Not Sure If I Should Keep Playing Pathfinder

[Allistar]

I really don't know what else to say. Within my limited play experience, pathfinder has been neat. There seems to be a lot more options than 5e, but I don't think that makes up for the clear imbalance within the magic system. Our wizard ruined it for me, and now I don't think I'm going to play in another campaign.

So with that being said, where should I go, and what system should I play? 5e is more basic than lye, but it's fun because it lets me RP and lose myelf in a character rather than worry about 100 different systems. Pathfinder is complecated, but I like that it gives me options, and has multiple axis of interaction (If I want to do something, odds are there's a feat for that). What kind of system can I go to that has a middle ground between the two.

Before you say it, I'm aware that pathfinder 2e is a thing, but I haven't looked into it yet. I've heard that it is attempting to be that middle ground, but I've also heard that they have fallen pretty flat. Maybe I just need to go in and figure it out for myself, but what are yall's oppinions on the system?

If all else fails, I'll probably just homebrew the hell out of 5e, but I don't think that's going to be a valid solution seeing as how I actually want to be a player and not a forever DM.

I dunno, what to yall think.

[Manyasone]

If magic ruined it for you, I am probably not wrong in assuming it has to do with vancian casting style.
"every problem has a spell to solve it"
Maybe try some of the third party magic replacement systems like spheres of power. It limits your casters but remained quite fun and balances

[Firechanter]

3E (including PF) is a great game, but it has issues. The biggest problem with it is not even the mundane/magic imbalance per se, but that it seems to attract a particular type of players who seem to regard it a personal challenge to break the system and undermine any house rules intended to prevent the breaking of the system.

That said maybe you'd like to look at Legend D20, an almost complete rewrite based on OGL. Mundanes are more powerful and casters are nerfed, and it's super robust. And it's a lot of fun building characters. ^^
It has its own problems though, I won't deny that. But maybe you like it.

[StSword]

I would also recommend trying a pathfinder game that doesn't use vancian magic, such as by replacing them with the spheres of power system or the like (http://lonelygm.blogspot.com/2011/03/more-sword-sorcery-for-pathfinder.html), and also point out that there is third party material to boost the powers of martials such as Path of War, spheres of might, and books of martial action.

But if you don't feel like going to the trouble of finding such a game, well, I've checked out Legend and it certainly seemed cool to me, there's also the Radiance RPG, another d20 variant.

Radiance seems designed specifically to be more balanced- spells are class features so martials and casters have the same number of options as they level, spells are cast from hit points so while fighter types tank at the front lines casters take damage from working their mojo, and all classes have the same BAB rate and use their prime modifier as a bonus (so while fighter types muscle their way through combat, rogue types finesse their through, scholars think their way through combat, etc). It's also more technologically advanced, so adventuring in power armor is very much a possibility, so adventurers aren't quite so reliant on magic.

Or maybe a Warriors and Warlocks game, the Mutants and Masterminds fantasy game? Being a point based d20 system, the warrior types can also be capable of superhuman feats, and you could have a W&W game where there is no actual spellcasters, but only ritual casters, or only has magic objects, or both.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well there are other RPG to play that you should try. You just have to find the right game for you. I wish you the best of luck. :smile:

[137beth]

Try Pathfinder with Spheres of Power (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/129448/Spheres-of-Power?src=hottest_filtered), Spheres of Might (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/223758/Spheres-of-Might?src=hottest_filtered), Path of War (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/135308/Path-of-War?term=path+of+war), and Strange Magic (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/149011/Strange-Magic--Ethermagic-Composition-and-Truemagic?src=hottest_filtered) instead of Paizo's classes.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Firechanter
The biggest problem with it is not even the mundane/magic imbalance per se, but that it seems to attract a particular type of players who seem to regard it a personal challenge to break the system and undermine any house rules intended to prevent the breaking of the system.

I’ve played 3.5 and PF for fifteen years combined, and I've never run across a player like this. I wouldn’t doubt it if you’ve encountered them in your games, but I don’t think it’s fair to claim that the 3.PF system somehow inherently attracts gamebreakers.

Most of the players I’ve gamed with have been very low-op by Playground standards, and they’re in the game to have fun, with RP and/or hack, within the system and without a thought for breaking it.


Originally Posted by Allistar
Within my limited play experience, pathfinder has been neat.... Our wizard ruined it for me....

How exactly did the wizard ruin it for you?

If at all possible, I would suggest trying to find another Pathfinder game. It sounds like you have some appreciation for the system itself, and your previous experience may have just been with a gaming group that didn't gel for you. Try another table, if you can, before you bail from the system entirely.

.

[False God]

Try 4e. I'm sure you'll never find a table for it but I love it, and I want other people to love it. It's a lot more balanced (if somewhat samey).

Also: don't play with game-breaking wiz-jerks. I've been in your shoes man, best way to deal with that was to find a table with people who were willing to play lower-power classes, or less-powerful wizards.

[RifleAvenger]

Are you stuck on playing a D&D variant or imitator? Because there are a lot of point-buy systems out there that offer a lot of customization, but don't stick the heavy end of power in a particular "class."

If you're ok playing narrativist games, those usually have a bigger focus on emulating narrative conventions and creating a group story, often with built in safety valves to help prevent one person from taking over the show (because they're trying to simulate drama, not a world sim or a problem solving exercise). Some of the older players on the block are even relatively crunch heavy: World of Darkness, Chronicles of Darkness, Shadowrun, and Exalted (certain editions of this are CAPTAIN crunch). There many more, including generic/setting agnostic options and games that are lighter on the rules. They have their own issues (anything White Wolf is really dependent on good GM planning, improv, and adjudication to turn into a good experience - I cannot think of a single tolerable module for their games) and negative player stereotypes though. (Also if you don't want to play with "I can do anything" uber wizards, don't play something along the lines of Mage the Awakening).

