And low level spellcasters still suck,
They really don't, and haven't for a few editions.
And low level spellcasters still suck,They really don't, and haven't for a few editions.
PF especially helps them with low level school/bloodline/domain abilities and at will cantrips. Not powerful, but at low levels, does more than enough to contribute.
The issues that do remain are low AC and lower HP (but not as low as before), but I think that's alright.
Nope. That trope always gets trotted out, and people who have seen casters played well know it's not true.
IYE, but not IME. I killed the 15-Minute Adventuring Day quite a while ago. In my games, the "problem" diminished significantly.
Nope. That trope always gets trotted out, and people who have seen casters played well know it's not true.IYE, but not IME. I killed the 15-Minute Adventuring Day quite a while ago. In my games, the "problem" diminished significantly.
What is IYE and IME?
IYE, but not IME. I killed the 15-Minute Adventuring Day quite a while ago. In my games, the "problem" diminished significantly.
I humbly suggest that if your players are (mechanically) good, you'll see it come back as they adjust. (If it doesn't, they either aren't mechanically all that, which is fine if you're all having fun with it, or you're heavily stacking the deck in some other way, possibly without realizing it.)
I mean, how are the fighters not running out of hit points? Apply those same answers to running out of spells and you have the most basic of spell conservation strategies.
What is IYE and IME?Nope. That trope always gets trotted out, and people who have seen casters played well know it's not true.IYE, but not IME. I killed the 15-Minute Adventuring Day quite a while ago. In my games, the "problem" diminished significantly.
At a wild guess, "In Your Experience" and "In My Experience".
And low level spellcasters still suck,They really don't, and haven't for a few editions.PF especially helps them with low level school/bloodline/domain abilities and at will cantrips. Not powerful, but at low levels, does more than enough to contribute.
The issues that do remain are low AC and lower HP (but not as low as before), but I think that's alright.
At low levels there is actually very little difference in characters as far as base AC, HP, and ATK goes. From what I've seen both casters and martials generally value a solid Con score, but I see Wizards usually going for the extra HP while most Fighters I see value the skill point more from favored class to shore up their low number do to a lower Int score. It often results in only a difference of around 3 HP give or take 1. Wizards miss out on the BAB at level one, but if they put a bit into Dex they are still solid with a crossbow, or if their school powers grant them an attack that swings to hit touch they are just as likely to hit. For AC, it depends on the builds. Fighters wearing medium armor and/or carrying a shield will likely outshine a Wizards AC, but if the Wizard spent a good deal of his very few low levels spells on AC boosts the reverse may be true. All it really comes down to is playstyle.
A Fighter often deals enough damage to take out a goblin or kobold if he connects with a weapon, even rolling near minimum, and a caster can also take out such opponents in a single attack with SoL spells which are hard for enemies to resist at low levels, albeit fewer times a day.
I like the survivability that all classes have at lower levels in PF compared to its predecessor. Even the weak channel energy at low levels overcomes the need for the Cleric to use up his spells as healing to keep the party fighting for more than one or two battles at level 1.
What is IYE and IME?
In your experience. In my experience.
I humbly suggest that if your players are (mechanically) good, you'll see it come back as they adjust.
I mean, how are the fighters not running out of hit points? Apply those same answers to running out of spells and you have the most basic of spell conservation strategies.
So, the response to the fact that killing the 15-Minute Adventuring Day mitigates the alleged power disparity between casters and non-casters in my games (and not just in my games) is to "humbly suggest" that my players aren't "(mechanically) good"? And if I say they are "(mechanically) good"?
As for hit points vs. spells per day, if there were equivalents of cure spells and potions, I guess the comparison might hold more water. In my game, there aren't such things, so it's almost always easier to recover hit points than spells cast.
I have only seen the 15 minute work day be an issue at low levels when casters don't have a lot of spells. This is not to bad because the martial characters don't have a lot of hit points either. At higher(4th and up) levels the party can generally clear most of a large dungeon before we have to rest/retreat.
|
IYE, but not IME. I killed the 15-Minute Adventuring Day quite a while ago. In my games, the "problem" diminished significantly.I humbly suggest that if your players are (mechanically) good, you'll see it come back as they adjust. (If it doesn't, they either aren't mechanically all that, which is fine if you're all having fun with it, or you're heavily stacking the deck in some other way, possibly without realizing it.)
I mean, how are the fighters not running out of hit points? Apply those same answers to running out of spells and you have the most basic of spell conservation strategies.
