Fact: Pathfinder has solved the Caster/Non-Caster Disparity of 3.5

[RoboEmperor]

A titan in the playground made this post? o_O WTF!

Almost all the gameover spells that existed in CORE 3.5 exists in PF in all its glory, except NO XP COSTS. So...

Browsing over the sorcerer/wizard spell lists in PF, I'm gonna say level 5 spells make sorcerer/wizards excruciatingly powerful, so... level 9+ casters slaughter non-casters.

If you are talking levels 1-8 I guess I can see that, considering how mundanes can craft magic items in PF, but then you have the witch slaughtering everything early level so...

I hate PF. There is no versatility in that game. You all go a straight 20 in a class and that's it. No synergy planning in prestige classes which results in no whacky fun builds but instead boring standard builds exclusively.

Anyways, no, I disagree with you. PF buffed mundanes a lot. I think allowing them to craft magic items was one of their biggest boosts, but these tiny buffs don't come anywhere near the sheer power of the gamebreaking spells casters have access to.

The obvious one (and my specialty) is planar binding. Once you get that spell you can create your own party and replace every single one of your noncasters with expendable and more powerful noncasters turning them utterly obsolete.

[AvatarVecna]

A titan in the playground made this post? o_O WTF!

As has been revealed since then, it was me presenting an argument from another thread as best as I could managed despite the fact that I don't really agree with the argument myself. Being not super-familiar with Pathfinder, I realized I'd mostly been assuming that PF was about as flawed as 3.5 on basically every point, and had just made everybody more powerful/versatile while closing off some major abuses, but doing nothing to change the overall balance of the various classes, and I wanted to make sure that my assumptions weren't a product of my inexperience. As it turns out, they aren't, they're grounded in reality.

I appreciate the responses of everybody in the thread, including the person with whom the argument originated, even if I wish they would post their own argument points so that people could discuss them and take them into account. While I hardly think I've been strawmanning their argument, I will admit that the points I came up with to defend PF's balance in this thread were not points they brought up when we argued it elsewhere, so in a sense I wasn't really representing their argument, but rather their conclusion with my evidence, so getting their evidence instead of mine would better represent their argument, if they decided to share it with us.

[Troacctid]

Pathfinder did improve the balance a bit. It just didn't solve it.

[Pex]

What is more accurate to say is Pathfinder narrowed the power disparity between the warrior and spellcaster types. It did that by creating warrior classes that use magic themselves to help them fight for self-buffing on offense, defense, and utility. There are single class gishes like Inquisitor, Magus, and Warpriest. Paladin is all about self-buffing with a little buffing of others. Pure non-magic classes like Fighter and Barbarian never had a problem dealing out damage in 3E, but people complained about lack of diversity and defense. Both are increased in Pathfinder. Not enough to satisfy the whiners who always shout Gate and Teleport, but for those who don't resent spellcasters casting spells they get to do the fighting they like with stuff to do out of combat competently as well helped by the improved skill system.

[Rynjin]

No. Lolno.

There is a very simple metric you can use to show the disparity: How many problems can your class solve?

What arenas of the game can your Fighter meaningfully participate in? Your Wizard? Your Magus? For example, even ignoring relative levels of efficiency in that arena (save or die/suck multi-target **** yous vs "I beat that one guy with a stick"), both a Fighter and a Wizard can meaningfully contribute in a combat setting.

But the Wizard can, on his own power, participate on an inter-planar scale. The Fighter cannot. Inter-planar adventures are entirely beyond the Fighter's ability to even BEGIN. And that sort of gap exists in all sorts of things. Transport in general. Niche problem solving like Resurrection (your non-caster cannot fix death...or any other status conditions, for that matter). They cannot overcome big terrain issues (any gap larger than the Fighter can jump across and of indeterminate depth may as well be impassable). They have no long distance information gathering capability. No non-skill way to sway social situations. And many, many other scenarios that a caster class can branch off into, even if they aren't the best at it.

The usual response to this is "But magic items though". Are those class features? No? Then shut up.

[Starbuck_II]

Nobody is arguing that Pathfinder Rogue is weaker than 3.5 Rogue; comparing the two side by side, the PF Rogue has objectively more goodies. But that's not the problem, the problem is that everybody in PF got goodies, and when you compare the PF Rogue to things it's going to be competing with (Ranger, Slayer, Investigator, etc), it doesn't compare as well as the 3.5 Rogue did to the other 3.5 equivalents. The 3.5 was a highly skilled trapfinding DPR machine, whereas PF has made skillmonkeying easier in general, trapfinding just a thing anybody can do well enough, and DPR much easier to pull off for other classes. The PF Rogue doesn't really have the niche protection it had in 3.5, and its tier ranking suffers for that.

Mind you, I have no idea what it's doing in T5 on that list; it should be in T4, and Unchained Rogue should probably be either high T4 or low T3, depending on how you slice it.

