In general, spell casters have gotten less powerful as editions go by. Whether one likes that or not is an entirely different matter, but trying to deal damage as a wizard, for example, isn't really viable. Certainly the days of a fireball killing "every last mother@#$er in the room" are long gone.
In my experience, few things in Pathfinder are as frightening as an archer built using some of the cheese in Ultimate Combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Superman is not balanced by the existence of kryptonite. In fact, it was actually one of the biggest lame moments of superman. That point where kryptonite just kept showing up everywhere, despite it supposedly being an exceedingly rare space rock that comes down occasionally in certain meteorites that aren't disintegrated in the atmosphere. Suddenly every Tom, Dick, and Harry seems to have a truckload of the stuff, because superman can't be challenged otherwise. Fail.
It's the same way in D&D. If you have a character with DR 10/silver (say you have a PC that is a werewolf), the answer is not to start including silver weapons on all your NPCs (that's meta-gamey and stupid), and if that is your only answer then it's not an answer and there is another problem at the core (by the way, a PC werewolf isn't the end of the world, they're just strong vs mundane foes but are easily countered with a bit of supernatural, spell-like, or good ol' fashioned magic; just like taking down a (Anti-)Paladin with spells is less effective than buffing the snot out of your martials and sending in the clowns).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, spell casters have gotten less powerful as editions go by. Whether one likes that or not is an entirely different matter, but trying to deal damage as a wizard, for example, isn't really viable. Certainly the days of a fireball killing "every last mother@#$er in the room" are long gone.
In my experience, few things in Pathfinder are as frightening as an archer built using some of the cheese in Ultimate Combat.
That's not true.
First, only direct damage spells have got hit by the HP inflation. The rest of the spells got better. Back in the AD&D days, most high level creatures ignored Save or Suck spells, because the save was static. Now it depends on the caster intelligence, spell level, and feats, and you can focus and get a very high DC that most creatures have problems to save, specially if you target the low save.Spell interrupt is much harder too. Any damage you took before your initiative, and you can't cast spells that level.
And casters had VERY low HP. They had 1d4 hp, and max of +2 from CON. Now they can have as much CON bonus as a fighter, and the CON bonus can go that high, that the HD is no longer so important. Having 1d4+2 or 1d10+2 is a big difference, but having 1d4+8 or 1d10+8 isn't that impressive.
Also, you should check some guides about blasting wizards and sorcerers. There are guides out there that do real damage. Take a look to the "show me your best fireball" thread for example. I know my blaster sorcerer was doing more damage than the rest of the party combined, and enough damage to kill every CR=APL creature in 20' radious.
The maximum peak of caster power was 3.0 (specially with 3.0 haste, and the ability to cast two spells per round). Then they declined a bit in 3.5, and some spells got nerfed in 3.P. But spellcasters in AD&D weren't as powerful as they were in D&D 3rd edition. Not by a long shot.
It seems the more Pathfinder goes on the more the weaknesses of magic and the spellcasting classes are removed.
I feel that gunslinger is very powerful. When I read that it attacks from range targeting touch AC.... all I can think of is the guy from a certain game who always said, "All to easy!".
As a side note is there a way to block someone? As in I have no reason to read input from agentJay so I did this so I no longer see any post from him?
In general, spell casters have gotten less powerful as editions go by. Whether one likes that or not is an entirely different matter, but trying to deal damage as a wizard, for example, isn't really viable. Certainly the days of a fireball killing "every last mother@#$er in the room" are long gone.
In my experience, few things in Pathfinder are as frightening as an archer built using some of the cheese in Ultimate Combat.
I'm willing to agree with this actually. IMHO, while casters have become more convenient to use, their overall power has dropped drastically. They're not even half what they were in 3.5, and many of their spells have gotten the nerfbat hard. And those casters in 3.5 often weren't what they were in previous editions either. One of my friends who was big into 2E commented that high level mages were near unstoppable, and I'd agree.
Spells like stoneskin just strait out negated damage. No damage reduction. You got 1 skin/caster level and it just strait up ignored that many attacks.
Enemies and PCs had far less Hp. You only got up to around 9-10 hit dice, rarely got more than +2 Hp/level (it's actually impossible to have more than +2 HP/level for non-warriors), and so forth. Hell, sleep destroys most enemies in the first 50% of Baldur's Gate I. And dropping a spell like skull trap (3rd level spell) that deals 1d6 untyped damage / caster level with a save vs death for half damage means a hell of a lot more in pre-3E than it does today because even strong enemies have less than 50 Hp.
An ogre in OSRIC (pre-3E) has 4+1 HD (which means 4d8+1). That means an ogre has between 5-33 HP (19 HP average). In such a cast, a 17.5 average damage fireball will pretty much all but insta-kill ogres in its radius. A 10d6 fireball is a death sentence.
I'm willing to agree with this actually. IMHO, while casters have become more convenient to use, their overall power has dropped drastically. They're not even half what they were in 3.5, and many of their spells have gotten the nerfbat hard. And those casters in 3.5 often weren't what they were in previous editions either. One of my friends who was big into 2E commented that high level mages were near unstoppable, and I'd agree.
Spells like stoneskin just strait out negated damage. No damage reduction. You got 1 skin/caster level and it just strait up ignored that many attacks.
Enemies and PCs had far less Hp. You only got up to around 9-10 hit dice, rarely got more than +2 Hp/level (it's actually impossible to have more than +2 HP/level for non-warriors), and so forth. Hell, sleep destroys most enemies in the first 50% of Baldur's Gate I. And dropping a spell like skull trap (3rd level spell) that deals 1d6 untyped damage / caster level with a save vs death for half damage means a hell of a lot more in pre-3E than it does today because even strong enemies have less than 50 Hp.
An ogre in OSRIC (pre-3E) has 4+1 HD (which means 4d8+1). That means an ogre has between 5-33 HP (19 HP average). In such a cast, a 17.5 average damage fireball will pretty much all but insta-kill ogres in its radius. A 10d6 fireball is a death sentence.
Yes, but melee classes got pounce for free, and no to-hit penalty in their itterative attacks (plus 1 attack extra every 2 rounds if they were specialists). I killed a Balor in a charge with a 14th lvl fighter in AD&D, and I couldn't do so in pathfinder (in a full round, sure, in a charge, no). Also, my high level fighter was nearly inmune to saving throws, which had no inherent penalty due to the caster's intelligence.
Spells have been nerfed from 3.5 to pathfinder, and they were nerfed from 3.0 to 3.5 too. But in the process from 2.0 to 3.0, they got highly buffed.
Take Haste, for example. In 2.0, it cost *years* of life. In 3.0, it gave you +4 AC, and a standard action. That means 2 spells per round... This single spell alone means 3.0 wizards are double as powerful as 2.0 wizards.