FATE is a point buy system that's relatively crunch light - its character creation and rules might be more nebulous than you're looking for, and I've never played it, but I've been told it's easy to learn and I've heard a lot of good things about. It's truly generic too, so it doesn't come with the inbuilt setting baggage of D&D, Pathfinder, or many of the games I mentioned in the narrativist paragraph.

Also, you may wind up with the same issue as homebrewing 5e, where the only way to ensure you get a game is to run one.

-------------------------------------------
If you DO want to keep giving Pathfinder a try, make sure any groups you join have a session 0. Express your dislike for high powered casters (I don't know what your particular issue was, so be specific with the group). Walk if the group won't abide by that, or alternatively see if you can give a higher power level a spin. It is possibly to have very mighty characters and still have a solid role-play experience, though the GM has to be experienced, thoughtful, or clever enough to design or run a world where such characters still have stakes to play for.

I don't think there's anything directly between 3.5/Pathfinder and 5e that isn't "I kitbashed 3e and 5e rules together into the form I liked best," and that's something you can only really ensure as GM.

If you chiefly want balance between the group in a tactical setting, the recommendation of 4e above is a decent one IF you can find a group. It's not good for social RP or non-crawl/non-combat RP in general, but no edition of D&D is particularly great at those things and 4e is passable in this regard (and ANY TTRPG can decide to just toss ill-fitting social mechanics to the curb and just operate based on free-form RP and GM adjudication during social scenes/encounters).

[Firechanter]

The other day I've been toying around and drafted a PF Wizard just for kicks. The kind of power these guys command by mid level is simply obscene.

Spheres and various other alternative rule systems may be great, but it's a lot of effort to get familiar with them.
So I've dug out an old concept -- as a quick and easy (If somewhat dirty) fix, why not just cut down all full casters to roughly Bard progression. Say max spell level is 7, unlocked at caster level 19. Haven't tried it yet, but I think if I were to run a game I'd feel a lot more comfortable with that.

[martixy]

What exactly about the magic system turned you off?

[noob]

I really don't know what else to say. Within my limited play experience, pathfinder has been neat. There seems to be a lot more options than 5e, but I don't think that makes up for the clear imbalance within the magic system. Our wizard ruined it for me, and now I don't think I'm going to play in another campaign.

So with that being said, where should I go, and what system should I play? 5e is more basic than lye, but it's fun because it lets me RP and lose myelf in a character rather than worry about 100 different systems. Pathfinder is complecated, but I like that it gives me options, and has multiple axis of interaction (If I want to do something, odds are there's a feat for that). What kind of system can I go to that has a middle ground between the two.

Before you say it, I'm aware that pathfinder 2e is a thing, but I haven't looked into it yet. I've heard that it is attempting to be that middle ground, but I've also heard that they have fallen pretty flat. Maybe I just need to go in and figure it out for myself, but what are yall's oppinions on the system?

If all else fails, I'll probably just homebrew the hell out of 5e, but I don't think that's going to be a valid solution seeing as how I actually want to be a player and not a forever DM.

I dunno, what to yall think.

You might try dnd in mutants and masterminds.(grodthegiant have an article about that)
Although you should definitively avoid the use of ritual caster, artificer, variable and its variants because they are source of the same problem as vancian spell-casting.

[Elricaltovilla]

If you want to really break away from the D20 system, you could try Fantasy Flight Games' Genesys RPG system. I have not played that one specifically, but I have played its precursor Star Wars system and I found that very fun.

Or if you want something heavily focused on tactics, the Iron Kingdoms RPG has a very cool setting (at least I think so), and a pretty mechanically solid base system. It's based on a miniature wargame though, so it is very focused on combat and positioning.

[Kurald Galain]

I really don't know what else to say. Within my limited play experience, pathfinder has been neat. There seems to be a lot more options than 5e, but I don't think that makes up for the clear imbalance within the magic system. Our wizard ruined it for me, and now I don't think I'm going to play in another campaign.
There's a lot of information missing in this post, such as: what level were you playing at, and for how long, and what was the party composition, and was this a homebrew compaign or adventure path or what else, and what did the wizard do that ruined it. And also, regarding "where should you go", do you have a group, or potential players, or play-by-post, or what?


So in my experience,
(1) If one player ruins a game that's the fault of the player and not the system: don't play with jerks.
(2) Pathfinder is reasonably (but by no means perfectly) balanced at levels 1 through 10, and these are also the levels most people play at.
(3) There are a handful of known combos that should probably be banned if a player is abusing them.

[Ken Murikumo]

Try an E6 game

[noob]

Try an E6 game
E6 does not solves any issues that arise during the six first levels.
At no point the thread creator specified that the caster gave trouble only after sixth level.

[Ken Murikumo]

E6 does not solves any issues that arise during the six first levels.
At no point the thread creator specified that the caster gave trouble only after sixth level.

I disagree, as E6 is widely regarded as being a good way to dramatically reduce the disparity between Magic and Martial. It puts them on near even ground barring cheese and other shenanigans.

[Allistar]

There's a lot of information missing in this post, such as: what level were you playing at, and for how long, and what was the party composition, and was this a homebrew compaign or adventure path or what else, and what did the wizard do that ruined it. And also, regarding "where should you go", do you have a group, or potential players, or play-by-post, or what?
...................
(3) There are a handful of known combos that should probably be banned if a player is abusing them.


We were level 7 and had been playing for roughly two months in the DM's homebrew world. The party was a rogue who's focusing on skills, a paladin who's focusing on AC, (me) a Shifter/Barbarian who's focusing on natural attacks, and the tiefling evocation wizard.