I am argueing this point.
The 3.5 Rogue is better outside of the PHB (due to the many avenues and archetype [nicknamed alternate class features], magic items, etc. that allow easy sneak attack).

All PF did was lower the prohibited roads, there are fewer avenues to sneak attack town.

So PF rogues have neat abilities, but they are weaker at sneak attacking.

[stanprollyright]

The thing is Pathfinder makes so many minor rules modifications that most 3.5 material isn't usable as-is. Between the changes to all those spells, the basic monster combat routines, and the differences in how defenses and HP were calculated, there were things my group had to stop and look up almost every round of combat.

This is counter to my experience, where it's: "can I use this feat/PrC/item/spell from 3.5?" "...yeah, that looks fine." Monster conversions would probably be a pain.

I'd argue that in its current state Pathfinder is actually less compatible with the 3.5 rules than 3.0 edition sourcebooks are-- possibly even less compatible than d20 Modern.

I don't see your point; 3.0, 3.5, and d20 modern all use the same rule set. They're supposed to be compatible.

There is a very simple metric you can use to show the disparity: How many problems can your class solve?

What arenas of the game can your Fighter meaningfully participate in? Your Wizard? Your Magus? For example, even ignoring relative levels of efficiency in that arena (save or die/suck multi-target **** yous vs "I beat that one guy with a stick"), both a Fighter and a Wizard can meaningfully contribute in a combat setting.

But the Wizard can, on his own power, participate on an inter-planar scale. The Fighter cannot. Inter-planar adventures are entirely beyond the Fighter's ability to even BEGIN. And that sort of gap exists in all sorts of things. Transport in general. Niche problem solving like Resurrection (your non-caster cannot fix death...or any other status conditions, for that matter). They cannot overcome big terrain issues (any gap larger than the Fighter can jump across and of indeterminate depth may as well be impassable). They have no long distance information gathering capability. No non-skill way to sway social situations. And many, many other scenarios that a caster class can branch off into, even if they aren't the best at it.

The usual response to this is "But magic items though". Are those class features? No? Then shut up.

A Fighter in 3.5 has 2 skill points/level. A Fighter in Pathfinder has 2 skill points/level. The 3.5 Fighter has 2 skills. The Pathfinder Fighter has an extra skill point/level from his favored class bonus, doesn't have to worry about cross-class ranks, can get any skill as a class skill with traits, and can take skills that are the equivalent 2 or 3 skills in 3.5. Plus, he can put 1 rank in any class skill for the +3 with minimal investment at any level. A Fighter using the PF skill system could easily be a better skillmonkey than a Ranger using the 3.5 system.

That's not even considering archetypes, which give all sorts of varied abilities (it's not like you're giving up anything as a Fighter, so you might as well stack as many archetypes as you can). Or feat chains like Eldritch Heritage that give you magical abilities. Or maybe you're a Drow (no LA!) that takes the Drow Nobility feat chain for SLAs. Or you've taken "But magic items though" to heart, so you take Master Craftsman and crafting feats. Yeah, those aren't combat feats, but you're able to take them because you already have the combat feats you need.

And Fighter is a terrible example. Other OG martial classes like Rogue and Barbarian can get all sorts of magical abilities with their class features.

None of the above "solves" the disparity, but it is a noticeable difference. The typical response to this is "all that stuff basically affects everyone equally," but tell that to the Rogue. Tier 1 classes can already solve all the problems, so their benefit from all these superficial options is basically nil. Skills, bloodlines, and domain powers influence your spell selection. A little bit. Casters actually have one fewer thing they can do, which is "pretend to be a Fighter." They have smaller HD, so they are much more likely to select HP for their favored class bonus instead of the extra skill point. And there aren't a bunch of "+1 spellcaster level" PrCs. Combined with Paizo's love of d8 partial spellcasters, inter-party balance becomes less of a problem.

[Serafina]

Actually, you can barely stack Fighter Archetypes: Essentially, they can only trade out Bravery, Weapon Training and Armor Training, and many archetypes trade out two or more of those. At most, you'll get two archetypes.
And you're actually giving up a lot - if you trade away Weapon or Armor Training, you'll lose access to Advanced Weapon or Armor Training. Which is actually very good, and finally gives the Fighter something other classes can't. Archetypes tend to do that too, but also tend to lock you into one specific combat style.

More notably, almost no archetypes of the Fighter actually make you better at non-combat tasks.

