Does Pathfinder need full martials?
Well what else am I supposed to use as mooks in dungeons where the boss is a wizard?
I dunno, I think the typical party would notice a major change if all 0 HD monsters were adepts instead of warriors.Does Pathfinder need full martials?If by Pathfinder you mean a typical party it absolutely, unequivocally, does not.
This is exactly why I added the limiter to only the party composition. Rules for martial classes have their role in the game system as a whole, much like all the NPC classes. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, Barbarians and Paladins absolutely bring enough utility to the table to be worth considering over a 6th level caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does pathfinder need inquisitors? It's about options people like, not the sufficient conditions to complete an AP?Well part of this was actually to discuss AP design. Personally, I think it's pretty nice that there's not a "You must have this many full casters to advance" sign on things. I've ready through consul of thieves, serpent's skull, skull and shackles, carrion crown, and a few others, and they thankfully don't seem to need this level of power.
I'm not saying the concept of the wizard or other full casters needs to be taken out of the game, just that the level of narrative power they have is excessive for anything that's published. Trust me, I've had fun with a few of them, I just feel like design could be better suited steering away from making more (ACG was pretty decent about this), or focusing on their support.
Inquisitors and bards have always been two of my favorite classes, and recently I've been playing more third party classes that seem to fit in that power range. I have played in Wrath of the Righteous, Jade Regent, and Iron Gods, and I don't think we had any 9 level spellcasters in any of those games and things still went just fine.
I do not think you really need 9 level spellcasters to play through any AP, and sometimes I think they make the game less fun, but I also think it is usually more a combination of certain spells and the fact that there are really no restrictions on specializing that are the problem. If wizards and clerics were more tightly focused on having the spells they can pick line up with their specialty schools or domains and you removed some problem spells from the spell lists, I don't think they would be as problematic as they sometimes can be.
I'm not sure where you're intending to go with this question.
If you're asking whether you can have a party without full casters, the answer is yes. You may need to adjust the way it can handle things but it can be done. So if you as a GM want to remove them from your game, that's your lookout.
If you're asking if full casters should be removed form the ruleset, a change that drastic would cause Paizo to have the same kind of player revolt that WOTC did when it inaugurated 4th edition, so that's not going to happen.
I'm not sure where you're intending to go with this question.
If you're asking whether you can have a party without full casters, the answer is yes. You may need to adjust the way it can handle things but it can be done. So if you as a GM want to remove them from your game, that's your lookout.
If you're asking if full casters should be removed form the ruleset, a change that drastic would cause Paizo to have the same kind of player revolt that WOTC did when it inaugurated 4th edition, so that's not going to happen.
Would people still revolt if the wizard existed but was retooled to have the same level of power and versatility as a bard? For example, if a wizard worked more like an Ultimate Psionics psion and her specialty both limited her options and provided a very specific direction for her power, or if common spells like invisibility were retooled to add your caster level to your stealth check and let you be treated as having concealment if you start your turn unobserved. I think the most serious issues with full casters are not that they are full casters, but that the casting systems and options for full casters are so powerful and permissive. If you still had wizards and clerics but they were redesigned to line up better with Tier 3 classes, I think most people would be just fine with that, and many would actually appreciate the change.
Would people still revolt if the wizard existed but was retooled to have the same level of power and versatility as a bard? For example, if a wizard worked more like an Ultimate Psionics psion and her specialty both limited her options and provided a very specific direction for her power, or if common spells like invisibility were retooled to add your caster level to your stealth check and let you be treated as having concealment if you start your turn unobserved. I think the most serious issues with full casters are not that they are full casters, but that the casting systems and options for full casters are so powerful and permissive. If you still had wizards and clerics but they were redesigned to line up better with Tier 3 classes, I think most people would be just fine with that, and many would actually appreciate the change.I'm not sure where you're intending to go with this question.
If you're asking whether you can have a party without full casters, the answer is yes. You may need to adjust the way it can handle things but it can be done. So if you as a GM want to remove them from your game, that's your lookout.
