To put it another way;
Pathfinder is made by and for people who feel 3e had little to no flaws at all and only needed a light bit of makeup. If you feel 3e had flaws that actively need fixing, Pathfinder may not be the game for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is more or less as balanced as 3e was. It twiddled with several classes, made some old monsters less imbalanced and some new ones more imbalanced, and generally made cosmetic changes to either major sense of D&D3 balance. Level X characters fighting CR X±n monsters works as expected as often as it did under 3e or 3.5, and level Y characters are balanced in their ability to solve problems about as well as they were under previous iterations of 3e.
Martial classes are still bad at everything at higher levels. Magic items still require a Christmas tree's worth of crap for non-spellcasters to participate after level 6. There are still random gotcha monsters who will wipe parties because their CR is way out of whack.
I mean. It's 3e.
It's 3E, but still way better than 3E.
Better balanced than 3E. Lot of spells have been nerfed and some of the Melee classes took a boost.True you still need magic items and magic to play, but magic is a central part in this game.
If someone don't like magic, this is not the game for him/her. (By magic I mean potions, Cloaks, magic weapons, etc. ) But you can actually play this game without a wizard in the Party.
It a great game, but I agree it still need some fixes. As a player I think past level 10 things start to get complicated and less fun. I asked JJ if Paizo had made any poll on "what are your favorite levels to play" here is what he answered:
We haven't... because we know the answer. 7th level.
The OVERWHELMING majority of adventures I saw proposed for Dungeon Magazine were 7th level, or essentially averaged to 7th level. That trend continues to this very day, although we solicit a lot fewer adventures... but we see it popping up an awful lot.
Why is that? A combination of things, I think. Here's three:
1) The vast majority of the game's monsters, especially the CLASSIC ones, are CR 7–10, which makes them great bad guys for 7th level adventures.
2) It's at the point where characters really start feeling powerful but before folks start getting nervous about how complicated they are.
3) I suspect that given most game play habits, 7th level might be the point where the average campaign starts to drift, either due to a loss of interest by the players or GM, folks moving away, folks getting distracted by other games, or whatever.
I think he is perhaps missing one reason. Past level 7 or so, balance issues are getting noticeable. Perhaps not at level 7 but at level 11 it is obvious. All this said some of the classes has actually been fixed. The Paladin and Barbarian are great even at higher levels and you said it yourself - the Monk now is a viable class.
To sum it up: It still 3E, 3E with some changes. So it still has some balance issues, but it is not as bad as 3E and much more fun and flexible than 3E.
So assuming the Wizard is staking out the Fighter and preparing to kill him, there's a good chance that if the fighter is caught with his pants down he will get pasted.
Yet equally, the same Fighter setting a similar ambush for the Wizard will paste the Wizard.
Failing to see how this has 'proven' anything.
|
So assuming the Wizard is staking out the Fighter and preparing to kill him, there's a good chance that if the fighter is caught with his pants down he will get pasted.
Yet equally, the same Fighter setting a similar ambush for the Wizard will paste the Wizard.
Failing to see how this has 'proven' anything.
You don't understand. You've learned NOTHING. It's a Godwizard, who Overdominates the Underuniverse, against a glorified Commoner. Your arguments are irrelevant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is pathfinder unbalanced? A little bit yes, some character classes are more powerful than others, this is true.
But there is no point where the difference is so overwhelming that a class is totally unplayable. In my experience you can play a rogue or a wizard (two ends of the usefulness spectrum) to any level and still feel that you are contributing.
Or in short terms, Pathfinder is slightly unbalanced but it is still playable.
This obsession with balance is an offshoot of MMO's where it's all about threat and DPS and all that nonsense. People in all the games I play and run still create rogues. Why? Because rogues are cool concepts to play, that's why. So what if they are not as powerful as a wizard or a cleric? I get to stab people in the back and steal things. That's cool.
It's not broken, don't try to fix it.
So assuming the Wizard is staking out the Fighter and preparing to kill him, there's a good chance that if the fighter is caught with his pants down he will get pasted.
Yet equally, the same Fighter setting a similar ambush for the Wizard will paste the Wizard.
Failing to see how this has 'proven' anything.
See thats where you messed up Wizards don't get ambushed thats what they have fighters for.
You don't understand. You've learned NOTHING. It's a Godwizard, who Overdominates the Underuniverse, against a glorified Commoner. Your arguments are irrelevant.
YOU ARE RIGHT!