Casters in 3.5 have been made somewhat weaker in terms of dealing damage in combat. In all other ways they are still pretty much the same as they were before, and that includes the ability to buff themselves or other party members up to stratospheric damage levels.
Casters in 3.5 have been made somewhat weaker in terms of dealing damage in combat. In all other ways they are still pretty much the same as they were before, and that includes the ability to buff themselves or other party members up to stratospheric damage levels.
I'll agree with that for the most part. Honestly, I freaking hated damage spells until high levels in Baldur's Gate, and even then, I mostly spammed summons like they were going out of style (summons weren't affected by SR then).
And OMG, 2E haste is f~!@ed up. XD
Doubles movement speed, doubles all attacks, for the whole party. Oh my god, that spell was made of hate for your enemies, and was probably the biggest argument for demihumans being kings (some of the older prints of haste would age you 1 year, but when elves were literally immortal...).
Yes, but melee classes got pounce for free, and no to-hit penalty in their itterative attacks (plus 1 attack extra every 2 rounds if they were specialists). I killed a Balor in a charge with a 14th lvl fighter in AD&D, and I couldn't do so in pathfinder (in a full round, sure, in a charge, no). Also, my high level fighter was nearly inmune to saving throws, which had no inherent penalty due to the caster's intelligence.
To be fair though, they were neutered most heavily in 3.5. In 3.0, haste was a common buff for martials. The most common in fact. And if you recall when it did in 3.0, it gives you twice your speed, significant bonuses, and allows you to move + full-attack. So I'm sure when they were playtesting 3.0, martials seemed pretty nice. In fact, even in 3.0, I don't recall martials suffering that badly (hell, I remember more peeps complaining about Fighters being able to break the game with feat combinations on the WotC Boards), and when 3.5 was coming up they said they weren't touching the Fighter because he was already great.
Also, don't get me wrong. Martials have fluctuated heavily as well. For one thing, during 3.0 and 3.5 martial damage was less impressive, mainly because they didn't have as many bonuses as they do in PF (unless you used goofy builds from 3.5 splat material) and enemy HP was higher. I mean when an ogre has 19 HP, being able to deal 1d8+4 damage is actually pretty significant (you're gonna drop him in about 2.2 attacks, most likely).
I'm just saying that in terms of nasty stuff, spellcasters have actually gotten weaker. IIRC, skull trap didn't even have a cap. It was 1d6/caster level...forever. Making it perhaps the scariest blast spell in the world, and it was a freakin' 3rd level necromancy spell. XD
Hell, I think as far as the CORE goes, PF is actually better off than almost any other iteration. IMHO, Barbarians, Clerics, Druids, Bards, Paladins, Rangers, Wizards, and Sorcerers are all really good, fun, and well balanced relative to one-another. Not bad given that only leaves Fighters, Monks, and Rogues.
Though I personally wouldn't mind seeing the full-attack go the way of the dodo, and iterative attacks simplified. Of course, I'd probably just be happy if you could move and full-attack. That would be enough to make me happy with melee.
There's an easy solution to this: Have players cut a spell from their Core rule book spell list for every splat book spell they add to it that you approve. It allows players to customize their characters and have fun while reining in the power of divine casters in particular and prepared arcane casters. Note that by removing a spell from your spell list, it's harder to use wands and scrolls to make up for it.
|
Not even 24 hours pass and were back to the same thread topic just reworded again. I am starting to agree with other posters. Shallowsoul hates 905 of PF and anything that gives pc a advantage he can't completly control. So I'm assuming it's not really a thread where the op wants any actual feedback and just validation of his op. Still I will respond.
Imo arcane caster were always powerful whatever edition. Previous editions they had low ac and low hp yet played properly in any edition they were and are powerful imo. It's just that with 3E and 3.5/PF with the concentration check, right feats and spell choices it became even more difficult to fight arcane caster. PC or Npc. Not to say with the right tactics a spellcaster is impossible to beat. They can be yet in the hands of a imaginative and smart person its' hard to do.
Yes, but melee classes got pounce for free, and no to-hit penalty in their itterative attacks (plus 1 attack extra every 2 rounds if they were specialists).That's a bit misleading. I mean it's true, but you got a lot less iterative attacks than in 3.0. Rangers and paladins topped out at 2 at 13th level and didn't get 3 every 2 rounds until 7th. As you said, Specialist Fighters got an extra half an attack.
In 1E, no specialization, so at most 2 attacks. Not quite the same as 3.x iterative attacks, even if you can use them every round.There were also less ways to add damage to those attacks. Extra strength, specialization and magic weapons were about it. No whole stacks of feats that let you boost damage these days.
Oh yeah, and when they did introduce specialization, Rangers and Paladins could do it too. I forgot about that for a moment. The only way Fighters have anything to write home about was if you used some splat material from 2E to allow specializing beyond normal, which was fighter-only. Of course, doing so generally shot yourself in the foot, because every point you put into weapon X, was a point you never could put into weapon Y or Z.
Which led, IMHO even moreso, to the problem Fighters still have today. If a fighter is all manner of specced for fighting with longswords, you are drastically limiting your ability to adapt or switch weapons.
For Example
You're a fighter. You decide to use a longsword as your primary weapon, because you're actually looking to be pretty versatile (longswords can be used with a shield, or two-handed with the benefits of a greatsword, and you figure Longswords are probably the most common sort of weapon you'll find. Which may be entirely true, but most common out of tons can be a bit misleading).
So at 1st level, you take Weapon Focus {Longsword} and arm yourself with a longsword. During your first adventure, you end up encountering lots of orcs. Turns out all the orcs are using is greataxes, falchions, and longspears. Next adventure you're trying to find something in a bog of lizardfolk, who are wielding handaxes, javalins, longspears, and clubs. Later you encounter some ogres, who are wielding longswords, but are the wrong size. Later still, you fight some kobolds, and lord knows you're drowning in crossbows but not a damn medium sized longsword for miles.
So, as you specialize, you'll end up binding yourself more and more to that one specific type of weapon. I mean, if I've got weapon training (swords) +3, and greater weapon specialization (longsword), I'm probably not going to be very happy about finding the +3 warhammer of speed as any other martial who isn't tied to one weapon is going to be.
Then you have to deal with purchasing limits ('cause you can't just walk into a city and buy a high level magic item, according to the rulebook, since anything beyond a +2 weapon is very uncommon). So you're down to praying to the dice gods, hoping the GM throws you a bone (and if you need to GM to mod his campaign for you, you fail), or looting better gear off of enemies.