If you're asking if full casters should be removed form the ruleset, a change that drastic would cause Paizo to have the same kind of player revolt that WOTC did when it inaugurated 4th edition, so that's not going to happen.
More than likely, yes. Because you're not just talking about wizards, you're talking clerics, druids, oracles,sorcerers, witches, psychics and probably some more I can't remember. There are a lot of players who LIKE having those full casters around even if they don't play them themselves. You don't want to play them... fine. You want to forbid them in your own games, that's also fine.
But taking them away from everyone else because you don't like them is a supremely drastic step that's going to take more convincing than it would to persuade Asmodeus to give up the Hell gig and try some angel wings instead.
Would people still revolt if the wizard existed but was retooled to have the same level of power and versatility as a bard? For example, if a wizard worked more like an Ultimate Psionics psion and her specialty both limited her options and provided a very specific direction for her power, or if common spells like invisibility were retooled to add your caster level to your stealth check and let you be treated as having concealment if you start your turn unobserved. I think the most serious issues with full casters are not that they are full casters, but that the casting systems and options for full casters are so powerful and permissive. If you still had wizards and clerics but they were redesigned to line up better with Tier 3 classes, I think most people would be just fine with that, and many would actually appreciate the change.I'm not sure where you're intending to go with this question.
If you're asking whether you can have a party without full casters, the answer is yes. You may need to adjust the way it can handle things but it can be done. So if you as a GM want to remove them from your game, that's your lookout.
If you're asking if full casters should be removed form the ruleset, a change that drastic would cause Paizo to have the same kind of player revolt that WOTC did when it inaugurated 4th edition, so that's not going to happen.
More than likely, yes. Because you're not just talking about wizards, you're talking clerics, druids, oracles,sorcerers, witches, psychics and probably some more I can't remember. There are a lot of players who LIKE having those full casters around even if they don't play them themselves. You don't want to play them... fine. You want to forbid them in your own games, that's also fine.
But taking them away from everyone else because you don't like them is a supremely drastic step that's going to take more convincing than it would to persuade Asmodeus to give up the Hell gig and...
I am not saying take them away, I am saying make them better balanced to the other classes by removing the most abusable options and making the classes have to focus more on a particular theme. Right now, I can play a transmuter wizard with the exact same set of prepared spells as an illusionist, or a cleric with the Chaos Domain who has all the same spells prepared as a cleric with the Death Domain. If schools and domains influenced the character more heavily, and if you trimmed out some of the worst most powerful spells, you could easily have clerics and wizards that are still full casters and still use Vancian magic, but which are closer to Tier 3 then Tier 1. For Oracles it could be Mysteries, Sorcerers Bloodlines, Witches Patrons, and so on for the other full casting options. The problem seems to be two parts, first that schools and domains and similar options are things you can tack on without actually informing the other facets of your build, and the second that some spells are simply more powerful than other spells, even of the same level. Both of those seem like things you could easily fix without actually taking away someone's toys or sacrificing a sacred cow.
I am not saying take them away, I am saying make them better balanced to the other classes by removing the most abusable options and making the classes have to focus more on a particular theme. Right now, I can play a transmuter wizard with the exact same set of prepared spells as an illusionist, or a cleric with the Chaos Domain who has all the same spells prepared as a cleric with the Death Domain. If schools and domains influenced the character more heavily, and if you trimmed out some of the worst most powerful spells, you could easily have clerics and wizards that are still full casters and still use Vancian magic, but which are closer to Tier 3 then Tier 1. For Oracles it could be Mysteries, Sorcerers Bloodlines, Witches Patrons, and so on for the other full casting options. The problem seems to be two parts, first that schools and domains and similar options are things you can tack on without actually informing the other facets of your build, and the second that some spells are simply more powerful than other spells, even of the same level. Both of those seem like things you could easily fix without actually taking away someone's toys or sacrificing a sacred cow.