And they're still stuck at 2+Int skill ranks per level. That's less than basically any class that doesn't rely heavily on Intelligence, other than Clerics, Paladins, Summoners and Warpriests (all of whom get at least some degree of spellcasting).
Now there are a few archetypes that give them 4+Int skill ranks, there's a feat that grants you +1 skill rank per level, and you can use your favored class bonus for that too. Of course, the latter two options are also open to all other classes - and the archetypes are not without cost.
You can also use AAT and AWT to get good at some skills. Specifically, you can trade an AAT to use your BAB for one of Acrobatics, Climb, Craft (armor), Disguise, Escape Artist, Intimidate, Knowledge (Engineering), Profession (Soldier), Ride or Swim; and you can trade an AWT to use your BAB for two skills depending on your chosen weapon group.

So sure, a Fighter who has, say, 12 Int, invests into a +4 Int Item, puts his FCB into extra skill ranks, trades a feat for extra skill ranks and trades, say, one AAT and two AWT for skills will have effectively 11 skills ranks per level.
Of course, any Wizard of such level worth their name should have at least 9 ranks per level, without sacrificing a single class feature or feat, and has spells too.

And it's still mundane skills. They can do what skills can do, even with skill unlocks it hardly gets supernatural. They can be very good, but there are a lot of problems that can't be solved with any skill.
You can't climb a perfectly smooth surface, or get to a floating castle with skills (unless it's really low, in which case you might be able to jump).
You can't travel much faster with skills. Sure, Acrobatics, Climb, Survival and Swim help you with getting around - but most obstacles bypassed by such are outdone by a single overland flight spell.
You can't get all secret information with skills. Knowledge checks don't allow you to learn about hidden things, it's much harder and sometimes not possible to steal secret documents, and Gather Information has sharp limits. A divination spell can just get an answer for you and magic can read minds.
You can't easily feed a starving village with skills. Sure, you can try to hunt or farm - but that takes time, and only works if there's food available. There's half a dozen spells that can solve the problem instantly anywhere.
And finally - anytime a skill is actually the best choice to solve a problem, there's a lot of spells and class features of caster classes that just make you much better at that skill, or any skill even.


D&D is inherently a magical setting, so there's inherently magical solutions to lots of problems. Casters get these and more, Non-Casters do not get these. That's not balanced.
Of course, that doesn't mean that every class has to be a Caster, with spells prepared or known. There's lots of alternative ways to do it.

And there's literary no reason why a Fighter could not have 4+ or even 6+ skill ranks per level - and also Fighter Talents every few levels, some of which allow them to use their expertise in weapons and armor to coax magic effects out of them. We already have that in the form of Item Mastery feats, but there's little reason a Fighter shouldn't have more of those. And there's little reason why their extensive training should not enable them to deal with magic in unique ways - bat aside a spell (also available via feat, but to anyone and costing a feat), cut through a magical wall, use their stamina to sustain a magical spell longer on themselves, stuff like that.
Likewise, there's no reason why a Rogue should not have unique magical talents. Stealing the magic out of items, firing off spells from a wand without anyone noticing, catch and juggle a spell and so on. Instead, they mostly get pretty lame talents.

[Manyasone]

Isn't this the reason, at least it seems thus, that more and more people start using alternate magic systems developed by 3rd party publishers? At this point in the 'game' I'm actually planning to to get rid of Vancian casting altogether. There are plenty of other decent ways to play a 'fighter' that have the utility some crave without resorting to 'magic pur sang' in these systems. You don't have to cripple yourself in this way... Unless of course your DM thinks only 1pp is balanced, in which case you're boned

[Cosi]

Not enough to satisfy the whiners who always shout Gate and Teleport, but for those who don't resent spellcasters casting spells they get to do the fighting they like with stuff to do out of combat competently as well helped by the improved skill system.

This is a needlessly aggressive way of making your point. There's nothing wrong with wanting to contribute in combat with a sword and still contribute out of combat, and acting like the people who want to do that are having badwrongfun is why Fighters suck.

I am argueing this point.
The 3.5 Rogue is better outside of the PHB (due to the many avenues and archetype [nicknamed alternate class features], magic items, etc. that allow easy sneak attack).

I never understand people praising the PF Rogue. They nerfed splash weapons to no longer deal sneak attack damage, which destroyed one of the best Rogue builds in the game. Yeah, the Rogue got a bunch of minor bonuses, but who cares?

A Fighter in 3.5 has 2 skill points/level. A Fighter in Pathfinder has 2 skill points/level. The 3.5 Fighter has 2 skills. The Pathfinder Fighter has an extra skill point/level from his favored class bonus, doesn't have to worry about cross-class ranks, can get any skill as a class skill with traits, and can take skills that are the equivalent 2 or 3 skills in 3.5. Plus, he can put 1 rank in any class skill for the +3 with minimal investment at any level. A Fighter using the PF skill system could easily be a better skillmonkey than a Ranger using the 3.5 system.

Why do I care how many skills the Fighter can have? Did PF make Jump checks let you fly? Skills are almost exclusively stuff that competes with 3rd level or lower spells, and spell levels still go up to 9 in PF.

inter-party balance becomes less of a problem.