Put very basically, the wizard was powergaming hard. Not sure what all he did to get an AC of 22 at level 1 (no spells needed), but on top of that he took school focus evocation, spell specialization, and a lot of metamagic feats. This meant that he could walk in, cast fireball (intensified if he feels like it), kill everything, and still have 7 more (2 of which could be intensified) in the chamber. Because he was an Adamixture Wiz, he doesn't have to deal with resistances because he can just change the element. This made combat a foregone conclusion, but even outside of combat because he had such a high int he was able to dump skill ranks into whatever he needed to. Put basically, he invalidated combat for everyone else at the table, and had enough skill ranks that non-combat encounters were also completely dominated by him.

Last but not least, I don't think I can physically go anywhere. They are the only group in my area. I was meaning, what system should I go to/ what system is a middle ground between RP/Flavor and Mechanical Complexity

As for these broken combos that should be banned what all do they include? This player has an entire level plan, that ends up with him casting a maximized, intensified, empowered, Fire Snake spell. Again, not sure exactly how, but between perfected spell and mythic (which the DM says is coming at some point) mean he can deal 350 damage 28 times per day as a 20 square AOE that grapples the opponent and deals sustained damage.

[noob]

I disagree, as E6 is widely regarded as being a good way to dramatically reduce the disparity between Magic and Martial. It puts them on near even ground barring cheese and other shenanigans.

And you did not read my argument.
E6 is identical to regular dnd during the first 6 levels.
So if the problem is here during the first six levels it is not fixed.
It is what I explained in my previous post but you did not understood so I repeat myself.
Please read my posts before replying.

As you could see in the post from the thread creator right above the wizard was problematic far before level 7.

[RifleAvenger]

We were level 7 and had been playing for roughly two months in the DM's homebrew world. The party was a rogue who's focusing on skills, a paladin who's focusing on AC, (me) a Shifter/Barbarian who's focusing on natural attacks, and the tiefling evocation wizard.

Put very basically, the wizard was powergaming hard. Not sure what all he did to get an AC of 22 at level 1 (no spells needed), but on top of that he took school focus evocation, spell specialization, and a lot of metamagic feats. This meant that he could walk in, cast fireball (intensified if he feels like it), kill everything, and still have 7 more (2 of which could be intensified) in the chamber. Because he was an Adamixture Wiz, he doesn't have to deal with resistances because he can just change the element. This made combat a foregone conclusion, but even outside of combat because he had such a high int he was able to dump skill ranks into whatever he needed to. Put basically, he invalidated combat for everyone else at the table, and had enough skill ranks that non-combat encounters were also completely dominated by him.

Last but not least, I don't think I can physically go anywhere. They are the only group in my area. I was meaning, what system should I go to/ what system is a middle ground between RP/Flavor and Mechanical Complexity

As for these broken combos that should be banned what all do they include? This player has an entire level plan, that ends up with him casting a maximized, intensified, empowered, Fire Snake spell. Again, not sure exactly how, but between perfected spell and mythic (which the DM says is coming at some point) mean he can deal 350 damage 28 times per day as a 20 square AOE that grapples the opponent and deals sustained damage.
As someone who has played a lot of wizards in Pathfinder, on the one hand I kinda feel like the GM is partly to blame. As nuts as that fireball may seem, unless they had some way of adding more flat damage or more dice you didn't specify, 7d6+3 fire is just 27.5 damage to each opponent on average assuming they fail their saves (reasonable assumption at this level and with the wizard boosting save DC). This is the same as fireball in 5e, albeit usable many more times per day. If by Intensify (which does nothing for Fireball at 7th level) you meant Empower, then that's 10d6+3 fire damage, 38 average, which is a chunk but shouldn't be encounter ending against CR appropriate encounters.

Combat-wise, the melee characters should be able to do a LOT more. I had an encounter in a past game I GM'd where the frontliners forgot to guard the backliners, and a pouncing anti-caster NPC barbarian charged into the backrow, insta-killed one character with part of a full attack for over 150 damage in two attacks, and badly hurt the other with their remaining attack. In a new game where I'm a player, the Samurai's player thought they could just risk an Attack of Opportunity from a NPC Barbarian. The attack crit for 56 damage for an instant kill on the already wounded samurai, and the barbarian NPCs in question did ~25 damage per swing normally. We were level 5, the barbarians must have been level 4 from my back-calculations (we were playing on roll 20 and GM rolled publicly, so I could see the end to hit and to damage modifiers). In terms of raw combat strength, especially DPR, casters are actually somewhat inferior to other classes unless you really build for it like your evoker co-player was.

I understand that other people were likely new, and only the wizard was going for any optimization, but either the GM needed to take them aside and explain the system mastery + tier gap is too wide or the GM needed to make encounters that a mere 27.5 damage to each opponent won't wipe out.

It's what casters can do OUTSIDE of combat, or to turn a combat on its head, that really make them overpowering in Pathfinder. My arcanist, in the game with the samurai: has many out of combat utility spells that change how the GM has to design adventures; is never without divinations to gather information from a safe location, given time; has nearly every knowledge skill in addition to Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Perception; shut down several encounters just through Grease, Web, Silent Image, etc; has minutes/level summoning via archetype for combat or out of combat. Misha the arcanist has literally only cast two Snowballs (the only directly damaging spell in my spellbook), thrown acid flasks, and shot a crossbow in terms of non-summon direct damage yet is still likely the most powerful party member. And he's only level 5.

I'm not trying to admonish you on not knowing how to equal the Wizard in DPR, to be clear. Rather, if a build that many would consider to be wasting the wizard's potential (blaster) has been ruining your fun? Run way away from Pathfinder, FAST.