I don't see a problem with transmuters packing the same spells as illusionists. Save of course that he can't. A specialist wizard has to use a spell from his specialized school in that extra slot per level. The same goes for clerics and domain using druids. So while they may have overlapping spell lists they can't have the exact same spell load. And I don't see a problem with the overlap. The role-players will bring roleplaying flavor to differentiate between various clerics/wizards and the non-roleplayers won't care to bother even if you forcibly changed their spell lists.
If you have problems with specific spells, you ban them. This is something you'll still face even with a new edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not saying take them away, I am saying make them better balanced to the other classes by removing the most abusable options and making the classes have to focus more on a particular theme. Right now, I can play a transmuter wizard with the exact same set of prepared spells as an illusionist, or a cleric with the Chaos Domain who has all the same spells prepared as a cleric with the Death Domain. If schools and domains influenced the character more heavily, and if you trimmed out some of the worst most powerful spells, you could easily have clerics and wizards that are still full casters and still use Vancian magic, but which are closer to Tier 3 then Tier 1. For Oracles it could be Mysteries, Sorcerers Bloodlines, Witches Patrons, and so on for the other full casting options. The problem seems to be two parts, first that schools and domains and similar options are things you can tack on without actually informing the other facets of your build, and the second that some spells are simply more powerful than other spells, even of the same level. Both of those seem like things you could easily fix without actually taking away someone's toys or sacrificing a sacred cow.I don't see a problem with transmuters packing the same spells as illusionists. Save of course that he can't. A specialist wizard has to use a spell from his specialized school in that extra slot per level. The same goes for clerics and domain using druids. So while they may have overlapping spell lists they can't have the exact same spell load. And I don't see a problem with the overlap. The role-players will bring roleplaying flavor to differentiate between various clerics/wizards and the non-roleplayers won't care to bother even if you forcibly changed their spell lists.
If you have problems with specific spells, you ban them. This is something you'll still face even with a new edition.
The problem is that everyone runs Divination because it has the best school powers but then just prepares spells like they're conjuration/transmutation. Opportunity costs from your choices as a Wizard are about as close to zero as they can be.
The problem is that everyone runs Divination because it has the best...I am not saying take them away, I am saying make them better balanced to the other classes by removing the most abusable options and making the classes have to focus more on a particular theme. Right now, I can play a transmuter wizard with the exact same set of prepared spells as an illusionist, or a cleric with the Chaos Domain who has all the same spells prepared as a cleric with the Death Domain. If schools and domains influenced the character more heavily, and if you trimmed out some of the worst most powerful spells, you could easily have clerics and wizards that are still full casters and still use Vancian magic, but which are closer to Tier 3 then Tier 1. For Oracles it could be Mysteries, Sorcerers Bloodlines, Witches Patrons, and so on for the other full casting options. The problem seems to be two parts, first that schools and domains and similar options are things you can tack on without actually informing the other facets of your build, and the second that some spells are simply more powerful than other spells, even of the same level. Both of those seem like things you could easily fix without actually taking away someone's toys or sacrificing a sacred cow.I don't see a problem with transmuters packing the same spells as illusionists. Save of course that he can't. A specialist wizard has to use a spell from his specialized school in that extra slot per level. The same goes for clerics and domain using druids. So while they may have overlapping spell lists they can't have the exact same spell load. And I don't see a problem with the overlap. The role-players will bring roleplaying flavor to differentiate between various clerics/wizards and the non-roleplayers won't care to bother even if you forcibly changed their spell lists.
If you have problems with specific spells, you ban them. This is something you'll still face even with a new edition.
Having seen people run conjurers, diviners, and the occasional generalist, I'd qualify the "everyone". I would wager there's a major difference between live world play and message board theorycraft.