Of course, this comes at the cost of the party falling behind CR = Level monsters.

Isn't this the reason, at least it seems thus, that more and more people start using alternate magic systems developed by 3rd party publishers? At this point in the 'game' I'm actually planning to to get rid of Vancian casting altogether. There are plenty of other decent ways to play a 'fighter' that have the utility some crave without resorting to 'magic pur sang' in these systems. You don't have to cripple yourself in this way... Unless of course your DM thinks only 1pp is balanced, in which case you're boned

I should probably read the in depth on Spheres of Power at some point, but every time some one brings it up they mention that it puts powers like raise dead and teleport on a list of "only if the DM says so" powers, and that is exactly the wrong way to implement those powers. Spheres of Power may be more balanced, but that balance comes at the cost of player agency (as far as I can tell).

Also, what is "pur sang"? I assume you mean "per se", but you might not.

[Mato]

limiting metamagic reduction cheese, getting rid of Persistent Spell as it existed in 3.5, etc)

Who needs to persist a spell when you can infinity recast it?

[Manyasone]

)Also, what is "pur sang"? I assume you mean "per se", but you might not.

In this case specifically it means magic elitist. Like God Wizards for instance or the scry&die tactics some people think is valid. Or ice assassin... That one really ticks me off

[Calthropstu]

I think my sarcasm may have been lost...

I have honestly played far more low level characters than high. The levels where the non casters are completely outmatched, lvl 15 and beyond, are actually quite rare to play. Most games tend to start at 1st to 5th level and go from there. And then take years to advance. Many gaming groups break up, others end the game at or before lvl 14. Those few games that DO go beyond lvl 14, tend to have some heavy anti caster material.

There are the occasional games where people start at obscene levels, but those seem to be rare. So I will agree with the op... for MOST games, he is correct. Middle tier is exceptionally more balanced in pathfinder, whereas lower tiers are more favored toward non casters and upper tiers are more favored toward casters.

[Nifft]

Also, what is "pur sang"? I assume you mean "per se", but you might not.

Pur sang is its own thing: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pur%20sang

Totally different etymology from per se.

[RoboEmperor]

I think my sarcasm may have been lost...

I have honestly played far more low level characters than high. The levels where the non casters are completely outmatched, lvl 15 and beyond, are actually quite rare to play. Most games tend to start at 1st to 5th level and go from there. And then take years to advance. Many gaming groups break up, others end the game at or before lvl 14. Those few games that DO go beyond lvl 14, tend to have some heavy anti caster material.

There are the occasional games where people start at obscene levels, but those seem to be rare. So I will agree with the op... for MOST games, he is correct. Middle tier is exceptionally more balanced in pathfinder, whereas lower tiers are more favored toward non casters and upper tiers are more favored toward casters.

There are spells at level 5 that can turn noncasters obsolete (lesser planar binding for one). The reason you experience the disparity at level 15 and not level 9 is because the casters are intentionally not playing to their fullest potential, for fun.

I haven't really optimized pathfinder so there might be ways that I'm unaware of that makes noncasters obsolete sooner.

[Troacctid]

I should probably read the in depth on Spheres of Power at some point, but every time some one brings it up they mention that it puts powers like raise dead and teleport on a list of "only if the DM says so" powers, and that is exactly the wrong way to implement those powers. Spheres of Power may be more balanced, but that balance comes at the cost of player agency (as far as I can tell).

You don't have to play "DM May I" for each Advanced Talent—the Advanced Talent system is either allowed or it's not. If it's allowed, you have access to all the Advanced Talents. The reason it's presented as an optional rule is to enable low-magic worlds "where powerful wizards must still rely on horses and quick wits no matter their level"—basically to make the system more customizable.

[Ssalarn]

Isn't this the reason, at least it seems thus, that more and more people start using alternate magic systems developed by 3rd party publishers? At this point in the 'game' I'm actually planning to to get rid of Vancian casting altogether. There are plenty of other decent ways to play a 'fighter' that have the utility some crave without resorting to 'magic pur sang' in these systems. You don't have to cripple yourself in this way... Unless of course your DM thinks only 1pp is balanced, in which case you're boned

Yes, there are a lot of flaws with Vancian casting, and they in no small share a healthy chunk of the responsibility for caster / non-caster disparity.

Traditional D&D vancian casting mechanics have two major characteristics beyond being slot based that define their functionality-

1) They are defined by what you can't do, rather than what you can. Wizards can't heal or wear armor, they have prohibited schools, clerics have a spell list that can't adapt to as many situations as arcane casters, none of them can cast more than a certain number of spells per day, etc. The major issue in a system based around what you can't do though, is that in a system as large as PF vancian magic, there's always a way around those limitations. Illusion can pretend to be Evocation and Conjuration, Conjuration can pretend to be Evocation and Necromancy, so on and so forth, and that's before looking at the fact that there's really no such thing as "prohibited schools" in Pathfinder anymore or the fact that there are arcane spells that heal (and not just for bards), and ways to graft arcane abilities onto divine spell lists. So, you have a system that assumes that things you can't do will provide a layer of balance, and yet there's really no solid boundary preventing you from doing anything and everything possible within the broad confines of your character level and available spell level.

