Why does everyone keep saying armour is shit in 3.5 D&D?

AC only matters if your opponent is targetting your HP. Actually dangerous opponents won't bother.

File: 317.png (90KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x501px

>>49254595
Here we go again...

>>49254595
Because it doesn't give you better saves: the real killers are save or die, save or suck, or save and damage.

File: We have this thread every day.jpg (37KB, 396x382px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 396x382px

Daily reminder none of you should even be posting under this thread

File: Dungeon Meshi Ch 7.png (1MB, 1125x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1125x1600px

>>49254595
Two major problems.

1. Armor class at low levels is possible to stack to absurd amounts via feats and traits and other small bonuses. All these add up over time and result in a character who's basically untouchable while the rest of the party is getting skewered with every attack.

2. At high levels, enemies have such high bonuses to hit that no amount of armor is going to prevent their attacks, so you might as well just be naked and keep your dex bonus to skills and such. (Admittedly even 5e still has this problem, although it takes longer to come into play there.)

>>49254650
>Armor class at low levels is possible to stack to absurd amounts via feats and traits and other small bonuses. All these add up over time and result in a character who's basically untouchable while the rest of the party is getting skewered with every attack.
You don't think spending every aspect you have to become the hard to kill character is a viable strategy for a party member?

>>49254681
It's perfectly viable, it's just not balanced very well (what in 3.PF is?). One player shouldn't be untouchable while the other players are getting alughtered by the super high-accuracy monsters the GM had to throw in just to even remotely challenge the tank.

>>49254700
Not him, but I think in the scenario you described, the GM should look into something like "Armor-piercing" enemies that are able to bypass the fully-armored dude's plate.

They shouldn't fill mobs, mind you, they should probably be like a one or two-per-encounter creature to encourage the other party-members to help the fullplate guy take down so he can remain a function tank.

Just you occasionally throw out an enemy caster specialized in counter-magic or even just mageslayer types to keep spellcasters challenged or require the party to work together.

>>49254650
I suppose part of the problem there is just that it's understandable armor could deflect or tank physical blows, but it's not going to give it's wearer a stronger fortitude or willpower.

The closest I can think to mitigate this might be using Unearthed Arcana rules and reducing armor's ability to 'deflect' damage but let it gain the ability to outright negate. Though doing that decently can be tricky too as, by higher levels, DR4 or even DR7 against anything not-psionic or what-have-you isn't going to help much when the average damage from even non-magical attacks will be something like 80+ points of damage.

>>49254700
>>49254700

Yeah, there are always touch attacks that hit touch AC: certain kinds of spells and powers, some undead/incorporeal creatures, warlock invocations, some soulmelds, some maneuvers, flasks of acid/fire, nets, etc.

One problem with armor and shields is that it rapidly declines in usefulness as enemies start using touch attacks more often.

>>49254595
>>49254595
The fluff is quite bothersome; like in Morrowind, when you attack and "miss" due to dicerolls, but every other game on the market would count that as a hit. Shits up my fantasy even if I understand why the mechanic is there.

Your cool PCs and enemies either completely miss or completely hit; it's a binary thing and you've little control over it. Fluff-wise, saying "you miss" to the skilled duelist attacking a fat slow troll sounds stupid and hurts the fantasy.

If you mask that up with fancy GMing ("your toothpick gets stuck in its fat"), it's much better, and an ok system for D&D and such games made/balanced with AC in mind.

Concerning 3.PF AC bullshittery, Hack-fix in a way is capping AC to 25 like in Shadow of the Demon Lord for both PCs and NPCs, and having a relative max of +15 for d20 attacks (this gives you a "take 10" hit on most foes; fighters could go slightly above +15 and any clothfucker goes up to +10).

Now, just one nice thing about it, if you have a lot of attacks and such, AC as a simple binary thing is easy to handle.

>>49254700
>the super high-accuracy monsters the GM had to throw in just to even remotely challenge the tank.
As someone who builds tanky characters, this annoys me to no end. I'm giving up other character options to make myself harder to kill. Don't just change the balance of the game just because you can't kill me, instead make it a challenge to keep myself in between the enemies and the rest of the party that I'm supposed to be protecting.

>>49254595

Ironically, even though knightfags whine whenever guns get mentioned, their armor already becomes obsolete tissue paper in the face of disintegration and other such nasties once you hit midgame, and better ways to up your abilities to survive come available, with the best defense being to not get hit.

>>49254595
>Talking about longbows.
>In a replica of armor that was used way the fuck after the longbow was totally obsolete.

>>49254925
>Whine when guns get mentioned

Plate armor was made to resist firearms, and the height of plate armor in the early modern period coincided with the rise of firearms.

People just think it's weird when the knight in shining armor has a pistol.

File: 1470946159656.jpg (153KB, 882x1282px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 882x1282px

>>49254943
>People just think it's weird when the knight in shining armor has a pistol.
I feel greatly privileged to be have done away with this mentality, and now even feel a samurai or knight isn't complete with a nice, blackpowder "fuck you" weapon.

>>49254849
Luckily the game itself actually has a built-in way to fluff misses that it doesn't really bring attention to in such a context: touch AC.

If your attack misses, but would have hit touch AC, then the attack "hit" but was rendered moot by armor. If it failed to even hit touch AC, it missed entirely.

>>49254611
>>49254637
Is this why Paladins were more competitive than let's say monks?

>>49255063
Monks are just god-awful.

I'd like to run some houserules by you guys, if I may.

Medium and heavy armor no longer caps movement speed. You can walk 30' a round in heavy armor as you would with light armor.

Instead!
Armor check penalties double for one round if you move over a given soft cap.
Medium armor ACP doubles if you move more than 30 feet during your turn.
Heavy armor ACP doubles if you move more than 15 feet during your turn.

I hate to be an armchair martial artist, but I think this would be more realistic based on the studies I've seen; medieval armor doesn't restrict your movements that much, it's just more tiring to move around in.

Also, armor spikes, while they don't make sense in a real world context, do make some sense in a world full of monsters that will try to grab you with tentacles and massive rending claws and things. It's just that the armor spikes should be retractable, spring-loaded things so they aren't always in the way.

>>49254595
Because people on /tg/ are an autismal lot, and can't grasp abstraction. Everything should be simulationist with 50 pages on different armor types for every body part and how they counteract different damage types (with citations from appropriate period sources and peer-reviewed papers, of course), or it "doesn't make sense".

>>49255183
Well, it's not just abstraction, is it?
You could make a lot of complaints about the game mechanics as well.
I mean, who in their right mind uses anything heavier than a mithril breastplate? Really.

>>49255141
> this would be more realistic
I don't think you should be homebrewing d&d rules.

Armour is shit in all versions of D&D and AC is a dumb concept.

>>49255141
>It's just that the armor spikes should be retractable, spring-loaded things
This wouldnt work. The armour would have to be way bulkier to accomodate for space, even if you used a telescopic design. Even then it would be fragile and useless.

Shit ideas/10

>>49254595
> Why does everyone keep saying armour is shit in 3.5 D&D?
Because it's shit.

> What's wrong with 3.PF's Armor Class mechanics?
1. Armor reduce blows causing each hit to deal less damage, does not negate X5% of all attacks.
2. Min-Maxing for AC gives the monsters moderate chances to hit instead of low.
3. Most monsters will ignore a can and focus on truly dangerous party members.
4. Your choices as a players are near meaningless if you don't get appropriate gear. Like immensely costly gear. Gear your wizard will probably enchant for a 50% reduction. If he has time.
5. Other means of defense are more effective (E.G. mirror image, blur...)
6. Armor serves no purpose against too many effects monsters benefit from.
7. It slows you down and impair your skills.
8. Monsters often have more than one attack at full BaB.
9. Even if you were to max-out AC, there's little you can do to ensure opponents target slow you instead of mobile wizard or rogue you're supposed to protect.

EVEN when you shell out the immense amounts an armor, shield, amulet and ring, it's often more of an hindrance than a boon. Especially level 5 and onward.

I suppose your next question will be "Why is the Reflex Save the least useful?" Or "How do I make a To-Hit roll?"

>>49255141
Try this instead:
> Every Full BaB martial class gets Armor Mastery as the Fighter.
> Other martial classes gets it so that by level 7 they have no penalty.
> Allow the Vanilla Fighter to pick any ability from an archetype that would normally replace the Fighter's Armor Mastery class ability.

Try to avoid conditional bonuses, there's already too many "Did you forget you had Bless cast on you?" in this clusterfuck of a game.

>>49256000
> Other martial classes gets it so that by level 7 they have no movement penalty with the heaviest armor they have proficiency in.

>>49255141
Sounds bad. If you don't like movement speed penalty for armors, just remove it and don't replace it with anything else. Axe everything past "Instead" in your post and it'll be way better.

>>49256000
>>49255141
Another option would be:
> Armor penalty is -1 (light) / -2 (medium) / -3 (heavy) all skills, doubled for swim and stealth.
> Armor still have a maximum Dex Bonus to AC, but no other penalty.
> Each hour, make a DC (7 + consecutive hours armor is worn - (Armor Check Penalty). A failed save means the character is Fatigued / Exhausted / Unconscious. Reduce the DC by 2 when a save is failed. A character can Take 10 on this check. Fatigue cannot be recovered with armor on, unless one has the feat Endurance.

This way, a 1st level Fighter with 14 Con and a Medium Armor should last 5 hours straight before making a check. Furthermore, these checks can all be rolled in-between encounter, instead of according to one's movement.

>>49254595
As an reenactmentfag, because it's not how fucking armor works at all. Armor should work as a dual system, with an area of coverage and armor rating. A guy in a breastplate for example, while virtually immune to all strikes against his upper torso, can be struck in any other spot for notable damage. The attacker makes a check based on his weapon skill to strike at the exposed spot. There is a multiplier added to this if you have grappled your enemy and flipped them onto the ground, sorta like a coup de grace, but still having a fair chance of failure.

Alternatively you can just strike the armor and try to deal damage through it. Striking with a sword blade will have little effect, but striking with the quillons will allow you to bleed small amounts of concussive force through until they pass out. Or you have something like a Bec de Corbin, which can rip open plate like a can opener.

>>49256222
Soooo... DR / Called-shots-penalties-to-bypass?

>>49256274
Sorta. But not as fast as D&D DR and with some twists. Like weapons having dual stats. A sword obviously doesn't deal the same type of damage, with the same degree of harm on flesh versus maille or plate armor. One is a brutal cut, the other is a light bruise, and the last one is like getting slapped with no bruising to mention unless it's a really big, heavy sword. Dual cut/pierce/etc stats along with concussion ratings for everything.

Base AC for melee is BAB+10, base AC for ranged becomes BAB+10 if you have the arrow catching thing, a shield, or a weapon specialization with a melee weapon you're holding.

Armor is DR.

Granulate all attacks into piles of dice rather than w+modifier, then apply the DR against every individual die. That way
a)even very little DR has significant impact, and
b)you can modulate armor-piercing properties of attacks by changing the size and the number of dice it uses.

>>49254595
From a player's perspective: armour is shit as it's expensive and only protects you from one means of attack when a dozen other things can render it pointless, along with only protecting one person. If you're armouring up, you're leaving yourself vulnerable to magic attacks (saves, or things hitting touch AC), things that bypass armour (stuff hitting touch AC like guns or thrown weapons), things that can hit accurately, and things that grapple.

