| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
With more than a thousand posts in this very very young thread i can do nothing but ask... could it mean Pathfinder system is dying?No.
In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite. That 3.5/PF has enough fans remaining - and that number is growing - who want to find ways to fix the system, rather than simply bailing out and using a different system completely.
In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite. That 3.5/PF has enough fans remaining - and that number is growing - who want to find ways to fix the system, rather than simply bailing out and using a different system completely.With more than a thousand posts in this very very young thread i can do nothing but ask... could it mean Pathfinder system is dying?No.
Nice to hear that... pfiuuu!
Back to the topic:
I suggested to exhaust the whole party, cause that worked in the past. Yes, the spells can beat the abilities of non-casters, right, but if the campaign is intense, to sacrifice a spell slot to know where the gang boss hideout is a big sacrifice; and can be countered, the hideout can also have magic effects on it to make it impossible to find... and the wizard wasted her spell.
But thanks to something Ssalarn said, i can understand why it is an issue now. The casters have now more hit points than before. They can do things alone they cannot do in the past and they don't require the combatant characters to adventure anymore. I think it was an unexpected effect to solve another old issue, in the past the casters used to be unconscious on the floor during the last half of encounters. Now they just leave the other members behind to go and solo some monsters.
Back to the roots of the game, we see it is designed for parties of adventurers rather than individuals. When the casters are supporting the party, things are balanced, selfish PCs who don't benefit the party are a problem, casters the worst of them.
Anyway, an important thing to note: Always the casters had the good things, always, not just in the game rules, but in the fantasy theme it is based on. Always.
Another thing to note is... some classes are just leftovers from the past. Fighters and rogues the most. But i do like those classes. These are the easiest classes to play for newbies, fighter the most, so they're very important. If you find it unbalanced, then stop using fighters, move to rangers and paladins or monks, multiclass, step into prestige classes, etc. If you want more options then use Path of War rules or hybrid classes.
I don't really think the game is too unbalanced. Yes, caster classes get the best, but the cost is high, caster PCs are harder to play than basic characters. Bad players still do good fighters, bad players make the worst casters ever.
With more than a thousand posts in this very very young thread i can do nothing but ask... could it mean Pathfinder system is dying?
how many different people account for those 1000 of posts. We don't get exact sales numbers, but comments by the developers indicate that Core Rulebook sales are not only strong but increasing, which would suggest the system is far from dying.
Bad players still do good fighters, bad players make the worst casters ever.Here's rundown of a level 1 fighter made by a player I know :
Human Fighter 1
Attributes : 20 Dex, no other score above 12
Feats : Exotic Weapon Proficiency (hand crossbow), Two Weapon Fighting, Dodge
Notable Gear : 2x hand crossbow, leather armor, no melee weapon.Typical Combat Tactic (what the player usually did):
- First round : fire two bolt (+4/+4, 1d4 damage each). If he's unlucky, he's got an ally in mele, and he's firing at +0.
- Second round : sheathe the first crossbow, reload the second
- Third round : sheathe the second crossbow, draw the first crossbow
- Fourth round : reload the first crossbow, draw the second
- Fifth round : repeat first roundThis isn't even a joke. It's an actual character who's been played for multiple games.
Bad players can make terrible fighters.
Gods! I cannot do anything but take my words back...
ah ah ah! I clarified with 'core'.You're being very dishonest here. Your complaint is that the rogue's niche is violated by a feat. That feat isn't in core. In core the rogue has perfect niche protection. Just like you want.
Tch, did you also miss the part where I said that Trapfinding just amounts to a perception bonus? And a high Wis class will have a bonus that is higher, earlier then a Thief? The only thing he gets is the automatic check...and the feat takes care of that (and yes, it came out in an AP).
In 1/2e, no other class could use a skill to search for traps or magic traps.
I.e. Niche protection, completely lost. Of course, some folks love this because now they don't have to play a rogue to find traps.