2) Vancian casting, both as presented in D&D and as conceived in the original works of Jack Vance, is intended to be very limited. You have a few "I win" buttons, but you need to hoard them for the right moment... Except you don't. There's this anticipated waveform pattern of performance amongst casters that's supposed to balance them against non-casters. As a rough example, a wizard who isn't casting a spell is expected to be operating at around 25% potential capacity for a character of his level, spiking up to 100% briefly when he casts a spell. A fighter is expected to operate at around 50% capacity for a character of her level 100% of the time. System mastery, of course, can tweak these numbers. Now, some games actually follow that pattern, especially amongst less experienced groups or groups that simply choose not to flex their system mastery muscles much, but even a little application of system mastery can shatter that mold, and the higher your level the less that pattern holds true regardless of system mastery.
A caster who takes advantage of their crafting superiority can stretch their spells out across an entire day by supplementing them with scrolls, wands, and similar magical activation items, preventing them from ever dropping into their theoretical lower threshold. Given how simple, quick, and cheap to craft scrolls are, this is true right from level 1. So a caster created with even a fair degree of system mastery can always still spike to 100%, but never actually drops below the baseline representing non-caster performance.
A related issue is that non-casters still live in a magical world, and will face challenges that require magic to overcome. How often do you see a group where the wizard and the cleric have exhausted their spells but the fighter says "Don't worry guys, you've got 24 hour performance here, I'll just carry us through!"? I, personally, don't see that terribly often, because that guy usually dies about 2 rounds later when there are no buffs, no BFC, and no healing to keep him running. With every level past one, his reliance on magical support increases, rather than decreasing as his core competencies rise as one would expect. In PF/D&D, the game changes about every 3-5 levels; enemies gain new forms of movement and defenses, terrain becomes increasingly dangerous in its own right, the sheer quantity of types of challenges you might face grows exponentially. Casters grow alongside this dynamic, able to readily meet the ever-expanding catalogue of threats; non-casters generally keep the exact same spread of functionality, simply adding more numbers to the same tasks they were already capable of performing. The only thing a non-caster can really do to try and keep up is borrow magic from actual casters, whether that be buffing from an allied caster, UMD to use a magic item a caster created, etc.

This is why alternative 3pp magic systems, like Spheres of Power, are so popular and successful. In Spheres of Power, magic is defined by what you can do rather than what you can't. You learn the Destruction sphere and now you can shoot blasts of magical energy. You learn the Life sphere and now you can heal. Magic is organized into logical chains that follow similar progressions to feats, and you have at-will magic that operates a little bit below the baseline of effectiveness a well-made non-caster operates at, but you can spend a spell point to push your effectiveness above non-caster performance by a similar degree. By narrowing the gap and defining magical capabilities in essentially the same way non-caster abities are defined, by what you can do, you bring inter-party disparity much more into check without sacrificing the ability to deal with the challenges of a magical world.

***
I should probably read the in depth on Spheres of Power at some point, but every time some one brings it up they mention that it puts powers like raise dead and teleport on a list of "only if the DM says so" powers, and that is exactly the wrong way to implement those powers. Spheres of Power may be more balanced, but that balance comes at the cost of player agency (as far as I can tell).

Actually, raise dead and teleport are necessary tools for adventuring in a world like that assumed by Pathfinder, and are part of the core magical options in Spheres of Power. The abilities that SoP gates to the GM are the big, world-changing options, like creating tsunamis, wish, multi-mile radius fields of darkness, etc. Basically the things that never should have been spells in the first place, but were implemented by lazy designers who didn't like the idea of having to include separate rules for ritual magic and thought they could just shove world-altering power in alongside fireballs.

[stanprollyright]

Why do I care how many skills the Fighter can have? Did PF make Jump checks let you fly? Skills are almost exclusively stuff that competes with 3rd level or lower spells, and spell levels still go up to 9 in PF.

So the first 10 levels that most games never get beyond is irrelevant? So Paladin and Ranger spells are irrelevant because they only go up to 4th and not 9th? The Rogue isn't an entire tier higher than the Fighter in 3.5 because of his skills? Skills can be used all day every day without taking any resources away from combat abilities, unlike spells. It's not "balanced," but it's not nothing either.

[Jack_Simth]

Who needs to persist a spell when you can infinity recast it?

"No effect that allows you to reprepare or recast a spell can affect the echoed spell."

I'm curious how this is supposed to work...