Thing is, longswords are actually pretty common for weapons. Just by focusing on them, you're basically saying that unless you're using this specific weapon, you're loosing all this investment. And you can't enjoy finding anything except longswords. Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers will all cheer when they find that +1 construct-bane hammer, but you'll be like "man, why isn't a longsword Q.Q".
|
Yes, but melee classes got pounce for free, and no to-hit penalty in their itterative attacks (plus 1 attack extra every 2 rounds if they were specialists).That's a bit misleading. I mean it's true, but you got a lot less iterative attacks than in 3.0. Rangers and paladins topped out at 2 at 13th level and didn't get 3 every 2 rounds until 7th. As you said, Specialist Fighters got an extra half an attack.
In 1E, no specialization, so at most 2 attacks. Not quite the same as 3.x iterative attacks, even if you can use them every round.There were also less ways to add damage to those attacks. Extra strength, specialization and magic weapons were about it. No whole stacks of feats that let you boost damage these days.
Oh yeah, and when they did introduce specialization, Rangers and Paladins could do it too. I forgot about that for a moment. The only way Fighters have anything to write home about was if you used some splat material from 2E to allow specializing beyond normal, which was fighter-only. Of course, doing so generally shot yourself in the foot, because every point you put into weapon X, was a point you never could put into weapon Y or Z.
Which led, IMHO even moreso, to the problem Fighters still have today. If a fighter is all manner of specced for fighting with longswords, you are drastically limiting your ability to adapt or switch weapons.
For Example
You're a fighter. You decide to use a longsword as your primary weapon, because you're actually looking to be pretty versatile (longswords can be used with a shield, or two-handed with the benefits of a greatsword, and you figure Longswords are probably the most common sort of weapon you'll find. Which may be entirely true, but most common out of tons can be a bit misleading).So at 1st level, you take Weapon Focus {Longsword} and arm yourself with a longsword. During your first adventure, you end up encountering lots of orcs. Turns out all the orcs are using is...
That's why fighter's can specialize in more than one weapon. Also, they can afford to use a weapon they are a little less specialized in, they are still going to be doing lots of damage and hitting with no problem.
You could always buy yourself a longsword in town. I mean it's always assumed Wizards can find their spells in town with no problem so a fighter should have no problem finding his specialty weapon.
In general, spell casters have gotten less powerful as editions go by. Whether one likes that or not is an entirely different matter, but trying to deal damage as a wizard, for example, isn't really viable. Certainly the days of a fireball killing "every last mother@#$er in the room" are long gone.
In my experience, few things in Pathfinder are as frightening as an archer built using some of the cheese in Ultimate Combat.
I'm willing to agree with this actually. IMHO, while casters have become more convenient to use, their overall power has dropped drastically. They're not even half what they were in 3.5, and many of their spells have gotten the nerfbat hard. And those casters in 3.5 often weren't what they were in previous editions either. One of my friends who was big into 2E commented that high level mages were near unstoppable, and I'd agree.
Spells like stoneskin just strait out negated damage. No damage reduction. You got 1 skin/caster level and it just strait up ignored that many attacks.
Enemies and PCs had far less Hp. You only got up to around 9-10 hit dice, rarely got more than +2 Hp/level (it's actually impossible to have more than +2 HP/level for non-warriors), and so forth. Hell, sleep destroys most enemies in the first 50% of Baldur's Gate I. And dropping a spell like skull trap (3rd level spell) that deals 1d6 untyped damage / caster level with a save vs death for half damage means a hell of a lot more in pre-3E than it does today because even strong enemies have less than 50 Hp.
An ogre in OSRIC (pre-3E) has 4+1 HD (which means 4d8+1). That means an ogre has between 5-33 HP (19 HP average). In such a cast, a 17.5 average damage fireball will pretty much all but insta-kill ogres in its radius. A 10d6 fireball is a death sentence.
Lets lsit more diferences.
The diference in Hps betwen martial and wizard was bigger, wizards had less spells per day, wizards needed more experience to gain new...
Actually, it's -1 Con. And your familiars gave you a significant bonus to Hp, IIRC. And wizards did have fewer spells, but their spells were more game-ending. Just as an example, if you play through Baldur's Gate I, sleep trivializes most of the encounters for many, many levels. It affected all creatures in the area under the HD limit, and many, many things were 4HD or less (including ogres).
And hell, the 1E sleep was worse. It had no saving throw. If you were in the HD ballpark, you just dropped, no save. Bam. Done. Game over. Sure, you only had it 2/day if you were a specialist wizard at 1st level, but criminey, do you really NEED the option to say "I win" at that level more than twice? It also had a better range and was a fast-cast spell.
As for the more XP thing, you may want to double check. In 2E, it took 135,000 XP to reach 9th level as a mage. It took 250,000 XP to reach 9th level as a Fighter, and 300,000 XP to reach 9th level as a Paladin or Ranger.
|
|
Actually, here. Download OSRIC (Old School Reference & Index Compilation) and try playing that. It may be the answer to all your woes. It is basically 1E D&D, cleaned up a bit. Try playing that game for a while, and see if you have no complaints. You're clearly unhappy with modern D&D/PF (and I'd bet you'd be unhappy with OSRIC too after some time, if I was a gambler).
Best case scenario, I solved every problem you'll ever have with your gaming hobby.
Worst case scenario, you'll be back to complain about how mages in old D&D have too many options, fighters don't get enough skills, and theives are failures at everything but you have to have them in your party whether anyone wants to play them or not, and that demihumans are superior to everyone.
Which means we literally have nothing to lose by trying.
I already own all old school D&D and OSRIC but we aren't here to discuss those games. We are discussing Pathfinder.
|
|
...In general, spell casters have gotten less powerful as editions go by. Whether one likes that or not is an entirely different matter, but trying to deal damage as a wizard, for example, isn't really viable. Certainly the days of a fireball killing "every last mother@#$er in the room" are long gone.
In my experience, few things in Pathfinder are as frightening as an archer built using some of the cheese in Ultimate Combat.
I'm willing to agree with this actually. IMHO, while casters have become more convenient to use, their overall power has dropped drastically. They're not even half what they were in 3.5, and many of their spells have gotten the nerfbat hard. And those casters in 3.5 often weren't what they were in previous editions either. One of my friends who was big into 2E commented that high level mages were near unstoppable, and I'd agree.
Spells like stoneskin just strait out negated damage. No damage reduction. You got 1 skin/caster level and it just strait up ignored that many attacks.
Enemies and PCs had far less Hp. You only got up to around 9-10 hit dice, rarely got more than +2 Hp/level (it's actually impossible to have more than +2 HP/level for non-warriors), and so forth. Hell, sleep destroys most enemies in the first 50% of Baldur's Gate I. And dropping a spell like skull trap (3rd level spell) that deals 1d6 untyped damage / caster level with a save vs death for half damage means a hell of a lot more in pre-3E than it does today because even strong enemies have less than 50 Hp.
