save odds (how well does enchantment work against the Undead?).

He's a necromancer, and does not have Spell Focus (Enchantment). I'm not even sure he has any of those feats, but if he does, it would be necromancy.

I’d be more concerned if the Wizard’s only real ability – his spells – only succeeded on rare occasions.

I wouldn't expect the spells to almost never work. But by the math you gave, if they work 75% of the time against a good save, there's a problem. It means his spells always work. To be fair, the group has other balance issues. The barbarian pretty much never misses either, and he can deal a lot of damage... but he can't guarantee a kill per turn, nor can he even guarantee a full-round attack per turn.

Are you suggesting the Witch has no advantages in other areas?

No. Why would they? The witch has a more reasonable stat allocation, so their Spellcraft and other scores would be lower.

Or if you mean, away from the spellcasting, they can fly more easily and heal, but I wouldn't consider a witch to be on par with a wizard. (I suppose that, much like 3rd Edition's warlock and war mage classes, Paizo was experimenting with a more limited arcane spellcasting class.)

Once he casts an offensive spell, he’s no longer Invisible.

Funnily enough, he's made it work, and I was paying attention. Unfortunately, not having photographic memory, I don't recall how he did it. I know he wasn't spamming summons. I think maybe he was Mirror Image'd and Blurred at first, and then turned Invisible later once all the worst opponents were tied down.

You’ve harped on save DC’s consistently, but Black tentacles has no save. By the way, Witches also have that spell on their list. Is your Witch ineffectual?

I double checked the spell. Apparently Int only affected the grapple bonus in 3rd Edition, but not Pathfinder.

The witch isn't ineffectual. The witch is playing with ability scores that you'd expect in a typical D&D game.

I don’t think the problem is that the Wizard is optimized. I think it may be that he is more optimized than the other characters in the same game and/or that he is violating unwritten and unspoken table rules about how spells are used in a manner that your DM is having difficulty coping with. But that’s largely speculation on my part.

Yes. It's not all the rules. I was merely pointing out that high point buy can have unexpected effects. (There's currently a thread on Paizo about a similar situation, involving a monk... and a 26 point buy build, including a Charisma of 5, which I'm pretty sure is illegal. 26 by Pathfinder standards that is, using Zen Archery and some race I've never heard of. The monk in question had a starting Wisdom of 20, plus competitive Strength and Dexterity scores, so instead of the typical weak monk, he's the strongest PC in the party by a long shot.)

Another possible difference in unspoken expectations - some groups require absoolutely that characters be provided in advance for vetting, and others just work on a "show up and play" basis - as long as it's rules-legal, it plays. Is there some reason this player would be less familiar with your group dynamics? Normally I'd suspect someone new to the group, but some of your comments imply he's played a number of other games with you.

The player has been with the group a long time. Because it's a rotating DM group, no DM has a lot of power, and every DM has different expectations. This DM wants us to put our character sheets on the wiki, and so I do. Almost everyone does, but there's not much that can be done (other than tossing out a player) if someone doesn't do that.

Said player has electronic character sheets on his printer for all the games we play, apparently being allergic to paper character sheets or something. Feel free to roll your eyes. His laptop is really out of date and incredibly slow, and he doesn't have a printer. Even in 4e (he has a Character Builder) it takes a lot of effort to get him to simply export a PDF, which can be uploaded to the wiki. I've been way too tolerant, in part because it hasn't been a big issue for my campaign. He's not cheating on dice rolls or anything (that would result in a tossout), and he can't squeeze more than a +1 bonus out of his scores by having unexpected ability scores. Also, apparently he never learned how to use a paper 4e sheet on his own, which is sad but also a bit plausible.

Pathfinder is different. My PF sheet is three pages, and that's only because as a druid I need to take up pages for my wildshape forms and summons (with Augment Summoning and the ability to apply multiple templates to bear summons, I need that space!). But at the same time, the balance is more by the group than in the rules, so seeing a PF character sheet ahead of time is more important.

One other element - the other characters, at least the ones you note, are probably better suited to deal with several encounters a day. If the wizard is allowed to get away with an encounter then a rest period, he can blow all his powerful spells in every encounter. The 15 minute work day can be a definite issue in balancing resource-constrained characters with less constrained characters (like a Witch whose hexes just keep on working, battle after battle).

Normally that would be the case. In Kingmaker, the 15 minute work day is usually in full force, although the day the new PC showed up, we were actually doing a dungeon crawl and had to do everything in one day. (We failed, too! Although that's only because we're about 4 levels lower than we should be, and because the final boss was built extremely well to take on spellcasters, unusual for that adventure path.) A higher save DC means you're using fewer spells per encounter, because you're not having that annoying thing happen where you cast a spell, and an opponent actually saves against it, causing you to "waste" a round.