NOTE: As a below poster includes, I left out some likely blaster inclusions in my damage calculations (CL increases, mostly). Still, w/o an empower it still isn't particularly stunning DPR. That said, I suspect the blaster has empower - Intensify doesn't make sense as a feat choice for fireball yet, and a Metamagic -1 trait on fireball would enable the 4th level slots to be Empowered as the OP describes the metamagic feat being used. 50 DPR per target on AoE is pretty good for recommended monster CR, but not being made to withstand APL appropriate DPR is a reason why many GM's increase enemy HP.

[icefractal]

This sounds more like a "high op PC in a low op game" problem than caster supremacy, but well, that's also something you run into in Pathfinder.

There are basically three approaches:
1) Find a low-op group.
2) Learn to optimize and do it yourself.
3) Play a different system where it's less of a factor.

Was the other player a jerk? Insufficient info to say. He very well might be, but if he's new to the group or the group is new to PF, he may just be used to a higher power level. At some tables, those capabilities would be normal and expected for L7.

[Firechanter]

I'd have a lot of questions about this particular Wizard build. Honestly I have no idea how to get AC22 at level 1 _before_ spells. Secondly, I feel it's in the realm of possibility that this player didn't apply all the rules correctly (maybe accidentally, because he read what he wanted to read), and the DM didn't notice either.

Then again, I feel Blasting is underrated, especially on these boards. With Spell Specialization and Intense Spell, at level 7 a Fireball does 9d6+3 for an average of 34.5; if Empowered (Rod?) it's more like 50 damage per casting. So yeah, if you do that _twice_ you are inflicting up to 100 damage to everyone in the area, possibly before the enemy even gets to act (if you get Surprise Round + Initiative). That will clear away pretty much anything a party has to expect at level 7.

--

Actually reminds me of my last 3.5 game (Red Hand of Doom, as it happens). We were aware of Caster Supremacy and everyone agreed to nerf their spellcasting if they were playing a full caster. So we had a Dwarven Runesmith-Wizard (who sacrificed 2 Wizard levels), some Shaundakul Cleric-Ranger who also was down 2 CL, yours truly playing a Warblade, and we had a Factotum, everything fine and dandy. Then around level 7 one player decides he's not happy with his Factotum, and swaps his character for a full Psion / Kineticist. From that point on, everyone else had a hard time getting any useful action in. I felt my Warblade had been demoted to a decorative ribbon. The Psion just kept focussing and focussing and never ran out of PP. And basically all he did was Blasting, and Dampening enemy AoEs. And when we approached him with our grievances that he was dominating and we had nothing to do anymore, he just said "I don't see it that way" and kept doing it. The DM at that point said he was tired of haggling with him what he could and couldn't do, and just granted him free reign.
My comment was "Gee, I wish I had specialized in a Polearm, then I could at least lean on it while watching the Psion soloing the campaign."

So long story short -- do not underestimate Blasting.

[Allistar]

I'd have a lot of questions about this particular Wizard build. Honestly I have no idea how to get AC22 at level 1 _before_ spells. Secondly, I feel it's in the realm of possibility that this player didn't apply all the rules correctly (maybe accidentally, because he read what he wanted to read), and the DM didn't notice either.

Then again, I feel Blasting is underrated, especially on these boards. With Spell Specialization and Intense Spell, at level 7 a Fireball does 9d6+3 for an average of 34.5; if Empowered (Rod?) it's more like 50 damage per casting. So yeah, if you do that _twice_ you are inflicting up to 100 damage to everyone in the area, possibly before the enemy even gets to act (if you get Surprise Round + Initiative). That will clear away pretty much anything a party has to expect at level 7.

I'll have to check what feats he has and what should not be stacking, and maybe that just makes him more of a glass cannon than before, but the biggest thing is his fireball damage. These are similar numbers to what we're seeing, but because I didn't think I would need to be the table's cop I don't know everything that he took, and as a result I don't really have much to go off of but what the DM and the player have told me in the sessions before all this.

[RifleAvenger]

I'll have to check what feats he has and what should not be stacking, and maybe that just makes him more of a glass cannon than before, but the biggest thing is his fireball damage. These are similar numbers to what we're seeing, but because I didn't think I would need to be the table's cop I don't know everything that he took, and as a result I don't really have much to go off of but what the DM and the player have told me in the sessions before all this.

There's nothing fishy about the damage, though the AC is certainly off. Pretty much any Damage Dealer in the party with no other role to fill in combat can/should be doing that sort of damage by 7th level in a mid to high optimization Pathfinder, at least to single target. So I would agree that this is potentially more a "high-op at a low-op table" problem, though caster does get the AoE benefit, better mobility, and doesn't care about DR.

Again, the truly scary thing you need to consider if you want to play Pathfinder again is that everyone (mundane melee included) can hypothetically do this degree of damage at the level you're playing at and that spellcasters can break games in a lot worse than being damage machines. That's part of the trade-off of having a lot of meaningful build choices in a system: you will have some hideously strong builds surrounded by a lot of fluffy, but weak, options.

[Allistar]

This sounds more like a "high op PC in a low op game" problem than caster supremacy, but well, that's also something you run into in Pathfinder..

I wouldn't say that the whole party was poorly optimized in comparison (although the rogue was going for skills instead of combat feats, and the cleric rolled poorly for stats and wasn't allowed a mulligan). The Paladin has 29 AC, and I have 5 primary natural attacks that are all benefiting from an Amulet of Mighty Fists (shock) and a couple feats (which are being applied to all of them because weapon champion). The paladin was the tank and I was supposed to be the striker, but then the wizard strolled in and proceed to explode the next 5 rooms.

I think the problem that I have with it wasn't so much that he solo killed everything for those 5 rooms, it's that his build plan is going to make that happen more often. Not only that, but by virtue of being a wizard he still gets access to the out of combat insa win spells. Like I said, if he gets mythic and goes through with the rest of the build, he gets to do all of this with Mythic Fire Snake, he gets to do it nearly 30 times per day, and if he truly needs something he still has access to all the other 8th or 9th level spells. Why have a paladin when you could just summon something that is infinitely better for the job. Why have a barbarian when you can just explode everyone within the first round. Why have a rogue when you can just cast a divination spell or use any of your other spells to completely skip a dungeon. Why have a bard when you can just own a social situation with enchantments. And that leaves me with a question of why play this game if this is the way that magic ends up working out for everyone.