You can avoid or minimise the remainder of the rest of the attacks (melee and arrows) with simple spells, using cover or moving out of range.

You can achieve the same effect with spells but better, especially if you put them on items or using a wand.

From a DM's perspective, either you have one invincible guy and 5 guys who will die in one hit, or you attack one of the weakspots of armour, eg. use magic, and then the guy using armour will have his choices gone to waste and feel singled out.

From a design perspective, the binary of save or dies and armour not having anything to do with that hurts a lot. What point is armour if it doesn't help against the majority of threats?

>>49256222
You sound like a fucking joy to play with. I bet it must be lots of fun spending an entire session on combat as each participant pairs off for a historically accurate duel.

DnD's rules are pretty shit, there's no arguing against that, but faggots who insist they're shit because "that's not how things work!" are worse. The rules were never meant to simulate real combat. It's the same thing as /k/ sperging out that guns in cyberpunk games behave nothing like they do in real life.

>>49256769
>You sound like a fucking joy to play with. I bet it must be lots of fun spending an entire session on combat as each participant pairs off for a historically accurate duel.
Or y'know you engage in fun unit tactics instead of being a bunch of screaming barbarian idiots cleaving through everything effortlessly and conquering massive hordes of enemies. Far more fun to engage in tactical melee combat where some people have to fulfill certain roles.

>>49256769
Hey, hey.
Don't poke fun at Riddle of Steel players. It's a perfectly OK way to enjoy a game.

>>49256816
It is, simulationist games have a definite niche to fill, but going into DnD and trying to "fix it" by adding simulationist home rules is literal pants on head level.

>>49256804
And this can't be accomplished without house ruling all of combat into a simulationist mess that barely even resembles actual fighting anymore and stands as a stark contrast to the literal robe and wizard hat motherfuckers flying over all of you tossing cloudkill onto swathes of soldiers?

>>49254595
You can effortlessly get 40 AC in 3.5e as a Lv 3 Cleric in an ECL 5 party if your DM so much as gives you an inch outside of RAW. It's harder in PF but possible.

Armor's pretty good early on, but the second you start seeing ~9th-level casters you need to focus hard on your saves and immunities, even at the expense of your armor. Mages in 3.PF use the old Pokemon adage: "it doesn't matter what I'm weak to if they're dead".

>>49257815

Effortlessly? That's a hyperbole, more like 30 and your still shit at literally anything else not to mention any Good dm is going to look at your sheet, feats and items and say no, you can't do that

>>49260018
>Any GOOD DM won't let you do this thing that's totally possible via the rules
Uhhuh.

>>49260018
If a DM lets you get away with selling items that you created, and/or abridging the time it takes to craft items, you can outfit yourself with high-end gear the second you hit Cleric 3. You might be Cleric 3 and the rest of your party be in the 8~10 ballpark, but most of your good Cleric spells are in 1st-4th level anyway, at least until you start getting 7th level spells. You'll easily make up the difference in XP eventually.

Not to mention that clerics get proficiency with full plate in 3.5e by default. Tack on some enhancements and a souped-up heavy shield, and you've got yourself a mean tank that can patch themselves and allies up on the fly. Your offense will be shit, but that's why you have a party, right?

Yeah, it dies to basically any AoE attacks, particularly spells, but life ain't fair, and D&D certainly ain't either.

>>49260103
>if your DM so much as gives you an inch outside of RAW
>Any GOOD DM won't let you do this thing that's totally possible via the rules
These are mutually exclusive

>>49260177
A good DM in 3.PF isn't playing 3.PF exclusively by RAW.

>>49254650
High HP mitigates the latter problem, and the former is a relatively uncommon issue since excessively high AC builds are not particularly good nor are they particularly desirable.

>>49260210
>A good GM in ANY system isn't playing it exclusively by RAW

Fixed that for you.

>>49254595

Actually there were techniques for piercing plate with European swords, that said the mace and morningstar were normally the way to go.

File: 1473367027099.jpg (79KB, 831x445px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 831x445px

>>49254595

>>49260474
>look, i'm a meme forcing faggot

How about you choke on a dick?

>>49254769
> Not him, but I think in the scenario you described, the GM should look into something like "Armor-piercing" enemies that are able to bypass the fully-armored dude's plate.
Nah. Fighting smart and objectives that DON'T involve "kill everything" works better.

>>49260103

You dnd haters all literally all pants on head retarded with this shit

>the systems broken
>hows it broken
>you can do this stupid thing if you manipulate the rules to be used in ways they weren't meant to
>okay well a good dm says no when you try to do that
>WAHHH, THE DM IS TELLING ME I CAN'T DO SOMETHING, HE'S AN AWFUL DM
>but you just said that the game is stupid because it let's you get away with that
>yeah but if the dm has the power to remove all the things in dnd I hate then I can't bitch about it on /tg/

>>49260210
>>49260210

Noone said I'm playing exclusively in RAW, hell Ill let my players use whatever obscure feat or ability as long as they okay it with me and can justify it, but if you show up to my table with a stupid cheesy bullshit I'm going to tell you no

Source: someone who dm/gm's and plays 3.pf almost exclusively and everyone has fun

>>49261136
>Look at all these strawmen, ma!

>>49256950
>Allowing casters
Did that once, never again. Druids maybe but dear god never use true mages of any sort.

Reminder that just because the GM can fix/disallow something, it does not make the system good or free of fault.

A system should not be praised for what the GM does, just as it should not be criticized for what the GM does.

>>49261349
If you're not even going to use the system for what it's good for, why not use another system better suited for your actual wants and needs?

>>49261397
We have. Favored systems for some realism in difficulty but with fantasy still present include WHFRPG 2E, but we're now trying out Song of Swords. It's..... OK but I think I want to make a push for GURPS. SOS is very clearly still in the demo phase and can be confusing as shit.

>>49261535
Not that guy, but have you tried Anima? Ki is pretty accessible to everyone and pretty generically useful, and casters are generally not too powerful until later on (by which point your martials can theoretically solo an army).

Downsides are that it's got a bit of a learning cliff, but once you get it, you pretty much get it.

>>49261136
It is pretty stupid though. I'm all for having the DM override stupid rules but the stupid rules shouldn't be there in the first place. They bloat the rulebook and give players dumb ideas.

>>49261618

It's hard to balance when there are 20 million fucking but if you just use RAW then it's nowhere near as bad as tg will have you believe

>muh caster disparity

The very first game I ran had a wizard, a rogue, a cleric and a paladin, they went from 1 to 20 and all of them were relevant throughout but each other them had specific times to shine

The wizard spent a lot of gold and experience for his scrolls and magic items, it was to the point were he was 2 levels behind and had to run some solo adventures just to catch up

The rogue ended being the scariest mother fucker in the party and the could have bitch slapped the rest of the party if he felt, he specialized in mage killing because the main plot was against the wizards tower

He'll even the paladin probably could have 1v1 the wizard if he felt the need but it doesn't even matter because they were best fucking friends

>>49261597
Yeah that sounds nice. We pretty much banned offensive magic after our one caster character basically turned into motherfucking Doctor Who but with fireballs.

>>49261880
Why not just say fuck balance since the DM will take care of that anyway, and just make a neatly arranged system that is fun to play?

>>49261888
>motherfucking Doctor Who with fireballs
Rude.

Anyway, yeah, Anima's pretty alright, but suffers from a bad initial learning curve, and is very math-intensive unless you're a massive excelfag like me and just make sheets that do the math for you.

>>49261880
>but if you just use RAW then it's nowhere near as bad as tg will have you believe
Because Druids aren't busted as fuck by RAW, apparently.

>>49255063

Paladins are better than Monks because they have more synergy and their individual abilities give them utility on top of damage.

>>49260788
>>49261136
>>49261880

Why are you so eternally triggered bitch anon?

>>49256102
>>49256039

Will just axe movement penalties and keep ACP and Max Dex.
Thanks!

>>49263542
Anon, but it is you who is eternally triggered.
Do try to stop being a bitch.

File: 1471208677908.jpg (140KB, 319x480px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 319x480px

>>49266428

>NO U!

>>49261535
Play RuneQuest 6/Mythras. It's the same tactical combat with less bullshit.

File: harnmaster-full.jpg (215KB, 599x449px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 599x449px

>>49261535
if grim realism is your thing, I recommend this

>>49254996
So Monster Hunters were real!!!

>>49266428
your brand loyalty is really admirable, anon

>>49254595
It just doesn't perform like people expect

it actually works fine when you know what you're doing

>>49274008

>Works fine
>Except when you're dealing with the majority of threats that can bypass or ignore it.

>>49254595
What ISN'T shit about 3.5 D&D?

>>49274306
armor adds to your AC, it isn't your whole AC

if you put on some full-plate and suddenly think you can take on a behir, you're an idiot

but if you (the mid-level fighter) put on +1 full-plate, a +1 tower shield, an amulet of nat armor or maybe a ring of protection, and have +1 dex and use fighting defensively or combat expertise, suddenly it's wasting it's attacks on you

armor isn't supposed to defend you from spells, for the most part

>>49274586
it doesn't have shills talking shit about other systems 24/7

>>49254595
I was thinking of carrying over the idea of Touch attacks and flat-footed into 5e.

I like the idea of anknowledge the difference between skilfully avoiding a blow and just turtling up.

>>49274747

No, it has shills that talk shit about other systems, in addition to forcing shitty memes that's somehow even more annoying than getting called a "cuck" or a "shill" instead.

>>49275448
Hey, ETBA. Just doing your shitposting rounds? Cool, cool.

Might want to stop being a little bitch though.

>>49275448
3.5 gets 95% of all shit-talk
so go fuck yourself

the more I learn about 3.5, the more I see it actually is balanced

>>49262054
not nearly as much as people think
sure, in an ideal situation, but those are rare
animal companions have low AC's, no ranged attacks, and can't deal with shit like doors or ladders and whatnot, they also can only act on simple commands
summons take a spell slot each, take a full-round to cast (the entire round, not just your turn), and are completely ineffective against someone with protection vs evil
buffing them require yet more spells and rounds

>>49275527

3.5 has people, on both sides of the debate, who are aware of its issues and either move on to better systems or come up with homebrews to at least try to fix the issues.

Either way, nobody is delusional enough to ignore its issues aside from ETBA's who cannot grasp the idea that a game can be the most popular thing in the world (at one point) yet is still a flawed system overall.

Y'know, like this faggot >>49275487 who feels the need to shitpost in every thread that references D&D as a whole.

>>49275681
This is kind of why you're just an ETBA.
You really don't get why people are calling you an ETBA, and it's not because they don't realize that no game is perfect.

It's because you are compelled to shitpost eternally about a game you don't like. You can never ignore it, but you need to always tell people about how evil it is, and how people choosing to play it is the worst thing that can ever happen.

You really just like to bitch, and to be a bitch.

>>49275621

>animal companions have low AC's

Barding

>no ranged attacks

Made up by the fact that some get pounce as a standard ability.

>can't deal with shit like doors or ladders and whatnot

A lot of creatures have the ability to just bust through the door. Even then, why are you depending on a bear to open a door when you have 3-6 humanoids?

