Have any of you met a 3.PF grognard? >drag group kicking

I am one myself I just keep the opinion to myself as I'm running a 5E group of newbies and there's not much point me telling them how superior Pathfinder is because they wouldn't be able to understand it anyway.

>>49296596

Fair warning, there's a dedicated troll who shows up in any thread that badmouths 3.PF. He'll most likely come to call us ETBA's by the end of the day but I just wanted to give you the heads up for when the thread inevitably gets derailed.

Anyways, to keep this on topic.

>know a dude who only really plays d20 systems
>sit down to play 5e with him and few other friends.
>constantly bitches about how skills and (dis)advantage work whenever he fails a roll.
>Doesn't even use his sorcery points once during the campaign.
>Forgets that downed targets get advantage on attack rolls.

Haven't played with him since but that had more to do with him being an asshole than him being a grognard though.

>>49296596
But anon, I am a 3.pf grognard and I already resisted being dragged kicking and screaming into 4e. Why should I risk more of the same with 5e?

>>49296682
ETBA?

>>49296596
>drag group kicking and screaming into 5e
If you need to do this you're the bad guy OP. Find another group that wants to play what you want to and let them find another GM who wants to play what they do.

>>49296682
>ETBA in full damage control mode

You're kind of disgusting.

>>49296596
Honest question, why do people grow those beards?

Like four of my friends from the game shop I go to have started growing them.

>>49296734
THERE HE IS! GET HIM! REPORT HIM BACK TO GAMEFAQS!

>>49296779
Because their shitty genes won't let them grow a glorious mustache.

>>49296809
and so they mistakenly think that is's better than nothing... it's not.

>>49296779
It's basically so you can get away with a minimal amount of shaving and still look half-decent.

Well, maybe quarter decent.

>>49296723
There's some trolls who enjoy shitposting about 3.PF at every available opportunity. They're eternally triggered bitch anons, because they're going to be triggered to bitch for as long as people want to discuss 3.PF.

It's this weird game they're playing on this board, and 3.PF is just the target they've chosen to loudly shitpost about. I think their endgame is just to discourage any and all discussion of 3.PF by making it always devolve into back and forth shitposting.

It's just best to ignore the whole thing.

File: 1471130073358.jpg (926KB, 900x1391px) Image search: [Google]

926KB, 900x1391px

>>49296809
>>49296823
Except one of them had a totally normal beard, then shaved everything off the face. Leaving only beard below the chin area.

I can't understand it. It hurts my mind.

>>49296723
>>49296734
>>49296757
>>49296847

Right on cue.

Though I'm not sure if it's samefag or if he's recruited more trolls recently.

>>49296779
I know a guy who had one like that for a while because he couldn't be arsed to shave. He's grown out of that now. Hopefully no-one ever considers it a proper beard.

>>49296779
Semi-hides their double chins.

>>49296596
More times than I can count.

>people that thought that d20 roleplaying was superior to all other forms of roleplaying while simultaneously bitching about how everything not-core was broken, because apparently noticing the contradiction between those two is difficult or something
>the typical REEEEEEEEE 4E IS MMO WOW BULLSHIT WHY DO CLASSES HAVE ROLES????? DURR CLANG! autist who, as usual, hasn't touched a single edition of D&D outside of 3.5
>fatbeard who threw an autistic fit when we suggested using any non-d20 system
>this guy >>49296847 because clearly 3.5's flaws have never fucked up a game for anyone before

>>49296854
I don't know. The only real life neckbeard I have seen was a big Dave Matthew's Band fan who thought it made him look more bohemian or something.

>>49297058
New things are hard to learn, and scary. If you don't learn them quickly you might feel dumb.

>>49297058
The most frustrating are the ones who don't want to play D&D (muh low magic, muh realism, muh deep immersive roleplaying) yet insist on a game that demands all of these and system mastery to boot.

>>49296596
TFW this triggers me more then all the other things that guy said:
>"the proficiency system is dumb, why do I have deception AND a disguise kit proficiency"

"Because they do different things, ya dongo. The first one's used if you lie and try to keep a straight face, the other one to physically disguise yourself as another person."

OP, please punch that grognard for me, not even 3.PFags read the damn rules when it's not a supplement for their next cheese.

>>49297538
One of my players was bitching about the existence of electrum as currency.

>>49297552

I once had a guy who complained because of the bounded accuracy.