An ogre in OSRIC (pre-3E) has 4+1 HD (which means 4d8+1). That means an ogre has between 5-33 HP (19 HP average). In such a cast, a 17.5 average damage fireball will pretty much all but insta-kill ogres in its radius. A 10d6 fireball is a death sentence.
Lets lsit more diferences.
The diference in Hps betwen martial and wizard was bigger, wizards had less spells per day, wizards needed more
Why do you keep referencing Baldur's Gate I? While the game did have some elements of 2nd edition, it in no way covered everything that was D&D. To get the 2nd edition experience, you would actually need to play the game.
Yes, but melee classes got pounce for free, and no to-hit penalty in their itterative attacks (plus 1 attack extra every 2 rounds if they were specialists).That's a bit misleading. I mean it's true, but you got a lot less iterative attacks than in 3.0. Rangers and paladins topped out at 2 at 13th level and didn't get 3 every 2 rounds until 7th. As you said, Specialist Fighters got an extra half an attack.
In 1E, no specialization, so at most 2 attacks. Not quite the same as 3.x iterative attacks, even if you can use them every round.
It's not really true, though. In pre-3e days, a chsracter more than 10 feet out from his opponent had to close first and could get an attack, not multiple attacks, not an attack routine. If he had already closed, his attacks were unrestricted in that manner.
That's why fighter's can specialize in more than one weapon. Also, they can afford to use a weapon they are a little less specialized in, they are still going to be doing lots of damage and hitting with no problem.
You could always buy yourself a longsword in town. I mean it's always assumed Wizards can find their spells in town with no problem so a fighter should have no problem finding his specialty weapon.
See, that's where you're wrong. Every feat you burn speccing 1 weapon is a feat you don't have if you're not using it. A fighter who tries to spec 4 weapons to merely "specialized" in 3.x/PF has burned 8 feats to get a +1/+2 hit/dmg bonus.
With any other weapon, they are a warrior (the NPC class).
And you're also wrong about availability. It's not always assumed that wizards can find their spells in town with no problem. In fact, it's quite the contrary. In small settlements you cannot find spellcasters to purchase from their spellbooks (you need a small town or larger for 1st level spells, and metropoli only go up to 8th level spells with certainty, which means 9th level spells are usually going to need looting, questing, or researching). Then you have to deal with buying limits, which is to say if you're in a thorpe, no 2nd level scrolls. If you're in a hamlet, no 3rd level scrolls. If you're in a village, no 4th level scrolls, etc (unless they are randomly rolled as one of the minor/medium/major items in that town apart from its normal economy).
The thing is, scrolls are an inefficient means of acquiring spells, but if you don't have a large enough town, then it's what you're going to have to do. And many adventures take place away from big cities, so you may need to make a special trip. Now the problem the Fighter has is that non-consumable magic items (like weapons) are expensive, and the more expensive the rarer (which makes sense).
See, in the core rules, you can reliably purchase up to 16,000 gp items in a Metropolis. Anything else is rolled randomly, or you may need to find someone and convince them to craft it for you (which takes time and probably additional services since they aren't there for your convenience). Now that means that you can reliably purchase up to +2 weapons or +3 armor/shield with no issues, other than a little waiting around for the city to restock if they happen to be out of those this week.
Now the thing with this is, you cannot depend on getting the exact weapon you want. This is not a failing of the system, it is a failing of the Fighter. Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, Cavaliers, Magi, Bards, and everyone else who wants to fight don't care greatly about what sort of weapon they are using as long as they are proficient with it. Fighters, unfortunately, have to invest their class features into those weapons, and when they don't use those weapons, their class features turn off.
Which goes back to my earlier example. Using the longsword, you are relying on fate to get anything beyond a +2-equivalent weapon. You are relying on the idea that somehow you will get the right weapon. And when you do not use that weapon, you are just an NPC-warrior again.
Using the longsword fighter again, if during 8 levels of play (roughly 160 equal CR encounters on the medium progression) you find the following items:
+1 flaming longsword
+1 mace of disruption
+3 greatsword of berserking
+2 holy scimitar
+1 vicious greataxe
+1 dragonbane longspear
+1 quarterstaff of speed
Only 1 of them is going to take advantage of your feat investment, which is probably between 2-4 feats strong. Every feat you take to spec any of these weapons you pick up, is a feat you didn't use for something else. And you're not really very special in the fighting department if you didn't, 'cause ol' Conan the Barbarian over there? Well he is keen on using ALL of them. And he gets +4 to hit and +4 (or +6) to damage with all of them. If he changes weapons (and tactics) his class features don't turn off.
A Real Example
I introduced a few friends of mine to Baldur's Gate I recently. They fell in love with it. Have enjoyed playing it more than virtually any RPG on the computer they've ever played before. One of my friends made a dwarf Fighter/Thief and he specialized in Axes.
Problem was...axes are a little scarce early in the adventure. He didn't know that. He found magic short swords, magic longswords, magic hammers, magic greatswords, and the poor guy didn't know that the only magic axe you can easily get early on is a +1 battleaxe in the Feldepost Inn; whereas he had come across +2 shocking warhammers, +2 frost longswords, +3 greatsword of berserking, +2 short sword, +2 dagger, etc.
It works like this in modern D&D too. The only way it doesn't is if you GM fiat it to not work like this. And when that happens, it proves a problem. I don't have to GM fiat or modify the items I use on NPCs or specifically toss items in a treasure horde to make it look like the horde was built for them (and yeah, I won't think twice about dropping scrolls into a treasure horde that the party can't use). Especially if you're a little oldschool like I am and enjoy some random treasure for the mystery of it.
I can't remember who got to 36th level faster. Thief?
I already own all old school D&D and OSRIC but we aren't here to discuss those games. We are discussing Pathfinder.Actually, here. Download OSRIC (Old School Reference & Index Compilation) and try playing that. It may be the answer to all your woes. It is basically 1E D&D, cleaned up a bit. Try playing that game for a while, and see if you have no complaints. You're clearly unhappy with modern D&D/PF (and I'd bet you'd be unhappy with OSRIC too after some time, if I was a gambler).
Best case scenario, I solved every problem you'll ever have with your gaming hobby.
Worst case scenario, you'll be back to complain about how mages in old D&D have too many options, fighters don't get enough skills, and theives are failures at everything but you have to have them in your party whether anyone wants to play them or not, and that demihumans are superior to everyone.
Which means we literally have nothing to lose by trying.
One would never know you had interest in Pathfinder from your threads. I have played 2E before, and to be honest it was with a god-awful GM. Plus, after having gotten used to 3E, the hardcoded limits of the system were terrible (less so in a PC game, perhaps because I inwardly expect a computer game to be more restricting than a tabletop RPG; but when you can't play a human who dabbles in sword & sorcery, the birds can have it).