The part I am really struggling with is how one puts out a challenge of "So you can go ahead and explain how my playstyle is wrong for having wizards play intelligently" yet their example of 'intelligent play' requires those playing fighters to be played by retards.
There is no balance. It's like the spoon.
|
Are you trying to tell me that my example of a 20th level wizard who just happens to have EVERY spell in any official Paizo products memorized, has 18 grillion buffs active at all times, and toggles between having a familiar and a bonded item whenever one becomes more advantageous than the other, vs two 3rd level fighters that I didn't bother to pick feats for doesn't PROVE how superior wizards are to fighters?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why doesn't anyone ask the question how fun is Pathfinder? Balance is situational and subjective, and not measurable because of the diverse number of situations that occur in a role-playing game.
I know when this question is asked, it's not is Pathfinder balanced?
The real question your asking is "Are all the classes balanced if they were to get in a ring and do a battle royale or fight in duels?" No. They aren't balanced in that regard.
But are they balanced in that they can all be enjoyable characters capable of contributing to a party and being useful and enjoyable to play during an adventure. I would say the answer is yes. That's the type of balance I'm looking for.
@Kthulhu Sorry, my bad, your point is quite compelling.
@Maddigan - a valid question, 'is the game fun?' - YES.
I've played lots of 3.5, but for the past few years I've been running 4E games. I haven't tried Pathfinder yet. We're starting a new campaign and we've decided to take a break from 4E. I've been trying to decide whether to use Pathfinder or True20. I like a lot of the flavour and such in Pathfinder, but I'm a bit hesitant to use the system because on the surface it looks like it would have all the same balance issues that 3.5 had (primarily- magic dominating the game at higher levels and melee characters having few combat options beyond "full attack, again"). For those of you who have played the game past level 9 or so, is this the case or have they managed to make some changes to alleviate that trend?
If you let your players get away with the fifteen minute adventuring day, casters will dominate at high level. Pathfinder does have a lot of the the intrinsic problems 3.5 had (it is the same engine after all), but it has them on a smaller scale while retaining all the advantages of that system. Fighters can use manoeuvres to avoid the 'full attack, again' option if they wish, paladins now actually can kick evil a**, etc.
Ultimately, it's horses for courses. For the kind of games I prefer, I find Pathfinder the best choice, but this will not be true for everyone.
News flash to Maddigan: The balance DOES affect the fun.
If you play a Fighter and eventually end up as dead weight in combat (because if the group has people who know how to actually play, you probably will not get any chances to do anything useful except MAYBE make a bit of damage on some foe) and out of combat (how many skill points did a Fighter get again?), you will very likely NOT have fun.
I myself am one of the (apparently) rare people who want a healthy mix of game balance and roleplay value. I am equally hostile towards min-maxers and munchkins as I am to roleplay obsessed maniacs and basket weavers. I know casters are overpowered in comparison to melee classes, and I am shocked that people believe that the melee classes shouldn't be made stronger so they can keep up with the casters.
And it's been proven countless times that Pathfinder failed to deliver on this. The melee/combat feats were weakened, while casters gained higher hit dice. I don't see the Caster > Melee issue being fixed in any way by both of those. Also, to those who speak of the Combat Maneuvers giving the Fighter an edge, go check the bestiary a second time. Unless the GM or the Fighter cheats, he could never Trip or Grapple the CR-appropriate monsters, the Dire Crocodile being an example I saw once being mentioned. (And now I can anticipate someone replying to this post with an "ad hominem" or then replying with something that makes no sense whatsoever)
Who cares about your subjective "fun" when somewhere out there a GodWizard is making some glorified Commoner look silly!
"Fun" is the entire 100% point of playing any game, by definition. As long as you are having fun, the game is a success.
Balance is objective, measurable, quantifiable and I happen to understand it better than everyone else because I'm SMARTER.
Balance is not that objective or that measurable, for that matter.
Are you balanced for role-play vs combat? Combat only? Endurance vs 15-minute adventuring day?
Do you measure balance by 'limelight time' or by DPR or some other method?
How do you balance for gamer skill? Class and style?
Unless you lay down the clear strictures of what you are balancing for, your balance is a meaningless term.
Who cares about your subjective "fun" when somewhere out there a GodWizard is making some glorified Commoner look silly!"Fun" is the entire 100% point of playing any game, by definition. As long as you are having fun, the game is a success.
Balance is objective, measurable, quantifiable and I happen to understand it better than everyone else because I'm SMARTER.Balance is not that objective or that measurable, for that matter.