I'd conjecture that, seeing how awful the rogue is, they just don't want to play a rogue.
==Aelryinth
I.e. Niche protection, completely lost. Of course, some folks love this because now they don't have to play a rogue to find traps.
I'd conjecture that, seeing how awful the rogue is, they just don't want to play a rogue.
Count me as one of these. As said, anyone who wants to play a roguish character I try to direct towards classes I know will do the job better. That includes trapspringing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gods! I cannot do anything but take my words back...
Here's rundown of a level 1 fighter made by a player I know :Human Fighter 1
Attributes : 20 Dex, no other score above 12
Feats : Exotic Weapon Proficiency (hand crossbow), Two Weapon Fighting, Dodge
Notable Gear : 2x hand crossbow, leather armor, no melee weapon.Typical Combat Tactic (what the player usually did):
- First round : fire two bolt (+4/+4, 1d4 damage each). If he's unlucky, he's got an ally in mele, and he's firing at +0.
- Second round : sheathe the first crossbow, reload the second
- Third round : sheathe the second crossbow, draw the first crossbow
- Fourth round : reload the first crossbow, draw the second
- Fifth round : repeat first roundThis isn't even a joke. It's an actual character who's been played for multiple games.
Bad players can make terrible fighters.
Not even laugh ?
This is so over-the-top.Seriously, no pathfinder is not Dying. We are still loving the system enough to try to fix it, and with all the 3PP plublishing plus all the paizo material, we have a nice toolbox too use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep thinking, if all spellcasters (except for alchemists and investigators; I think "vancian" casting via alchemy actually fits them) were changed into spherecasters, and you then added in Path of War as an option alongside existing martial classes to provide a bit of power-level variety, doesn't that just basically solve everything aside from possibly rewriting the rogue a third time? I mean, you could add in cool stuff like Akashic Mysteries and obviously DPS's psionics, but those don't include anything crucial for the game to function. Spheres of Power even has the rules option of getting some vancian utility spells back via rituals to adjust a game's magic level.
The only problem with this is that, since these are all well-received and popular 3pp supplements, it seems unlikely PF would ever steer too clearly in that direction in terms of first-party publications, whether in the context of a hypothetical "2nd edition" or otherwise. Still, it means all you have to do to get a vastly less problematic and more playable game is buy two 3pp supplements and you're kind of good to go.
Cheers,
- Gears
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With more than a thousand posts in this very very young thread i can do nothing but ask... could it mean Pathfinder system is dying?No.
No. The number of posts has nothing to do with the system. It means people like to talk and argue.
ah ah ah! I clarified with 'core'.You're being very dishonest here. Your complaint is that the rogue's niche is violated by a feat. That feat isn't in core. In core the rogue has perfect niche protection. Just like you want.Tch, did you also miss the part where I said that Trapfinding just amounts to a perception bonus? And a high Wis class will have a bonus that is higher, earlier then a Thief? The only thing he gets is the automatic check...and the feat takes care of that (and yes, it came out in an AP).
In 1/2e, no other class could use a skill to search for traps or magic traps.
I.e. Niche protection, completely lost. Of course, some folks love this because now they don't have to play a rogue to find traps.
I'd conjecture that, seeing how awful the rogue is, they just don't want to play a rogue.==Aelryinth
...You know Trapfinding is the only thing in the game that allows you to even attempt to disable magical traps, right? Without a Rogue (or someone else with the ability if you're not being a fool and using non-core material) the best you can do against such things is summoning a monster to eat the trap's effects for you, which doesn't even help if it auto-resets.
It's the only thing that lets you use Disable Device to disable magical traps. There are still plenty of other options for dismantling them, down to just physically destroying them with damage (either via characters or summoned creatures).
It's the only thing that lets you use Disable Device to disable magical traps. There are still plenty of other options for dismantling them, down to just physically destroying them with damage (either via characters or summoned creatures).