But I was trying to help, because for the love man, you clearly hate everything that there is to Pathfinder! You hate casters, you hate magic items, you hate item creation, you hate how easy it is to get stuff you want (but through effort). You seem to hate almost everything I have ever said about anything, especially if it comes to class balance or these crazy new things called numbers. When math doesn't support your hatred, you hate the math, and hate the people with the math, and hate that math is being used.
It's just astounding to me that you keep rehashing all this stuff like it's somehow more relevant than it was the last time you tried to start something. If you own all the old school stuff, and OSRIC, why the hell are you raging about Pathfinder this much? I mean, I literally hate the mechanics of 4E (not all the mechanics, but as an RPG I feel it fails and fails hard), and I own the 4E core books, but you don't see me playing 4E and running off to 4E boards and being like "OMG guys, I freakin' hate how only rangers can dual-wield in core, and the only type of magic that exists in core is blasting, and not having hardness is way stupid!".
Why do you keep referencing Baldur's Gate I? While the game did have some elements of 2nd edition, it in no way covered everything that was D&D. To get the 2nd edition experience, you would actually need to play the game.
Because it actually does use the biggest aspects of the 2E system. Class advancement, XP, and so forth. It's also a game where Mages are actually handicapped compared to their tabletop counterparts, and warrior classes are at an advantage (in BG I, you can get good gear for warriors pretty easily, you don't have to deal with things like terrain handicaps, wizards cannot and never will be able to do things like fly or pass through walls, etc).
However, the core of the system? Yeah, it's in BG I. In fact, it includes all those little nuances like attack modifiers for armor, THAC0, weapon speeds, and even uses robust round mechanics, casting speeds, etc. I have a 2E PHB, and honestly, it's pretty much 2E in game format.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, here. Download OSRIC (Old School Reference & Index Compilation) and try playing that. It may be the answer to all your woes. It is basically 1E D&D, cleaned up a bit. Try playing that game for a while, and see if you have no complaints. You're clearly unhappy with modern D&D/PF (and I'd bet you'd be unhappy with OSRIC too after some time, if I was a gambler).
Best case scenario, I solved every problem you'll ever have with your gaming hobby.
Worst case scenario, you'll be back to complain about how mages in old D&D have too many options, fighters don't get enough skills, and theives are failures at everything but you have to have them in your party whether anyone wants to play them or not, and that demihumans are superior to everyone.
Which means we literally have nothing to lose by trying.
Ok I just want to throw out a brief aside/story about Osric.
I actually enjoyed the osric game our DM ran us through. We actually gave up on running through the initial dungeon ourselves (seriously screw traps in that game) and instead threw a boulder in front of the door and waited for the kobold raiding party that called the dungeon home to come back. We then ambushed them (killing several) and then took one prisoner so he could show us the secret back entrance they where using to move in and out of the dungeon while avoiding the traps. In the end, they actually came to worship us as "dragons", seeing our party as mighty and clever like one, which allowed my ranger and the party fighter to train them into an elite killing squad (more like regiment as there where 75 of them) we called the Killbolds. We ended that campaign by having our Killbold regiment murder an army of orcs that came to destroy the town we where in while we sipped Kool-Aid and "directed" our soldiers from the rear.
Although, I think under a different DM it may not have been as fun. SO...your mileage may vary. Ok, you can all go back to yelling at each other now. :P
"Weapon expcialization is an optional rule that enable the fighter (only) to choose a single weapon and specialize in it use..." - pag 73 of the player manual.
Oh yeah, and when they did introduce specialization, Rangers and Paladins could do it too
Depends on which optional rules you use and which edition. For example, in OSRIC (1E) if you allow Specialization the Paladin / Ranger can specialize too. They just get fewer proficiency points (pg. 13). However, you're correct that in core 2E only Fighters can specialize (but only up to 2 points, which gets you +1/2 an attack, so you get +1 attack every other round). At least until you start applying splat material, which IIRC expanded the options. I believe the book was Player's Option: Combat & Tactics; but it's been a while and I'm not an expert on pre-3E, merely familiar.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems the more Pathfinder goes on the more the weaknesses of magic and the spellcasting classes are removed.
It also seems melee have had quite a few options added.
There is always the option of investing in UMD and using all the new spell options regardless of class.
Actually, here. Download OSRIC (Old School Reference & Index Compilation) and try playing that. It may be the answer to all your woes. It is basically 1E D&D, cleaned up a bit. Try playing that game for a while, and see if you have no complaints. You're clearly unhappy with modern D&D/PF (and I'd bet you'd be unhappy with OSRIC too after some time, if I was a gambler).
Best case scenario, I solved every problem you'll ever have with your gaming hobby.
Worst case scenario, you'll be back to complain about how mages in old D&D have too many options, fighters don't get enough skills, and theives are failures at everything but you have to have them in your party whether anyone wants to play them or not, and that demihumans are superior to everyone.
Which means we literally have nothing to lose by trying.
Ok I just want to throw out a brief aside/story about Osric.
I actually enjoyed the osric game our DM ran us through. We actually gave up on running through the initial dungeon ourselves (seriously screw traps in that game) and instead threw a boulder in front of the door and waited for the kobold raiding party that called the dungeon home to come back. We then ambushed them (killing several) and then took one prisoner so he could show us the secret back entrance they where using to move in and out of the dungeon while avoiding the traps. In the end, they actually came to worship us as "dragons", seeing our party as mighty and clever like one, which allowed my ranger and the party fighter to train them into an elite killing squad (more like regiment as there where 75 of them) we called the Killbolds. We ended that campaign by having our Killbold regiment murder an army of orcs that came to destroy the town we where in while we sipped Kool-Aid and "directed" our soldiers from the rear.
Although, I think under a different DM it may not have been as fun. SO...your mileage may vary. Ok, you can all...
Haha, that sounds awesome man. ^.^
I've considered running an OSRIC game for my friends a couple of times, but the manual (being little more than charts and tables) is a little dry, and I wish some things were pointed out as nicely. I was reading through it earlier today, and I cannot for the life of me figure out where it explains the saving throws for NPCs like ogres and giants...
It seems the more Pathfinder goes on the more the weaknesses of magic and the spellcasting classes are removed.
It also seems melee have had quite a few options added.
There is always the option of investing in UMD and using all the new spell options regardless of class.
Which reminds me!
The more PF goes on, the more weaknesses of martials are removed. I mean, look at the barbarian. SUPERSTITIOUS & SPELL SUNDER as Rage powers. Archers getting some absolutely stupid-good feats clearly inspired by the Elven Asswhupping that was Legolas from LotR ('cause hey, you're clearly not a proper elven ranger unless you can stab an orc in the throat with an arrow and then murder two guys at melee range with that same arrow shot from your bow, as part of the same full attack). Paladins keep getting nice things. Are we missing anyone?