[Darg]

At least the person didn't choose to be an diviner instead. That would have been harder to deal with in my opinion. If the Wizard is wiping out groups of enemies with a fireball or 2 for all encounters, your DM isn't designing these encounters with fireball wielding mages in mind. The wizard can maybe send out 7 fireballs a day. Have the party go longer without rest, spread out the enemies, make a room with an anti-magic zone, give the enemies magic resist, give some enemies evasion, set up flanked encounters, etc. It's ok if the wizard shines on occasion, but if they are shining all the time all it takes is some tiny challenges to make them think again about only using damage spells like a readied archer that want's to disturb concentration on that mass murdering maniacal wizard.

As for that 22 AC, it is ok to check the math on that one. It would be one thing if they had Arcane Armor training and sacrificing their swift action to cast in a mithral chain shirt +3 with the Armor Focus feat and 18 dex. 22 is a little high without spells to back it up.

Edit:


And that leaves me with a question of why play this game if this is the way that magic ends up working out for everyone.

It isn't how it ends up for everyone. Your situation is unfortunate, but it can still be worked around. Try talking to the DM and try to brain storm alternative scenarios that can reduce the efficiency of the wizard's damage spells and just mix them in randomly.

[Kurald Galain]

Put very basically, the wizard was powergaming hard.
There we go.

First, the guy is likely using two traits (Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage) that are arguably overpowered; and banning those will help in mitigating this, and other metamagic (ab)use.

Second, he appears to be flat-out cheating. A level-1 wizard with no spells should have around AC 14 (1 from armor, 2 from dex, 1 natural maybe?). And a wizard should nowhere near have enough skill points to out-skill a rogue. He has, what, int 20 by level 7? That means 7 skill points per level, and not a whole lot of class skills.

And well, a decent rogue or barbarian should outdamage a fireball-wizard. Rather, the issue appears to be that the DM is using (1) low-level enemies, (2) that conveniently stand close enough to fireball, and (3) that don't have spell resistance.

By the way, Spell Perfection (and his combo) is level fifteen, so I wouldn't worry about that for now. At those levels, characters can do worse than that, and that includes barbarians (e.g. a pounce + full attack deals more reliable damage than a souped-up Fireball).

[Allistar]

At least the person didn't choose to be an diviner instead. That would have been harder to deal with in my opinion. If the Wizard is wiping out groups of enemies with a fireball or 2 for all encounters, your DM isn't designing these encounters with fireball wielding mages in mind. The wizard can maybe send out 7 fireballs a day. Have the party go longer without rest, spread out the enemies, make a room with an anti-magic zone, give the enemies magic resist, give some enemies evasion, set up flanked encounters, etc. It's ok if the wizard shines on occasion, but if they are shining all the time all it takes is some tiny challenges to make them think again about only using damage spells like a readied archer that want's to disturb concentration on that mass murdering maniacal wizard.

I don't think it's that simple. Each of these have downsides for the party as a whole. "Going longer without a rest" seems fine, but that means the paladin and cleric have to conserve their healing; leading to situations where the entire party is low and gets taken out by an AOE, or situations where the cleric literally has nothing to do because he built the entire character around healing and nothing else. "Spread them out" seems fine, but If they're so spread out melee builds will get 1 attack when they either pull out a javelin and take a penalty because ranged, or spend their entire movement to make 1 melee attack (then we enter into 5e/boring territory where you do one thing and call it a turn). "Antimagic Field" Well that would be fine, except for the fact that it completely shuts down our cleric; removes 7 AC from our Paladin in addition to lowering his saves and all of our ability scores; and gets rid of 3 of my attacks.

Just to be clear I recognize they work as solutions, but keep in mind that it changes things for everyone. I'm aware that not every situation can be optimal for everyone, but in a majority of these situations the line of play is exactly that, a line with one unengaging option.

As for magic not working like this every time..... In what way? In what way does magic not dominate the higher levels. In what way can the fighter or the barbarian stay competitive when almost any magic user (sorcerer, cleric, druid, bard) can do their own variation of the same thing. Sure they probably have to take a slightly different route, but they end up in the same spot.... completely invalidating the game.

[Allistar]

There we go.

First, the guy is likely using two traits (Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage) that are arguably overpowered; and banning those will help in mitigating this, and other metamagic (ab)use.

Second, he appears to be flat-out cheating. A level-1 wizard with no spells should have around AC 14 (1 from armor, 2 from dex, 1 natural maybe?). And a wizard should nowhere near have enough skill points to out-skill a rogue. He has, what, int 20 by level 7? That means 7 skill points per level, and not a whole lot of class skills.

And well, a decent rogue or barbarian should outdamage a fireball-wizard. Rather, the issue appears to be that the DM is using (1) low-level enemies, (2) that conveniently stand close enough to fireball, and (3) that don't have spell resistance.

By the way, Spell Perfection (and his combo) is level fifteen, so I wouldn't worry about that for now. At those levels, characters can do worse than that, and that includes barbarians (e.g. a pounce + full attack deals more reliable damage than a souped-up Fireball).

Nope, just finished talking to him. I had misremebered his AC at level 1 being without spells. That has since become his normal AC from magic items. AC is 10, +2 from amor of the pit, +3 from his armor (enchanted haramaki, and silk cerimonial robes), +1 from ring of protection, +1 from dodge, +2 from enchanted mithral buckler, +3 from dex =total AC of 22 which he can still add shield to

On the topic of skill points, this is probably on our rogue but he has a -1 int mod. That means he is on the same level as the rogue for skills. Sure he dosn't have a lot of class skills that are relevant, but the fact that he can just dump skill ranks into the untrained ones means that he could keep pretty good pace with the rogue. I should also mention he hasn't gotten himself a headband of Int yet, so this isn't even his final form.

