Should I get Pathfinder?

[Real Sorceror]

How many casters prepare primarily touch/close-range offensive spells without preparing Fly as well? And how many feats do they need to spend to get their ranged spells up to the same level as their favored close-range spells?

It would be odd for a Sorcerer/Wizard not to, but even a high level Cleric or Druid can legitimately fill up all their spell slots for the day without having a ranged attack or a means of reaching the opponent.

That aside, why is it a bad thing for Fighters to need ranged weapons? Weapons are sort of their thing. Taking their second Weapon Training in bows and grabbing one or two ranged feats seems fine.

I don't play Fighters myself, but I haven't heard anything but praise from my friends who do.

edit: On second thought, probably better not to derail the thread in a Fighter debate. I hear those can get pretty long.

Eh, if you compare PF only to 3.5 only, the balance is about the same. Wizards got some spell nerfs early on, but later it's basically the same list. The fighter's main mid-op tactics got nerfed, and their archetypes are nowhere near as good as 3.5's ACFs. Yes, that includes the one that lets you move and attack... at level 20.

The nice stuff comes in when you combine them. You get to taste the streamlining benefits - skills, combat maneuvers, no god damn 100 gp pearls and important spell slots just to figure out what your equipment might do if it's not especially cursed, agh. I hated that one. Hated DMs who banned artificer's monocle about as much. Where was I? Right, you get to have the little benefits and upgrades and keep the content in 3.5 that made things more interesting and fair for mundanes.

3.5 was getting so huge that my group stopped using it specifically to avoid bloat and unforseen powergaming options. Still, you're right. Paizo designed it specifically so that the rulesets are still compatible in most cases.