[Arbane]

At level 1 a wizard is very vulnerable to the 10 minute adventuring day, a fighter mean while will last many more encounters, (depending on luck of coarse.)

Spoiler: Time for me to break out the bingo card.

Show

Pathfinder did improve the balance a bit. It just didn't solve it.

I don't think it CAN be balanced without a serious paradigm shift in the player-base. As the reaction to Tome of Battle demonstrated, some players HATE the idea of giving fighty-types any inherently superhuman/supernatural abilities, and as 4th edition D&D demonstrated, some players HATE the spellcasters not having Ultimate Cosmic Power.

And the only way to 'balance' the classes is either to weaken magic to the point where it's NOT always the best solution to all problems (limited only by spell-slots), or to strengthen the non-magic classes' abilities to the point where they too can casually break physics and plot. Neither seems to be acceptable to some elements of the player-base.

More notably, almost no archetypes of the Fighter actually make you better at non-combat tasks.

And they're still stuck at 2+Int skill ranks per level.

This is a problem - I'm guessing fighters got shafted on skill-points because letting them actually be good at anything BESIDES Fightering would intrude on the Rogues' turf.

(ISTR reading that in one old-school revival game, every class got 4 'backgrounds' - except Fighters originally only got three until the playtesters complained. "DURR, FIGHTARS R DUMM" is kind of ground-in to the gamer collective unconsciousnesss at this point, I fear.)

And it's still mundane skills. They can do what skills can do, even with skill unlocks it hardly gets supernatural. They can be very good, but there are a lot of problems that can't be solved with any skill.

Very much a problem. A while back, I saw a good list of plotlines that that are difficult-to-impossible without magic, but trivialized with the right D&D spell. It was a long list.

D&D is inherently a magical setting, so there's inherently magical solutions to lots of problems. Casters get these and more, Non-Casters do not get these. That's not balanced.
Of course, that doesn't mean that every class has to be a Caster, with spells prepared or known. There's lots of alternative ways to do it.

Quite right. Consider the HeroQuest/Exalted approach of letting 'normal' skills do supernatural things if you're Just That Good/are inherently magical.

Yes, there are a lot of flaws with Vancian casting, and they in no small share a healthy chunk of the responsibility for caster / non-caster disparity. (SNIP essay on Win Buttons)

I have no comment on your post, except that I regret the absence of a +1 button on these forums. Well put.

[Serafina]

Like this:
You have Spell Perfection for Channel the Gift, and ideally a metamagic reducer for it too.
You cast Quickened Echoing Channel the Gift. This gives you a free casting of Channel the Gift, to be used whenever you want during the day.
Then, during your next round, you can cast Quickened Echoing Channel the Gift again. Due to the spell effect, this does not expend a spell slot - however, this is only possible on account of Spell Perfection, since it allows you to apply metamagic without raising the level, and it's only possible to quicken due to the metamagic reducer. This is not "reprepare or recast" a spell, it's just casting a spell without expending it. This also gives you another echo of Channel the Gift, to be used any time during the day.
Then during your next round, you can cast another Quickened Echoing Channel the Gift, getting another echo of it to be used any time during the day.
Then, during the next round....you can do this ad infinitum, only taking six seconds per casting, so you can do it 600 times in an hour.

As a result, you have a huge supply of Quickened Echoing Channel the Gifts - which you can swift-action cast, then follow it up with any third-level spell you want during the same or next round.

Given that this NEEDS spell perfection to work (otherwise you can't chain like this due to level restrictions on Channel the Gift), it's a high-level tactic.
But I don't really see anything that breaks it. FAQ states that you always treat metamagiced spells as the least favorable level for you, but with Spell Perfection you don't increase the level at all. And while Echoing spells prohibits recasting the spell, that's not what you're doing - you're casting a spell without expending it, which is different. Of course, that point can be argued a lot.

Still, this is a potentially potent high-level tactic for prepared casters - certainly for casters who use a lot of low-level spells (Bards, Rangers, Magus all have access to it).

[Rynjin]

None of the above "solves" the disparity

Why did you waste so many words just to point out the obvious and then use this statement to agree with me?

[exelsisxax]

Like this:
You have Spell Perfection for Channel the Gift, and ideally a metamagic reducer for it too.
You cast Quickened Echoing Channel the Gift. This gives you a free casting of Channel the Gift, to be used whenever you want during the day.
Then, during your next round, you can cast Quickened Echoing Channel the Gift again. Due to the spell effect, this does not expend a spell slot - however, this is only possible on account of Spell Perfection, since it allows you to apply metamagic without raising the level, and it's only possible to quicken due to the metamagic reducer. This is not "reprepare or recast" a spell, it's just casting a spell without expending it. This also gives you another echo of Channel the Gift, to be used any time during the day.
Then during your next round, you can cast another Quickened Echoing Channel the Gift, getting another echo of it to be used any time during the day.
Then, during the next round....you can do this ad infinitum, only taking six seconds per casting, so you can do it 600 times in an hour.