Two cure light wounds wands go a long way to remedy this.
Good:
- Somewhat buffed clerics no longer make fighters irrelevant.
- "Save or lose" spells usually allow a new save every round.
- Caster doesn't make a rogue COMPLETELY redundant.
- A well built bruiser still remains relevant at level 10+.
Bad:
- You can still Scry & Fry, and APs rarely take that into consideration.
- Combatants are still one-trick ponies, as maneuvers are too underpowered to be reliable against real enemies. Most fights boil down to "Take damage, do damage. Hope I come out on top."
- A single well placed "save or lose" spell from an optimized caster can effectively end encounters even at APL+4. [spoiler]Kingmaker is riddled with physical boss-type baddies that go down at the first whiff of a will save.
- Casters still have ALL the versatility, and the non-casters have next to nothing. Just because they can't eclipse the rogue in his own field doesn't change the fact that the wizard can scout and open simple locks with low level spells.
I have already decided that if my current paladin dies, I am making a caster.
So, the response to the fact that killing the 15-Minute Adventuring Day mitigates the alleged power disparity between casters and non-casters in my games (and not just in my games) is to "humbly suggest" that my players aren't "(mechanically) good"? And if I say they are "(mechanically) good"?
I also offered you a second option.
As for hit points vs. spells per day, if there were equivalents of cure spells and potions, I guess the comparison might hold more water. In my game, there aren't such things, so it's almost always easier to recover hit points than spells cast.
Okay, so you're saying there are no cure spells or potions in your game? I'm confused.
Good:
- Somewhat buffed clerics no longer make fighters irrelevant.
- "Save or lose" spells usually allow a new save every round.
- Caster doesn't make a rogue COMPLETELY redundant.
- A well built bruiser still remains relevant at level 10+.Bad:
- You can still Scry & Fry, and APs rarely take that into consideration.
- Combatants are still one-trick ponies, as maneuvers are too underpowered to be reliable against real enemies. Most fights boil down to "Take damage, do damage. Hope I come out on top."
- A single well placed "save or lose" spell from an optimized caster can effectively end encounters even at APL+4. [spoiler]Kingmaker is riddled with physical boss-type baddies that go down at the first whiff of a will save.
- Casters still have ALL the versatility, and the non-casters have next to nothing. Just because they can't eclipse the rogue in his own field doesn't change the fact that the wizard can scout and open simple locks with low level spells.I have already decided that if my current paladin dies, I am making a caster.
Agree for the most part.
I have never seen a caster make a rogue irrelevant in an actual game.AP's need to be adjusted by the DM. I normally put two experience levels between the PC's and the bad guy. If they want to try to take him on two levels ahead of time they are more than welcome.
Kingmaker's melee types really do need a will save boost. I at least gave all of them Iron Will.
The ability of the wizard to replace the rogue depends on the campaign, but the rogue should have more useful things.
Okay, so you're saying there are no cure spells or potions in your game? I'm confused.
As for hit points vs. spells per day, if there were equivalents of cure spells and potions, I guess the comparison might hold more water. In my game, there aren't such things, so it's almost always easier to recover hit points than spells cast.
He meant that there's no equivalent to potions and cure wands for regaining spells. So you can regain hitpoints for martial characters much easier than casters regain spells.
Remember, this was in response to "removing the 15 minute adventuring day". You don't need to tweak the encounters as much to affect spells per day as you do with martial character's hitpoints.
This is something I believe works as well. D&D is very much a "swingy" game (or at least, 3e and all iterations, including Pathfinder, are). Have one single, powerful bad guy as an encounter and yeah.. he might fall into the APL vs EL and CR numbers just right.. but that's begging for a good crit or Save or Suck to bring your "epic encounter" to an abrupt stop.
Sometimes that's okay though, if you have plans for it, or if you are running a sandbox game. That's the beauty of the 3e D&D ruleset though.. it can allow for a DM to create pretty much any style of encounter he wants: from TPK to cakewalk, single boss "need a crit to kill" to waves of mooks, and everything in between.
Maybe its because my weekly group plays mostly low to mid levels (5-9 seem most common) that I don't see this disparity. In fact, most of my groups end up running Wizard-less (Unless I am a player), and heavy on the martial types. Druid is probably the most commonly played full caster, then cleric, an even split between sorc and wizzy (again, usually only if I'm playing). For some one-offs or the monthly campaign, there are a couple casters, but I think it has more to do witht eh amount of prep-work and research a player has to do between sessions, as opposed to in game power.