Are you balanced for role-play vs combat? Combat only? Endurance vs 15-minute adventuring day?
Do you measure balance by 'limelight time' or by DPR or some other method?
How do you balance for gamer skill? Class and style?
Unless you lay down the clear strictures of what you are balancing for, your balance is a meaningless term.
Just as planned.
|
News flash to Maddigan: The balance DOES affect the fun.
If you play a Fighter and eventually end up as dead weight in combat (because if the group has people who know how to actually play, you probably will not get any chances to do anything useful except MAYBE make a bit of damage on some foe) and out of combat (how many skill points did a Fighter get again?), you will very likely NOT have fun.
I myself am one of the (apparently) rare people who want a healthy mix of game balance and roleplay value. I am equally hostile towards min-maxers and munchkins as I am to roleplay obsessed maniacs and basket weavers. I know casters are overpowered in comparison to melee classes, and I am shocked that people believe that the melee classes shouldn't be made stronger so they can keep up with the casters.
And it's been proven countless times that Pathfinder failed to deliver on this. The melee/combat feats were weakened, while casters gained higher hit dice. I don't see the Caster>Melee issue being fixed in any way by both of those. Also, to those who speak of the Combat Maneuvers giving the Fighter an edge, go check the bestiary a second time. Unless the GM or the Fighter cheats, he could never Trip or Grapple the appropriate monsters in certain levels, the Dire Crocodile being an example I saw once being mentioned. (And now I can anticipate someone replying to this post with an "ad hominem" or then replying with something that makes no sense whatsoever)
Sounds like your experiences have been similar to mine. The balance is out of whack is so many ways. I've only played PFS but tier 1-2 is such a cakewalk that its boring. Tier 4-5 is harder I guess but its really just annoying with the number of ways I effectively lose my turns. Having my samurai knocked out of the fight for 5 rounds with a color spray isn't fun. I didn't get to participate in the fight at all. The caster got to go first with its very high initiative, walked up to me and I was down.
Don't even get me started with the scaling at tables of 6 players. I might as well just phone it in.
I dunno. Maybe its just my experiences with other role playing systems but its a pretty glaring problem to me.
|
|
If your party has a sorcerer that can spam sleep, the party will always win against humans.Until those humans get above 4 hit dice. Or someone gives them saving throw dice that don't always roll ones.
It's that way on my witch with slumber. Sure, I don't sleep as many and it doesn't always stick but its enough to ensure the fight is a cakewalk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
News flash to Maddigan: The balance DOES affect the fun.
If you play a Fighter and eventually end up as dead weight in combat (because if the group has people who know how to actually play, you probably will not get any chances to do anything useful except MAYBE make a bit of damage on some foe) and out of combat (how many skill points did a Fighter get again?), you will very likely NOT have fun.
I myself am one of the (apparently) rare people who want a healthy mix of game balance and roleplay value. I am equally hostile towards min-maxers and munchkins as I am to roleplay obsessed maniacs and basket weavers. I know casters are overpowered in comparison to melee classes, and I am shocked that people believe that the melee classes shouldn't be made stronger so they can keep up with the casters.
And it's been proven countless times that Pathfinder failed to deliver on this. The melee/combat feats were weakened, while casters gained higher hit dice. I don't see the Caster > Melee issue being fixed in any way by both of those. Also, to those who speak of the Combat Maneuvers giving the Fighter an edge, go check the bestiary a second time. Unless the GM or the Fighter cheats, he could never Trip or Grapple the CR-appropriate monsters, the Dire Crocodile being an example I saw once being mentioned. (And now I can anticipate someone replying to this post with an "ad hominem" or then replying with something that makes no sense whatsoever)
Explain why the wizard player is unhappy his wizard cast a spell that does nothing if the opponent saves but the fighter gets to run up and smash something for 270 points of damage with no save?
Explain why the wizard scratches his head while the archer does 240 points of damage and ends what she's fighting?
Explain why the wizard feels like a chump because the raging barbarian with 488 hit points rushes into battle without a second thought shrugging off spells while one dangerous spell comes the wizards way and he's almost dead?
Once again making a statment that is untrue. It has not been proven countless times that Pathfinder failed to deliver. It's the same people complaining about something that others like myself have learned to deal with as a DM and a player.
The entire idea that a wizard or any caster can do everything making the other classes dead weight has not been proven in any campaign I run, not even in 3.5. And even less so in Pathfinder. So we have different viewpoint already that makes your statement about "proven countless times" untrue.