>they also can only act on simple commands

Simple commands are all you need, plus I'm pretty sure that druids are telepathically linked to their animal companions.

>summons take a spell slot each

But you can get up to 1d4+2 creatures per summon that can either deal damage as a group or act as more shields for the enemy to eat an AoO from.

>take a full-round to cast (the entire round, not just your turn)

full-round just means that you can't use a standard or move action whenever you use it.

Even then, you're still summoning up to 3-6 creatures that put more meat between you and your opponent.

It just sounds like you're an idiot.

>>49255958
>2. Min-Maxing for AC gives the monsters moderate chances to hit instead of low.
...typo?
if a monster has a 5 or 10% chance to hit with an attack, then 90-95% of it's attacks are wasted

>3. Most monsters will ignore a can and focus on truly dangerous party members.
Assuming they can get passed the enlarged spiked-chain improved-trip combat reflexes fighter, or keep him away for more than one round, without giving the rest of the party than much time to deal with them

>4. Your choices as a players are near meaningless if you don't get appropriate gear. Like immensely costly gear. Gear your wizard will probably enchant for a 50% reduction. If he has time.
time and exp, which he practically won't ever want to spend
and it's not "immensely costly", you're just straight up lying

>5. Other means of defense are more effective (E.G. mirror image, blur...)
and last for minutes or rounds/level, without cheese, and take up precious spell slots and casting time

>6. Armor serves no purpose against too many effects monsters benefit from.
touch AC, energy damage, AoE....what else?

>7. It slows you down and impair your skills.
slows you down, yes, if it's heavy armor (mithril medium armor is available pretty early)
impairs your skills, yes, if it's heavy armor, but if you wear heavy armor, you probably don't care much about your skills
regardless, there's shit like expeditious retreat and haste which effectively negates the speed problem, and your climb/jump/swim will be decent before too long anyway

>8. Monsters often have more than one attack at full BaB.
you mean like primary attack + secondary natural attacks? so what?

>9. Even if you were to max-out AC, there's little you can do to ensure opponents target slow you instead of mobile wizard or rogue you're supposed to protect.
see #3
if it comes down to it, you can just grapple the monster, unless it's gargantuan or colossal

>>49275780
>barding

Oh geez, this guy's actually trying to be super serious right now.

Here's an advanced tip. This entire argument can go back and forth forever, and it ultimately comes down to a matter of preference.

>>49275747

>You really don't get why people are calling you an ETBA, and it's not because they don't realize that no game is perfect.

Nobody said that any game was perfect, why do you continually bring this up in every single thread?

>It's because you are compelled to shitpost eternally about a game you don't like. You can never ignore it, but you need to always tell people about how evil it is, and how people choosing to play it is the worst thing that can ever happen.

And you're so butthurt that you feel the need to force your shitty meme whenever anyone dares to criticize a game that's already bleeding players on roll20.

"Oh, someone called my game flawed and delivered an argument that supports their claim, better call his evidence petty and call him eternally triggered while I'm at it."

You could've just ignore this thread and done something else with your life but here we are.

>>49275814

We're not talking about preference here, we're talking about a dude who is trying to claim that there's no problem while having no fucking idea what he's talking about.

>>49275747
Why do you keep forcing your meme acronym
The East Texas Beekeepers Association has done you no wrong

>>49275780
>barding
very expensive, especially for large and quadruped animals, and probably against the druid's oaths
it also slows the animal

>Made up by the fact that some get pounce as a standard ability.
not what I meant
they can't attack you at all if you are out of reach, say, up on a ledge, or on the other side of a portcullis

>A lot of creatures have the ability to just bust through the door. Even then, why are you depending on a bear to open a door when you have 3-6 humanoids?
that requires a handle-animal check for a trick they don't know, assuming they can even squeeze through the opening if they're really big
regardless, that takes time
and if you separate the animal from the druid with a door, then you can deal with the druid alone, unless the druid takes the time and chance to go open said door

>But you can get up to 1d4+2 creatures per summon that can either deal damage as a group or act as more shields for the enemy to eat an AoO from.
yes, but they're very weak, relatively

>full-round just means that you can't use a standard or move action whenever you use it.
no, a summoning spell takes the entire round, look it up
>idiot

>Even then, you're still summoning up to 3-6 creatures that put more meat between you and your opponent.
assuming you have the room for them, yes
except they're probably not very large, so a big strong fighter can overrun or just jump over them
it's a valid point, but it's not a fail-safe

3.5 has many deep abiding flaws, but meet-or-beat AC is not one of them. It's average as far as systems go. Not super interesting or realistic, but it functions within the game.

>>49255043
fucking this

it amazes how many people can't figure this out

>>49275818
>Nobody said that any game was perfect, why do you continually bring this up in every single thread?

What are you talking about?
Didn't you just say there are people that can't grasp that it has flaws?

>And you're so butthurt

No, that would be you being butthurt, because you think you're really being sneaky.

Sorry, ETBA, but it's not random people who criticize 3.5 that get called ETBA. It's people like you. You are an ETBA. You are eternally triggered, and need to bitch. That's why you've really earned your moniker.

The fact that you post anonymously doesn't change the fact that it's really, really, really, easy to point you out from a crowd. There's the kind of people that can criticize 3.5, and then there's people who desperately need to bitch about it like they have an invested interest in shitposting.

>>49275875
This literally can go back and forth.

Forever.

>>49275875

>very expensive, especially for large and quadruped animals, and probably against the druid's oaths

Leather is a viable material and also something that the Druid could reasonably produce in his free time.

>they can't attack you at all if you are out of reach, say, up on a ledge, or on the other side of a portcullis

That's why the animal companion is flanked by a Druid, who can either attack at range or just force the dude down with weird nature magic.

>3

Not every creature is going to be large mate, I mean, bears go through doors all the time, hell, they can rip apart a small car in minutes if they smell food.

Even then, you're going to deal with a druid, who has access to spells, and can change into an animal, while still being able to cast spells while he's an animal?

Okay chief.

>yes, but they're very weak, relatively

Doesn't fucking matter. A bear has three attack, if you have 3-6 of them attacking, that's 9-18 attacks coming at you.

That's significant.

>>49254650
>At high levels, enemies have such high bonuses to hit that no amount of armor is going to prevent their attacks
this has never been true in 3.5, except with dragons

>>49275899

>No, that would be you being butthurt

Come on son, at least try to be subtle with your shitposting.

>Everything else

Just some ETBA sperging out about his pet system being mocked, nothing to see here people.

>>49275960
Literally, forever.

These are just repeat arguments back when 3.5 vs. 4e was a thing.

You can literally just keep going back and forth, without ever realizing that the ultimate point is that none of these arguments really matter.

>>49275621
>animal companions have low AC's
Good ones have large HP pools instead, and it still means you're facing two characters instead of one. Any attack made at the animal companion is an attack not made at the druid.
>no ranged attacks,
Fair, but the druid doesn't need to rely on his animal companion for ranged combat. He is a fully fledged spellcaster on his own. The druid has now been brought down to the level of cleric and wizard.
>and can't deal with shit like doors or ladders and whatnot, they also can only act on simple commands
This rarely matters.

>>49275970

After you reach CR 10+ enemies, the average creature is going to have ways of either bypassing your AC or just brute forcing their way through it in general.

I mean, you can only get your AC to go up so high naturally and monsters are going to be stronger, faster, and bigger than you could ever hope to be.

>>49276003
I kind of like how you think your post is sufficient damage control.

>>49275960
>Leather
leather is +2 AC

>who can either attack at range
not very well with actual weapons
>or just force the dude down with weird nature magic.
time and spell slots

>bears go through doors
a black bear vs. a DC 20 door will succeed 25% of the time
a brown bear will succeed 65% of the time

>Even then, you're going to deal with a druid, who has access to spells, and can change into an animal
changing into an animal takes time, and even if it's already active
>while still being able to cast spells while he's an animal?
has lower AC in animal form, requires a feat

>Doesn't fucking matter. A bear has three attack, if you have 3-6 of them attacking, that's 9-18 attacks coming at you.
each one takes up a square, so unless you're surrounded, that's not the case
in a corner, only three can attack, if they're medium, just one if large
in a hallway, just one

A druid is just as powerful as the other classes, not much more so, but like all classes, it has it's strengths

like a wizard or cleric, when prepared, he tears ass, but when not, he gets his shit pushed in

spellcasters cannot be prepared for everything, all the time

>>49275970
Iron Golem, CR13
+23 to hit
Requires 34 AC to induce a 50% miss rate
Not an impossible amount, but incredibly high.

>>49276065

I'm just so used to seeing ETBA's like you sperg out over 3.X hate that I'm just kinda used to it.

>>49276030
>This rarely matters.
except in dungeons, where the vast majority of play takes place

>>49276054
naw, a meatshield type will have an AC high enough to make most of their attacks miss, at least with a good shield and some combat expertise, maybe some spell support

>I mean, you can only get your AC to go up so high naturally
same is true for monsters attacks

>and monsters are going to be stronger, faster, and bigger than you could ever hope to be.
not so much, it takes a gargantuan monster to obliviate an enlarged fighter, and even the biggest can't grapple somebody with free movement
anyway, you have an entire party for CR equivalent foes

>>49276074

>leather is +2 AC

Okay?

>not very well with actual weapons

Slings and bows will do the job effectively.

>time and spell slots

Most spells only cost a standard action to perform mate. Also, cantrips.

>in a hallway, just one

Then they're blocking the hallway and preventing the enemy from reaching me, giving me plenty of time to transform and/or blast them with spells.

>A druid is just as powerful as the other classes, not much more so, but like all classes, it has it's strengths

No, it's just as powerful as any other full caster, which are still THE best classes in the game in comparison to everything else.

>like a wizard or cleric, when prepared, he tears ass, but when not, he gets his shit pushed in

I think I'm going to stop arguing with you now, it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>49276083
a 13th level fighter can easily have 34+ AC

10 base
12 dex = +1
+2 full-plate = +10
+2 tower shield = +6
amulet of nat armor +1
ring of protection +1
(hardly optimized)

= base AC of 29

take 5 points of combat expertise and you're there (5 out of 13 bab ain't that much)

the golem as 30 AC

13 bab
+5~ from strength
+2 adamantine weapon
thats +20 right there
-5 from expertise, but +x whatever misc bonuses

bam, evenly matched, while the rest of the party acts freely

except the fighter can buff his AC way higher, and the golem can't

>>49276095
ETBA's are the people who are eternally triggered by the mere mention of 3.5, and if we wish to include your definition, the people who are also eternally triggered by the people who are eternally triggered.

Ultimately, it all just comes down to people like you needing to stop feeling a compulsion to shitpost every time they see a system they don't like, because they think there's something intrinsically wrong with playing it.

Actually, it seems less to be about 3.5 specifically, and more of just that it's a system that's got a lot of well-known flaws because people have been dissecting it for over a decade, combined with a lot of opinionated complaints over non-issues or personal tastes, combined with the fact that it's still rather popular so people are willing to argue about it.

It's the perfect target for shitposters, which is why you enjoy shitposting so much about it.

You really won't ever stop being an eternally triggered bitch anon, so it may just be necessary to highlight that all you do is want to bitch, so that people know better than to try and discuss anything with you.