I see all these "god wizard" builds here and on other boards, and chuckle a bit- most of them, if played in one of my weekly games, would have been dead LONG before they got so strong. Selfish players see characters die fast IME, while team players get and give lots of help. Sure, the Wizzy COULD use spells to duplicate the rogues efforts, but 90%* of the time, they're more likely to cast Silence on a pebble, or Invis on the rogue to let them do it and have their moment to shine than be a "ball hog" and ruin everyone's day.
*The other 10% breaks down as follows: 7% Rogue is in prison, and they are trying to get him out, 2.7% No rogue in party, 10.3% butter scotch ripple.
He meant that there's no equivalent to potions and cure wands for regaining spells. So you can regain hitpoints for martial characters much easier than casters regain spells.
Ah. The idea isn't that you have wands that give expended spell slots back, it's that you have wands/scrolls/staves/etc. that you expend instead of spell slots.
If an encounter isn't very deadly, a well-played caster does not expend spells. In some sense playing one to its highest level can be boring (depending on the player's level of patience), because you're hoarding your spells and doing nothing terribly interesting until the right moment arrives.
He meant that there's no equivalent to potions and cure wands for regaining spells. So you can regain hitpoints for martial characters much easier than casters regain spells.
Exactly. The "fix" for hit point depletion is healing. It's relatively easy to accomplish. The "fix" for spell depletion is to suspend the adventuring day and then start out again after a good night's rest. This isn't as easy to accomplish since the DM has much more control over the pacing of the game at all levels than the players do.
Positing scrolls, wands, et cetera, doesn't change the equation unless one permits unlimited wealth and/or player-controlled access to magic items. I permit neither.
[spoiler]Kingmaker is riddled with physical boss-type baddies that go down at the first whiff of a will save.
I'm on the side of those that think Pathfinder is a caster edition. I think the balance is better than 3.0 or 3.5, and 2e. In some ways I think 1e was better, and some of the other versions.
That said, the idea of a boss type baddy being a "physical" opponent seems odd to me. To me a boss mob is invariably a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, lich, dragon, beholder...
You get the idea. A vampire might make a good boss mob, considering some of the abilities.
But a fighter or ogre? Something with no magic? Just seems kind of weak to me.
I don't really think of PF as "caster edition". But I do find that casters excell at combating PC classes more than martial types do. They are able to pull a pretty versitile grab-bag of abilities to have a small handful of tricks at any given time to deal with just about every class, which makes them perfect for villian roles. Even with different spells and visuals they can achieve similar desired effects.
As an example in a recent high level campaign that concluded recently I ran there was a mix of bosses; some warriors, some casters, some dragons, and some outsiders. The casters always outdid the others. For example, the final boss battle was against a big warrior meglomaniac overlord with a greatsword. He did some really good damage and nearly took out a couple of PC's, but was defeated without a PC loss. A few sessions earlier, however the PC's did battle his Dracolich general of a slightly lower "CR" (that terrible CR system) who nearly TPK'ed the group. Perhaps I'm just better at building casters, but I believe it to be because casters are better equiped to dealing with members of PC classes, but I would hesitate to say that this makes them a superior choice.
Positing scrolls, wands, et cetera, doesn't change the equation unless one permits unlimited wealth and/or player-controlled access to magic items. I permit neither.
Then where do cure scrolls/wands/etc. come from?
If you give out lots of cure stuff and no other wands/scrolls/staves/etc.? See my above comment about "or you're heavily stacking the deck in some other way."
And it's fine if you want to do that, it works for you, and your players enjoy it, but it makes your opinion of how the game balances in general about as relevant as the guy who thinks the monk is the awesomest class in the game because he doesn't allow weapons or spells in his.
He meant that there's no equivalent to potions and cure wands for regaining spells. So you can regain hitpoints for martial characters much easier than casters regain spells.
What? This makes no sense. If Clerics get forced into the heal bot role it actually heightens the 15 minute adventuring day because a huge percentage of the cleric's spells are spent healing the melee types up to full HPs.
Unless the Melee types have defenses so high that they pretty much hardly ever get hit the simple fact of the matter is that they are going to get hurt every fight and they need a significant source of healing in order to remain functional against CR appropriate foes.
Against CR + 2 or +3 foes (not unheard of) full attacks from high end foes will ablate a huge percentage of the fighter's HPs every round.
Heal helps but ultimately most groups rely on the low cost Wand of CLW (or Less Vigor if you use 3.x materials).