As for a barbarian doing more damage. Yes I am doing more damage on average to ONE target IF I can get a full round attack with my natural weapons AND hit with each of them. His damage is AoE so it dosn't matter if I can destroy 1 person in melee if he explodes the other 20. That to me kinda summerizes the issue I'm having here. I can still do things, but they mean absolutely nothing in comparison to what he does, and the gap will continue to grow. I don't even have skills to fall back on, so why keep showing up.

And yes, I am aware that his combo is level 15. That donsn't change the fact that I'm already becoming useless, and that I will continue to be useless in future. If the game is already unfulfilling to me, nothing I do matters, and this player is running the show, why should I keep playing. If it's already bad and will only continue to get worse as the game goes on..... you get the point.

[Aotrs Commander]

I don't think it's that simple. Each of these have downsides for the party as a whole. "Going longer without a rest" seems fine, but that means the paladin and cleric have to conserve their healing; leading to situations where the entire party is low and gets taken out by an AOE, or situations where the cleric literally has nothing to do because he built the entire character around healing and nothing else.

If the wizard just killed several encounters by himself, then the rest of you shouldn't have used any resources. So you can go clear the next umpteen rooms while the wizard's player twiddles his thumbs because he's out of spells. You have to do the fifteen minute adventuring day when the PARTY is out of resources, not when one character is; he's had his fun in one big wad, the price is he has to now let the rest of you have yours.




"Spread them out" seems fine, but If they're so spread out melee builds will get 1 attack when they either pull out a javelin and take a penalty because ranged, or spend their entire movement to make 1 melee attack (then we enter into 5e/boring territory where you do one thing and call it a turn). "Antimagic Field" Well that would be fine, except for the fact that it completely shuts down our cleric; removes 7 AC from our Paladin in addition to lowering his saves and all of our ability scores; and gets rid of 3 of my attacks.

I mean... Yeah, unless the enemy consists of nothing ever but melee fighters you should be actually having to move between opponents at some point.

(Nothing but melee enemies that cluster on you makes them fodder for any area-effect spell; never mind Fireball, Grease, Colour Spray, Entangle are all good at crowd control even from first level in that sort of instance Black Tentacles (or at 9th level, something really nasty like Black Tentacles + Cloudkill in an enclosed space where the cloud can't move away), also known as "the party stops for a cup of tea until the screaming stops").)

Also, unless the wizard is getting first go (and I find that hard to believe he found a way to maximise his initative AND super-optimise fireball (at this low a level) AND dominate at skills) every single time somehow, either the monsters should have moved into contact with you guys, our you'll have moved into contact with the enemy within the first round so the wizard can't Fireball everything without hitting you...

(And if the player is the sort of player who will Fireball you guys because he wants to solo the encounter even if you (and/or the DM) say "like, don't be an asshat, dude, please" out of character, that's probably your biggest problem.)



Sounds to me a combination of:

1) wizard player using optimisation based on the most dubious of spammables, metamagic reducers (if it wasn't for that being mentioned, I would honestly have a very hard time believing FIREBALL would be breaking the game) and the DM not saying "uh, no."

2) the DM not preparing appropriate encounters having allowed that (e.g. larger spaces (with unclustered enemies, or smaller spaces with enemies that can close to the party quciky enough to put area-effect into the friendly fire territory), straight up more enemies, wave attacks, some enemies immune to fire or with Evasion etc.

As soon as the enemy starts getting Large, you shouldn't usually find tight enough confines to catch everything in the radius if one spell - unless later PF adventure paths are really, really cramped or something (the early one's certainly aren't) or the GM's running his own modules (in which case, it falls back on him for making encounters the wizard can easily spam). Of, if the problem is that all the enemies are closing to the party but there's enough space to drop Fireballs behind the party without hitting you, there need to be encounters in rooms that are smaller than 20'R. (If there's only, like four of you, that'd be plenty do-able.




(although the rogue was going for skills instead of combat feats


On the topic of skill points, this is probably on our rogue but he has a -1 int mod.

Ah, that's... That's pretty much under-optimisation. A rogue focusing on skills should have, like, Int as his second-highest stat. As they say, you either make an army that suits your national policies, you you make your national policies suit your army. If you have a low-Int rogue, you kinda shouldn't be trying to focus on the skill monkey side? At least you should be focussed on a few class skills to be really good at (party face, maybe?), which you shouldn't be out done by by a cross-class character should have stats so much better than you they can be better at it.

Again, though, I have to question how the wizard is getting that many skills to the point he's better at everyone else at everything. I mean, he shouldn't be getting more than, like, what, 8+1 if human skills per level, considering he's only starting from 2+Int. I mean, I'm not endlessly fluant with PF, but given his feats seem and traits appear to have all gone towards Fireball optimisation, I'm having a hard time grocking how he can get his Int above 22, 24 outside...

Granted if he's absolutely spent everything on getting a +4 headband and thus having 10 skills/level and the rogue actively dumped intelligence, then yes, your wizard might be a broader skill monkey than the rogue, but unless he has lots of better stats the the rogue, he shouldn't be dominating...?

That said, it sounds like the DM used rolled stats, which will ABSOLUTELY encourage exactly this kind of disparity.



It sounds like the DM has basically set up the optimum environment for this wizard, to be honest. There's a great deal to DM could do to migtate this (I mean, I'd start myself by laughing the metamagic reducers right out of the room, or at the very least by not letting them stack on the same spell), but apparently isn't, which is odd, because you'd have thought after the first time the wizard trivialised an encounter, he'd have done something.