As a result, you have a huge supply of Quickened Echoing Channel the Gifts - which you can swift-action cast, then follow it up with any third-level spell you want during the same or next round.

Given that this NEEDS spell perfection to work (otherwise you can't chain like this due to level restrictions on Channel the Gift), it's a high-level tactic.
But I don't really see anything that breaks it. FAQ states that you always treat metamagiced spells as the least favorable level for you, but with Spell Perfection you don't increase the level at all. And while Echoing spells prohibits recasting the spell, that's not what you're doing - you're casting a spell without expending it, which is different. Of course, that point can be argued a lot.

Still, this is a potentially potent high-level tactic for prepared casters - certainly for casters who use a lot of low-level spells (Bards, Rangers, Magus all have access to it).

Did you actually read channel the gift's description? It's 3rd level max. You can't do any of this.

[javcs]

Vancian spellcasting has nothing to do with the disparity between primary casters and everyone else, at least inherently.
Vancian spellcasting does, however, strongly contribute to the "10 minute adventuring day" phenomenon. And that's the basis for the balance issue - spellcasters tend to be designed around being balanced because they have limited uses of their abilities in a 24 hour adventuring day, whereas noncasters (in theory) have full, or near full, use of their abilities during that 24 hour adventuring day, but in actual play, there normally aren't 24 hour adventuring days - the group stops for the day when the casters are almost out of spells, because encounter design is normally balanced around having functional casters.

There's no good way to balance casters with noncasters without changing something fairly significant in the way either or both of them work.

[Serafina]

Yes, I did.
Channel the Gift is itself a third-level spell, for all classes who can cast it.
Spell Perfection allows you to cast a spell without "affecting it's level". Meaning that adding Echoing to it won't turn it into a 6th-level spell for any purpose - it'll still be a third-level spell.
And it should work with Sacred Geometry as well, just not with Quickening until later on.

Mind you, I kinda wish that it doesn't work like this, because it just leads to more caster-supremacy. It somewhat favors 6/9 casters because they're more reliant on lower-level spells, but it's also limited to certain classes only so that's not really good either.

[Cosi]

In this case specifically it means magic elitist. Like God Wizards for instance or the scry&die tactics some people think is valid. Or ice assassin... That one really ticks me off

ice assassin is stupid, and makes the game go insane.

But the Teleport Ambush is only really a problem because there aren't enough abilities that let you fortify your base so it's a bad idea for people to try to attack you there.

Pur sang is its own thing: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pur%20sang

Totally different etymology from per se.

TIL. Also, your link is "broken" - it wants me to use the unabridged version of Websters, which apparently costs money. That said, google informs me that "pur sang" means something like "pure".

1) They are defined by what you can't do, rather than what you can.

That's only partially true. Specialist Wizards, Beguilers, Warmages, and Dread Necromancers are all focused to one degree or another, and they're all defined by what they can do. If you add PrCs like Mindbender or Elemental Savant, the focus gets even tighter. In any case, that doesn't seem like an inherent limitation to me. I could very easily imagine a game where people have daily spell slots, but those slots must be used on spell lists that are tightly themed.

Basically the things that never should have been spells in the first place, but were implemented by lazy designers who didn't like the idea of having to include separate rules for ritual magic and thought they could just shove world-altering power in alongside fireballs.

First, it appears I've misunderstood people's claims when they talked about the limited abilities in Spheres of Power.

Second, that said, I still don't think that the DM should be allowed to veto PC powers, because that encourages bad storytelling. I also kind of disagree about the need for ritual magic rules. fabricate or whatever can just be a spell, as long as it's daily limited. The benefit of ritual magic is less to do with balance, and more to do with modularity. But in a setup like Spheres of Power that puts everyone on the spell resource management system anyway, that's basically nonexistent.

So the first 10 levels that most games never get beyond is irrelevant? So Paladin and Ranger spells are irrelevant because they only go up to 4th and not 9th? The Rogue isn't an entire tier higher than the Fighter in 3.5 because of his skills? Skills can be used all day every day without taking any resources away from combat abilities, unlike spells. It's not "balanced," but it's not nothing either.

The first ten levels were balanced in 3.5, more or less. Paladin and Ranger are irrelevant in high level play. The tiers are stupid, Rogues are good because of Sneak Attack and Trapfinding which they could handle with half the skill points. Skills aren't good enough for being at-will to matter, and in any case the Wizard has as many base skill points as the Fighter with a higher Intelligence score.

[NightDweller]

Would you care to substantiate your original assertion, that "Paizo likes balance?" You seemed to imply that Pathfinder was a balanced game. Rather rudely I might add, derailing that recruitment thread with uncalled-for arguments which led to this thread being made to end the derailment of the recruitment thread.