It's like, yeah, I'm sorry you can't inflate your numbers into the 30's anymore by level three but at least now character creation only takes like 10 minutes and I don't need to cross reference a library of supplements just to make sure your character is legit.

>>49297552
My 5e GM didn't use electrum in the game her ran, which sorta bummed me out.

Electrum's cool man.

>>49297552
>>49297609
The PHB lists it as a defunct currency anyway, so it'd be more like something you use as ancient treasure. Unless there's something about electrum I'm not getting.

>>49296596
5e is cool but I really like cool concept building, npc management, and magic so Pathfinder tends to do better for me between the two.

>>49297753
I agree with this

>>49297604
I would be a lot less pissed about bounded accuracy if bounded accuracy's lack of progression didn't force the developers to bloat HP like a motherfucker to have some form of monster progression.

>>49297753

Eh, I dunno, I personally liked how 5e did magic.

I mean, you can spend a spell slot of higher level to buff a spell, magic items are rare and more powerful thanks to how bounded accuracy works, there's that one thing in the DMG that allows you to come up with a history for any magic items you find.

Hell, one time in a 5e campaign, our paladin got a +1 longsword that he used to sway a skeleton army into joining our side because they turned out to be an ancient army guarding some tomb and the sword belonged to their captain.

If this was 3.PF, the +1 longsword would've just been something that shot 1d6 burst fire damage and would've gotten traded out once we reached level 7-9 and the party's WBL warranted a +2 weapon each.

>>49297838

HP bloat will always be a thing unless they sit down and come up with some way of fixing it for 6e.

HD+CON just ramps up too fast for the damage to scale properly, unless you're a paladin or a rogue or a sorcerer who have access to abilities that deal decent burst damage in a pinch.

>>49297869

That last part is about tying story to items, not about magic items themselves.

And the spell slot thing reminds me of 4e reuses effects for multiple tiers.

>>49297972

>That last part is about tying story to items, not about magic items themselves.

I disagree.

Because of the way the system works, a +1 bonus towards your attack/damage actually holds significant water now since bonuses/penalties have been replaced by the (dis)advantage system.

So not only does the sword hold sway because of its history, it's also a fairly powerful item as well since magic items are rare and the system is built around smaller and more manageable numbers.

Granted, this is only my own 2 cents on the matter.

>>49297912
>HD+CON just ramps up too fast for the damage to scale properly
Which is why PCs were capped at 10 HD in 2E, to say nothing of how CON bonuses were much rarer.

It's also why 4E added CON score to HP once as opposed to adding the bonus to HP every level.

>>49297972
That would only be true if magic items were not hard-coded into the 3.pf CR system.

>>49297912
HP bloat is only a thing because there are people that want less HP for one reason or another.

>>49298060
I'm not terribly familiar with 4e, but wasn't damage also generally a lot less extreme that time basically cancelling that out? I only played a few 4e games, but combat dragged out significantly more in those than in 3.5 or 5e

>>49298140
It's also easy to adjust by a few points to match a person's personal taste.

>>49298140

>HP bloat is only a thing because there are people that want less HP for one reason or another.

People want less HP because it means that damage will actually be meaningful in the long run.

The only way damage honestly becomes scary is if you're dealing with shit that's way beyond your paygrade and they can deal at least 50% of your HP in one attack.

Other than that, combat just loses its bite when you know that you'll be able to tank something's attack long enough to gank them.

>>49298275
That's your opinion. I disagree.

>>49296854
It is possible, albeit extraordinary, for a neckbeard to look good. It's like playing the lottery: odds are very good that you're gonna lose, but just enough people win that others foolishly keep trying.

>>49298353

Well okay then.

It was nice talking to you anon.

>>49296847
>It's just best to ignore the whole thing

And yet you spam damage control hard at every opportunity.

>>49298275
>The only way damage honestly becomes scary is if you're dealing with shit that's way beyond your paygrade and they can deal at least 50% of your HP in one attack.

You mean a typical battle, where a bad turn means you lose 50% of your HP or more, either through one big enemy landing a big hit or a few smaller ones, or a few lesser enemies getting good strikes.

>>49298482
>50% of your HP or more in one turn is exactly the same thing as losing 50% of your HP in one attack
Retard detected.

>>49298751
We're talking about when damage becomes scary. No need to strawman.

>>49296596
>drag group kicking and screaming
>bitch when they resist
Rrrright.