[Firechanter]

Well, in my experience, the problem is that most things that inconvenience a Wizard will often all but shut down everyone else. As has been said above -- if the enemies are spaced far apart for Fireball not to work, Martials can't engage them effectively in melee. Individual energy resistances don't work against an Admixture Evoker. Antimagic shafts mundanes just as hard as casters. And so on.

The two metamagic-reducing traits are certainly a problem, especially if stacked. But keep in mind that a Lesser Rod of Empower costs a measly 9000GP (if not self-crafted) and allows you to cast 3 Empowered Fireballs without any traits at all or, in fact, the Empower feat.

Compared to that, I would not consider my Paladin unoptimized, but at level 7 I swung 100DPR maybe for one encounter a day, with massive support from our Bard (Haste, Good Hope, IC). [Granted, level 7 is not a good spot for Pallies; gets much better at 8th.]

@Allistar: are you playing an Adventure Path or a custom campaign?

P.S.: What annoys me about Pathfinder is that it has pretty much removed the few downsides Wizards used to have in 3.5 -- mostly low HP and banned schools. As I like to point out, PAIZO stands for Play A wIZard Olready.

[Allistar]

If the wizard just killed several encounters by himself, then the rest of you shouldn't have used any resources. So you can go clear the next umpteen rooms while the wizard's player twiddles his thumbs because he's out of spells. You have to do the fifteen minute adventuring day when the PARTY is out of resources, not when one character is; he's had his fun in one big wad, the price is he has to now let the rest of you have yours.

I mean, he gets cantrips and flaming sphere, and other blast spells to remain competitive after he's used his fireball strat (or to space out his fireballs, when an encounter doesn't call for them). He's less obnoxious at that point, but the fact that he destroys most combats on his own means that we're usually done with our objective by the time he uses all 8 of his nukes. If we're in a dungeon type environment (like we have been for the last couple sessions) his job becomes a lot easier seeing rooms can be mostly filled with a 40 ft diameter sphere. This has basically meant that we get to clear the first floor (maybe floor and a half) and once we get to the bottom layer, he proceeds to solo everything.


I mean... Yeah, unless the enemy consists of nothing ever but melee fighters you should be actually having to move between opponents at some point.

(Nothing but melee enemies that cluster on you makes them fodder for any area-effect spell; never mind Fireball, Grease, Colour Spray, Entangle are all good at crowd control even from first level in that sort of instance Black Tentacles (or at 9th level, something really nasty like Black Tentacles + Cloudkill in an enclosed space where the cloud can't move away), also known as "the party stops for a cup of tea until the screaming stops").)

Also, unless the wizard is getting first go (and I find that hard to believe he found a way to maximise his initative AND super-optimise fireball (at this low a level) AND dominate at skills) every single time somehow, either the monsters should have moved into contact with you guys, our you'll have moved into contact with the enemy within the first round so the wizard can't Fireball everything without hitting you...

(And if the player is the sort of player who will Fireball you guys because he wants to solo the encounter even if you (and/or the DM) say "like, don't be an asshat, dude, please" out of character, that's probably your biggest problem.)

The point I was trying to emphasize here wasn't that we had to close with the enemy or that they don't group up enough, it was that having them spaced out like that means we basically get 1 attack per round. This means that combats that he doesn't nuke are actively boring for us. The process is as follows. Walk forward. Hit them once. Did they die? If yes then repeat for the next enemy within sight. If no, then hit them a few times. If still alive then repeat previous step.

I guess that's melee in a nutshell, but I just don't find that loop fun (in this edition at least). in 5e you aren't penalized if you want to try something different for a few combats or spice up gameplay from time to time.


Ah, that's... That's pretty much under-optimisation. A rogue focusing on skills should have, like, Int as his second-highest stat. As they say, you either make an army that suits your national policies, you you make your national policies suit your army. If you have a low-Int rogue, you kinda shouldn't be trying to focus on the skill monkey side? At least you should be focussed on a few class skills to be really good at (party face, maybe?), which you shouldn't be out done by by a cross-class character should have stats so much better than you they can be better at it.

To specify he went for the "True Expert" archetype which I think is just a trap, and he ended up using his sense motive for several other skills (those are the skill feats I was talking about). The plan was to eventually get a feat that added his sense motive to his AC (there was a time limit, but I can't remember what it was), but at this point it ends up being pretty useless. That's why he's working with the DM to change the build, or retire the character. The build is unoptimized, that's what I was saying when I mentioned him and the cleric and them being un optimized.


That said, it sounds like the DM used rolled stats, which will ABSOLUTELY encourage exactly this kind of disparity.

Exactly what we did, and exactly what happened. Some characters just got poor stats, meanwhile the wizard got the god roll.



@Allistar: are you playing an Adventure Path or a custom campaign?

P.S.: What annoys me about Pathfinder is that it has pretty much removed the few downsides Wizards used to have in 3.5 -- mostly low HP and banned schools. As I like to point out, PAIZO stands for Play A wIZard Olready.

Homebrew, and it seems to have gone downhill pretty hard. There used to be a semblance of a story and RP, but within the last 2 sessions, those aspects have kinda just disappeared from the game entirely. Probably has to do with a combination of the wizard, a semi railroaded plot, and everyone just kinda running out of ideas.

[Aotrs Commander]

The point I was trying to emphasize here wasn't that we had to close with the enemy or that they don't group up enough, it was that having them spaced out like that means we basically get 1 attack per round. This means that combats that he doesn't nuke are actively boring for us. The process is as follows. Walk forward. Hit them once. Did they die? If yes then repeat for the next enemy within sight. If no, then hit them a few times. If still alive then repeat previous step.