The thing is... you either give players choice or you don't. When you give choices, it is practically impossible to make them equal to the third decimal place. There will be one that will have numerical advantage over the others, and the charoppers will post tons of material on how they use Mr. Advantage build. There's no getting away from that when you have choices.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone who knows what they're doing then. If a player shows up and says "I want to play a Wizard who dabbles in everything", you don't tell them to take the Universalist school; you tell them to take a specialization with good powers and prepare from everything anyways because picking a specialization doesn't actually force you to specialize.
On the other hand, if someone wants to focus on buffing through transmutation spells the Transmutation school doesn't make them meaningfully superior at doing that than any other Wizard. They still have the exact same buff spells available to them.
So... Wizards are not rewarded for generalizing, and they're not rewarded for specializing. They're just incredibly powerful from the word go and don't have to do anything special to get there. Considering the fact that this is a game where literally every other class (besides the Arcanist but meh) has to decide if you want to give up B to be better at A this is a problem.
Everyone who knows what they're doing then. If a player shows up and says "I want to play a Wizard who dabbles in everything", you don't tell them to take the Universalist school; you tell them to take a specialization with good powers and prepare from everything anyways because picking a specialization doesn't actually force you to specialize.
On the other hand, if someone wants to focus on buffing through transmutation spells the Transmutation school doesn't make them meaningfully superior at doing that than any other Wizard. They still have the exact same buff spells available to them.
So... Wizards are not rewarded for generalizing, and they're not rewarded for specializing. They're just incredibly powerful from the word go and don't have to do anything special to get there. Considering the fact that this is a game where literally every other class (besides the Arcanist but meh) has to decide if you want to give up B to be better at A this is a problem.
The specialist Transmuter will have more of them thanks to the specialization bonus. Or he'll have more of the polymorph attack spells if he's the kind of Transmuter who favors turning his enemies into livestock.
The player may choose feats and other items to make that specialization more powerful such as spell focus and greater spell focus. Or he might flavor in other ways... that's the point of being able to choose.
Some players will min-max. And those players will min-max within however tight a strait-jacket you are going to make.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone who knows what they're doing then. If a player shows up and says "I want to play a Wizard who dabbles in everything", you don't tell them to take the Universalist school; you tell them to take a specialization with good powers and prepare from everything anyways because picking a specialization doesn't actually force you to specialize.
On the other hand, if someone wants to focus on buffing through transmutation spells the Transmutation school doesn't make them meaningfully superior at doing that than any other Wizard. They still have the exact same buff spells available to them.
So... Wizards are not rewarded for generalizing, and they're not rewarded for specializing. They're just incredibly powerful from the word go and don't have to do anything special to get there. Considering the fact that this is a game where literally every other class (besides the Arcanist but meh) has to decide if you want to give up B to be better at A this is a problem.
I pretty much agree with this stuff. Wizards, clerics, and related classes have an abundance of spell choice and specialization actually requires very little specialization, with all the powerful options still on board. Enforcing/increasing specialization would still allow powerful spells, but decrease disparity. It would also help solve a constant criticism, that a well optimized wizard can trivialize the roles/utility of all other characters in a party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all this discussion on the subject, I wouldn't mind seeing an unchained version of those classes that tightened up the full-casters' focuses based on their themes (domains, schools, bloodlines, etc).
One possible (homebrew) way to enforce more actual specialization with wizards: Turn them into implement casters like the occultist (replacing Arcane Bond and Arcane School). Instead of school powers, they gain focus/implement powers. They can only learn/cast spells in the implement schools they have access to (this includes spell completion/trigger items without Use Magic Device); keep the spellbook and preparation, though, instead of restricting their spells known (other than by school).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all this discussion on the subject, I wouldn't mind seeing an unchained version of those classes that tightened up the full-casters' focuses based on their themes (domains, schools, bloodlines, etc).
Cleric could use an update in general. As powerful as it is, even levels that aren't 8 (or 6/10 in some domains) are boring as sin where nothing happens except HD, a few skill points, a CL, and maybe a BAB point or increase to saves. Even level 20 is boring with not a single capstone ability.