>>49298914
My guess is that OP and this guy >>49296682 are the same person, and they just made this thread because they're bored and want to bitch and troll.

>>49297753
This is why I'm a fan of 3.PF. Sure, it's a bloated mess with a lot of rules that don't make sense and can interact in weird ways, but I enjoy digging through that bloat to try and come up with cool character ideas. It needs a DM willing to make some minor houserules or balance encounters to get those ideas playable more often than not, but in the end I enjoy the process more than playing a more restricted system, no matter how well balanced it is.

>>49298275
Seconding this post. The only time the PCs in my Ravenloft campaign have been worried is when they tried to face off against the shambling mound in the Death House. Other than that, monsters mostly whiff-ping against them.

>>49298182
Core 4e's monster math was utter shit, monsters had too much HP and too little damage.

It did eventually get fixed with Monster Manual 3, and you can put the fixes for older monsters on a business card, at least.

File: 4e Monster Stat Card.gif (27KB, 1050x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1050x600px

>>49298182
>>49300434
Yep, the fix is simple.

>>49296705

You know those two or three decent changes they made in 4e?

5e is 3.PF with those changes made and the rest put back to normal. That's the best way to summarize it.

>>49296596
Not that bad, mostly limited to people who didn't move beyond 3e and lost interest in TTRPGs. They weren't fans of 4e, didn't look at other games, and pretty much stuck to what they were familiar with.

>>49297753
>>49297782
>>49299043
I am liking the 'heavy combat rules, lite out-of-combat rules' of 4e and the different approaches of other games more and more, but I can understand the appeal for the 'rules for everything' idea behind 3e and PF. It gives a lot of neat stuff you can mess with. I had fun thinking of characters and trying to stat them out in 3e, even if I would never play them or if they would have been a lodestone.

>>49301566
The only thing I'm a bit sad they didn't keep was more Tome of Battle-style maneuvers.

>>49301566
5e is 3.PF with the good changes from 4e made, plus a handful of new ideas, plus a handful of OSR ideas, and minus a lot of the bloat of 3.PF.

>>49301673
They're actually working on the first big rules expansion now. Based on stuff we know is in the pipeline it'll have more feats and a revised Ranger, which are the two big things I've seen people on /tg/ want revisted. Hopefully it'll have more maneuvers and Attack action options, too.

>>49301363
I thought the fix was just double damage and half health?

>>49302214
>More feats

Awesome, can't wait for that.

>>49296596
>"the proficiency system is dumb, why do I have deception AND a disguise kit proficiency"

Yeah, not at all like how 3.PF has BOTH Bluff and Disguise skill.

ITT: shit that never happened

>>49298951

Right, because it's to~tally impossible for more than one person to not like 3.PF.

>>49304549
To be perfectly fair to the OP, I've dealt with plenty of grognards that will selectively forget shit about their pet system to badmouth the offending option.

File: 1460337780458.jpg (197KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1280x1280px

It's kind of the opposite with my table. My players are always hesitant to play anything more complex than 5e. Which is fine, I love 5e, but I have been having an itch to GM Pathfinder again.

>>49298482

Bad turns can easily be remedied thanks to how effective healing has become in 5e.

If you really wanted you, you could spend a level 9 spell slot on "cure wounds" and restore 9d8+spellcasting ability mod. damage.

If we say that we have the highest stat possible without magic items (20, or a +5), and we roll average on each die (5), you can heal 90 damage.

For reference, a Barbarian with 20 CON who rolls average on his HP rolls on level up (7), would have around 243 HP, so even if we rolled average on our cure wounds roll, that's still a healthy chunk of HP being restored on average, albeit at the cost of a level 9 slot but still.

Not to mention spells like Heal or Healing Word that even better than that.

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is, losing 50% of your health in one turn isn't all that scary because now, healing's much easier and much more viable than it was in 3.PF.

Losing more than 50% of your total health from one attack? Now shit's getting real.

File: catsup.jpg (27KB, 566x242px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 566x242px

>>49296596
Weird, in my experience it's th 3.PF grognards who insist on playing 5e, because 5e was custom tailored to the 3.PF grognards.... honestly, if you haven't acclimated to D20SRD from playing nothing else to the point that even the slightest difference seems signifigant, it's hard to tell the difference most of the time between the two. I mean they're different, but not signifigantly different. At best, it's like the differences between 40k 3e and 40k 4e (core rules changes not army book changes) yeah there are some differences, and most of them improvements, but... honestly, it's more of an errata than a new edition.