All that has been established is that some DMs can handle high level play and can create a mix of challenges to challenge an entire party and some DMs cannot. So the question the game designers have to ask themselves is the following:
1. Are there enough people unhappy about high level balance for us to need to make balance an important factor for class design for high level play?
2. Are there are enough people unhappy about high level play that we need to make encounter design easier for high level DMs?
If I were offering my opinion as a player and DM of high level Pathfinder and 3.5, I would answer the above questions with "Some work is needed".
I would focus on the following:
Saving throws. This is what is really throwing off the magic system. Weak saving throws are far too weak at high level.
Certain spells that are a serious problem for a DM when balancing encounters. The overall magic system is fine. Certain spells break the game, not the overall system.
Damage output by physical damage dealers which is far too high, especially two-hander fighter/barbarians and archers. It far exceeds even the most dangerous of monsters damage output.
Special abilities like Come and Get Me or stacking combinations like the Monk/Duelist/Elusive Fighter, which are completely out of hand once a player obtains the right magic items in terms of damage output and AC.
Critical hits. Far too much damage from critical hits.
I would not, as many in here seem to do, focus solely one the seeming disparity between casters and physical damage dealers. Which is not as vast as it is made out to be and usually involves a few spell combinations which could be corrected by modifying the spells rather than modifying entire classes.
There are things in Pathfinder that need work. Trying to make martial characters and caster characters "balanced" is not on my list. The classes do what they are supposed to do. That's the best way to design classes in my opinion.
Other things are causing my life as a DM to be difficult. Some of them I've listed above and they involve far more complex issues than the wizard casting a spell that can sometimes win a fight and make a fighter feel useless. Because I've seen just as many times when the fighter is mowing through a dungeon with a gap-toothed grin covered in gore because he's killed about fifty things to the wizards one. Only difference is the wizard usually saves up his best spells for killing the main BBEG while the fighter is getting his glory gory fun wiping out everything else.
To sum it up more succinctly, the following are all equally a pain in the ass to me as a DM:
The wizard casts flesh to stone and wins the encounter.
The two-hander fighter crits a monster for 200 points of damage and then swings a couple more times for another 120.
The Come and Get Me barbarian with the 8/- DR, a gazillion hit points, +far more than I make a spell DC on his saves steps within melee range of a big bad to the bone dragon and proceeds to rip it to pieces in one round while wearing a ring of evasion and doding the things breath weapon all day.
Or the magus using spellstrike to deliver 150 point crits at level 10.
Or the cleric healing the 100 plus points of damage the big bad dragon or enemy fighter did in one round to make all the enemies seem trivial.
It's all a pain in my behind at high level. Not just Mr. Wizard. I have to put a lot of work into encounter design to challenge all of it.
|
|
To sum it up more succinctly, the following are all equally a pain in the ass to me as a DM:
The wizard casts flesh to stone and wins the encounter.
The two-hander fighter crits a monster for 200 points of damage and then swings a couple more times for another 120.
The Come and Get Me barbarian with the 8/- DR, a gazillion hit points, +far more than I make a spell DC on his saves steps within melee range of a big bad to the bone dragon and proceeds to rip it to pieces in one round while wearing a ring of evasion and doding the things breath weapon all day.
Or the magus using spellstrike to deliver 150 point crits at level 10.
Or the cleric healing the 100 plus points of damage the big bad dragon or enemy fighter did in one round to make all the enemies seem trivial.
It's all a pain in my behind at high level. Not just Mr. Wizard. I have to put a lot of work into encounter design to challenge all of it.
This. I really don't care if the power level of everyone in the party matches perfectly. As long as they all have their time to shine, then it's all good. Yeah, some of you WIZURDS R GODS! folks can contrive situations in which the fighter doesn't do so well. But you know what? I can contrive situations when your wizard doesn't do so well.
|
|
This. I really don't care if the power level of everyone in the party matches perfectly. As long as they all have their time to shine, then it's all good. Yeah, some of you WIZURDS R GODS! folks can contrive situations in which the fighter doesn't do so well. But you know what? I can contrive situations when your wizard doesn't do so well.
Making sure all characters feel useless at different times is one way to balance things I guess.
|
Good for you? Do you want a gold star for posting?
4e is much better about making sure characters contribute to all aspects of the game in their own way. They can still fail. Horribly so.
I guess no more than you.
In case it was missed the OP was not interested in how you think 4e is better balanced than PF...he has played 4e and is looking at using a different system.