This is another reason I prefer spontaneous casting for full casters, they get feats on odd levels and spells on even levels. Sure level 2 is a drag sometimes but that's the only level where I'm ever not enthusiastic.
With all this discussion on the subject, I wouldn't mind seeing an unchained version of those classes that tightened up the full-casters' focuses based on their themes (domains, schools, bloodlines, etc).
Probably wouldnt use it , just like i dont use most unchained stuff , but i admit it would be interesting to see what exactly the devs would come up with.
Still , probably considering the cries for it , will be just a nerf.
|
With all this discussion on the subject, I wouldn't mind seeing an unchained version of those classes that tightened up the full-casters' focuses based on their themes (domains, schools, bloodlines, etc).Probably wouldnt use it , just like i dont use most unchained stuff , but i admit it would be interesting to see what exactly the devs would come up with.
Still , probably considering the cries for it , will be just a nerf.
You say that like it's a bad thing. It's amazing how casters aren't shackled to the same rules of specialty as martials. You don't have to know burning hands to learn fireball, hell you don't need any evocation spell to learn a new one, there's no progression like there is for martials. I'd be interested to see what the devs could come up with too, although that doesn't mean I won't make my own attempts at it.
With all this discussion on the subject, I wouldn't mind seeing an unchained version of those classes that tightened up the full-casters' focuses based on their themes (domains, schools, bloodlines, etc).
Thassilonian Specialist is already a thing. It's essentially Second Edition specialization updated to Pathfinder. I really don't think that you need a more severe straitjacket than that.
You say that like it's a bad thing. It's amazing how casters aren't shackled to the same rules of specialty as martials. You don't have to know burning hands to learn fireball, hell you don't need any evocation spell to learn a new one, there's no progression like there is for martials. I'd be interested to see what the devs could come up with too, although that doesn't mean I won't make my own attempts at it.With all this discussion on the subject, I wouldn't mind seeing an unchained version of those classes that tightened up the full-casters' focuses based on their themes (domains, schools, bloodlines, etc).Probably wouldnt use it , just like i dont use most unchained stuff , but i admit it would be interesting to see what exactly the devs would come up with.
Still , probably considering the cries for it , will be just a nerf.
*shrugs*
People are free ofc to play anyway they want and there is clearly many who wish for such a nerf , with that said , i find direct nerfs ridiculous , so it wont ever reach my games if that is all they do to these classes , even more because i would never forbid a player from just getting the base one over an unchained version.
The good part about the unchained stuff is that they are all a diferent set of systems , so for those that want said changes , they are there , for those who dont , it is easy to just ignore any part or even the whole book.
Seeing a dev solution to all "martial/caster disparity" crowd probably would be good.
|
|
*shrugs*
People are free ofc to play anyway they want and there is clearly many who wish for such a nerf , with that said , i find direct nerfs ridiculous , so it wont ever reach my games if that is all they do to these classes , even more because i would never forbid a player from just getting the base one over an unchained version.
The good part about the unchained stuff is that they are all a diferent set of systems , so for those that want said changes , they are there , for those who dont , it is easy to just ignore any part or even the whole book.
Seeing a dev solution to all "martial/caster disparity" crowd probably would be good.
That's a fair opinion, I mean I'm not in love with all the unchained stuff, but I can appreciate why it exist. I'd like to see a chained spellcasting system just to see what the Devs can do, but it doesn't mean I won't also search out 3P options.
As long as unchained doesn't 'errata' them in PFS like they did to the summoner, I'm aces for everyone playing however they want.
*shrugs*
People are free ofc to play anyway they want and there is clearly many who wish for such a nerf , with that said , i find direct nerfs ridiculous , so it wont ever reach my games if that is all they do to these classes , even more because i would never forbid a player from just getting the base one over an unchained version.
The good part about the unchained stuff is that they are all a diferent set of systems , so for those that want said changes , they are there , for those who dont , it is easy to just ignore any part or even the whole book.
Seeing a dev solution to all "martial/caster disparity" crowd probably would be good.