>>49304738
Right, because it is impossible to have fun and enjoy 3.PF.

>>49305269

To some people, it could be impossible. I know I swore off PF once my group started playing other systems and I imagine others did the same considering for a sizable population of the tabletop community as well considering the mass exodus from 3rd edition to 5th edition that's going on.

I mean, is it really that hard to imagine at least two different people independently stating an aversion to 3.PF in a thread that's mainly about how much people hate 3rd edition grognards?

Seriously?

>>49297838
The way I handle this is if an attack deals your con in damage OR half your HP in onr go, make a Con save (with a DC equal to the damage exceeding the cin value or 15 for the 1/2 HP thing). Fail, take a level of exhaustion. Thinking about making it apply to crits too.

>>49305390
*one
*con

ME TYPE GUD!

>>49296596
>>"advantage/disadvantage is an unnecessary simplification"
Well yeah, you have to dumb shit down for Americans or they will start suing you for hurting their feelings.

>>49305412
Found the grognard.

>>49296596
>why do I have deception AND a disguise kit proficiency
Because if you're just proficient in deception, that does not mean you're also proficient in the use of a disguise kit.

>>49305423
Why do you think they do it? People have sued for "injured feelings" or gotten violent over things they don't understand on multiple occasions.

>>49305438
I don't claim to speak for my countrymen, but the kind if people who adopt a game system like a favored child don't usually have much else going on. The implication is poor social skills and stunted emotional maturity, so...

>>49305438

>Why do you think they do it?

They probably did it because they didn't want a combat turn to resemble someone trying to balance their checkbook everytime they go to take a swing at someone.

I mean, I'd rather roll 2d20 and take the best/worst outcome than figure out what my attack bonus is after stacking 10 different modifiers against one another.

>>49305480
I did it the easy way. Saint-template Warforge with a Medium Fortification enchanted Adamantine body.

I'm immune to everything.

>>49304811
A few things:

-The whole point is moot, as it's much, much more economical to just spend a 1st level slot on healing word to pick the barb up as a bonus action (maybe 2nd level if he's in an aura)
-PF healing was actually stupidly good once you got Heal (the spell).
-I want Healing surges to be a thing again, because the fighter standing up 5 times in the same fight without problem is fucking retarded, and the only way to stop that from happening is outright killing him, which is harsh as fuck.

>>49296824
It would look decent with a moustache, here it's just sad.

>>49304811
Now, you're really, really stretching it.

Bad turns can be remedied. But, they're scary, and even if you do heal an average of 50 (not 90) damage using the most powerful spell in your arsenal, that can be followed by another bad turn, a turn preceded by a character doing nothing but healing.

It's like you're reading from the books, but you've never actually played the game, and you're talking in hypotheticals.

Combat in D&D can get quite tense and even scary. To argue it doesn't is to attempt to deny a common experience, which is a futile effort.

>>49301566

>t. guy who never played 4e

Such a load of horse shit. 5e ignores 4e almost entirely to its own detriment. Inb4 "haha oh wow u actually like 4e what a fagggg" or some equally inane bullshit because god forbid you hop off the 3.pf/5 cancer dick.

>>49306165

>Now, you're really, really stretching it.

No, I'm really, really not.

>Bad turns can be remedied. But, they're scary,

The fact that it's so easy to remedy one bad turn is what inherently makes them so benign in the first place.

>even if you do heal an average of 50 (not 90)

Ah, my mistake, for some stupid reason I thought it was (+ primary casting stat) to each roll rather than (+ primary casting stat) to the final result.

I guess this is why you shouldn't use math in early AM.

>that can be followed by another bad turn, a turn preceded by a character doing nothing but healing.

What necessarily constitutes a bad turn here?

Also, what is the rest of the party doing while you're flubbing about for a few seconds?

Oh wait, they're murdering the shit outta the enemy, so you're most likely not going to be eating as much damage on subsequent rounds due to the enemy's forces dwindling bit by bit.

1/2

>>49306165

>Combat in D&D can get quite tense and even scary.

Maybe if the enemy deals 50% of your HP total in one attack, sure, but 50% spread out from a bunch of weenies, eh, not so much.