In comparison the wizard with overland flight, imp invis and/or some other defensive buff (miss percentages and mirror image are nice buffs)gets hit a ton less unless you constantly metagame and throw huge numbers of high attack see invis archer types every encounter.
Because the fighter is assumed to be taking the brunt of the damage he's always going to be dependent on magical healing (non-magical healing is simply not effective) in order to remain in the fight. Now you can incorporate alternate mechanics like reserve HPs, WP/VP system and healing surges that offload the healbot role but those are significant modifications to the base ruleset and not really relevant to core only discussions.
... A few sessions earlier, however the PC's did battle his Dracolich general of a slightly lower "CR" (that terrible CR system) who nearly TPK'ed the group. Perhaps I'm just better at building casters, but I believe it to be because casters are better equiped to dealing with members of PC classes, but I would hesitate to say that this makes them a superior choice.
You could be better at building casters, OR you could have sub-consciously chosen spell that made your party cry- ie you hit the fighter and rogue with will saves, dropped a fireball on the casters, and had enough "time" to stack 3-4 buffs on your Dracolich, where as you just threw the warrior out there without any support at all. That BBEG Caster should have been there to support his boss, no? Or at least SOME other lower level casters should have been there as a personal body guard? So not "character" building problem, more of an ENCOUNTER building problem.
IMO, anyway.
@ CoDzilla- Sounds like you need to play with new people. Not that anything you are doing is "wrong", but differnet groups have different approaches. It may be fun for you to try a new play style. I have to do this every year or two myself, just go out and get a new group at the FLGS, here, or Meetup. Keeps it fresh.
- You can still Scry & Fry, and APs rarely take that into consideration.
It's not a common tactic at most tables, so while APs don't consider it individual DMs should. It's now a Perception check to notice the sensor so the target is less likely to be surprised - especially if he has friends to help him spot the sensor. Intelligent bad guys should be aware of the tactic and be prepared for it. The second time the players Scry & Die themselves into a trap causing a TPK should cure them of the tactic.
- A single well placed "save or lose" spell from an optimized caster can effectively end encounters even at APL+4. [spoiler]Kingmaker is riddled with physical boss-type baddies that go down at the first whiff of a will save.
If the players are optimizing casters, than it is the responsibility of the DM to boost saves accordingly. If the DCs of the party casters are 4 higher than the DCs of the pregens, a DM should be comfortable upping saves by 4 (call it a CR +0 "balance" template).
|
He meant that there's no equivalent to potions and cure wands for regaining spells. So you can regain hitpoints for martial characters much easier than casters regain spells.
What? This makes no sense. If Clerics get forced into the heal bot role it actually heightens the 15 minute adventuring day because a huge percentage of the cleric's spells are spent healing the melee types up to full HPs.
Unless the Melee types have defenses so high that they pretty much hardly ever get hit the simple fact of the matter is that they are going to get hurt every fight and they need a significant source of healing in order to remain functional against CR appropriate foes.
Against CR + 2 or +3 foes (not unheard of) full attacks from high end foes will ablate a huge percentage of the fighter's HPs every round.
Heal helps but ultimately most groups rely on the low cost Wand of CLW (or Less Vigor if you use 3.x materials).
In comparison the wizard with overland flight, imp invis and/or some other defensive buff (miss percentages and mirror image are nice buffs)gets hit a ton less unless you constantly metagame and throw huge numbers of high attack see invis archer types every encounter.
Because the fighter is assumed to be taking the brunt of the damage he's always going to be dependent on magical healing (non-magical healing is simply not effective) in order to remain in the fight. Now you can incorporate alternate mechanics like reserve HPs, WP/VP system and healing surges that offload the healbot role but those are significant modifications to the base ruleset and not really relevant to core only discussions.
If the martial class isn't soaking the damage, the damage goes to someone else.
It isn't as if you don't need heals if there is no martial class. It just means the heals got to classes with less hit points to start with.
They are still powerful. It is like your pay going from 50 dollars an hour to 49.25It doesnt seem a so narrow diference, anyway I was answering to the question of pathfinder beeing caster edition, if they are weaker be it a lot or only slight less powerful, hardly can be caster edition.
If the "nerf" was not enough to matter then nothing really changed. That was the point with my last post. If I go from 50.00 to 49.25 my lifestyle won't have a noticeable change.
As to whether or not it really is caster edition depends on your group. For Codzilla it still is CE(caster edition), but for most people, not so much.