Smashing a trap is a really good way to activate it. The Trap Wrecker feat is designed for this purpose and even this doesn't allow you to disable magical traps.
The point is that, yes, the Rogue did have niche protection in Core, but no, that did not make the Rogue suck any less than it does.
A magical trap can always be dispelled/suppressed.
You can ALWAYS destroy it.
and yeah, you can spring it so the things in front take the hit.
The key thing is being able to find it there in the first place. Once you have done that, there's always alternatives a smart party can use.
So, find/remove traps was a niche thing, and now it's gone, gone, gone. :P
37 feat-equivs. Ugh.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still disagree with basically everything you have said in the past few days, but even if the Rogue was robbed of her sacred niche protection in Core that doesn't change the fact that literally no one else has their own niche either. Even the Wizard competes with Sorcerers and Caster Druids for the same role.
The wizard is still the prepared caster with potential access to the entire wizard list of spells, and if given the werewithal to prepare for an encounter, is the deadliest of enemies.
That's a niche.
The sorcerer doesn't have that versatility, but does have the ability to be more prepared for any range of encounters then a wizard.
That's a niche. But, remember sorcs didn't exist in 1e. You could say sorcs are an attempt to split the wizard niche.
Druids have exclusive access to the Druid list. (they had to share with bards in 1E, but bards were rare!) And were the only class with wildshape as a class ability. Sure, shapechange could match it, but that was a LONG ways away. Tons of spells on Druid list no one had, tho. And they leveled the fastest. and had the most hit dice. And were the only class with an animal companion (rangers didn't get til 3e either)
heh!
==Aelryinth
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I get it. You're confusing a class's role with the way they go about performing the role.
The Wizard and the casting-focused Druid have the same niche. They control the flow of battle through placing ground effects and other control abilities, and out of combat they have spells that can entirely change the face of the narrative (even a first level Endure Elements makes a trek through the desert a non-factor). What those classes have is not niche protection, it's asymmetric balance. They do the same thing but in a different way, allowing players to choose which one they would rather use to fill that party role.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I suppose throwing in Making Craft Work (with some slight tweaks) would probably be a good idea, too, but that one's practically free.
Oh, I get it. You're confusing a class's role with the way they go about performing the role.You are muddying things yourself by claiming the rogue had role protection because he was the only one performing the "trap disabler" role by the way of using disable device for magic traps.
Either "has wizard spell list" and "has druid spell list" are separate roles, or "disables magical traps with DD" and "disables magical traps with dispel" also aren't.
I'd say that the Rogue's role is skill monkey, and her frankly feeble attempt at reaching asymmetric balance with other skill monkeys (Bard and Ranger if you're going Core only, a whole host of other classes if not) is disabling magical traps without resource expenditure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely don't think niche protection is something that should be baked into the class design. It's fine if, like, your mate wants to play a healer, to then not optimize the shit out of your own character to be an even better healer than them. It's also not a problem if someone actually manages to build a fun healing class (like DPS's vitalist) that is awesome at healing and may be one of the best, or the best, healer in the game. But I don't think it should be a point of design philosophy for the game that only one class can heal, or only one class can disarm magic traps, etc..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sad thing is, conceptually this type of fighter should be able to work with the feats and gear selected. A guy who is lightly armored and mobile and who fights with two hand cross-bows seems right out of a Van Hellsing/League of Extraordinary Gentlemen story. The feats are the obvious ones a new player would select to realize the concept.His original goal was to make something like Diablo 3's Demon Hunter, and has you said, his feat selection seem good for an uninitiated. The concept is viable (while not optimal, but who cares), but requires a big feat expenditure before it is worth anything, which makes it completely ineffective before low-mid level. The best solution to the concept ma and my friend have found is to have the character starts a a more-or-less standard ranged fighter, beginning with the common ranged feat, then moving to crossbow feats and finishing with TWF & Exotic proficiency. It will never top the dpsmeters, but it works.
Sadly, it forces the character to start not as a dual-hand crossbow wielding killer, but as a classic bowman.