In your standard 4-6 man party, you're going to have more than enough firepower to deal with any weenies you come across. Even if we assume that YOU had a bad turn and ate that 50 damage (out of 100 HP) from separate enemies, your party members can enemies and lessen the potential damage that you'd be hit with.

However, if you have one dude who deals 50 damage (out of 100 HP) per hit, it means that you're dealing with an enemy that has the potential to one-shot anyone in the party who has less a d10 HD.

And if that's not the case, then it's just watching two sides trading hits until one of them dies, which means that the combat becomes a slog because nothing is happening due to the fact that an enemy at 1 HP is just as capable as an enemy at full health.

2/2

>>49296596
We have a large group of players at my school.

We've all switched to the superior system. One 3.5 grognard is left. Screams and shouts and has a panic attack every time we try to get him to play anything other than 3.5. Dm's for anyone who can stand his stuttering for more than a few minutes.

He is literally autistic. Part of the autism awareness group on campus.

I use him as a baseline of what NOT to do as a DM. Save or dies traps everywhere. No clear objective or reward for completing any proposed task. Yet he somehow manages to railroad like a motherfucker for his hidden goals.

I'm convinced this is what all the diehards who still play 3.5 are comprised of, as I've had no other examples of anyone who hates change so thoroughly.

>>49296596
I'm sort of a 5e grognard. If I try to learn a new system and it's not as well designed as 5e I get annoyed. I guess it just spoiled me.

>>49296723
What is ETBA? No one answered him and now I'm curious.

File: Capture.png (408KB, 498x510px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 498x510px

>>49308082
East Texas Beekeepers Association

File: 1457136691974.jpg (122KB, 623x414px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 623x414px

>>49308126
Thanks for the source anon

>>49296847
Just gonna chime in here.

3.5e is literally the worst version of DnD I have ever played.

Not a single part of it is improved over say AD&D or 5e.

Even combat is covered by 4e.

What does 3.5e do that isn't covered by a less clunky version?

>>49308174
3.PF good for homebrew stuff

>>49308174
Removed normies, who just want to have fun, from tabletop?

It pretty much guaranteed that you'd only be playing with sweaty neckbeards like yourself when you sat down to play.

The system was so convoluted and full of patches that it acted as a sort of filter that only let in the worst of the worst, and kept a small generation of potentials away from D&D.

>>49308224
How is it any more homebrew friendly than 5e?

>>49308231
So it's a bunch of degenerated misanthropes purposely playing with stupid shit?

File: disappoint.png (122KB, 349x320px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 349x320px

>>49308246
Pretty much. At least we can easily avoid them now.

I think ETBAnon is Virt ban evading.

>>49308231
Normies these days are too into video games where there are no real or spanning consequences for their actions like Skyrim and GTAV.

One session of:
>I set the inn on fire, hurr hurr
>6 guards? LOL I'm lvl 3 with 32 HP
>See, I won the fight! I'm so badass.
>Whattaya mean the villagers start throwing rocks?
>Cleric, I'm down! You're the party healer! HEAL ME!
>I can't be dead, we only just started!
...is usually enough to convince them to either shape-up or fuck off.

5e is accessible enough for normies, but roleplaying something other than a murderhobo avatar of themselves often isn't.

>>49308174
This is very niche but I like the sheer amount of content and wading through prestige classes and feats, along with spells and magic items, to find one that does what I desire.
Like making a guy who flings a magic zweihander at people for a living. Barbarian/Warblade/Master Thrower (with Throw Anything and a +1 Greatsword of Returning) was a fun campaign.
Sculpting a character to my precise desires is appealing and satisfying. But that's just to my sensibilities, I can easily understand the same experience being overwhelming or wearisome to others.

>>49308391
Can't you do the exact thing without a thousand splatbooks?

>>49307733
>>49307870
You're still trying to argue against common experience, using arguments that border from inaccurate hypotheticals (it's really not so easy to remedy damage, because any significant healing costs resources, including actions) to bizarre judgements.

Enemies being just as capable at 1 HP actually make the battle less of a tedious slog, because with wound systems, battles typically turn against whoever gets hit first, and the subsequent rounds just exponentially increase that disadvantage. With a majority of battles decided by the first hit, all the subsequent hits just end up being clean up, or in other words, a tedious slog.

Of course, there are some systems that try to mitigate and reduce the impact of damage to enable comebacks and otherwise keep the battle from being pre-emptively decided , but those ultimately just end up being effectively similar to both sides retaining their combat efficacy.