Oh yeah, those fighter guys who get to waste their 7th level feats doing stuff that is absurdly mundane...
OH WAIT A MINUTE!
Dazing Assault is like the most powerful martial feat ever to exist!
/thread
EDIT: Yeah, why doesn't anyone ever complain about Dazing Assault? I mean, really, that feat is broken as hell, and it's been out a while. There's pretty much 0 reasons not to take that feat on any martial who is higher than 11th level (and or take it sooner for certain PCs with BAB greater than their character level). It's like "Oh, every time I hit you, make a save or suck. A hard save. That nothing, anywhere, is immune or even resistant to. And this save doesn't rely on any of my ability scores. There are no effects to protect you against it. I'm going to sit here and stunlock you ALL DAY LONG".
Depends on which optional rules you use and which edition. For example, in OSRIC (1E) if you allow Specialization the Paladin / Ranger can specialize too. They just get fewer proficiency points (pg. 13). However, you're correct that in core 2E only Fighters can specialize (but only up to 2 points, which gets you +1/2 an attack, so you get +1 attack every other round). At least until you start applying splat material, which IIRC expanded the options. I believe the book was Player's Option: Combat & Tactics; but it's been a while and I'm not an expert on pre-3E, merely familiar."Weapon expcialization is an optional rule that enable the fighter (only) to choose a single weapon and specialize in it use..." - pag 73 of the player manual.
Oh yeah, and when they did introduce specialization, Rangers and Paladins could do it too
eeehhh
"When a character specialize in a melee weapon he gains +1 to all his attack rolls and +2 to all his damage rolls...Fighter who specialize also gain extra attack earlier that those who dont specialize"the extra specialization was indeed in splat material.
I've sung some praises to pre-3E fighters before. I kinda like 'em in OSRIC. It's just, they still weren't that special. I mean, they were the warrior that you could still play even if you rolled crappy rolls, remember? And if we're not using optional material, they didn't even have specialization either. :P
I'm just saying, the game has changed quite a lot. I think we can all agree on that. I'm actually pretty happy with the current metagame. I think that the game is actually the most balanced it has been in literally ages, while still being fun and convenient to play. If you find groups consisting of classes like:
Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Sorcerers, you will find a good party that is well rounded and has lots of stuff going for it. In core, there's only 3 classes that are suffering (monk, rogue, fighter, in order of suffering most to least IMHO), and even then it's not earth shatteringly sow (at least for the Fighters who with enough system mastery can be a dedicated striker, and they're great archers, and they're very multiclass friendly).
Barring a few questionable splat materials, I'd also say most of the splat material is pretty good:
Alchemists, Oracles, Magi, Ninja, and Inquisitors are good classes too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The maximum peak of caster power was 3.0 (specially with 3.0 haste, and the ability to cast two spells per round). Then they declined a bit in 3.5, and some spells got nerfed in 3.P. But spellcasters in AD&D weren't as powerful as they were in D&D 3rd edition. Not by a long shot.
Wait...what?
As someone who played every edition of AD&D (while they were current), gonna have to disagree with you there. Nothing -- nothing -- could stand up to a high level wizard in 1st edition. A lowly fireball could do 29d6, and saving for half didn't matter -- in a world where the fist of Orcus did 1d4, 29d6 meant that the target was dead either way. Protection from arrows made one completely immune to missiles weapons. That and fly meant a wizard could lay waste to armies.
Not that it really matters to the current conversation, but still...
The more PF goes on, the more weaknesses of martials are removed. I mean, look at the barbarian. SUPERSTITIOUS & SPELL SUNDER as Rage powers. Archers getting some absolutely stupid-good feats clearly inspired by the Elven Asswhupping that was Legolas from LotR ('cause hey, you're clearly not a proper elven ranger unless you can stab an orc in the throat with an arrow and then murder two guys at melee range with that same arrow shot from your bow, as part of the same full attack).I so hated Legolas in the movies.
He wouldn't be bad for a PF character, which is probably why I didn't like him in LotR.
Man, it's a wonder you hated him in LotR. Gimli beat him in their contest at Helm's Deep. He's basically an iconic elven ranger (right down to pass without trace). Aragorn is basically a human Ranger (heck, he's the iconic switch-hitter). Gimli is pretty much the iconic dwarf Fighter. In the LotR movies, it was like watching D&D/PF on the big screen, with none of the characters being higher than like 7th level in anything.
Heck, we went to see the Hobbit, and my brother and I basically agreed that yeah, a party of a buncha dwarf rangers and halfling would pretty much be their group in the Hobbit. :P
|
|
That's why fighter's can specialize in more than one weapon. Also, they can afford to use a weapon they are a little less specialized in, they are still going to be doing lots of damage and hitting with no problem.
You could always buy yourself a longsword in town. I mean it's always assumed Wizards can find their spells in town with no problem so a fighter should have no problem finding his specialty weapon.
See, that's where you're wrong. Every feat you burn speccing 1 weapon is a feat you don't have if you're not using it. A fighter who tries to spec 4 weapons to merely "specialized" in 3.x/PF has burned 8 feats to get a +1/+2 hit/dmg bonus.
With any other weapon, they are a warrior (the NPC class).
And you're also wrong about availability. It's not always assumed that wizards can find their spells in town with no problem. In fact, it's quite the contrary. In small settlements you cannot find spellcasters to purchase from their spellbooks (you need a small town or larger for 1st level spells, and metropoli only go up to 8th level spells with certainty, which means 9th level spells are usually going to need looting, questing, or researching). Then you have to deal with buying limits, which is to say if you're in a thorpe, no 2nd level scrolls. If you're in a hamlet, no 3rd level scrolls. If you're in a village, no 4th level scrolls, etc (unless they are randomly rolled as one of the minor/medium/major items in that town apart from its normal economy).
The thing is, scrolls are an inefficient means of acquiring spells, but if you don't have a large enough town, then it's what you're going to have to do. And many adventures take place away from big cities, so you may need to make a special trip. Now the problem the Fighter has is that non-consumable magic items (like weapons) are expensive, and the more expensive the rarer (which makes sense).
See, in the core rules, you can reliably purchase up to 16,000 gp items in a Metropolis. Anything else is rolled randomly,...
You are aware that fighters can swap out his feats. If you have a DM that is going to roll randomly for treasure and not allow anyone to purchase gear then the fighter can look at his next best weapon and go from there.
I'm not really sure where you are trying to go with this argument. Even if the fighter is relying on his third best weapon category choice, he is still kicking ass and taking names.
Are you tryimg to say that a fighter is hurting becauae of his specialization because that wouldn't be true?