It isn't as if you don't need heals if there is no martial class.
Well, right. The point is just that the "Spells run out, but sword works all day!" meme doesn't hold up if you think about it at all.
I think the argument against NPCs using the best spells possible is a false dichotomy. If one spell is definitely better at achieving the goal of a caster than another then the caster (being the typical genius/ supergenius) would gravitate towards prepping the spells that work better.
That means that casters (and caster equivalents like most high end outsiders and dragons) typically will be geared towards neutralizing their enemies in the most effective and efficient ways possible.
Control spells, Mass SoS, Targeted SoS, layered defenses, and personal safety spells/effects (contingency, dimension door, freedom of movement, teleport, etc) will make up the bulk of a caster's spell load if they have any indication at all they are going up against dangerous PCs.
And that's before you even get into the various gamebreakingly powerful stunts you can get into with the various call planar ally type spells.
I removed some posts and replies to them. Flag it and move on.
When I said that the ability to switch out your power in relatively short notice was a strength, I don't mean to imply that you should relentlessly attack that strength as a DM.
Somethings are on a time clock. Somethings aren't. The game provides a variety of situations that can allow everyone to shine, whether they are combat encounters, interactive encounters, or what have you.
In my games, Diplomacy is one of the big skills that is nearly always maxed by my players. They are starting to catch on that Sense Motive is another commonly utilized one as well. We've gone for sessions, not 'with no one touching dice', but with frequent skill rolls supplementing the RP and little combat. In other sessions, hordes of foes roll out on them and nothing is accomplished but combat and in-combat banter. It goes both ways, and my game doesn't reward ignoring either aspect. That said, two of my characters have half their levels invested in rogue, and another one (the main caster) has a level invested in rogue. 3/5 players with rogue levels...my players like their skill points.
It isn't coddling or hand waving to make certain that an aspect of your player's character comes into play, whether that aspect is a lost uncle in the backstory or a focused skill or a preferred weapon or a book of spells. There isn't some default game that makes helping one character type out simple and the others a pain in the ass that only the lamest DMs even bother with to make the player feel good about his suboptimal choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the martial class isn't soaking the damage, the damage goes to someone else.
It isn't as if you don't need heals if there is no martial class. It just means the heals got to classes with less hit points to start with.
Technically it's even more efficient if the party uses Summons, Called Creatures, Charmed/Dominated Creatures, Animated Undead, Eidolons, etc as the source of meatshield HPs.
That way the irrelevant minion creatures absorb the HP damage and the casters focus on getting stuff done.
Now personally I dislike this style of play but there really is nothing in the rules that prevents a party of full casters from utterly dominating the mid to high level game in a way that a balanced party simply can't match.
As a 3.0, 3.5, and PFRPG caster player, I gotta say, 3.0 has the greatest gap between casters and melee characters while PFRPG has the smallest gap.
relevant details
So, sorry, I disagree that PFRPG is the "caster" edition. If anything, its the martial edition.
+1
I'll just add that, from the perspective of someone who's been playing this game for more editions, this problem was even more evident in AD&D and AD&D 2nd edition.My overall answer to the original question:
For all reasonable measures*, I find hitters & casters to be quite balanced between 3rd and 14th level. (Levels 1-2 have been helped by the addition of wizard & sorcerer 1st level powers, so they're not too bad anymore.)
*similar levels of optimization, similar levels of player skill, Pathfinder material only, balanced house rules, playing the game as intended rather than PvP or arena fights, etc.
At 15th level and above, you're playing an extremely high powered game, and balance is much harder to achieve. Given the desire for 30+ yeras of backwards compatibility, it may be neigh impossible. (A very good argument could be made that Wish should be a level 20 capstone ability, not something you can do three or more times per day starting at 17th level!) Fortunately, most players will spend very little time actually playing at those levels.
If you are running a game for characters of 15th level and above, you're going to have a lot of very careful planning to do in order to make encounters interesting, challenging, and fun. For example:
-Travel has long since been made trivial by magic, so nearly any fight can be avoided.
-You're likely dealing with an entirely flight-enabled set of PCs and enemies, so you've got three dimensions to work in.
-Above CR14 (core material) there are only eleven monsters that are not dragons!
It's simply very hard to create and run a game at that power-level that works.
|
|
It isn't as if you don't need heals if there is no martial class.Well, right. The point is just that the "Spells run out, but sword works all day!" meme doesn't hold up if you think about it at all.