That's a fair opinion, I mean I'm not in love with all the unchained stuff, but I can appreciate why it exist. I'd like to see a chained spellcasting system just to see what the Devs can do, but it doesn't mean I won't also search out 3P options.
As long as unchained doesn't 'errata' them in PFS like they did to the summoner, I'm aces for everyone playing however they want.
Fair enough , i only check few 3pp , but i heard good things about some of the solutions they came up with for those that need them , spheres of power i believe it was? Seems many like the ideas they present there.
Having options is what makes pathfinder great so i find the unchained idea to fit right in , people can then decide what to do with it.
Overall i do find what they did to the summoner quite silly , but then again , isnt like i have any plans of playing in PFS :P.
I was going to write this whole thing, asking what the full casters who will now not be full casters might get as compensation, since they're effectively losing access to what makes them worth playing into the higher levels, but then I remembered this is all really just hypothetical and doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Since I don't play PFS, even if this were made the "new rule" I'd still just use the old classes unless there were something truly fun and interesting that replaced their 7-9th level spells.
Still, I say buff the martial, not nerf the caster. Which seems like something paizo occasionally tends to go against. Buffing martials I mean. Crane wing getting shattered, feats that sometimes require far less useful feats to even enter, lack of real interesting power and cool stuff at high levels (some form of flight via leaping, feats of massive strength, make them naturally more resistant to magics, give them abilities to potentially disrupt magic (barbarians get a bit of this) etc...).
As it stands, unless I've got a real reason to, I don't think I'd ever really be interested in making a full, "mundane" (i.e. no magic whatsoever) martial, save for one class. Funnily enough, that's actually the monk, and that's only because of the awesome archetypes they have available. I guess for me, most mundane martials are more for dipping than anything.
Fighters do have a nontrivial advantage over the martials like Ranger/Paladin/Slayer... going full speed with heavy armor once they hit 7th.
Fighters do have a nontrivial advantage over the martials like Ranger/Paladin/Slayer... going full speed with heavy armor once they hit 7th.
That sounds more impressive than it actually is once characters are able to afford mithral armors, or get movement types that aren't hampered by armor, or get large enough bonuses to their speed than an extra 10 feet isn't really relevant.
Fighters do have a nontrivial advantage over the martials like Ranger/Paladin/Slayer... going full speed with heavy armor once they hit 7th.That sounds more impressive than it actually is once characters are able to afford mithral armors, or get movement types that aren't hampered by armor, or get large enough bonuses to their speed than an extra 10 feet isn't really relevant.
Keeping full speed with mithral armor still restricts you to breastplate or less. Mithral Plate means you're still using effective medium armor.
|
|
Keeping full speed with mithral armor still restricts you to breastplate or less. Mithral Plate means you're still using effective medium armor.Fighters do have a nontrivial advantage over the martials like Ranger/Paladin/Slayer... going full speed with heavy armor once they hit 7th.That sounds more impressive than it actually is once characters are able to afford mithral armors, or get movement types that aren't hampered by armor, or get large enough bonuses to their speed than an extra 10 feet isn't really relevant.
We have a pretty large difference in what we would consider a 10 foot bonus to land speed at 7th level 'non-trivial.'
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it needs full casters, it also needs a series of classes like 3.X's beguiler and dread necromancer for each of the schools of magic that only go to level 6 castings so that people who hate full casters can replace them in their personal campaigns. Warpriest and hunter do fine for cleric and druid replacements.
Keeping full speed with mithral armor still restricts you to breastplate or less. Mithral Plate means you're still using effective medium armor.Fighters do have a nontrivial advantage over the martials like Ranger/Paladin/Slayer... going full speed with heavy armor once they hit 7th.That sounds more impressive than it actually is once characters are able to afford mithral armors, or get movement types that aren't hampered by armor, or get large enough bonuses to their speed than an extra 10 feet isn't really relevant.