Look at the ranger, he has to rely on specific types of creatures to fight. What happens if the DM doesn't present his number 1 favored enemy? I know about the spell Instant Enemy but you don't get that until later and it only works on one creature.
Yes, but melee classes got pounce for free, and no to-hit penalty in their itterative attacks (plus 1 attack extra every 2 rounds if they were specialists).That's a bit misleading. I mean it's true, but you got a lot less iterative attacks than in 3.0. Rangers and paladins topped out at 2 at 13th level and didn't get 3 every 2 rounds until 7th. As you said, Specialist Fighters got an extra half an attack.
In 1E, no specialization, so at most 2 attacks. Not quite the same as 3.x iterative attacks, even if you can use them every round.There were also less ways to add damage to those attacks. Extra strength, specialization and magic weapons were about it. No whole stacks of feats that let you boost damage these days.
If you were playing with core books only, yes. If you were playing with kits, no.
If my memory isn't misdirecting me, I remember I played with AD&D 2e using Complete books, and everybody was able to specialize, (fighters could do in more than one weapon), and two weapon fighting was very common. Haste gave you twice your attacks. EDIT: My memmory was misleading me, yes. Rangers and Paladins got specialization in Skills & Powers I think. Not in the Complete handbooks.At seventh level, I was doing 3 atacks on the charge with TWF (which is what I'd do now in a full round, except I didn't have any negative modifier). With haste, that's 6 attacks on the charge. And yes, the overall damage was less. But the enemies also had A LOT less hit points. The ratio of HP vs Damage was lower then. I repeat, I remember being able to kill a balor in a charge. In 3rd edition, I couldn't.
|
|
Lads!
We are getting off topic here.
The discussion is not about 2nd edition fighters, it's about spellcasters losing their witnesses.
The main problem is the fact that if we continue to get spells like Conjuration Creation then there will be a certain list of spells that every caster out there will choose to get around all the roadblocks that are in place on purpose.
There is already a mechanic that will allow you to beat an opponents SR but that can be skipped by simply casting a certain school of spells.
The maximum peak of caster power was 3.0 (specially with 3.0 haste, and the ability to cast two spells per round). Then they declined a bit in 3.5, and some spells got nerfed in 3.P. But spellcasters in AD&D weren't as powerful as they were in D&D 3rd edition. Not by a long shot.Wait...what?
As someone who played every edition of AD&D (while they were current), gonna have to disagree with you there. Nothing -- nothing -- could stand up to a high level wizard in 1st edition. A lowly fireball could do 29d6, and saving for half didn't matter -- in a world where the fist of Orcus did 1d4, 29d6 meant that the target was dead either way. Protection from arrows made one completely immune to missiles weapons. That and fly meant a wizard could lay waste to armies.
Not that it really matters to the current conversation, but still...
Sure, they did a ton of damage.
In 3e, they were abla to cast two spells per round, from 5th level. They could get un-hittable AC, they had a TON more spells (EDIT: scribe scroll), memmorizing them was 1 hour, instead of 10 minutes per *spell level* (which mean more than one day in the long run). In 3e, as the spell damage wasn't that great (although it is again in Pathfinder), we saw the transition from blasting wizards to God Wizard. Sure, in 3.0 the wizard can't do 29d6 with a fireball. But they can cast a DC 30+ Save or Die spell against your weaker saving throw.
@Ashiel
About the gp limits of cities, i am with you on the gp limit of the cities as presented in the core book but keep in mind that there are places in Golarion that might exceed that limit, for example Magnimar is a large city but has a base value 12800gp, which 10000gp over the number presented in the core book. So i am sure that there are places where the limit is way over 16000gp in places like Katapesh or Absalom.
Sure this means that in order to have access to those places you need teleport and greater teleport (or less instateneous ways of fast travel like wind walk and shadow walk) but it sure beats not having access to the kind of weapon you want/need.
You are aware that fighters can swap out his feats. If you have a DM that is going to roll randomly for treasure and not allow anyone to purchase gear then the fighter can look at his next best weapon and go from there.
I'm not really sure where you are trying to go with this argument. Even if the fighter is relying on his third best weapon category choice, he is still kicking ass and taking names.
While a large portion of his class features that make him at all comparable to any other martial simply cease to exist. This is undeniable.
Are you tryimg to say that a fighter is hurting becauae of his specialization because that wouldn't be true?
Damn strait I am. It's a weakness. Ever hear the one about having all your eggs in one basket? That's basically the icon for a Fighter. If you're not using the right weapon, you're not any better at attacks than common NPCs.
Look at the ranger, he has to rely on specific types of creatures to fight. What happens if the DM doesn't present his number 1 favored enemy? I know about the spell Instant Enemy but you don't get that until later and it only works on one creature.
Here's the big difference. Rangers can spec vs entire creature types. Broad, broad creature types. And later they get quarries. And as early as 1st level (via scrolls) they can have access to things like lead blades which ups their damage considerably for the duration if needed (though at levels before they can cast such spells themselves, they deal just as much damage as Fighters). And Rangers have more. Lots more. Fighters? They have static damage. But static damage limited to 1 type of weapon.
Want to really compare Favored Enemy vs Weapon Specialization? Okay, here we go.