File: Dessarin Valley player map.jpg (1MB, 1041x1327px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1041x1327px

>>49276113
>except in dungeons, where the vast majority of play takes place
Wow, what? Really? Do you actually spend a lot of time in legitimate, cramped, 10x10 room dungeons? My group, who plays premade modules with frightening regularity, has never done such a thing. "Dungeon" means "location" as far as it matters. Almost never is it tight rooms and locked doors and traps everywhere.
The majority of the game is outdoors almost always. Dungeons are short and intense, but draining.

>>49276113
>a meatshield type will have an AC high enough to make most of their attacks miss, at least with a good shield and some combat expertise
And this is why everyone thinks you're a retard. Going sword and board with fucking Combat Expertise is a recipe for enemies ignoring you because you will never do damage worth talking about.

>>49276113

>except in dungeons, where the vast majority of play takes place

Y'mean dungeons where most of the doors are broken, damaged, or just plain worn from years of misuse?

Not to mention, why are you depending on the bear to open a fucking door?

>naw, a meatshield type will have an AC high enough to make most of their attacks miss, at least with a good shield and some combat expertise, maybe some spell support

high AC is meaningless within the grand scheme of the game's design anon, it's why martials are relegated to NPC status after level 5.

I mean, when you have spells that can kill you in one hit, and these spells ignore your AC, what's the fucking point of it?

>not so much, it takes a gargantuan monster to obliviate an enlarged fighter

How the fuck is the fighter enlarged?

>>49276156
>Okay?
so the brown bear's AC went from 15 to 17
whoop

>Slings and bows will do the job effectively.
no, the attack bonus will be low, and the damage will be tiny
produce flame is a decent answer, but that's a spell (time and spell slots)

>Most spells only cost a standard action to perform mate. Also, cantrips.
time that your enemies are using to attack you (and maybe disrupt)
druids can't attack with cantrips

>Then they're blocking the hallway and preventing the enemy from reaching me, giving me plenty of time to transform and/or blast them with spells.
yes, but this took time and a successful cast
also druids aren't gonna have many blast spells prepared at any given time, so that's not a good argument
sure, produce flame gives many attacks, but against someone in melee with soft cover? against touch AC you'll probably hit about 50% of the time, give or take
this is part of the druid's strength, if they get this far they're doing good
but they need to have the spells prepared (not used yet), then successfully cast when the time comes

>No, it's just as powerful as any other full caster, which are still THE best classes in the game in comparison to everything else.
>I think I'm going to stop arguing with you now, it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.
admitting you lost already?

>>49276170
You also forgot the -2 to attack from tower shield.
So now you've neutralized your magic weapon and strength bonus with combat expertise, and have 13+ "misc bonuses". Beyond that, with 3 attacks a round, the penalties on the second and third attacks will be essentially negligible, while the golem gets two, and each one hits like a truck.
Granted, a level X character is not meant to defeat a CR X opponent. Three or four level X characters are.

>>49276177

This is why people are sick of your forced meme child, it's because now it's a codeword for "person who criticized my favorite thing and hurt my fee-fees inadvertently.

How about instead of coming into threads and acting like a triggered bitch, you just use the filter or ignore the thread entirely.

There's no way you went into this thread expecting good things based on the subject, so why trigger yourself when you know what's coming?

>>49276265
>and the damage will be tiny
This is true of every ranged option that is not A) a spell or SLA, or B) coming from a highly optimized archer like a Knowledge Devotion cloistered cleric archer. Ranged attacks fucking suck in 3.5.

>>49276225
>Going sword and board with fucking Combat Expertise is a recipe for enemies ignoring you because you will never do damage worth talking about.
at levels before you get an animated tower shield and use a spiked chain, sword and board can hold down the most dangerous enemies (read, big and usually stupid)

>Y'mean dungeons where most of the doors are broken, damaged, or just plain worn from years of misuse?
you mean locked or stuck?

>I mean, when you have spells that can kill you in one hit, and these spells ignore your AC, what's the fucking point of it?
spells must be known or prepared, successfully cast, pass the saving throw (if there is one, point there), and not countered by any magic on the part of the target or it's party

>How the fuck is the fighter enlarged?
via an easily accessed 1st level spell that can be permanencied

>>49276305
>sword and board can hold down the most dangerous enemies
No, it really can't. It works at level 1 because everything there dies in one or two hits and that's really it - HP bloats far too quickly for one-handed damage to keep up without an extra source of damage outside of Strength and gimped Power Attack.

>>49276283
>You also forgot the -2 to attack from tower shield.
yep, so the misc bonuses would need to be +7 rather than +5...doable
>13+ "misc bonuses"
try rereading

>>49276300
A fighter with a +1 mty comp (+4 str) longbow does 1d8+5, which isn't great, but:
the druid probably does 1d4+1 or 1d6+1 at best, with a lower attack bonus and less attacks
a rogue can get sneak attack with ranged attacks, everybody else should only use them when they don't have better options

>>49276265
>time that your enemies are using to attack you (and maybe disrupt)
It's a simple concentration check to make a spell that won't get interrupted and every spellcaster ever puts ranks into concentration.
Of course, this is a clash anyway. You can't disrupt spells at range, so why are they casting spells at ranged opponents when someone is in their face?
>also druids aren't gonna have many blast spells prepared at any given time, so that's not a good argument
Nigga Call Lightning is one of the best blasty spells ever printed after Kelgore's Fire Bolt and Flame Strike.

>>49276332
I said hold down, not defeat handily
the fighter keeps the monsters at bay while the rogue sneak attacks, the cleric helps in whatever way, and the mage deals with shit

at higher levels, when the strong enemies also start to be smart and capable of magic, the fighter can free up his hands from his shield and use an optimized lock-down system

>>49276353
>a rogue can get sneak attack with ranged attacks,
Within 30 feet, with almost no way of rendering enemies flat-footed aside from Ring of Blinking cheese.

>>49276265

>no, the attack bonus will be low, and the damage will be tiny

Welcome to 3.X kid, where a ballista only does 3d8 damage vs. the level 5 wizard, who has 25 HP with a bit of investment in CON.

>time that your enemies are using to attack you (and maybe disrupt)

You can't use a ranged attack as an AoO, so the Druid is going to cast that spell without any issues.

>druids can't attack with cantrips

They can, however, use spark to set a sniper's nest on fire.

>yes, but this took time and a successful cast

Are you referencing some weird house rule or something?

>also druids aren't gonna have many blast spells prepared at any given time, so that's not a good argument

Druid's (and full casters in general) don't need blast spells, they just need SoL/SoD to get the job done, which is entirely within their purview.

>admitting you lost already?

No, just realized that I'm arguing against someone who thinks blaster mages are why full casters are dangerous.

>>49276385
>I said hold down,
Which is why I think you're a total retard. High AC and low damage is a recipe for being ignored because you CAN'T lock down enemies in anything other than a 5 foot wide hallway.

>>49276293
That's you just trying to perform damage control again.

Sorry, ETBA, but this is more of just pointing out that you're dedicated shitposters, to the point where you recognize you lose all of your bluster if people point that out.

Game's up.

>>49276371
>You can't disrupt spells at range
not as easily, no
there's always readied actions however
and a rogue with a readied ranged sneak attack is hard to beat in a concentration check

>>49276371
>Call Lightning
one target per round for 3d6 isn't huge

anyway, produce flame (one 1st level slot), call lightning (one 3rd level slot), what else does he have prepared and ready?

>>49276385

If you cannot defeat a creature then how are you holding anything down.

You think any creature worth fighting is going to feel 1d10+STR damage when they have hundreds of HP to chew through?

>>49276430
>and a rogue with a readied ranged sneak attack
You mean something that literally can't happen without invisibility and is highly unlikely to happen even with it thanks to animal companions?

>>49276353

>a rogue can get sneak attack with ranged attacks, everybody else should only use them when they don't have better options

Only within 30 ft. and only on the first shot.

Unless you're using some weird cheese build.

>>49276406
>Which is why I think you're a total retard. High AC and low damage is a recipe for being ignored because you CAN'T lock down enemies in anything other than a 5 foot wide hallway.

10ft wide if enlarged, but at the cost of 2 points of AC
but monsters have to know to target the mage, and at low-mid levels, the really tough ones aren't very smart (if at all)
if nothing else, the mage can stay directly behind the fighter for +4 AC

>>49276445
>literally

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>49276458
Rogues have no way to make enemies flat-footed from range.

>>49275887
>3.5 has many deep abiding flaws, but meet-or-beat AC is not one of them.
but you're wrong about this. if an attack misses, nobody knows whether it was due to the agility of the defender or his armor.

which is bullshit.

>>49276421

You come into a thread, knowing that the subject is shitting on 3.X, yet you're surprised that people are shitting on 3.X?

The only ETBA around here is you, and it's because, rather than filter threads that trigger you, you invade and force shitty memes down everyone's throat in some vague and ineffectual attempt to either earn (You)'s or silence haters.

Don't you ever sleep?

>>49276436
it has to get passed you somehow
the easiest option is to overrun, which provokes and takes a round
if it can't maneuver around you (if it's big and in a dungeon and the party chose the arena with some care), then it has to kill you or physically move you, both of which take time and successful action

>>49276445
what are hide checks for $400, alex?
animal companions making spot checks doesn't mean the druid does
likewise with scent or whatever
invisibility is available early, however

>>49276455
within 30ft, and probably no more than once every 2 rounds, granted
unless it's a reduced halfling rogue with a cloak of elvenkind and maxed dex/hide vs. a druid who didn't max spot (sniping is -20, so it's pretty hard even then)

>>49276456

>10ft wide if enlarged, but at the cost of 2 points of AC

How are you enlarged?

>but monsters have to know to target the mage, and at low-mid levels, the really tough ones aren't very smart (if at all)

Creatures instinctual target the weakest prey they can find.

Dude in a dress mumbling and gathering fire is most likely going to be more appealing than a meat can who can't even hurt them.

>>49276497
The subject is discussing 3.5.

You take that to mean as shitting on it, as if people couldn't discuss it in a fair manner.

Is there really anything you say that doesn't make it clear you're just an eternally-triggered bitch?

>>49276430
>readied actions
>and a rogue with a readied ranged sneak attack is hard to beat in a concentration check
Now that's what I call a stacked fucking deck.
Who goes into a battle where the enemies have set up and readied actions? Ridiculous.
>one target per round for 3d6 isn't huge
It's not an attack roll, so hell yes it is.
>anyway, produce flame (one 1st level slot), call lightning (one 3rd level slot), what else does he have prepared and ready?
I'd give him some druid staples like Entangle, Lesser Vigor, Barkskin, and Bull's Strength.

>>49276493
this was addressed earlier, you missed it
>>49255043


>>49276518
>>49276305
>via an easily accessed 1st level spell that can be permanencied

>Creatures instinctual target the weakest prey they can find.
unless the fighter is standing in the way and swinging a sword in it's face

>>49276511
>what are hide checks for $400, alex?
Something you can't make in combat without meeting special conditions in combat and are incompatible with a readied action of the type you're trying to use, which are also shit for entirely different reasons?

>>49276511

>the easiest option is to overrun, which provokes and takes a round

Again, it's not as big a deal as you're making it out to be.

