Pathfinder 1E What's broken or needs vast system knowledge?

[Kinak]

Are the spell-users and non-casters close enough that balancing it could just be a matter of slowing down the number of spells they acquire and maybe their caster level, or is it still that the effects of some of the high level ones are just game breaking still? (Would it fix the problem to make the spacing between new spell levels slow down and just ditch the 9th and maybe 8th levels? Would that strip the casters of too much fun stuff?)

It depends a lot on your group. For example, I'm running a group with a fighter, cleric, and a bard right now. And the cleric (and bard, which is less surprising) feel completely outclassed by the fighter.

I feel like they tightened the balance up enough (by giving boosts to the casters, but larger boosts to the others) to get everyone within striking distance.

I think slowing down spells would be fine, but you'd want to run it by your players. I'd personally go for E6 (or E8 or whatever) first, though.

In a broader sense, I think it's more about setting groundrules. Some people in the wider world won't want to play the sort of game you want to run, on all sorts of issues, far beyond rules stuff. You just have to be up front with what you want and up front if people don't provide it.

It looks on the surface like the problem of one-and-done for the low level casters have been fixed by PF. Does that seem to hold in your actual games too?

Yeah, low-level casters are way better (in the "more fun" sense, not as much on the "more powerful" sense).

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[gamerprinter]

Regarding casters vs. martial characters. Can any fighter feat or class feature compare to Wish ever? There will always be some level of disparity between martials and casters, because of the over-poweredness of spells.

Pathfinder, IMO, more closely achieved balance up to about level 12(ish), beyond that 6th level and higher spells will always overpower a martial ability. Consider that a given.

That said, I still prefer martial classes and half-casters over a full caster any game I play. And Pathfinder's power up on martials have improved some of the balance issues from before - at least enough for me to enjoy playing those classes, moreso than during 3x.

 

[Dandu]

Regarding casters vs. martial characters. Can any fighter feat or class feature compare to Wish ever?

From listening to the complaints on the interwebs, you'd think Figther's getting Pounce would do it.

 

[gamerprinter]

From listening to the complaints on the interwebs, you'd think Figther's getting Pounce would do it.

Nobody in my gaming group plays fighters anymore. A fighter will only ever be more powerful than rogues or monks, and sometimes not even then.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

From listening to the complaints on the interwebs, you'd think Figther's getting Pounce would do it.

Not unless it comes with flying, the ability to see invisible and loads of SR... for a round or two

 

[N'raac]

When I read comments like "every Barbarian needs a one level dip as a lame Oracle", I consider dipping to be a powergaming construct rather than a tool to construct interesting characters.

 

[dd.stevenson]

If you could handle 3.5, there's really not much in pathfinder that can faze you. There's some pretty powerful class abilities now for full casters, and several of the best spells in 3.5 are no longer so. The rogue is now much worse off in many ways.

Generally, if you play a rules-heavy game be aware of the numerous small, unannounced changes that pathfinder made from 3.5. Maybe look everything up the first time you use it, just to be sure.

Houserules--I ban summoners. No one plays a rogue or monk in my games so it's never come up, but I would probably take a look at allowing SA always (no flank necessary), and I would also consider allowing monks some form of movement in the same round that they flurry.

If you want pretty detailed breakdowns of how powerful each class can get, I recommend Harmor's Guide to the Guides.

 

[Dandu]

When I read comments like "every Barbarian needs a one level dip as a lame Oracle", I consider dipping to be a powergaming construct rather than a tool to construct interesting characters.

As you are about to find out, dipping can be used as a means of generating an interesting character, a powerful character, neither, or both.

 

[Empirate]

When I read comments like "every Barbarian needs a one level dip as a lame Oracle", I consider dipping to be a powergaming construct rather than a tool to construct interesting characters.

It's not as if you'll ever have three Barbarians with lame-cursed Oracle dips in your game. You'll have one at most. If the lame-cursed Oracle provides him with mechanical options he likes, and if the character's back story fits together, why should this kind of powergaming be frowned upon?

I recently built a Paladin tank and was really happy when I stumbled upon the Lore Oracle's Sidestep Secret revelation. Not only does it allow me to replace Dex with Cha to AC (reducing MAD by allowing me to dump Dex), which is a powerful and nice-to-have option in a tank.

The Lore mystery with its knowledge skills as class skills and the Focused Trance revelation (via Extra Revelation feat) also fitted my already established back story to a T. It's about a kid with celestial ancestors (Aasimar), who's received visions sent by Torm about fighting the good fight and defying evil his whole life, was revered in his home village as an all-knowing seer and arbiter even as a youngster, but finally decided to not only sit around having visions, but go out and do some good in the world himself.

And roleplaying Cha instead of Dex to AC? I can easily envision this guy moving slowly and deliberately, always with poise and seemingly all the time in the world, and showing such holy self-assurance and lack of fear that few enemies ever manage to follow through with an attack, shaken as they are by that majestic display.



The all-too-simple equation "powergaming = bad roleplaying" is known as the Stormwind Fallacy. And it's called a fallacy for good reason.

 

[S'mon]

The all-too-simple equation "powergaming = bad roleplaying" is known as the Stormwind Fallacy. And it's called a fallacy for good reason.

What I'm saying is that the GM needs to look at the dipper PC and judge whether it's a decent idea (yours seems to be) or a piece of munchkin drek. It could be either - if every PC has a one-level dip of Alchemist or Oracle, probably the latter, but a single PC with a particular dip tied to their backstory may be fine.

Thing is, the players who demand the 'right to dip' are the players who object vociferously to any GM oversight. And IME they are the munchkin players I don't want in my game. That a dip may not involve 'bad roleplaying' is irrelevant to arguments about whether the GM has the right to allow or deny dipping.