What your friend wants to play is a Bolt Ace Gunslinger. He'll need to play a Prehensile Tail Tiefling or have some other means of producing a third hand worth of effort but it's possible. Takes quite a bit of character building know-how to put together though, not something I would expect an inexperienced player to stumble on on their own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the topic:
I suggested to exhaust the whole party, cause that worked in the past. Yes, the spells can beat the abilities of non-casters, right, but if the campaign is intense, to sacrifice a spell slot to know where the gang boss hideout is a big sacrifice; and can be countered, the hideout can also have magic effects on it to make it impossible to find... and the wizard wasted her spell.
You are correct, in 1e AD&D, spell slots were limited. A level 10 magic-user had 15 spells. Once those were gone, it was dart throwing time. Now, a 10th level wizard has 16 spells, plus 4 cantrips, plus 5+ bonus spells, plus 5 school spells, plus 1 for bonded object. Twice the spells! And once their spells are gone, there are still some nice school abilities to use up, and then there are all the scrolls, wands, staves, potions, etc. that the wizard has made for themselves at half price. The AD&D magic-user was still a level away from being able to scribe a scroll or make a magic item, and that could take "weeks or months" to make!
Oh yeah, and I almost forgot, there are all the spells that the wizard cast yesterday, or a week ago, that are still in effect. Dominate Person, Contingency, Planar Binding, Simulacrum, etc.
The idea that if you just do four good APL+1 encounters, or make the adventuring day last 8 hours, the caster will run out of resources, and the martials will shine just isn't true anymore. The level 10 caster can cast a spell from each spell level, in five encounters, everyday, and not come close to running out of useful contributions!
Back to the current facet of the subject : niches & niche protection.
I don't think per-class niche protection should be the way to ensure so sort of balance, because it creates a situation where group composition gets locked down. For example, if the rogue is the only one to be able to handle traps, it forces every single group to have a rogue, regardless of the personal wishes of the players.
Mind you, I don't have a solution to the problem, I just don't think that niche protection is a good solution. It rather tends to be a symptom of underlying issues.
Yeah, but the thing is, you get a double standard.
If you MUSt have a cleric/wizard/druid along, nobody complains at all, because of course you need healing/AoE spells/ability to commune with nature/ad infinitum.
And if you don't, the adventure grinds to a halt. Same as the Rogue with traps.
But nobody complains. Double standard.
Note: In 1E, our thieves were ALWAYS multi-classed f/t's. Took care of combat ability, demi-humans could always get at least 12-15 in Theif, and they leveled fast enough the double levels never made much of a difference compared to the rest of the party.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The hell do you mean nobody complains? Plenty of people are frustrated by the divine casters' lock on healing magic and wish Skill Unlocks had actually been used to solve that problem. I myself have been a long-time supporter of shifting the Rogue's combat role into battlefield control, which would push into the wizard's territory.
Well, there are bards and skalds and white arcanists and spellsage wizards, mediums, witches, occultists, alchemists, and spiritualists that can all do healing magic.... So healing not divine restricted, just caster restricted.
Well, there are bards and skalds and white arcanists and spellsage wizards, mediums, witches, occultists, alchemists, and spiritualists that can all do healing magic.... So healing not divine restricted, just caster restricted.
Other than Healing Patron Witches I'm pretty sure none of those classes get all of the important healing spells; we're not talking about cures, we mean Restoration and other status removers. Alchemists get many of these, true, but they don't get them at the same level as a Cleric so they don't get them when the game expects you to have them. You can't rely on an Alchemist for your healing. Giving 6th level casters early entry to healing spells would definitely be another good solution for decreasing the Cleric's value.
Well... i have mixed feelings about the "niche" issue: in favor, the "niche" thing is one of the things that make a class unique, but just that; against it, i think a class just need to be interesting enough, balanced enough and flavored enough to be nice.