>>49276511

>unless it's a reduced halfling rogue with a cloak of elvenkind and maxed dex/hide vs. a druid who didn't max spot (sniping is -20, so it's pretty hard even then)

Scent, tremorsense, lifesense, etc. are all ways that creatures can know that your rogue is nearby without even rolling a perception check.

And for the record, in order to get close enough to sneak attack, you'd automatically be within their sense's range, so good luck with that.

>>49276534
>Who goes into a battle where the enemies have set up and readied actions?
somebody who didn't know there is a rogue hiding or invisible nearby, obviously

>It's not an attack roll, so hell yes it is.
not when it's the only thing you can do in a round

>I'd give him some druid staples like Entangle, Lesser Vigor, Barkskin, and Bull's Strength.
me too, but what other blast spells does he have?

>>49276537

>via an easily accessed 1st level spell that can be permanencied

How are you casting permanency on yourself?

>unless the fighter is standing in the way and swinging a sword in it's face

Why would they care about losing 1d10+STR out of their bloated HP pool?

Especially when the wizard is much more dangerous?

>>49276537
no, i just disagree with it. there's no rule that orders the AC bonuses. who is to say that armor gets added last? why do you use touch AC instead of flat-footed AC? because you pulled that order out of your arse to defend the deficiencies of D&D, that's right.

brand loyalty is a helluva drug

>>49275787
>just grapple the monster
Unless you built your character specifically for grappling, this is an excellent idea. You'll get to reroll your poorly designed character instead of being stuck playing it.

>>49276540
like moving into cover and then back out again?
or just sniping from cover/concealment?
or being invisible?

>>49276549
still takes time (+1 round for the rest of the party), and the fighter can get back up and really focus on the monster without worrying about defense if it's focusing on the mage

>>49276549
>Scent, tremorsense, lifesense, etc. are all ways that creatures can know that your rogue is nearby without even rolling a perception check.
but. not. the. druid.
anyway, smelling, tremorsensing, and lifesensing still leave it with concealment, and therefor leave you vulnerable to sneak attack

>>49276558
>How are you casting permanency on yourself?
with a party cleric or mage

>Why would they care
because they have low int?

>>49276573
you're just ignoring the books then

>>49276533

If you come into a thread asking "what's wrong with X," when X is something that has been discussed to death is hundreds of threads beforehand, you're legit retarded.

Hell, one of the first posts ITT is an anon saying "here we go again" because it's such a common bait subject that people just can't help but continue posting the same shit over and over again.

Even talking about 3.X is considered bait nowadays, so how are you surprised that people are shitting on it?

>>49276551
>me too, but what other blast spells does he have?
Well, since Druids just prepare from the entire Druid list, low level blast spells include Creeping Cold, Desiccate, and Spirit Jaws. All have pretty fair effect.

>>49276592
first, citation needed. second, even if exists (yes, moving goalposts here), it's still an asspull. it's just not your asspull but an asspull of the designers.

>>49276576
naw, by mid levels a regular fighter can be a solid grappler
if he multiclasses to monk he can get both feats in one level, and some nice saves boosts to boot
by high levels he can match the monsters with a few low level spell boosts (like enlarge person and heroism), maybe from potions instead

>>49276612
as to why it is an asspull: addition is commutative.

>>49276573
>who is to say that armor gets added last?

Common sense?
You can't really go through something's armor without hitting it in the first place.

>>49276580

>but. not. the. druid.

druid. can. transform. into. animals. with. those. abilities.

>anyway, smelling, tremorsensing, and lifesensing still leave it with concealment, and therefor leave you vulnerable to sneak attack

Concealment only helps you if they're firing blindly in your general direction (50% miss chance). It doesn't help you if the druid says "track scent" and you end up dealing with a pissed off grizzly gnawing at your collarbone.

>>49276611
all none core
splat material is notoriously unbalanced, but I can't convince anyone that they shouldn't use non-core material that was published by the same company

>>49276612
citation for what?

File: 1805691-496px_drake_u1_render_2.jpg (23KB, 597x640px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 597x640px

>>49276637
>splat material is notoriously unbalanced
I mean 3.5 has like a hundred non-core books.
If you're limiting yourself to core, the glaring problem isn't superman druid, it's cripple monk and fighter.

>>49276592

>with a party cleric or mage

Permanency is a level 6 spell. Even then, why would they waste a 6th level spell slot on you when they have spells that already end combat in one turn?

>because they have low int?

So you're expecting a creature to stay with a dude who is hurting it, rather than targeting the weakest looking member of the party who is not only unarmored but open to an attack?

Do you even know how wild animals work?

>>49276597
Can you not tell the difference between discussing something and shitposting anymore?

Are you really that far gone?

>Even talking about 3.X is considered bait nowadays, so how are you surprised that people are shitting on it?

Only because of eternally triggered bitches, who feel the need to try and make 3.X a touchy subject in order to try and discourage its discussion. It's really transparent what you're trying to do, which is why it makes sense to call you out on it.

People should be able to discuss 3.X like any other system, without having to worry about a crew of dedicated shitposters that include yourself, with some of who are in it just because they're addicted to shitposting, and some who are addicted to shitposting but try to justify it to themselves because they genuinely believe they're doing something good by discouraging people from playing a system they don't like.

>>49276616

>naw, by mid levels a regular fighter can be a solid grappler

naw, by mid levels the grappler is benched because most creatures are bigger than him or come in swarms.

You're still free to grapple though, at least then you'll get to reroll your shitty character into someone that's actually a contributing member of the team.

>by high levels he can match the monsters with a few low level spell boosts (like enlarge person and heroism), maybe from potions instead

If you need magic to be viable then why not just be a caster?

>>49276634
>Concealment only helps you if they're firing blindly in your general direction (50% miss chance). It doesn't help you if the druid says "track scent" and you end up dealing with a pissed off grizzly gnawing at your collarbone.
...conealment allows the rogue to make hide checks
dunno what you're on

>>49276657
monk is definitely cripple, but fighter is better than practically anybody gives it credit for

>>49276662
because they can do it yesterday, and have their good spells today?

>>49276723
>but fighter is better than practically anybody gives it credit for
Dungeoncrasher Fighter or Zhentarim Fighter before fear immunity is everywhere because they have actual meaningful class features, maybe, but vanilla Fighter? Fuck no. The feat system is a trainwreck of shit.

>>49276681

>Can you not tell the difference between discussing something and shitposting anymore?

I never said SHITPOSTING, I said that people shit ON it.

You can have a discussion based around how much something sucks anon.

>Only because of eternally triggered bitches, who feel the need to try and make 3.X a touchy subject in order to try and discourage its discussion.

There is not one original argument posted ITT, or threads like it, because anything that could've been said has already been said in earlier discussions.

It's like that one guy who only ever watches one show, and just never shuts up about it. Yeah, it's good/bad but what else can you say about it that hasn't already been done?

>3

People cannot discuss 3.X anymore because of people like you who spend their days being triggered bitches who cannot have a civil conversation without taking it personally.

That and what I mentioned about.

>>49276723
>monk is definitely cripple, but fighter is better than practically anybody gives it credit for
My problem with Fighter is that it does nearly nothing that Barbarian cannot do better.
The only exception is a DEX build Fighter who specs into Longbow usage, but that's so very niche.

>>49276690
with enlarge he can grapple huge monsters, with improved grapple he matches their size bonus, and with str-enhancement and misc bonuses (admittedly rare, but heroism is available early) he can match their strength

>If you need magic to be viable then why not just be a caster?
because fighters make better meatshields than another caster
>inb4 they can summon!!!11

A well-rounded party includes a fighter or barbarian or whatever because you can't have the right spells prepared and ready all the time, and a party of casters will meet something they can't beat earlier than a well-rounded group will
but boy howdy I can imagine your indignance to this comment already

>>49276723

>...conealment allows the rogue to make hide checks

Which doesn't work since the Druid will know where you are due to it's many sense abilities.

You can't exactly hit someone's flat-footed AC when they know that you're around and attacking from a certain direction.

>>49276755
>The feat system is a trainwreck of shit.
naw, a core fighter can make use of practically every fighter feat chain in a good way

>>49276761
...depends
a fighter has more options, and can have a given feat earlier
he's also going to have a much high AC early on, and probably still higher even at 20th
barbs won't usually spend points on 13 int and combat expertise/imp disarm/imp trip

ranged fighters are wrong fighters, as far as I'm concerned, though a good fighter will have ranged feats as well

>>49276761
>The only exception is a DEX build Fighter who specs into Longbow usage
Which is pointless to discuss because archery is fucking terrible without a major source of bonus damage, which yet again is something the Fighter doesn't get.

>>49276795
>Which doesn't work since the Druid will know where you are due to it's many sense abilities.
yes it does
you need to SEE an enemy before you aren't flat-footed to them

>>49276834
>a core fighter can make use of practically every fighter feat chain in a good way
Which means nothing when the feat chains are almost universally terrible. Literally the only one worth talking about is Improved Trip and even that ends up pointless by the end.

>>49276783

>with enlarge he can grapple huge monsters

Why is the caster spending resources to make a shitty class slightly less shit?

It'd be more efficient just to throw SoL/SoD at the enemy.

>because fighters make better meatshields than another caster

Except for the Clerics and the Druids.

>A well-rounded party includes a fighter or barbarian or whatever because you can't have the right spells prepared and ready all the time, and a party of casters will meet something they can't beat earlier than a well-rounded group will

A well rounded party doesn't actually need a meatshield to survive, since the wizard will have spells that produce obstacles, the cleric will have various buffs on hand, and the druid will have both an animal companion and spells to soak up any damage that comes its way.

The only place where a well balanced martial party shines is a campaign that bans everything but T3/T4.

>>49276834
>a fighter has more options, and can have a given feat earlier
All the Fighter's options end up at "hit the damn thing with my thing" and Barbarians do that better on the whole.
The only core exception that comes to mind is the Spiked Chain and everyone knows that Fighters with Spiked Chain proficiency are cheesy.

>>49276893
Or cast Haste on them, but that benefits a non-retard Fighter who doesn't do something stupid like try to build for grappling or sword and board, not a full retard grappler.

>>49276868
if I took a human fighter to 20th, here's probably what I'd pick:

power attack, cleave, PBS, combat expertise, spiked chain prof, imp over, imp trip, quick draw, great cleave, imp dis, dodge, mobility, spring attack, whirlwind attack, combat reflexes, imp bull rush, pre shot, imp pre shot, far shot (not in this order)

He can make good use of all of these (except spring attack, which has marginal use)

I'm not gonna write up a defense for every single one, but tell me which ones you think are useless and I'll explain why they're not

>>49276922
>but tell me which ones you think are useless
Every ranged feat in that list, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Improved Overrun, Improved Disarm, Improved Bull Rush, Great Cleave.

>>49276757
>It's like that one guy who only ever watches one show, and just never shuts up about it.

That's why it's about time you moved on.

I am at a loss to even understand why you're trying to say you're not an eternally triggered bitch anon who should stop being eternally triggered, when everything you just argued is basically "I wish people would stop being triggered bitches about a system and have civil discussions about it", when that's exactly what you don't do.

>You can have a discussion based around how much something sucks anon.

