Ok, someone in another thread said:
Pretty much every time I see someone talk about pathfinder, and every time I play it, I find that pretty much every martial class lags behind spellcasters.
Can somebody please, for the love of [insert favored deity here] explain this to me and my group? We played 3.5e for about two years, and gave PF a shot as well (another 8 months or so; we still try it every now and then), and only ONE of us (group of about 9 total) stands by the "spellcasters = win" idea. He's attempted to 'proove' it to us, but ever time he tries he's using "perfect, single situations" to do it...never being able to back it up when we toss in normal, every-day campaigning situations at him.
So, using ONLY THE CORE RULES (we don't use any of the other, er, 'stuff'), does the "spellcasters = win" thing still stand? How?
Every time we played 3.x/PF, spellcasters either were average with everyone else or just outright *sucked* compared to a martial-based character. The only thing I can conclude is that our "1e AD&D Style" of play is some sort of natural "power balancer".
PS: We also don't use a grid; we just use that thing called an imagination, and sometimes a blank sheet of paper with dots and whatnot to indicate approximate overview of a particularly detailed battle...if that makes any difference.
[EDIT: I just thought of something; I actually do think it's our 1e AD&D style that 'fixes' it. We use the campaign world to dictate what rules we use....we don't use the rules to dictate what the campaign world is. For example: A town on the front line between two warring lords...the [u]rules[/u] say it should have 3d4 Minor and 1d6 Medium magic items available...but "campaign common sense" would dictate that should be reduced to pretty much 0 and 0, as all magic is likely to have been bought/used. That's just one example, but it applies to pretty much everything in our campaign; if it doesn't make sense, we ignore it...even if the RAW says otherwise. Maybe this is significant enough a factor? }
Paul L. Ming