For me, a class don't need to have the "niche" thing, just need to be balanced enough and the best at doing X thing.
For me, a class don't need to have the "niche" thing, just need to be balanced enough and the best at doing X thing.
That's called having a niche.
For me, a class don't need to have the "niche" thing, just need to be balanced enough and the best at doing X thing.That's called having a niche.
The rogue isn't even good at disabling traps before mid levels...
I mean, a rogue need to be at least level 4 to find a trap reliably (accounting for 12 wis). And by reliably, I mean by taking 10. In a stressful situation or in combat, a rogue need to be at least level 10 to find them without a fault.
To find a magic trap taking 10, a rogue need to be at least level 8 (accounting for 12 wis and a spell level 1 trap). In stressful situations or in combat, a rogue need to be at least level 14 to find them without a fault.
On the other side, a cleric/druid can find a trap taking 10 by level 3 (accounting for 18 wis). In a stressful situation, it raises to level 8.
To find a magic trap, a cleric has Detect Magic at will.
This is to find a trap. Disabling a trap is possible via many ways anyway, so the skill is not the most useful. I think that the main problem is already to perceive them and the rogue is not the best at doing so.
All of this to say that a rogue is not the best at dealing with traps, even staying in core.
For me, a class don't need to have the "niche" thing, just need to be balanced enough and the best at doing X thing.That's called having a niche.
Well, that's your definition, but for some people "having a niche" here means "to be the unique doing X thing". For me this is not necessary.
One thing is the disparity between casters and non-casters and other the weaknesses of classes.
Talking about classes:
The fighter class is too plain in PF and weak at high levels... insipid is a good word for it. But its simplicity makes it nice for newbies; so i condone that. I'd love to see an Unchained Fighter class anyway. I think they need more skill points and find ways to self heal, so they can shine without potions and clerics around.
About rogues... i agree the rogue class is not nice in PF, not attractive, not interesting, weak enough, that very few want to play it; in 3E/3.5E was not good either, but the skill management was different so people used to take a first level in rogue to have insane amounts of skill points (until they realize to take a first level of expert npc class could be a better choice), then multi-class into the class they really wanted to play...
The sneak attack is not practical, for some encounters you need to meet a lot of conditions to be able to use it, making it hard to use, like the super special action on video games.
Trapfinding only works, well, if the people keeps entering in dungeons with traps inside; but if the party engage in other activities, interesting too, but not dungeons, that ability just serves for nothing.
At first sight the Unchained Rogue is just an improved rogue, i liked it, but i still think it's a weak class.
But, it is a different issue of the caster non-caster disparity. You can give and adjust what those classes have and the disparity remains. How to balance those things? You need to go to the roots of the differences between classes, hit dice, saving throws, BAB, resources and alike...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, has anyone toyed with the idea of giving Rogues something akin to the ninja ki points, but based off, say, charisma? Instead of Ki it could be luck or cunning, basically the little extra that divides the real deal scoundrels from the pretenders.
Fighters sort of get that via combat stamina. Now if bravery was not a joke and added, say, half their level to saves vs fear and their combat stamina pool, we could be off to something at first. The class would need a few other tricks for higher levels, but it would be a good start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It'd probably just be easier to homebrew up a Ninja archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially, it would be a reverse-engineering and unchained version of the ninja, giving the "ki pool" to the regular unchained rogues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking about the disparity and came to this point... the hit points. They were determined with the balance between classes in mind; but in the end it fails. Why? Cause HP represent how hard is to kill a creature; but sadly it represents too how hard is to heal a creature and should be the other way, a hard to kill creature would be also easy to heal.
If you compare, a fighter have about twice the hit points of a wizard. But to restore her to full HP, it requires double the magic, potions etc than a wizard. A 18 Con provides +4 HP per level, higher than the expected HP for a wizard (3.5) and too low compared to the mean value of a barbarian HD (6.5); meaning creatures with a low Hd benefit much more from a high Con stat than creatures with high HDs... an irony.