You brought your pro-4e post, I brought a counter post. Don't get all butthurt.
|
|
Making sure all characters feel useless at different times is one way to balance things I guess.
This. I really don't care if the power level of everyone in the party matches perfectly. As long as they all have their time to shine, then it's all good. Yeah, some of you WIZURDS R GODS! folks can contrive situations in which the fighter doesn't do so well. But you know what? I can contrive situations when your wizard doesn't do so well.
Making all classes feel exactly the same, and boring to boot, is another.
|
|
Making all classes feel exactly the same, and boring to boot, is another.Making sure all characters feel useless at different times is one way to balance things I guess.
This. I really don't care if the power level of everyone in the party matches perfectly. As long as they all have their time to shine, then it's all good. Yeah, some of you WIZURDS R GODS! folks can contrive situations in which the fighter doesn't do so well. But you know what? I can contrive situations when your wizard doesn't do so well.
Or you can have each player/character contribute to the encounter (this includes non combat encounters too) in different ways so it feels like a team effort instead of one player's chance to solo for awhile. How you get boring out of that I do not know. Maybe some people have to be the singular center of attention to have fun.
|
|
Good for you? Do you want a gold star for posting?
4e is much better about making sure characters contribute to all aspects of the game in their own way. They can still fail. Horribly so.
I guess no more than you.
In case it was missed the OP was not interested in how you think 4e is better balanced than PF...he has played 4e and is looking at using a different system.
You brought your pro-4e post, I brought a counter post. Don't get all butthurt.
I was using 4e as an example because he's played that. It was nothing but a meter stick. Balance is a pro of 4e and many other systems when compared to Pathfinder. If he would have said GURPS or Savage Worlds it would have been much the same.
|
|
Here's the deal. Your average fighter is going to have around 10 Wisdom. At level 20, his Will save is going to be around +11, assuming a +5 cloak of resistance (a strong investment for any character). We'll give this fighter the benefit of the doubt and give him an additional +3 to his Will save because we're a nice guy, so he has a total of +14 to his saving throw. Now, the wizard is going to have pretty high spell DCs. We'll assume he has an Int of 26 (which is more toward the low end of the spectrum). His spell DCs are thus going to be 18 + spell level.Now I draw out of my magic hat a spell or two to demonstrate his weaknesses. Hold person is a level 2 spell, so it has a save DC of 20. The fighter has a 25% chance of being taken out of the fight by a level 2 spell. Turn that into mass hold person (increasing the DC to 25) and the fighter has a 50% chance of being taken out in the first round of combat. Maze? Better hope the fighter has a high Int or he's screwed. Dominate person/monster? Ruh-roh, Scoob! Chances are that the fighter's about to be the wizard's beat-ho.
And this is just one example. Summoning gigantic tarantulas to grapple the fighter to death...
Ahhh..the ol' 1 Wiz/1 Fighter enter and only 1 shall exit scenario....love it.
Party themed game, party themed tactics....
Add to that the idea that by 20 maybe, just maybe, the fighter has a Freedom of movement item? Maybe a way to fly? Maybe they are in a spot where there is cover, ceilings, limit as to how far they can get from each other? All your scenarios assume the Fighter gets no advantages and his opponent gets them all.
Anything you can do I can do better...I can do anything better than you
Eyeroll
I have played 3.5e, Pathfinder and 4e. I was never aware of the inherent game mechanic issues that both 3rd edition and PF had because I was playing a Half-Elf Cleric and put more focus on my character at the time. The 4e games I've had were of a COMPLETELY different feel than the Pathfinder ones, but I HAD FUN.
When I had the chance to be GM for a group, I would have preferred it to be a 3.5e game, but due to the main books not being available, I had to resort to Pathfinder.
FROM THE START, they asked me (yes, the DM) to houserule Cleave and a few other feats so they worked like the 3.5 ones.
If the players insist that I change the feats to the old format, is it really that far off to believe that there is something wrong with the feats themselves? Despite having fun in the game, the campaign began to slip through my fingers and theirs as time went on and anything that had the word magic on it started to become ridiculous. Also, Lazar...my tip is that if you liked 3.X, ignore Pathfinder and just house-rule the stuff that you didn't agree with. You'll spare cash and nerves with that move.
(Just by the way, I got my Pathfinder Core Rulebook as a birthday gift.)
I think you need to define balance. For me Balance is the encounters. Basically what a party of X level can be expected to take on. If you have party that is not challenged by those encounters you have a balance issue. You can't simply let them take on tougher encounters as this causes that whole problem of certain classes not being as effective over others. The same happen to lesser degree if the party struggles with encounters.