The Slayer and Ranger aren't wearing heavy armor anyways, Combat Styles require medium armor or less. It is kind of an advantage over Paladins, who have to spend a resource to get the superior movement speed (casting Effortless Armor does it).
My best example of what a high level 3.x fighter actually looks like is Guts from berserk. But he dips into barbar after the golden age arch.
Everyone is pretty sure he shouldn't be alive. He shouldn't be winning his fights. But he does anyways because he is vastly overleveled and his ability to hit things with a sword is far above any other metric of his character.
My best example of what a high level 3.x fighter actually looks like is Guts from berserk. But he dips into barbar after the golden age arch.
Everyone is pretty sure he shouldn't be alive. He shouldn't be winning his fights. But he does anyways because he is vastly overleveled and his ability to hit things with a sword is far above any other metric of his character.
That pretty much defines the heroic storytelling style in visual media. Most of your enemies are swarms of mooks that you put down in one hit until you get to the boss fight.
Personally, if I could ban 7-9th spells in every game I'm in I'll be elated. I HATE Wish, Miracle and Resurrection. Create Demiplane is just ridiculous. So far I've loved the power lever provided by the 6th level caster. Enough spell power evenly spaced to make a noticeable difference and none of that "I bend the cosmos because I feel like it" BS.
@Josh-o-Lantern: Just ban every spell that occupies more than half a page in the rule book. ;-)
@Josh-o-Lantern: Just ban every spell that occupies more than half a page in the rule book. ;-)
Im gonna guess he cant at all , because he isnt the GM of every game he is in and the other player/GM probably arent going to welcome a player making the call :P.
In mine i would think he lost his mind hahaha.
I was going to write this whole thing, asking what the full casters who will now not be full casters might get as compensation, since they're effectively losing access to what makes them worth playing into the higher levels, but then I remembered this is all really just hypothetical and doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Since I don't play PFS, even if this were made the "new rule" I'd still just use the old classes unless there were something truly fun and interesting that replaced their 7-9th level spells.
Still, I say buff the martial, not nerf the caster. Which seems like something paizo occasionally tends to go against. Buffing martials I mean. Crane wing getting shattered, feats that sometimes require far less useful feats to even enter, lack of real interesting power and cool stuff at high levels (some form of flight via leaping, feats of massive strength, make them naturally more resistant to magics, give them abilities to potentially disrupt magic (barbarians get a bit of this) etc...).
As it stands, unless I've got a real reason to, I don't think I'd ever really be interested in making a full, "mundane" (i.e. no magic whatsoever) martial, save for one class. Funnily enough, that's actually the monk, and that's only because of the awesome archetypes they have available. I guess for me, most mundane martials are more for dipping than anything.
Realistically outside of house rules I don't see Pathfinder ever straight reducing 9 levels of spell casting to 6 levels for all the 9 casters. If they did I imagine that they would get more class features or some way to access the higher level spells. I don't think the solution to the Wizard is just straight out chopping off 7-9th level casting and calling it a day. Realistically you would some degree of class redesign and alteration of spells.
Still, I say buff the martial, not nerf the caster. Which seems like something paizo occasionally tends to go against. Buffing martials I mean. Crane wing getting shattered, feats that sometimes require far less useful feats to even enter, lack of real interesting power and cool stuff at high levels (some form of flight via leaping, feats of massive strength, make them naturally more resistant to magics, give them abilities to potentially disrupt magic (barbarians get a bit of this) etc...).As it stands, unless I've got a real reason to, I don't think I'd ever really be interested in making a full, "mundane" (i.e. no magic whatsoever) martial, save for one class. Funnily enough, that's actually the monk, and that's only because of the awesome archetypes they have available. I guess for me, most mundane martials are more for dipping than anything.
I think most people agree that the Fighter and similarly ranked classes need buffing. I don't think the solution is just straight out nerfing of 9th level casters. Rather your lowest tier should be brought up a level, and your highest tier brought down. I don't personally think it's good design practice to use the most powerful class as the balancing point. Tier 3 should be the target.