Potions/spells should restore HP in % rather than raw hit points. Myabe they restore HD, you have a 1d6 HD? sorry you don't benefit that much from potions, ah you are a fighter, roll a 1d10 instead; multiclass? don't worry, a 3 fighter / 7 wizard using a lot of spells only heal 3d10 + 7d6, ok? Sorry, but fighters and barbarians have such stamina so they benefit much more than a weak wizard from medicine, potions and spells.
Fighters could have a way to heal faster than wizards, maybe they can recover 2 points of non-lethal damage per hour, maybe a bonus on how much they can recover from rest, maybe they heal during the day when not engaged in battle without requiring to rest, "dudes, i'll be helping the people to repair those tents until the pain goes away, i'm just tired of being on the bed the whole day being of no use, don't worry about me, it's just a bruise and i'm a die hard, you know?".
Essentially, it would be a reverse-engineering and unchained version of the ninja, giving the "ki pool" to the regular unchained rogues.
No, no, a luck pool is a much better idea!
Well, that's your definition, but for some people "having a niche" here means "to be the unique doing X thing". For me this is not necessary.For me, a class don't need to have the "niche" thing, just need to be balanced enough and the best at doing X thing.That's called having a niche.
If two classes do the same thing, but do it in different ways, one of them will be better at doing it. By "different", I mean arrive at their results in mechanically different ways. If the mechanics are identical, but the flavor is different, well, you just have the same class with a different description is all.
If two classes do the same thing, but do it in different ways, one of them will be better at doing it. By "different", I mean arrive at their results in mechanically different ways. If the mechanics are identical, but the flavor is different, well, you just have the same class with a different description is all.Well, that's your definition, but for some people "having a niche" here means "to be the unique doing X thing". For me this is not necessary.For me, a class don't need to have the "niche" thing, just need to be balanced enough and the best at doing X thing.That's called having a niche.
Barbarians and Paladins are both high-damage (generally) melee warriors. The way both classes go about fulfilling that role sets them apart significantly, and they're both strong enough that which one you choose for the role is largely up to preference.
There's also the fact that most classes fulfill multiple party roles, usually one combat and one out-of-combat at the very least. The Evangelist Cleric is straight up better than the Bard at support, but the Bard is a way better skill monkey.
I'm sorry if my point was unclear.
Class A does X+Y damage
Class B does X+Z damage
Now, the mechanics of how Y and Z are arrived at are different. If Y>Z then Class A is better at dealing damage (or vice versa). If Y=Z, then you basically have the same formula, just arranged differently.
What sets the Paladin and Barbarian apart isn't their damage really, but their other abilities, which are completely different. The Paladin gets a lot of defensive abilities which can be shared with allies, can remove various afflictions and prevent bad things from happening. The Barbarian has some utility, but mostly has different ways of smashing things and can smash more things than the Paladin.
Which class you choose depends on your party make up and the kind of campaign you're going to play.
It's those different mechanics that address completely different things that make the two classes interesting from one another. Imagine instead that the Paladin class instead had an ability called "Divine Spirit" that gave them +4 Str and +4 Con for X rounds per day, plus they had Divine Talents they got every few levels that modified this ability, and they were all identical to Rage talents, but named differently. Now the classes would be perfectly balanced against each other, but their differences would literally be in name only.
That is the point I'm making. To truly have different classes you need them to do things that are different from one another, otherwise you just have the same class with different names.
I'm arguing in favor of niche protection and pointing out it's value.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a strong proponent of what I'd call partial niche protection -- because it's not all or nothing.
Pretend we could somehow simplify the game into Buffing/Healing, Combat, Skills, and Utility Problem-Solving, and pretend they could be rated as 0 = no ability to do that thing to 4 = does it better than anyone or anything ever.