Overall, it just seems like you're not very familiar with actually playing the game. When characters are expected to go through multiple encounters, managing limited resources, and enduring potentially hundreds of attacks before having a chance to fully rest, every hit counts. Even if a battle might be nearing it's end, a stray attack may be what ultimately decides whether you live or die in the next encounter.

This shouldn't be news or an amazing revelation to you. This is the experience of anyone who's actually played the game.

>>49308246
More streamlining = less detail. Skills are severely simplified in 5e.

Bounded accuracy makes low level characters/monsters more of a threat at the expense of higher level characters limiting what you can do with a custom made class

>>49308561
So you're saying it's shit we have a general perform skill instead of a thousands different skills like "Perform:Banjo"

>>49308604
I didn't say 5e was shit. I said it didn't do homebrew as well. Also in its favor is the sheer amount of content out for 3.PF vs 5e right now.

>>49308436

>You're still trying to argue against common experience

No, that's more what you're doing chief.

>(it's really not so easy to remedy damage, because any significant healing costs resources, including actions)

Healing word is a bonus action. You could technically heal and still attack someone.

>because with wound systems, battles typically turn against whoever gets hit first, and the subsequent rounds just exponentially increase that disadvantage.

At least with wounds systems, it discourages people from running full tilt without any plans and makes armor (as in, actual armor and not whatever AC is supposed to be) meaningful.

>Overall, it just seems like you're not very familiar with actually playing the game.

Why do 3aboos always assume that any issues that get brought up is due to someone "not playing the game."

It just reads like a feminist who claims that any woman who calls her out on her bullshit are actually suffering from "internal misogyny" or some shit.

>>49308426
No, whereas in 4e, you could do all of that literally with a base fighter.
Or rogue.
Or ranger.

>>49308656
Is that....bad?

>>49296596
One thing I like about 5e is that it put's more responsibility on the Dm to know what they are doing. Rule 0, the Dm's trump card, is referenced numerous times in the PHB, especially in the spell section. It's clear that wizards intended potential powergamers to get the message that they were not welcome in 5e's scene. Thats fine, because powergamers would have more fun playing video games than tabletop rpg's anyway.

Of course, it's really easy to know what to do as a DM, present a conflict to the players to solve, wherein it makes sense and they have ample reason to solve it. But some people just approach it and have no idea where to start off, throwing shit at the wall and hoping the players like it.

The people I see who have the most problems with 5e are people who don't WANT to like it. And that's a real problem at the table, when a player just doesn't WANT to have fun. You can't force fun. Everyone might say they want to have fun, but what one person considers fun and what another one does different story. Better to explain to them what a tabletop rpg is and remove them from the group.

>>49308675
It's less satisfying.

>>49308651
>Healing word is a bonus action. You could technically heal and still attack someone.

And it's still using up resources, and it hardly counts as significant healing.
Focus on the point, instead of making a fool of yourself by trying to redirect the discussion towards details you are unfamiliar with.

>At least with wounds systems, it discourages people from running full tilt without any plans and makes armor (as in, actual armor and not whatever AC is supposed to be) meaningful.

You mean it punishes players for entering combat, and discourages them from it.
And, with wound systems, the deep and complex strategy tends to be "Hit them hard first."

>Why do 3aboos always assume that any issues that get brought up is due to someone "not playing the game."

You clearly have no practical experience playing the game. You are literally befuddled by ideas that shouldn't come to anyone as a surprise.

And, this isn't coming from a 3aboo, so you might as well give up if that's your last recourse.

>>49308620

The "sheer amount of content" for 3.PF generally falls into one of three categories.

1) The content is actually fairly solid, decently edited, and gives you added utility/flavor.
2) The content is meh but is generally harmless in the grand scheme but generally won't see much play.
3) The content is terrible and just exists to perpetuate ivory tower game design so that newbies get suckered into spending resources on shit that gimps their character.

Granted, I wished that 5e had more player options like SCA but I can also understand that WotC doesn't want another system where it's bogged down by over a dozen different splat books that most people either use for stupid cheese builds or ban on sight because of power gamers who came in with broken characters.

I mean, at least the modules they're releasing have gotten fairly solid now that they know how 5e works. My group is currently running "curse of Strahd" and so far, it's actually pretty damn enjoyable.

>>49308765
>ivory tower game design

I don't think you know what that means.