Not when it's people exaggerating how much it sucks thanks to ulterior motives. That's the part that makes you ETBA.

You can argue around that as much as you want, but it's clear that there are dedicated shitposters, with you among them. That's why you get called out, and that's why you get upset about being called out.

You can try to mask yourselves as much as you want, but the ultimate fact is that you guys are so horrible, people can't even make threads about 5e without having to worry about you shitposters invading it.

It's easy to spot you, easy to understand your motives, and still somehow you think that people will just believe you when you say "no, we no shitposters, we good anon", even as you continue to shitpost.

>>49276893
>It'd be more efficient just to throw SoL/SoD at the enemy.
it can be, but not necessarily

sometimes you get more mileage out of a buff spell on the fighter or rogue than you do on one offensive spell, you just gotta be smart with what you pick

>>49276893
>Except for the Clerics and the Druids.
>"Hang on, I gotta cast 3 buff spells real quick! ....okay, now I'm as good as the fighter!"
>later
>"What, again? But I don't have any of those spells left!"

>The only core exception that comes to mind is the Spiked Chain and everyone knows that Fighters with Spiked Chain proficiency are cheesy.
well, yeah
but it is by far the best option in core
and casters get tons of cheesy shit too
a fighter with a spiked chain is far less cheesy than most caster bullshit

fantasycraft does it better when it comes to the "cool" weapons that actually (usually) suck in D&D

>>49276850

>http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm
>http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#flatFooted

Doesn't say anything about that shit cap'n

A creature can onmly be ff'd if they're unaware of their opponents.

>>49276912

Let's see, potentially end combat in one cast or hope the fighter chews through their HP before they die...

Gonna have to go with option A cap'n.

>>49277007

Clerics are proficient with medium armor and also get spells that buff their AC.

Even then, most times they're going to be using SoL/SoD until the monster is defeated anyways.

>>49276965
PBS is a prereq
precise shot/imp precise shot benefit reach weapons against non-adjacent targets (and regular ranged attacks)
far shot is for quick-drawn thrown weapons when you run out of melee targets in a full-attack or when you need to chuck nets or bolas to drop fliers
combat expertise is for when it's smarter to tank than power attack, it's also a prereq
dodge/mobility help with AC, but are largely prereqs
whirlwind attack with a spiked chain while enlarged can threaten 72 squares laterally, literally hundreds when flying
if you are fighting a bunch of enemies, that's your highest damage-per-round option
improved overrun is for getting to the enemies that matter, or creating an escape route, it's also a poor man's trip
improved disarm can keep your enemy from effectively threatening you while you whomp him, it's also nice with quick-draw whip attacks against archers and mages with wands/staves
improved bull rush is for when its smarter to move an enemy than attack him (like to position with the rogue, or push him through a door so you can shut it, or push them off a cliff or into a dangerous spell effect, etc)
great cleave is just nice for finishing off several weakened enemies (like after a mages AoE damage spell or a rogues multiple sneak attacks against several opponents, or for dropping a few extra orcs when the ogre is your real target)

>>49277097
Proficient with heavy armor and shields. The only thing a Fighter gets over them are a d10 HD, which is more than made up for by the Cleric's cantrips, and feats, which don't help defensively.

>>49277128

Ah, I was thinking of PF.

>>49277097
SoL/SoD tend to be higher level, with limitations and restrictions and even just generally being limited in the amount of times they can be used.

You really can't just argue SoL/SoD every time without just opening up the old back-and-forth business where we argue forever.

>>49277022
try looking in the actual book
>which you probably don't have, thus some explanation for your irrational hatred

>>49277047
>all or nothing, everytime! sure hope i survive passed a few levels!

>>49277097
>Even then, most times they're going to be using SoL/SoD until the monster is defeated anyways.
let's waste a bunch of spells on one monster!
rather than one spell on the fighter!

>>49277166

>SoL/SoD tend to be higher level, with limitations and restrictions and even just generally being limited in the amount of times they can be used.

How many encounters is your GM throwing at you?

Because mid-level casters have access to at least 20-30 spells, not including cantrips.

>You really can't just argue SoL/SoD every time without just opening up the old back-and-forth business where we argue forever.

I can when you're trying to argue that a tin can swinging for meh damage every turn is just as viable as a dude who can press a button and potentially win any encounter he wants.

>>49277170
A blind monster is basically a dead monster.
Admittedly, it's not Clerics that get access to Glitterdust.

>>49277170

>try looking in the actual book
>implying the srd isn't a viable source when referencing 3.5.

>>49277170

>all or nothing, everytime! sure hope i survive passed a few levels!

It's better than watching the fighter trading blows for 3-5 turns and forcing you to waste your spell slots to heal his ass.

>let's waste a bunch of spells on one monster!

Considering how easy it is to pump up your spell DC in 3.5, you're most likely never going to need more than one spell unless they roll a NAT 20.

>>49277194
>Because mid-level casters have access to at least 20-30 spells, not including cantrips.
how many of those are for battle?

>>49277205
a monster that makes it's save is just as dangerous
but when you cast a buff on an ally, it's always effective (unless you get disrupted or the ally gets put out of the fight somehow, or the fight ends early, but you know)

>>49277228
its for looking up minutiae when you're away from your books
it doesn't have all the rules and explanations

>It's better than watching the fighter trading blows for 3-5 turns and forcing you to waste your spell slots to heal his ass.
wands are cheap, but make poor use of SoL spells
(assuming he got hurt much, with his high AC)

>to pump up your spell DC in 3.5
Spell focus/greater, raise int, ....?
core, anyway

>>49277194
Even with 20-30 spells, the lower leveled ones are not that great offensively since they don't really scale up in 3.PF. However, buffs tend to be low level spells that do manage to keep pace because they target friendly creatures, bypassing the spell-level dependency.

So, basically, while the higher level spell slots are typically worth SoL/SoD (and offensive spells, following those) from a purely mechanical standpoint, lower level spell slots are actually better off being used for buffs and healing and other forms of support.

With only a handful of higher level spell slots, it's actually pretty common for casters to have to ration them out conservatively.

>>49277126
Prereqs for better feats don't make a feat good, and it really doesn't help that you're taking feats that do nothing for you because 3.5 decisively rewards specialization over doing stupid bullshit like this.

It does, but you shouldn't be in a position where that matters in the first place.

Disregarding how that doesn't work until you're at least level 6 and piggybacks off an actually good feat, it makes you have to pay even more gold to have a weapon that can actually do something when you throw it and even then due to DEX not being your primary stat you're probably going to miss against anything that is an actual threat to the party.

That doesn't happen. Offense is very clearly better than defense in 3.5.

Again, AC isn't useful and those two in particular are prereqs for shit feats. There's no point.

Whirlwind Attack is also a full round action that allows you one attack per each target. For it to be anything close to worth it, you not only have to be surrounded when you start your turn, but the enemies need to not be a threat to you. AoE damage is totally pointless in a game where enemies operate at full strength regardless of HP, especially when the game's design inherently discourages spamming mooks at the party. Great Cleave is a better feat and Great Cleave is still shit for being almost impossible to get real use out of it.

>>49277324
>the lower leveled ones are not that great offensively since they don't really scale up in 3.PF.
Pretty much any reflex save or lose scales into lategame because of the consistent trend of enemy size increasing with CR and fucking their Reflex in the ass as a result.

>>49277007
>>"Hang on, I gotta cast 3 buff spells real quick! ....okay, now I'm as good as the fighter!"
Two spells, and better.
Divine Power and Righteous Might.
You can cast them both in one turn if you have a Metamagic Rod of Quicken. (Expensive, but a solid investment at any level.) Or just the Divine Metamagic feat, but any DM that allows that is a madman.

>>49277284

>how many of those are for battle?

The best part about spells is that most of them carry multiple functions.

For instance, glitterdust blinds opponents and reveals invisible creatures and cure wounds can be used to both heal allies and attack undead.

Compared the Fighter's weapon which can only deal damage, which they must hope and pray isn't resisted by an opponent's abilities in some way.

>it doesn't have all the rules and explanations

It has all the rules that matter to your average campaign, which includes conditions such as flat-footed.

>wands are cheap, but make poor use of SoL spells

If we're bringing wands into this then the Fighter is even less relevant than we assumed.

I mean, any level 4 spell can be turned into a spell, not to mention shit like scribe scrolls.

>Spell focus/greater, raise int, ....?

Along with all the cheesy shit that you can find while scrolling through splats and alt. races.

>>49277395
There's not a lot of relex SoL spells that are actually all that good though, especially the lower level ones. In general, lower level spell lots are really best used on allies and objects.

>>49277445
Entangle, Grease, Create Pit, any reflex blasting spell + lesser metamagic rod of Dazing Spell...

>>49277467
Once again, not really that great, and most are useless against anything that can fly. Entangled in particular is awful at high levels even if they fail their save.

It's actually pretty rare to see those prepared, especially since buffs and heals tend to be better uses of those spell slots.

>>49276633
>You can't really go through something's armor without hitting it in the first place.
point taken

>>49277352
you clearly forgot your greentext

>Offense is very clearly better than defense in 3.5.
in a vacuum

>AoE damage is totally pointless
unless the fighter and rogue are ready to mop up

>game's design inherently discourages spamming mooks at the party
unless in conjunction with stronger monsters, or they are defending a place, or they are wasting your time when you try to get somewhere in a hurry, or...

>>49277403
I figured you'd want stoneskin too
divine power is 4th level, righteous might is 5th
not even available until 7th and 9th level
of which you'll have a whopping 2/day, maybe 3 with godly wisdom or as a domain spell

>>49277427
>only deal damage, which they must hope and pray isn't resisted by an opponent's abilities in some way.
or trip or disarm or sunder

>which includes conditions such as flat-footed.
but not being flat-footed against enemies you can't see, apparently

>I mean, any level 4 spell can be turned into a spell, not to mention shit like scribe scrolls.
money to own, time to use, weak compared to your own spells, must be drawn prior to use

if we're gonna go down a sidepath here, the fighter can dip for wand usage

>>49277538
entangle actually is still good against those who make their save, because it slows them down, but it can only be used in areas that contain vegetation, which is not most indoor places and not even all outdoor places

>>49277403
>>49277467
Not even touching on balance of game rules: what sort of GM would feed that beast by having metamagic items available to buy at all?

More on the subject, why the hell do metamagic items even exist? Why give them a shortcut around feats and other mechanics?

Fuck, for that matter, why does metamagic exist at all?

>>49277644
>in a vacuum
No, not in the least. If anything, when you actually look at monsters and what they can do, AC as a defense is much more useful in a vacuum than it is in practice.

>>49277659
It's got a number of other weaknesses (including affecting everyone in the area), which makes it a rather niche spell. I also don't think it really qualifies as a SoL spell in the first place.

All in all, once you have access to a certain level of spell, the spell slots 3+ levels lower are not really all that useful for directly offensive spells.

I think it's a very good thing they fixed that in 5e, because even cantrips remain useful at high levels, so that a non-caster character getting access to low level spells doesn't feel like it's a waste to have as they level up.

>>49277644
and hell, divine power and righteous might makes him *equal* to the fighter, assuming the fighter has enlarge person and the cleric isn't optimized for melee

>>49277738
+10 STR vs +2 STR is not equal.

