sorry that youre playing a shit system that isnt balanced, maybe try pathfinder 2e made by unionized paizo (the union is led by socialists) which doesnt have this problem at all? 🧐
Isn't Pathfinder really bad about caster supremacy? I always heard that there's no point in trying to play a martial character at higher levels because "cast save-or-die targeting enemy's weakest save" is basically an "I win" button.
pf2e is probably the only system in the genre where martials like fighters are unmistakably strong and perhaps even purposefully slightly overtuned. people complain about spellcasters not being able to solo encounters all the time on the forums lol. but pf2e has extremely tight math and even a spellcaster will be useful but they wont solo the whole encounter like in pf1e, dnd 3.5, or dnd 5e.
in general, the paradigm is:
martials: strong versus single targets, higher leveled enemies, have a little utility
spellcasters: strong versus many targets (3+ enemies hit by a single spell usually to be considered strong) but has a lot of utility. generally doesnt do good damage if you arent hitting enemies with big aoes or layered persistent damage (re: catching a dude on fire, breaking his brain, conjuring a swarm of mosquitoes, and chucking boiling acid on him as quickly as possible). not the best if some super leveled big bad is fighting you solo, thats when you gotta lean into utility and buffing hard
martials have a way better progression on being able to hit things. so if you wanna be a badass that kills a dragon with your fists, pf2e actually makes it viable rather than making you feel like shit in comparison to a spellcaster. martials also are able to do a lot more things than 'i swing my sword'. you can swing your sword, suplex a bitch, and hit them more with increased chances to crit for example
should be noted that im an extreme munchkin and minmaxer and havent found a way to definitively break the system yet despite being obsessed with finding a way to break it. even my most 'OP' builds are well within the math set out by the system and require a lot of teamwork to function. its very well designed
Pathfinder 1e, 100%. Build to be compatible with 3.5, it has the same 'linear fighter, quadric wizard' stuff, though its base martials are probably a little stronger than 3.5's, though that's not saying much.
Pf2e, in my experience, is the best dnd-like system I've played for caster-vs-martial balance, improving on 5e, where casters and martials were almost balanced in combat, but caster had a bit boost out of combat. In PF2e, all else being equal, a martial will usually be better in combat than a caster. Does mean that 5e players coming into the game will probably have some feelsbad about how 'little' damage their blaster is doing, but IMO casters do way to much damage in 5e for how much other shit they can pull on top of that. Though they make up for it their lower damage by giving good buffs and debuffs, and by dealing more AOE and diverse energy types, to take advantage of the more common damage weaknesses and resistances.
They also, of course, have more out of combat utility, though even there, martials have a big leg up compared to 5e. Rituals can be performed by anyone with the right skills, and some important stuff, like raise dead, are rituals, so anyone with training in religion can do it, magic or no. Similarly, skills are far more powerful. Out of combat, the medicine skill heals people right up (with the right skill feats), making healing magic only useful in combat, or to break curses and stuff.
I also in general really like their 'save or suck' spells. The real suck effects only happen on enemies crit failing their save, which is rolling 10 below the DC, and rarely happens. But there's still good debuffs applied on fail, and small or 1 round only debuffs that get applied on a successful save (similar to 5e's 'half damage on successful save' effects). It makes save-or-suck spells way less binary, as unless the enemy critically succeeds, they'll still get some damage or debuff on them, but also to really just negate an enemy the way 5e's 'hold monster' can, they usually need to roll like a 1.
ive played a gunslinger out of playtest and it is basically just ranged fighter. i didnt consider it op, especially when you throw 3-4 monsters at a party a spellcaster will shine more.
i think the math is honestly absurdly tight. sure, gunslinger and fighter will crit 10% more on average, ramped up if you true strike, but there are other things other people can do that are just as useful even without crits
and i havent had issues with the game falling apart at high levels at all. it isnt 5e. maybe you arent scaling encounters right?
one with a player character that was basically entirely unhittable, and the other where the gm had to ramp up well above what we were “supposed” to be fighting because even un-optimised, we were smashing the opposition into the ground in a turn or two
i think your dm just doesnt know how to use the monsters or read the stat blocks or maybe isnt playing rules as written. our paladin with huge shield focus gets hit regularly and has to keep pulling out shields as she gets swarmed by enemies who go for flanks and trips and knockdowns on her. if your dm is playing it like 5e where you walk up and you say 'swing sword' theyre doing it wrong. almost all of our fights we barely get out alive despite knowing the system well and i feel like it adds to the experience. like we're actually nervous to fight so we dont go murderhobo everything and selectively choose our quests.
like on average, a paladin might have 2-4 ac over what your average fighter will have. that shouldnt equate to 'unhittable'. that should equate to 10-20% less hittable
a lot of creatures have a precise sense other than sight which negates hidden from sight. you can also drop hidden to concealed or observed for a lot of things with a single action seek check. true strike negates it completely as a single action. these are things that are accessible at the first level and the dm should absolutely be using them against invisible players
sorry that youre playing a shit system that isnt balanced, maybe try pathfinder 2e made by unionized paizo (the union is led by socialists) which doesnt have this problem at all? 🧐
Isn't Pathfinder really bad about caster supremacy? I always heard that there's no point in trying to play a martial character at higher levels because "cast save-or-die targeting enemy's weakest save" is basically an "I win" button.