We could make a cleric class that's B4, C0, S0, U0; and a fighter class that's B0, C4, S0, U0; and a thief class that's B0, C0, S4, U0; and a wizard class that's B0, C0, S0, U4. We'd have perfect niche protection. Each class is needed to deal with each thing. What you'd have are 4 different games, really, with each class only able to play in one of the four. That's hardly ideal.
(1e had stuff like the thief class: B0, C1, S3, U1; and everyone else was essentially S0. So he had a niche, but it was kind of awkward and I like to think we've moved beyond that since the '70s.)
At the extreme opposite end of things, everyone could be B2, C2, S2, U2. That's unbelievably bland and borderline pointless -- at that point, it's far better to simply move to a classless system.
Ideally, we could have a game in which maybe the fighter is B1, C3, S2, U2; whereas the cleric is B4, C2, S1, U1 or whatever, and everyone would have a major area of competence, but all be able to do other stuff, too, to some degree. We're a long way from being there (the current fighter is still something like B0, C3, S1, U0; whereas the druid is more like B3, C3, S2, U4).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ideally, we could have a game in which maybe the fighter is B1, C3, S2, U2; whereas the cleric is B4, C2, S1, U1 or whatever, and everyone would have a major area of competence, but all be able to do other stuff, too, to some degree. We're a long way from being there (the current fighter is still something like B0, C3, S1, U0; whereas the druid is more like B3, C3, S2, U4).
Ya, this how a hypothetical Anzyrfinder would handle it. Even Mr. Beatstick should have some utility and skills, even if they have less skills then Mr. Skillmonkey and less utility then Mr. Summoner. Maybe even a buff/heal effect or two, not enough to even remotely focus on, but enough so they have something.
That is the point I'm making. To truly have different classes you need them to do things that are different from one another, otherwise you just have the same class with different names.
Then i bet you dislike classes like the Witch and the Oracle...
A strong niche protection means those classes would be pointless... even the Sorcerer become pointless, you can do the same with Wizards, some feats and a bunch of wands.
I like those classes, despite they do what other classes do too.
If its like GURPS you'll end up with a guy who starts with C8, and derps the game.
just found this thread, are we still allowed to comment on the OP after 1000+ posts?
I think the biggest problem with casters in pathfinder isn't that they are too powerful, its that the ratio of caster:martial is off in most (non monster) encounters.
If your PC party is 60:40 caster:martial then you can take that as your base ratio for the world (in custom campaigns anyway). If you have 3 casters and 2 martials in your party you should run into encounters with roughly the same mix IMO.
After you have the class mix down you look at spells available in the world. I don't think the spells themselves matter honestly, i think what matters is their rarity. I've seen the idea of banning spell marts and having players find whole spellbooks mentioned at least once in this thread, and i think that makes a lot of sense. If you take it a step further you see that most spellcasters in the world (that use spellbooks anyway) are going to have a common set of spells. If every spellcaster is bent on adding spells to their spellbooks you will tend to see the rarity curve flatten out over time.
Now combine these two concepts, you have encounters with roughly equal ratios of caster:martial on both sides, and the casters all have a roughly common set of spells.
Next, I'd start using the counterspell rules more often. Every spell in pathfinder (with specific exceptions) can be counterspelled (fizzled) by casting the same spell at the same power level against it. With equal-ish numbers of casters on both sides of encounters you should encourage caster/players to try counterspelling the bad guys (mostly by having the bad-guy casters do the same thing to them). I think this creates a more tit for tat environment, the casters should protect everyone from spells, and the martials should protect everyone from other martials.
I think this preserves the sense that casters are super badass by making the physical removal of the opposing caster the martial character's main goal (in order to let their own caster get through the other side's defenses and end the fight).
Depending on how often encounters happen in the campaign these changes can have an effect on non-battle utility as well. If the casters need to save every slot in order to counterspell the roughly equal numbers of baddie casters during fights they will be more reluctant to waste them on quality of life things.
TLDR; the supersaturation of casters should apply to both sides, common spell lists should abound, counterspelling should be a major mechanic/concern for every caster