>>49277679
we covered this already
a fighter can get his AC up higher than a monster's attack bonus
at higher levels, he can do this with two hands freed to make AoO trips if it tries to go around him, and his strength checks are high enough to challenge a monster's overruns or whatever
this holds the monster down while still giving him a decent chance to hit and allowing the rest of the party to do their thing

>>49277835
>we covered this already
No, you retarded out and pretended a sword and board Fighter could actually hold a monster's attention.

>>49277809
9th level cleric
13 str base +10 = 23

9th level fighter
21 str base + 2 = 23

>>49277882
>13 STR base
Are you retarded?

File: 1376081321619.png (57KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x626px

>>49277882
>13 str base
>combat cleric not having 18 STR base

>>49277847
you did the exact same

prove me wrong

>>49277885
>>49277914
starting scores via elite array
Str 13, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 15, Cha 12
you increase wisdom at level ups
faggots online are always crying about how Con is so important

>>49277935
Elite array is total shit, why would you use it?

>>49254769

>I suppose part of the problem there is just that it's understandable armor could deflect or tank physical blows, but it's not going to give it's wearer a stronger fortitude or willpower.

Hmm.
Actually, as i was reading this thread, the thought occurred to me... What if *certain specific pieces* of armor were able to increase your saving throws, *without* occupying magic items slots *but* they required you be wearing a full set of the aforementioned armor type?

For example: a platemail helm (wearable as a part of heavy armor) that increases your will saves by shielding your mind? The helmet by itself offers no particular bonus, just when used in addition to the stock armor set?

And it could be done sensibly (Chainmail that provides a fortitude save bonus against contact poison by preventing the character from being touched), or stupidly (Boots with air pumps in the tongue for a better reflex save), or insanely ((These sabatons provide a reflex and fortitude bonus), entirely depending on what level of 3.pf you are intereted in.

>>49277942
because it's what is expected
the standard way to do stats is 4d6b3, which averages at 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

so a given character is expected to have that

>>49277942

Why not?

>>49277943
> What if *certain specific pieces* of armor were able to make the system more complex and unapproachable

>>49277984
Because it makes MAD characters unplayably bad while still not touching SAD ones?

>>49278006
really just paladins and monks, who are screwed anyway

>>49278006
> MAD characters unplayably bad

Sounds like you play with shit DMs

>>49278030
And Warmages, and Duskblades, and tons of other classes.

>>49278039
Sounds like you've never played 3.5.

>>49278052

Nah I've played plenty of 3.5

Just not with a shit DM.

>>49278061
Doubtful.

>>49277847
>>49277919
waiting

>>49278112
Doubtful.

>>49278112
>>49278352
Doubtful.

>>49261136
>yeah but if the dm has the power to remove all the things in dnd I hate then I can't bitch about it on /tg/
Why are you playing DnD instead of something else if the DM needs to remove a bunch of bullshit for it to be playable? Or rather, why should those people have to play DnD and like the system if they need to take it all out for them to find it enjoyable?

>>49278649
Doubtful.

>>49278649
Because exaggeration =/= arguments, so you're going to have to try again if you want anyone to take you seriously.

>>49278708
Doubtful.

>>49278689
What is doubtful? Or are you answering my question with the word doubtful? That makes no sense.

>>49278708
Argument? It was a question going under the assumption of that anon's strawmen. But OK.

>>49278741
If you just strawman in response, that makes you not only just as bad, but worse since you are also a hypocrite.

>>49278795
What strawman? I was going under the assumption that the person I replied to put. There are people that don't like things. Those things can be removed. The people who don't like them bitch about how they can't complain anymore. I was just questioning why those people should play a system they don't like. Yet now I'm propping up a straw man because it implies something you don't agree with.

>>49278795
Doubtful.

>>49278841
I'm going to reply to you earnestly, because you backed yourself into a bit of a corner, and ultimately I'm here to help you, not argue with you.

Your argument is silly. If someone really likes 95% of a system, why would they play another system that has that remaining 5% fixed but introduces another 40% of problems, rather than just fixing that 5% in the original system?

Not liking 5% of a system, or even 10%, or 20%, or whatever number you want to pick doesn't mean that they dislike the system as a whole, so that's your answer. People play games they have problems with because every game has problems, and it's more often than not easier to adjust something in a game than to change over to a new system that introduces its own problems that need to be fixed.

>>49278962
But I'm not talking about the people defending 3.PF they can play whatever they want. I'm talking about the people who complain about it and say it's the worst thing ever (I don't agree with that) but are told they aren't allowed to dislike DnD.

Personally I don't like DnD but that's because I think there's just too much detail and I don't find it necessary. I could either remove a lot of things or just play something else. But I, unlike people that shit on DnD, know it's a personal thing. At least I don't think I've shit on DnD at all. Maybe /tg/ is turning me into an unintentional troll.

I like armor as damage reduction better.

>>49279096
>are told they aren't allowed to dislike DnD.

No one said you're not allowed to dislike D&D. I think you're just getting too caught up by the guy talking about the D&D haters.

Overall, it'd be great if we could finally just move past these whole "let's shit on D&D because its popular!" trolls and not bother responding to them.

>>49279192
That's actually an option in Unearthed Arcana.

>>49279197
And if we could get people to stop recommending DnD to new people because it's popular. Let other systems be at least mentioned without being drowned out or, at best, be called "Your special snowflake system that no one cares about."

But nope, you're right. Only those that dislike DnD should not be allowed to speak because if they don't like it they should shut up and move on. Are they doing it in legit ways? No. But that doesn't mean they should be censored nor that their opinions should be entirely discarded.

>>49279213
It's poorly done though, since AC being tied to armor is so tied to the system. AC doesn't go up with level, but attack bonus does, so it quickly becomes "everyone always hits". Further, there are very few ways to overcome DR in that option.

>>49279233
I don't think I've seen people recommend 3.X to new players, at least not in the last several years. However, I have seen them discourage players from playing it when they ask about it though, every single time the game is mentioned, and usually just through raw, unfiltered shitposting rather than respecting people's preferences or that the system is hardly the worst out there.

While having an opinion should never be censored, shitposting, even elaborate and effort-driven shitposting, always does more harm than good, especially when it's done with ulterior motives.

Also, people tend to recommend 5e out of all the D&D's, and that's a pretty solid choice for new players, because aside from being a decent system, it's popularity is actually a tangible commodity, with it being easier to play and discuss the system. There's arguably better systems, but the key word there is arguably, and even if it's not your personal preference it's hard to fault people for recommending it.

All in all, it just comes down to having a little more respect for each other, and this is somewhere around the part where the shitposters chime in about how people on 4chan are supposed to be complete dicks to each other, rather than just the trolls in /b/ and the other shitposting boards.

>>49279197
We can't because there are valid arguments for why D&D is not good for play styles other than hack&slash

>>49279233
We can't because of brand loyalty.

>>49279410
>It's popular because it's popular.
Groan.

>>49279410
If no one recommends it are you saying that all those times we see people these days that started with it are troll threads? Maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

>>49279252
>It's poorly done though, since AC being tied to armor is so tied to the system

It's actually not that bad, and the system is hardly all that rigid. If you feel like people are hitting too often, giving a uniform bump to their ACs might suit your tastes better, such as basing AC on 12 rather than 10, or having AC scale up with your level.

Math tends to be a matter of preference, and a few tweaks here and there may be all you really need. Sort of like how 4e's early monsters had too much HP and didn't deal enough damage, making battles a bit too long for most people's tastes, and a common fix is just halving their HP and doubling their damage, with various other blanket formulas to further tune the game to your tastes.

>>49279410
But i find 5E awful as well with its uniform proficiencies. Also, rerolls suck.

>>49279442
But, they're not valid, because D&D is good for other play styles, and has been since the game transitioned from Chainmail.

You can argue all you want, but demanding that people have to treat your criticisms as valid and then rejecting any counterarguments just makes you a bit of a troll, especially when there's literally thousands of examples of people and adventures contradicting your statement.

Saying it's not good because X and then ignoring it being good because Y is hardly fair.

>>49276633
Actually point not taken. If this is true, then why doesn't a bigger weapon help me overcome your leather armor? Give me your common sense explanation plox.

>>49279546
Most players I know love rerolls. In fact, back when I was developing one of my larger homebrew games, players wound up opting for rerolls more often than anything else, even if it wasn't particularly mechanically advantageous.

But, to each their own I guess. I'm not even sure if I would classify 5e's a/d rules as strictly rerolls, either.

>>49279564
>The biggest brand is universally awesome.
You are deluded, buddy. Brand loyalty is blinding you. D&D is as good at realism as Harnmaster is at hack&slash.

Name the counterargument i am ignoring, u shall have it addressed. Caveat: you need to stop pretending as if it's only one person who is criticizing the game.

>>49279594
>>49279635
Doubtful.

>>49279635
I have about 2 decades of experience with rerolls. Since Blood Bowl 2E. It fades, believe me.

>>49279673
Is that code for sage? If only i could muster the energy to Report you.

>>49279720
report me you arrogant faggot

>>49254681
At all levels of 3.5, focusing on kiling the enemy as quickly as possible is an infinitely superior mindset to trying to weather the storm.

>>49279793
>infinitely superior mindset
because I say so

>>49279739
I can hardly bring myself to ignoring you.

>>49279594
This is actually going to get a little complicated, but try to stay with me.
There's something like 5+ layers.

First, you need to hit them- Touch AC, which can be augmented by things like magical deflection.
Then you need to pierce or bypass their armor.
Then, you've got things like natural armor, which is right up to their skin.

After all that, there's still Damage Reduction, which can either mean that their still just too tough, or that they actually heal the damage near-instantaneously.

And, finally, after all that, there's HP, which can be interpreted in many ways, with sometimes it representing literal cuts and wounds, and other times it simply refers to exhaustion or straining yourself to avoid something that would have killed an ordinary person. Ultimately, the final HP step might actually be treated as having come into play a lot earlier, which largely comes down to it being a bit of narrative license rather than a strict "by the stack" process like MTG uses. Since the two rolls are nearly simultaneous, it's not really much of a mental exercise.

It's abstract, but as far as your question goes, bigger weapons are only concerned with the Damage Reduction layers and the HP layers. While a bigger weapon would mean that it could cut through leather easier, a person wearing leather armor is better at dodging or otherwise mitigating the damage.

If this sounds confusing, this is actually rather simpler than how it was in 2e, and even 4e actually made things more complicated with weapons contributing varying attack bonuses.

>>49279669
I just gave you a counterargument, which you ignored.

Your brand-hate is blinding you.

>>49279958
I understand all this and if anything you have underlined what kind of mess this is.

Here is what actually happened: Gygax and Co introduced the game. HPs bloated, THAC0 was removed, etc. But early on they realized shit wasnt superrealistic. So they concocted thin rationales to downplay the deficiencies of the system. Later system, not Dnd, had the advantage of starting with a clean slate. DnD however was stuck on AC and HPs, etc. But they have a large and loyal fanbase, that pretends the system does not have the legacy mechanic issues it has.

And here we are. We non d&d fags are tired of irrational brand loyalty that denies the obvious.

>>49279973
Feel free to point out the argument you provided. All I see is assertions.