Just do remember that there is more to roleplaying games than rolling for damage. :)

Incorrect.

I said that in response to someone who said that paizo hated fun.

I am saying that pathfinder IMO is much more balanced that people think.

[Arbane]

ice assassin is stupid, and makes the game go insane.

The problem with Ice Assassin is that WotC forgot what a bunch of powergamers they were writing for. If the spell just said 'This creates an exact duplicate of someone, who has an overwhelming compulsion to kill the original', I'm pretty sure it would've been OK. It's the 'caster has total control over it' part that let some creative soul turn it into Simulacrum+++.

[Ssalarn]

That's only partially true. Specialist Wizards, Beguilers, Warmages, and Dread Necromancers are all focused to one degree or another, and they're all defined by what they can do. If you add PrCs like Mindbender or Elemental Savant, the focus gets even tighter. In any case, that doesn't seem like an inherent limitation to me. I could very easily imagine a game where people have daily spell slots, but those slots must be used on spell lists that are tightly themed.

This thread is focused on whether Pathfinder did or did not fix caster / non-caster disparity. Pathfinder does not include beguilers, warmages, or dread necromancers, and specialist mages are no longer locked out of their prohibited schools; in fact, a specialist wizard in PF can prepare a spell from an opposition school in one of their spell slots and the only penalty is that they now have exactly as many prepared spells as a universalist. This is part of why I noted that PF didn't actually do much to change the basic dynamics of disparity.

First, it appears I've misunderstood people's claims when they talked about the limited abilities in Spheres of Power.

It would seem so. All of the basic capabilities are divided into "spheres". So if you want to throw fireballs, you first have to learn Destruction, then learn how to incorporate fire, then learn how to shape it into a sphere shaped blast. If you want to return the dead to life, you first have to learn how to grant temp hp and cure wounds. All the basic capabilities still exist, they're just organized in such a way that gaining the higher level version of an ability requires you to learn its constituent parts. You can't throw meteor swarms without first learning how to control flames and shape your destructive power into that swarm shape.

Second, that said, I still don't think that the DM should be allowed to veto PC powers, because that encourages bad storytelling.

The GM isn't vetoing anything. There's a section of the book that says "Hey, here are all the massive narrative changing powers. If it's appropriate for players to have these in your world, you have all the rules to use them. If they're not, flip to the next chapter".

I also kind of disagree about the need for ritual magic rules. fabricate or whatever can just be a spell, as long as it's daily limited. The benefit of ritual magic is less to do with balance, and more to do with modularity. But in a setup like Spheres of Power that puts everyone on the spell resource management system anyway, that's basically nonexistent.

I believe that many powers simply aren't appropriate as spells that click right into a spell slot. Wish and wail of the banshee simply aren't even in the same wheelhouse. Spells that drastically alter large areas of the world shouldn't be something a character just stitches together whole cloth when they level up, they should be gated narrative components that exist separately from slot-based daily use magic.

The first ten levels were balanced in 3.5, more or less. Paladin and Ranger are irrelevant in high level play. The tiers are stupid, Rogues are good because of Sneak Attack and Trapfinding which they could handle with half the skill points. Skills aren't good enough for being at-will to matter, and in any case the Wizard has as many base skill points as the Fighter with a higher Intelligence score.

Ummm, I agree mostly? (This may be directed at a quote from someone else that I can't see anymore now that I'm responding, so if so, my apologies for responding to something not directed at me.) The disparity still exists at low levels, but it's not as pronounced until about 7th level. Also, paladin and ranger are much, much improved in Pathfinder and are drastically better than fighters and rogues. Also, sneak attack isn't much of a factor in making rogues good. It's a pacing mechanic whose average damage falls below what most full BAB characters are dealing with their static modifiers before you factor in the rogue's lower chance to hit. Similarly, trapfinding is available as a trait in Pathfinder, sooo.... Rogues just don't have much going for them, though Unchained helps quite a bit.

[Pex]

This is a needlessly aggressive way of making your point. There's nothing wrong with wanting to contribute in combat with a sword and still contribute out of combat, and acting like the people who want to do that are having badwrongfun is why Fighters suck.

Those who worship the Tier System as a means to condemn 3E cannot accept Pathfinder because it doesn't change the 3E paradigm. The changes they want require a complete overhaul of the system. That has now been done, twice. Many are happy playing 4E. Many other are happy playing 5E.

There are 3E fans who never liked Pathfinder because 3E was never a problem for them and don't care for the changes Pathfinder made, especially in feats. Those who like Pathfinder who came from 3E never hated 3E to see it go bye-bye when 4E came around. They see in Pathfinder an improvement of what 3E provided. Increasing the diversity and utility of the warrior-type is one of those things, and they don't give a Hoover they don't have something akin to Gate or Teleport. They didn't give a Hoover when it was just 3E.