pf2e is probably the only system in the genre where martials like fighters are unmistakably strong and perhaps even purposefully slightly overtuned. people complain about spellcasters not being able to solo encounters all the time on the forums lol. but pf2e has extremely tight math and even a spellcaster will be useful but they wont solo the whole encounter like in pf1e, dnd 3.5, or dnd 5e.
in general, the paradigm is:
martials: strong versus single targets, higher leveled enemies, have a little utility
spellcasters: strong versus many targets (3+ enemies hit by a single spell usually to be considered strong) but has a lot of utility. generally doesnt do good damage if you arent hitting enemies with big aoes or layered persistent damage (re: catching a dude on fire, breaking his brain, conjuring a swarm of mosquitoes, and chucking boiling acid on him as quickly as possible). not the best if some super leveled big bad is fighting you solo, thats when you gotta lean into utility and buffing hard
martials have a way better progression on being able to hit things. so if you wanna be a badass that kills a dragon with your fists, pf2e actually makes it viable rather than making you feel like shit in comparison to a spellcaster. martials also are able to do a lot more things than 'i swing my sword'. you can swing your sword, suplex a bitch, and hit them more with increased chances to crit for example
should be noted that im an extreme munchkin and minmaxer and havent found a way to definitively break the system yet despite being obsessed with finding a way to break it. even my most 'OP' builds are well within the math set out by the system and require a lot of teamwork to function. its very well designed
unions get the goods
deleted by creator
Pathfinder 1e, 100%. Build to be compatible with 3.5, it has the same 'linear fighter, quadric wizard' stuff, though its base martials are probably a little stronger than 3.5's, though that's not saying much.
Pf2e, in my experience, is the best dnd-like system I've played for caster-vs-martial balance, improving on 5e, where casters and martials were almost balanced in combat, but caster had a bit boost out of combat. In PF2e, all else being equal, a martial will usually be better in combat than a caster. Does mean that 5e players coming into the game will probably have some feelsbad about how 'little' damage their blaster is doing, but IMO casters do way to much damage in 5e for how much other shit they can pull on top of that. Though they make up for it their lower damage by giving good buffs and debuffs, and by dealing more AOE and diverse energy types, to take advantage of the more common damage weaknesses and resistances.
They also, of course, have more out of combat utility, though even there, martials have a big leg up compared to 5e. Rituals can be performed by anyone with the right skills, and some important stuff, like raise dead, are rituals, so anyone with training in religion can do it, magic or no. Similarly, skills are far more powerful. Out of combat, the medicine skill heals people right up (with the right skill feats), making healing magic only useful in combat, or to break curses and stuff.
I also in general really like their 'save or suck' spells. The real suck effects only happen on enemies crit failing their save, which is rolling 10 below the DC, and rarely happens. But there's still good debuffs applied on fail, and small or 1 round only debuffs that get applied on a successful save (similar to 5e's 'half damage on successful save' effects). It makes save-or-suck spells way less binary, as unless the enemy critically succeeds, they'll still get some damage or debuff on them, but also to really just negate an enemy the way 5e's 'hold monster' can, they usually need to roll like a 1.
Wow, I hadn't played Pathfinder since 1e. Had no idea so much had changed.
pf2e is pretty revolutionary for the whole genre. very balanced and very tight math
Yeah, PF2e is closer to a blend of DnD 4e and 5e, mechanically, than PF1e.
deleted by creator
idk the biggest abuse is just playing a fighter with true strike or something which means youll crit a lot. thats it
deleted by creator
ive played a gunslinger out of playtest and it is basically just ranged fighter. i didnt consider it op, especially when you throw 3-4 monsters at a party a spellcaster will shine more.
i think the math is honestly absurdly tight. sure, gunslinger and fighter will crit 10% more on average, ramped up if you true strike, but there are other things other people can do that are just as useful even without crits
and i havent had issues with the game falling apart at high levels at all. it isnt 5e. maybe you arent scaling encounters right?
deleted by creator
i think your dm just doesnt know how to use the monsters or read the stat blocks or maybe isnt playing rules as written. our paladin with huge shield focus gets hit regularly and has to keep pulling out shields as she gets swarmed by enemies who go for flanks and trips and knockdowns on her. if your dm is playing it like 5e where you walk up and you say 'swing sword' theyre doing it wrong. almost all of our fights we barely get out alive despite knowing the system well and i feel like it adds to the experience. like we're actually nervous to fight so we dont go murderhobo everything and selectively choose our quests.
like on average, a paladin might have 2-4 ac over what your average fighter will have. that shouldnt equate to 'unhittable'. that should equate to 10-20% less hittable
deleted by creator
a lot of creatures have a precise sense other than sight which negates hidden from sight. you can also drop hidden to concealed or observed for a lot of things with a single action seek check. true strike negates it completely as a single action. these are things that are accessible at the first level and the dm should absolutely be using them against invisible players