Favored Enemy: Pick 9 over 20 Levels
Aberration: aboleth, choker, chuul, cloaker, dark naga, drider, ettercap, froghemoth, gibbering mouther, guardian naga, intellect devourer, mimic, neothelid, otyugh, roper, rust monster, spirit naga, will-o'-wisp
Animal: ankylosaurus, aurochs, bat, bat swarm, bison, boar, brachiosaurus, cat, cheetah, constrictor snake, crocodile, deinonychus, dire ape, dire bat, dire bear, dire boar, dire crocodile, dire hyena, dire lion, dire rat, dire shark, dire tiger, dire wolf, dire wolverine, dog, dolphin, eagle, elasmosaurus, electric eel, elephant, giant frilled lizard, giant frog, giant moray eel, giant octopus, giant squid, goblin dog, gorilla, grizzly bear, hawk, horse, hyena, leopard, lion, lizard, mastodon, monitor lizard, monkey, octopus, orca, owl, poison frog, pony, pteranodon, rat, rat swarm, raven, rhinoceros, riding dog, roc, shark, squid, stegosaurus, tiger, toad, triceratops, tyrannosaurus, venomous snake, viper, weasel, wolf, wolverine, woolly rhinoceros
(Aquatic): aboleth, chuul, crab swarm, dire shark, dragon turtle, giant crab, giant leech, giant moray eel, giant octopus, giant squid, kraken, leech swarm, merfolk, octopus, sahuagin, sea hag, sea serpent, shark, shoggoth, skum, squid
Construct: animated object, clay golem, flesh golem homunculus, ice golem, iron cobra, iron golem, stone golem, wood golem, retriever
Dragon: black dragon, blue dragon, brass dragon, bronze dragon, copper dragon, crag linnorm, dracolisk, dragon turtle, gold dragon, ice linnorm, green dragon, pseudodragon, red dragon, silver dragon, tarn linnorm, white dragon, wyvern
Magical Beast: ankheg, basilisk, behir, bulette, chimera, cockatrice, darkmantle, giant eagle, girallon, gorgon, griffon, hydra, kraken, manticore, owlbear, pegasus, phase spider, phoenix, purple worm, remorhaz, sea serpent, shocker lizard, sphinx, stirge, tarrasque, unicorn, winter wolf, worg
Outsider (evil): barghest, bebelith, cauchemar, demons, devils, hell hound, kyton, nessian warhound, night hag, nightmare, vargouille, xill, yeth hound plus every other creature on these lists that could be fiendish or a half-fiend via template
Undead: devourer, ghost, ghoul, greater shadow, lich, mohrg, mummy, shadow, skeletal champion, skeleton, spectre, vampire, wight, wraith, zombie plus every other creature on these lists that can be made undead via template
Vermin: army ant swarm, cave fisher, centipede swarm, crab swarm, fire beetle, giant ant, giant centipede, giant crab, giant leech, giant mantis, giant scorpion, giant slug, giant spider, giant stag beetle, giant wasp, leech swarm, spider swarm, wasp swarm
What do you get for it? +2 to hit and +2 to damage vs everything in that group (up to +10 to hit and +10 to damage with your favorite group).
Weapon Specialization (Costs 4 feats to fully spec)
Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Focus, Greater Specialization {Longsword}: Longsword
What do you get for it? +2 to hit, +4 to damage.
Oh By The Way
Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change one feat at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new bonus feat for the level.
You will NEVER, EVER be able to respect your weapons. It is impossible. You can only do it if they were your fighter bonus feats (not feats you took gaining levels), and then you must go backwards (from greater weapon specialization to greater weapon focus to weapon specialization to weapon focus), and you may only change 1 at a time every 4 levels, and you cannot change any feat that would break a prerequisite line.
Perhaps before claiming the Fighter can do something, you should probably familiarize yourself with how he is supposed to do that, so you know when he can't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people want spell casters to be mechanically superior to non casters
I guess most game designers fall into this group because I don't know many systems in which this is not the case.
In nearly every system in which there is some kind of magic or psi chars who can use it are stronger than the mundanes.- AD&D
- all d20 games
- shadowrun
- the ffg warhammer games
- The palladium books stuff
I haven't played enough mers/rolemaster to judge but I don't know a single rpg system where mages are clearly weaker than mundanes.
@Ashiel
About the gp limits of cities, i am with you on the gp limit of the cities as presented in the core book but keep in mind that there are places in Golarion that might exceed that limit, for example Magnimar is a large city but has a base value 12800gp, which 10000gp over the number presented in the core book. So i am sure that there are places where the limit is way over 16000gp in places like Katapesh or Absalom.
Sure this means that in order to have access to those places you need teleport and greater teleport (or less instateneous ways of fast travel like wind walk and shadow walk) but it sure beats not having access to the kind of weapon you want/need.
Well with splat material you could theoretically do anything. In some campaigns you can travel to the other planes and try to find places like Sigil where major magic items are traded as frequently as 1st level scrolls on he Material plane. But the standard core rules, all things being equal, them's the rules.
What astounds me is that in 3.x, people complained about how "magic mart" the game was, where in 3.x a Metropolis meant 100,000 gp items were freely available. Paizo actually makes it reasonable, and everyone complains or wants to break away from their being limitations. What's excessively amusing to me is that I can't figure out Shallowsoul, since he doesn't want players having freedoms, items, or (apparently) fun, but seems to think (based on other threads) that fighters are entitled to breaking the rules and ignoring their class features and getting magic items handed to them on demand. Or at least, it seems that way.
Anyway you're playing in a campaign that is high fantasy or fast progression (generally doubled to quadrupled rates), things will be different. In some you may be playing slower or lower fantasy (where rates may be halved or quartered). However, we generally are discussing the standard rules. And the standard rules are as noted. And it is the rules that I use when giving advice or discussing class balance (because once you start changing things from standard, everything else changes).
Personally I LIKE the gp limits (including when I'm playing a martial), and you are entirely capable of making it to 20th level in a standard party on only standard-purchase common gear (though it may need a few buffs from your party casters), and the standard is more than capable of keeping you well-geared through about 12-14th level.
But at the end of the day, not relying solely on items that you have little to no control over your acquisition of (especially in Shallowsoul's games where item creation = evil badwrongfun) is a big plus from where I'm sitting and the rules I'm reading.
I haven't played enough mers/rolemaster to judge but I don't know a single rpg system where mages are clearly weaker than mundanes.
Legends of the 5 rings, for example
I hear you Ashiel but i think that it's not wrong to assume that at least of half the people who play PF, do so using the Golarion campaign setting.
I understand what you are saying, when you are designing a class within core rules you should take into consideration the core rules and not the rules of your setting (that may or may not be a little different), but i think that for Paizo this is a little more diffucult, since Golarion and PF are so closely tied (from the companies point of view).
Golarion or not, there are cities with more than 16.000gp.
The game mastery guide give some modifiers to settlements, including things like "crossroad" or "Prosperous" that give modifiers to Base Value.
A prosperous, tourist attractive, Notorius, Magically attuned settlement in a strategic situation gets its Base Value raised by 110%.
similarly, a plagued, hunted impovireshed city might find it reduced by 90%.
So Metropolis have a Base value that goes from 1600gp, to 33600gp
Golarion or not, there are cities with more than 16.000gp.
The game mastery guide give some modifiers to settlements, including things like "crossroad" or "Prosperous" that give modifiers to Base Value.
A prosperous, tourist attractive, Notorius, Magically attuned settlement in a strategic situation gets its Base Value raised by 110%.
similarly, a plagued, hunted impovireshed city might find it reduced by 90%.
So Metropolis have a Base value that goes from 1600gp, to 33600gp
Ignoring the fact that the GMG rules are splat material, and ignoring the fact that a backwoods Metropolis is probably an oxymoron (seriously, are you going to get a metropolis that's not already a beacon of trade and probably a major travel hub? I mean really? Really?), 33,600 gp is not that much either. That would only get you up to +4 weapons, and not even capable of supporting +6 stat items (36,000 gp) or higher than +4 multi-stat items (like belts that give +4 Str/Dex/Con).
So even with said splat material pushing the GP limits higher in the extremes, it's still got a pretty low ceiling as far as magic items go.