PF works best if you go with pt buy and keep it 15-20 range and you stick with the wealth by level with 10%. If you go higher stats and more wealth you end up with party that isn't challenged by what the game expects. So you boost it up and things start getting out of hand. This leads to problems like the rogue suddenly finding he can't land a sneak attack and if he does he's in a situation where the monster can take him out in 1 round. The Wizard finds they are relying more bad rolls for saves to get damage or effect on the monster but the wizard has other options. So the wizard memorizes more effective spells but the melee guys are stuck with what they have.
In a Balanced situation this doesn't happen. The melee guys are effective. Sure the wizard could do what they did before but it doesn't matter. The melee guys are taking down the monster and don't need the wizard to do it all. The fact that high level wizard can do it all is irrelevant as long as the other party members can do something.
Now from the Brief experience I had DMing 4E they made that game very easy to maintain this balance. In Pathfinder it's harder to maintain that balance but gives you much more freedom with the game from players point of view. You just have to be careful with thing if you want to go crazy what you are allowing accept the balance won't be there and adjust accordingly.
|
|
It pretty much boils down to this.
IF you really really hated 3.X, Pathfinder is not probably going to be your cup of tea.
If you thought 3.X and especially 3.5 was just a bit out of tune balance wise, Pathfinder's improvements in balance might just be the tipping point you were looking for.
I think this assessment if a bit lacking. Many people, like myself, haven't played 3.5 prior to Pathfinder. They've come from a different system, 4e only being one of many.
Much the same as what voska said, balance can be measured many different ways. The question is, in which way is the OP looking for balance.
Balance between the classes/races? They can be balanced in an, as stated earlier way, by equal time to shine, just at different times. So, yes the fighter may have many little combats he dominates, then the wizard turns around and owns the one big one.
Balance as far as against the system? If you follow the guidelines for the game, then if the game was built around 15 pt buy, and a certain WBL, then using those the encounters built at the appropriate CR's should be balanced encounters.
Considering the OP asked about magic dominance above 9th, then I think both of these different aspects of balance are in question.
Personally, I think between using all RAW, at higher levels, the results can look swingy, and depending on the adventure, some may see advantages where others don't. Taken as a whole I think the system, focused with ensuring equal chances to shine for each, can be balanced.
FWIW, I personally don't see the balance. Considering how much extra work a GM has to do to maintain the balance, and the amount of DM preferences can adapt the manner of things, it's too easy to slip out of the balance. I have yet to meet a GM that walks the fine line of keeping everything equal all the way.
I prefer the system itself to maintain the balance better, so that by the RAW, it is difficult to upset said balance subconsciously, even more so unintentionally.
I also think that the balance IS the fun, and that everyone should shine equally, in every instance. I don't want to go to a session, playing for many hours, only to find out that it was the fighter's (or wizard's or rogue's) second session in a row to shine, and just as well I don't want to be the only one or one of two that gets to shine for a long period.
I have also found that the system allows, and encourages, all the lone wolves that want to be able to do everything and not need the party to succeed at just that. It was present in 3.x and carried over with the system. It's a benefit of 1, 2, and 4e that you work as a team better because you need the other members to succeed. Sure, you could say don't play with jerks, but it isn't until you are well into the campaign that you realize that an otherwise good person and player has that flaw.
TL;DR, (My Opinion) Yes with work by the GM and using RAW, the system can be balanced. Play it too fast and loose, and that balance begins to swing, which way depends on the GM and the players.
The melee/combat feats were weakened, while casters gained higher hit dice. I don't see the Caster > Melee issue being fixed in any way by both of those.
And if that's all there was to the system, you would be correct, but it's not and you aren't.
For example: Damn near all of the best spells in 3.5 are weaker in Pathfinder. That's not a good trade for gaining 1hp/level.
And if that's all there was to the system, you would be correct, but it's not and you aren't.
For example: Damn near all of the best spells in 3.5 are weaker in Pathfinder. That's not a good trade for gaining 1hp/level.
Ahem. Compare the Pathfinder version of Improved Trip
( http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-trip-combat---final ) to the 3.5 one ( http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Improved_Trip ) and say that again.And yes, some spells got weakened, but that didn't really help much (or at all). Worse yet, some of the spells that really do a number on enemies (such as Hold Person) weren't even touched upon. I also find it amusing that while I actually provided examples of existing problems, you went on to say "you are wrong, I am right".