>>49280176
You can't argue a system isn't good for something that people have already proven it's good for over the course of several decades without slowly debasing the argument until it's just you spouting your opinions while demanding they be taken as valid proofs.

People have been running all sorts of games with D&D, and one thing I think you might be unwilling to admit is that some people like less rules in certain aspects of the game than others. For example, no edition of D&D has a terribly rigid system for large scale politics (though many do include subsystems and charts to aid campaigns that plan on including large scale politics), and that may be for the better simply because that's something that may very well be left to the DM's discretion.

We're talking about a system that lets you play everything from Gothic to Eldritch horror (including optional fear and dread rules, depending on edition), from Bronze age to Interstellar adventure, and you want people to take you seriously when you say all it can do is hack and slash like some meme-spouting troll looking for any possible angle to try and dissuade people from playing a game you think is too popular.

>>49278841

You're dealing with, what we in the business call, an ETBA.

ETBA's cannot grasp the concept of people not liking their system, so anyone who claims that they don't like 3.5 is accused of being a shitposter and any arguments they bring up to the table as strawmanning.

It's not their fault though, when you only play one system, whose popularity is going down the shitter with the release of 5e, you can't really blame them for looking for boogeymen in every closet in a poor attempt at excusing their system's flaws.

Just leave them to their rut and move on to greener pastures.

>>49280143
>DnD however was stuck on AC and HPs, etc.

Not really. It's offered up variant rules right from OD&D, but people preferred HP, and AC likewise went through a lot of design considerations and options until it developed into what it is.

They're simple and keep combat exciting from the first hit to the last, rather than wound systems that make the first hit matter exponentially more than the rest, and often make combat anti-climatic.

You really need to stop thinking that people are so stupid and you are so smart, rather than just accepting that people want things differently from what you want.

Yes, there were sacred cows carried over from previous editions that were better off being slaughtered, but AC and HP are both good, and your "BLOATED HP" criticism is really lost on people who've played games where characters are about as durable as bundles of sticks and combat is essentially a punishment.

>>49280429
Oh look, an eternally triggered bitch.

Why troll so obviously?

File: 1463530460044.png (186KB, 500x731px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 500x731px

>>49280429
ETBA applies to people like you, who are compelled to shitpost about 3.5 because they just need to troll.

You really need to start using a trip, so that people can avoid you, especially when you're so proud of shitposting in hopes of decreasing the popularity of a game that still remains the 2nd most popular.

Like, fuck, if you think people tired of you shitposting are upset because a game they don't think is that terrible is slowly getting retired, how insanely angry must you perpetually be to wake up and realize that it's still more popular than whatever game you love so much that compels you to shitpost?

>>49278841

cont. from >>49280429

see >>49280479 and >>49280548
for examples of my point in action.

To an ETBA, it's not that people can rationally dislike a system based on its merits or flaws or anything, it's that you just HAVE to be a shitposter who hates popular things because they're popular.

So just sage, report, move on, etc. because it's just going to be the same bullshit until the thread hits bump limit.

Just a quick PSA for those who aren't in the know.

>>49280582
>ETBA performing damage control

Interesting tactic. Too bad it's transparent and terrible.

You should try being more honest.

>>49280366
This is not convincing. There are for example consistent armor mechanics that are no more complex than AC. what's more, D&D never took root here in Germany because we have the German DSA which has its own brand loyalty.

I say it is good for one thing: hack&slash. I didn't say it can't be used in different settings or different styles of fantasy. I claim that it is subpar for those. Which is why the impact of D20 on other settings has been limited.

>>49280458
People stick with what the major publications push as that is authentic D&D, that is the object of brand loyalty. A lot of Systems outside of d&d exist, i can't think of one major system that handles armor similarly to D20. It seems almost as if gamers not prone to brand loyalty do not appreciate AC-like mechanics. Unless they are all brand-haters in your view.

>>49280582
This sounds like awful strawmanning.

People can dislike a system, but you, you personally, seem to be much more interested in just shitposting, partially because you irrationally hate a system well beyond the faults it has and not for legitimate reasons as you claim, and largely because you are an invested troll with a half-concieved goal and purpose.

You honestly think that if you shit on every 3.PF discussion, you can get people to stop discussing it.

That's what makes you eternally triggered, becuase people will never stop discussing 3.PF. The bitch part is how you could stop this cycle just by not getting triggered by the system that infuriates you so, but you choose not to.

It's not that bad. Maybe not great, but certainly not the worst system ever as you are convinced it is, and what compels you to fire off your list of complaints like you think anyone isn't tired of watching you spin around in and endless, self-induces cycle.

>>49280458
Furthermore, your argument is disengenious: there is no binary choice between D&D HP bloat and CoC mortality. There's simply better ways to make characters more durable

>>49280771

Be honest champ, are you >>49280479 or >>49280548?

Because in either case, the line

>People can dislike a system, but you, you personally, seem to be much more interested in just shitposting, partially because you irrationally hate a system well beyond the faults it has and not for legitimate reasons as you claim, and largely because you are an invested troll with a half-concieved goal and purpose.

is particularly ironic considering how your first thought was to immediately accuse someone of being a strawmanning troll when all they wanted were answers for why 3.X gets so much hate.

I'm just saying, it's beautiful how invested a troll can be towards a brand, you usually don't find this level of corporate cock gobbling outside of /v/.

>>49280458
And you couldnt be anymore wrong about hitpoints being exciting. When you have 100 HP, the first 60 HP are unexciting to lose, unless you take one massive hit. There is no problem with the first hit mattering more in a Wound system. If anything, it increases the challenge early on to come back from behind. Certainly beats counting down HPs without dramatic effects.

>>49280664
>I claim that it is subpar for those.

I'd argue otherwise, largely because the core system of each edition of D&D tends to be quite a solid and versatile foundation, and that's it's not as rigid as people who frequently change systems are prone to believe.

It's actually a bit of a bad habit I've seen in people who tend to exclusively play lesser known systems, in that they treat the systems far more rigidly, to the ultimate detriment of the game.

I've myself actually had to remind myself on several occasions not to be a slave to the rules when I played through some of the more mechanic-driven games. It's partially from a desire to get a proper feel of the "real" game, and partially because I was worried there was some underlying mechanics that could break the system apart if I messed around with them. In the end though, treating the systems less strictly only improved the games.

>Which is why the impact of D20 on other settings has been limited.

I'm not even sure what to make of this statement, because the 3rd edition d20 system has had quite an impact on a wide number of settings and styles of fantasy, to the point where I think that actually forms one of the common complaints about the system as a whole, in that people saw d20 versions of EVERYTHING, regardless of how far they tried to run from it.

>>49280906
>When you have 100 HP, the first 60 HP are unexciting to lose, unless you take one massive hit.

If you have 100 HP, any HP you lose is still a problem, because you have limited resources and you never know what's around the corner. Even just a short encounter where you lose only 15 HP ends up weighing on the mind.

And, around the time you do have 100HP, losing 60HP in a turn is pretty commonplace. Losing it in a single hit also isn't farfetched, and you're right, that really does make it exciting.

Overall though, the key idea to take away is that at the cost of realism, HP makes it so that enemies and allies remain potent and dangerous, regardless of what point in the battle they are. In fact, 4e actually went ahead and turned this on its head, and made it so that enemies actually get MORE dangerous the more damage they take. While I can't say I'm particularly a fan of this, I can't deny that it does make battles more exciting.

>If anything, it increases the challenge early on to come back from behind.

Which is nice in theory, but doesn't work often in practice. Kind of like a sports movie, except trying to repeat it without movie magic.

What you've got is a bet on the underdog, and a system that also has a bet on the underdog, and while that may work out once in a blue moon where someone manages to reverse the odds stacked against them, more often than not (as is the case with odds) it's just going to lead to combat being decided very early on, with the rest of the battle just being clean-up.

>>49281073
>to the point where I think that actually forms one of the common complaints about the system as a whole, in that people saw d20 versions of EVERYTHING, regardless of how far they tried to run from it.
And the reason for that is that those games were largely just a palette swap when d20 mechanics don't fucking work for everything under the sun.

>>49281256
The core mechanics do and did. Most of the complaints were actually for weird subsystems like d20 Modern's currency stat and other just plainly bad design choices, and not for using the d20 system broadly.

And, there are examples of it being used quite successfully for other styles of games, like Heroes of Horror, Elder Evils, Oriental Adventures (arguably), and Star Wars (once again, arguably).

>>49281073
Well, i see a lot of assertions here and not much argument. The core of D&D is no more solid than WFRP, Harnmaster or Dark Heresy. Nor is it any more flexible.

GM attitude isn't a matter of GM design, plus it's anecdotal. When people ask for best system for genre X, the suggestion is almost never a D20 derivative, except for M&M. Cyberpunk, Sci-Fi, Dark Fantasy, Horror... D20 is irrelevant there. HP bloat is only compatible with super heroes.

>>49281227
So initial HP loss is a Hypothetical later problem. A Wound is an immediate Situation. Villains don't need to be dangerous. It's okay when at some point, they are all but done, it allows for a satisfying finish.

There is not much difference in D&D if in a fight between equals the enemy rolls a terrible crit early on. Otoh, if a superior PC gets wounded early on, this can create an interesting fight.

>>49281493
None of these games are relevant in genrecentric threads. Testament to the failure of D20 outside of hack and slash. I do grant partial success in the superhero Department though. But otherwise gamers prefer different systems.

>>49256222
Have you tried The Riddle of Steel or one of it's successors?

>>49281611
> The core of D&D is no more solid than WFRP, Harnmaster or Dark Heresy. Nor is it any more flexible.

I'm not going to argue otherwise right now. The cores of all the games can be used for many other styles, often with very few tweaks.

>When people ask for best system for genre X, the suggestion is almost never a D20 derivative

Largely because the assumption is that they already tried using d20, because that's a system you are expected to know. That, and it's well beyond the point where D&D players need to proselytize or advertize their system.

>HP bloat is only compatible with super heroes.

Low HP D&D games exist, in every edition. All you have to do is play low level, and perhaps reduce the XP you get. There's even adaptations like E6 for people like you who don't like high HP and want to retain more of low-level feel for longer periods of the game.

Secondly, I think you're exaggerating what "HP Bloat" means, and it's effects on a game. Players don't skydive as often as you might imagine, and if you really want to avoid the idea of players having 100 "meatpoints", the fluid nature of description comes into play. HP is abstract, and a DM has a great amount of versatility just in how he describes the effect of damage.

>Cyberpunk, Sci-Fi, Dark Fantasy, Horror... D20 is irrelevant there.

Except, that it does often come up. d20 Dark Fantasy is a staple, and it alongside Horror have been embodied in Ravenloft and has been played all the way from 2e to 5e.

It's not the first name in science fiction, but then again, there's nothing strictly limiting it, and there is d20 future for the so inclined.

>>49281751
>Testament to the failure of D20 outside of hack and slash

Not really. It's more of people recognizing that there are genre-specific games, not that d20 isn't versatile or the decision to use it leads to "subpar" games.

>>49279213
D&D should have a Armor = HP variant not Armor = DR.

Armor as DR is for low HP systems.

>>49261349
>he doesn't know druids are one if the strongest casters