It is more run out of good spells, specifically with prepared casters. If you are memorizing spells for all occasions you can get in trouble if you need the same spell more than once and you can't leave and come back.
I don't see it as much with classes other than Wizards as you can swap out for a heal or a summon with clerics and druids, but I have often seen wizards either effectively sitting out encounters because they burned through the spells that were useful for the situation that came up.
My personal favorite involved burning the big guns on a someone disguised as the BBEG only to have the BBEG show up after they novaed and the defensive spells (now spent) wore off.
It isn't as bad as some say, but it happens. Fairly often if your DM does stuff like I described above.
|
|
If the martial class isn't soaking the damage, the damage goes to someone else.
It isn't as if you don't need heals if there is no martial class. It just means the heals got to classes with less hit points to start with.
Technically it's even more efficient if the party uses Summons, Called Creatures, Charmed/Dominated Creatures, Animated Undead, Eidolons, etc as the source of meatshield HPs.
That way the irrelevant minion creatures absorb the HP damage and the casters focus on getting stuff done.
Now personally I dislike this style of play but there really is nothing in the rules that prevents a party of full casters from utterly dominating the mid to high level game in a way that a balanced party simply can't match.
There is the fact that summoning is a full round cast that leaves you subject to concentration checks for damage you take while casting, for one thing.
In my experience every spell has limitations that maintain balance at the level it can be cast.
|
|
I think any future games we play will be 3.5. We were avoiding most PF rules as detrimental to begin with, but the many "discussions", and handful of discussions (sans quotes) have sealed it for me, and by extension us. 5th edition might change that, or it might not. But overall, the community reaction was the thing that swayed that decision.
A large group of people enjoy Pathfinder, think it's pretty well-designed (if rough around the edges) and have fun playing it.
You hold the opinion that it's horribly designed and unplayable without serious modification. You frequently frame that opinion as an irrefutable fact, using a writing style best described as "instructive". This has the pejorative effect of strongly implying that the people who are playing the game and enjoying it are somehow intellectually dishonest or at the very least, not on your level.
Ross can delete all the posts in the world (as he probably will this one, sorry Ross), but the community is going to continue to not react favorably to such behavior. It's human nature.
I love you, Ross. You can't delete my love. :-)
|
It is more run out of good spells, specifically with prepared casters. If you are memorizing spells for all occasions you can get in trouble if you need the same spell more than once and you can't leave and come back.
You know, I've never seen this happen with anything but maybe blasting spells, and of course you have melees to do that. I've just never run into a case where two castings of the same spell were required.
There is the fact that summoning is a full round cast that leaves you subject to concentration checks for damage you take while casting, for one thing.In my experience every spell has limitations that maintain balance at the level it can be cast.
Nothing prevents the caster from coming in hot with summons preloaded though.
It also doesn't prevent the various other strategies mentioned.
|
|
There is the fact that summoning is a full round cast that leaves you subject to concentration checks for damage you take while casting, for one thing.In my experience every spell has limitations that maintain balance at the level it can be cast.
Nothing prevents the caster from coming in hot with summons preloaded though.
It also doesn't prevent the various other strategies mentioned.
What about the rounds per level duration?
You know, I've never seen this happen with anything but maybe blasting spells, and of course you have melees to do that. I've just never run into a case where two castings of the same spell were required.
I see this all the time, especially with 3.5 era stuff like the Transposition spells, wall spells, area control spells especially.
So far this thread has been doing pretty well in the civility department. I'd like to see it stay that way. Which means, please don't turn this thread into a referendum on a particular poster's behavior instead of a discussion of the game.
I've removed a couple posts (and replies to them) that were "piling on" to other posters without actually adding anything to the discussion.
My players don't use wall spells that much. :/ They do like their web and entangle spells tho, and those don't require more than one casting usually.Web and Entangle are endlessly spammed at my table too. Usually by Me(DM) vs the party :) Ettercaps are such a fun low level encounter, shame you don't see them more :)
re: splats- I honestly feel like with the changes PF made to the fighter, the 3.5 splats are no longer needed. Our group made the 3.5-> PF transition in Beta, and pretty much run PF core only now, and are much happier as a result. Every now and again I'll dig out some useful nugget, but my players were really tired of having 2-6 books per character, and are really enjoying the simplicity of Core +(maybe) APG.
The splats still have value. PF did put out enough material to cover the same number of concepts. I agree that a lot of the stuff has been invalidated though. The magic item compendium still has good stuff in it.