You sound like the guy who confuses it with "trap options", which are actually not as significant to the edition as naysayers pretend they are.

Ivory Tower simply refers to something Cook came up with six years after they finished printing the books, a retrospective analysis which is "Provide players with options, without going into detail about the best usage of those options."

Ultimately, this only really held true for the Player's Handbook, with most other books including some explanation as to the best usage of options, and there's even books that explained the options available in the player's handbook (such as the various class-specific splats).

Basically, it's just oft-repeated but poorly understood ideas that really don't matter.

>>49308759

>And it's still using up resources, and it hardly counts as significant healing.

The fact that you could spend a bonus action on heals and your standard action on heals is what ultimately makes it so good. It might not take you up to full but it will at least heal up a chunk of damage.

>You mean it punishes players for entering combat, and discourages them from it.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing honestly. Older versions of D&D didn't even give you that much EXP from killing monsters.

>And, with wound systems, the deep and complex strategy tends to be "Hit them hard first."

There's also "find cover," "disable weapons," "incapacitate enemies," and more.

I mean, I don't necessarily blame you for going into every combat attacking people head on since 3.PF kinda rewards that level of strategy but in games like SR, the first thing that anyone does is find cover.

>You clearly have no practical experience playing the game

I played 3.PF for 2 years mate.

>>49308863

>which are actually not as significant to the edition as naysayers pretend they are.

What is Monk, Rogue, Fighter, TWF builds, and combat maneuvers, to name a few?

>>49308959
Rogues are perfectly serviceable tier 4 characters in 3.5, thanks to UMD and various magical prestige class options.
Pathfinder decided to nerf them to tier 6.

>>49308929
>Standard action on heals and bonus action on heals
Only if your a paladin using lay on hands. And that's when you're a half-caster

Did you forget you could only cast one spell at a time senpai?*

*(Unless you're using Action for a cantrip, You can only cast one new spell a turn. Read the PHB)

>>49309058

>Rogues are perfectly serviceable tier 4 characters in 3.5

Isn't that like describing a girl as "having wonderful personality" though?

Isn't the existence of tiers in general kinda proving the point of some options being vastly better than others?

>>49308929
Get back to the points, and stop dodging.

>e fact that you could spend a bonus action on heals and your standard action on heals is what ultimately makes it so good.

You can only cast one spell per round, regardless of what kind of action it is.
And, once again, those are still resources being spent, since healing isn't free.

So, please, stop trying to divert the discussion, especially if your only way of doing so is by showing how inexperienced you are with the system.

>Which isn't necessarily a bad thing honestly.
It is when you want players to engage in combat, ever.

>but in games like SR, the first thing that anyone does is find cover.

Followed by "Hit them hard first."

>I played 3.PF for 2 years mate

And yet, you don't understand very simple ideas. If anything, admitting to having played the game and not being able to understand it after two years makes you look like more of an idiot, not less.

The basic idea you don't understand is HP. It's something even small children end up being able to grasp. You also seem to think that you have a better idea of what makes people excited and afraid, when it's clear that you don't even understand the basic math that you're trying to use as the basis of your arguments, let alone the systems and their actual use.

If you want to tell every person that plays with high HP that the concern and fear they feel in a battle is somehow wrong because your poor understanding of these games has convinced you that you understand their experience better, how is anyone supposed to even take you seriously?

>>49309151
Certainly. Tiers 3 and 4 are definitely the way it's "intended" to be, and the existence of tiers 1-2 and 5-6 are deep flaws in game design.

>>49309100

>Only if your a paladin using lay on hands. And that's when you're a half-caster
>Did you forget you could only cast one spell at a time senpai?*

Are we talking about the same edition here?

>>49309199
We're talking about 5E, where you are limited to one non-cantrip spell a turn without regard to action economy. Only cantrips can be spammed and no cantrips restore HP.

>>49309151
Balance really wasn't that important of a concern, largely because of sacred cows from 2e, another edition that didn't really care about strict balance. Remember, 2e had the casters as deadweights for a considerable span of experience, until they ultimately became the strongest classes in the game. 3rd edition tried to alleviate that, but by making them not suck so much early on, it wound up exasperating the higher level issues. But, at least they made the classes level up uniformly, which was a good step forward, even if it lead to balance issues by trying to retain other sacred cows like specific spell occurring at specific levels.