I guess that's melee in a nutshell, but I just don't find that loop fun (in this edition at least). in 5e you aren't penalized if you want to try something different for a few combats or spice up gameplay from time to time.

Uh, yeah, that's... Basically what basic melee is, which is about "close, then Full Attack until dead." Heck, ranged is not really any different, except you replace is with "Full Attack until dead." From the sounds of it, you picked shifter, a class that apparently Paizo screwed up so badly they had to offer an official apology (one assumes you are using the most updated version? Not that one suspects it has may have helped it much, from the apparently minimal errata in said apology) and from the sounds of it, one that replies on having lots of weapon attacks, so, uh, yeah. With feats, various classes and certain builds, you can find ways to get full attack on movement (typically on a charge - do you not have pounce yet?) or by teleporting items, replace some of those attacks with combat maneouvres and there's stuff like barbarian rage powers or monk ki powers and stuff, but fundementally, yes, noncasting combat boils down to "move to position to get full attack."

The solution to not wanting to full attack all the time is, as you, say, either stop playing pathfinder and any and all 3.x derivatives; failing that drastic step, get the DM to let you use something like the Path of War (I mean, it's on the PFSRD site, so...) which then gives you maneouvers (or, at a push Tome of Battle from 3.5 which was that's version of it) and then you get maneouvers, which contain a lot of Standard actions, so your action economy becomes more like the wizard's, as maneuvores are basically not-spells, but they refresh every combat and once expended, you can do things do get them back in combat as well).




Exactly what we did, and exactly what happened. Some characters just got poor stats, meanwhile the wizard got the god roll.

Yeah, that'll do it on the non-combat front. What you are describing sounds like the pretty much the perfect storm of bad, worst-case scenario stuff. One uber-optimised character whose player has better system mastery than the DM and who got the best stat rolls and is apparently revelling in being better than everyone else (and "winning D&D" verses the DM), compounded by an otherwise generally un-optimised party stymied by worse stat rolls and a DM who doesn't apparently want to fix the situation either in or out of character, especially bad considering its all homebrew so he's making it all up anyway.



I gave up on rolled stats a good decade or so ago, after all the effort of rolling stats, and then occasinaly re-rolling stats (or in one case in Rolemaster, re-generating a character entirely because their stats were so far behind) and generally being annoying. Since then, we've used a straight point-for-point (and extremely generous) point-buy system, which can't make the Single Attribute Dependant characters worse, but makes the MAD characters much better.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, the main point that you're missing (and that several people have pointed out) is that the GM should diversify his encounters so that they can't all be won with Fireball.

In terms of damage, cantrips and Flaming Sphere suck hard, so of those are still upstaging your party then you have bigger issues.

[ngilop]

I am not a GiTPer, so take my advice and throw it away because what I am going tot ell you is in direct opposition to what GiTP will advise you.

Stop crying, there's no crying in pathfinder.


SO, some player Optimized his character well above the ability of the DM and the rest of the players and instead of saying "there is this guy who is being a jerk" you actually get mad at the system, blame the system, and complain about the system?

Man, I would not want to play let alone associate with you if that is how you go about life.

Just because you had 1 bad example of a player who are going to get all 'triggered' I think is the term kids use these days. and get mad at the gaming system you use instead of looking at the direct.


this is seriously a in person OUT OF CHARACTER discussion you need to have with the whole group.
playing spheres or PoW, or whatever else GiTP is telling you is not going to fix any issue with the system BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS NOT THE ISSUE it is a sole player. change the system and that same player is going to do the same thing.


again you problem is not Pathfinder its the player.


if you want a totally balanced game play 4TH edition.


failing that have a serious talk with the group, (that includes all the players, yourself, and the DM) and explain how his optimizing is ruining it for everybody else. I have no idea why you even think that a non-sentient OR sapient set of rules for running a game is to blame for anything, but then again I am not you and most likely I ma a couple generations older than youa nd we just think differently.


Im my over 30 years of playing RPGs, I have had more issues with Gitp 'advice' for players (typically younger) than I ever had with players doing such on their own.

I know it is such a foreign and horrific idea nowadays in society. but having an honest and open discussion on the subject will help you tremendously.

[RatElemental]

Could still get around admixture by having enemies with different resistances to each other.

"You come upon a hoard of skeletons, who all turn in unison towards you. Each one of their eyes glow with a malevolent light, and no two are the same color."

"Alright, I go first. FIREBALL!"

"Your fireball hisses against the bones of the skeletons, charring some and a scant few collapse. The majority are entirely unharmed."

"Uhhhh, Fireball, but with cold damage then!"

"Rime sticks to the bones of many of the skeletons, but again only a handful fall to the cold."

[RNightstalker]

I really don't know what else to say. Within my limited play experience, pathfinder has been neat. There seems to be a lot more options than 5e, but I don't think that makes up for the clear imbalance within the magic system. Our wizard ruined it for me, and now I don't think I'm going to play in another campaign.

So with that being said, where should I go, and what system should I play? 5e is more basic than lye, but it's fun because it lets me RP and lose myelf in a character rather than worry about 100 different systems. Pathfinder is complecated, but I like that it gives me options, and has multiple axis of interaction (If I want to do something, odds are there's a feat for that). What kind of system can I go to that has a middle ground between the two.

Before you say it, I'm aware that pathfinder 2e is a thing, but I haven't looked into it yet. I've heard that it is attempting to be that middle ground, but I've also heard that they have fallen pretty flat. Maybe I just need to go in and figure it out for myself, but what are yall's oppinions on the system?

If all else fails, I'll probably just homebrew the hell out of 5e, but I don't think that's going to be a valid solution seeing as how I actually want to be a player and not a forever DM.

I dunno, what to yall think.

Don't let one bad apple ruin the bunch. If you know what kind of game you want to play, you may need to search more to find the right fit, but it should be worth it.