Separation into tiers allows people to play with a variety of power levels, and while modern design more strictly demands flat balance, that sometimes comes at a cost of diversity. It's actually one of the common complaints with 4e, with the classes feeling too similar.

While it takes a bit of knowledge to navigate and balance older editions, that's really just a quirk of the time.

>>49296596
Yes. And AD&D grognards. And 4th edition grognards. And soon, I'm sure, 5th ed grognards.

And GURPS fanboys. And Apocalypse World acolytes. And 40k fanatics. And people who are absolutely adamant that Edge of the Empire is amazing.

All super fans are annoying.

File: Bonus Action - Spells.jpg (18KB, 304x98px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 304x98px

>>49309199
>>49308929
What a naughty senpai! Talking about a game he has neither played nor read about.

>>49309153

Basic math time.

Two groups, now pay attention.

10 weenies who can deal an average of 5 damage per swing vs. big baddie who can deal 50 damage per swing.

Weenies

Turn 1: Weenies focus fire on one dude out of 4 possible targets, deals 50 damage in one turn.

In response, party cuts down 2 of them, limiting their average damage to 40, while also giving someone the option to heal up some of that 50 damage.

This continues until weenies are dead, having sustained no significant casualties.

Big Baddy

Turn 1: Deals 50 damage with one attack, deals 50 damage with another attack.

At least half the party is bloodied and they don't have the means to heal both people in one turn. Meanwhile, big baddy probably has enough HP to survive several rounds, meaning that they won't have the means to kill it before it can cause at least one casualty.

So with this in mind, which one is more scary to deal with?

>>49309358

Huh, my group has been doing it all wrong then.

>>49309434

*with the party having sustained no significant casualties.

My mistake.

>>49309434
>So with this in mind, which one is more scary to deal with?

The question isn't which is more scary.

>>49309434
To answer the question: A stupid Dm' who doesn't understand how to properly challenge players in combat and thinks that the only fun encounters are one's where there is a single powerful badass enemy that they feel they can personify.

Good encounters are mixed. This isn't anything new.

>>49309542

Of course it is.

Losing HP should be scary, you're literally losing a resource that determines how closely you are to death.

If it's not scary then what's the point of combat, what's the point of even playing out the encounter when it's obvious who is going to win based on damage given vs. damage taken?

>>49309589
Are you a player or dm?

>>49296824
But that doesn't make any sense. To me, the minimal amount of shaving is shaving my neck so it doesn't itch like a motherfucker coming in. These guys look like they're doing the opposite of that.

>>49309589
>Of course it is.

No, the question should be "are both encounters scary?"

If the answer is yes, your argument falls to nothing.
If the answer to the former is "no", then the answer is "You're not providing an appropriate challenge. Add some more weenies or buff them a little."

That's basically it.

>>49309557
>>49309666
What they said

>>49308863
>which are actually not as significant to the edition as naysayers pretend they are.
It's funny because you're totally full of shit and taking one look at the core PrCs would tell you as much.

>>49309557

In any scenario, the party will focus fire on the dude who poses the greater threat, which is going to be the big baddie as opposed to the weenies who can only shave off negligible damage per swing.

So really, adding goombas to the requisite Bowser fight really does nothing of general worth.

>>49309721
Taking one look at how many people don't give a fuck might tell you more.
It's hard to say it's a big issue if most people don't treat it as such.

>>49309742
Unless they end up killing the party because they ignore them and don't respawn.
>>49309434
50 damage, every turn. No strategy in that. What do you not understand?

>>49309666

>You're not providing an appropriate challenge. Add some more weenies or buff them a little."

Adding more ants to swat still ends up with more of the same, especially when you have spells like fireball that can torch several baddies in one hit.

>>49297552
To be fair, electrum is pretty dumb. Never had a DM use it. The other currencies scale by ten. Why throw in a random five?

>>49309791
>Taking one look at how many people don't give a fuck might tell you more.
No, not really, because not only do I know a lot of 3.5 players who DO treat it as a big issue and steer new players away from shitty options, but all treating it as a non-issue does is let me know you're a fucking moron.

>>49309804
>missing/avoiding the point

Well, I guess we're done here. You're an immovable troll, and unstoppable logic is apparently wasted on you.

>>49309844
Not a non-issue, just not one that takes any great effort to fix or contend with.

Oh, wait, that is what a non-issue is.
Fuck, it's like all those people playing the 2nd most popular game might really not care all that much.

It's sort of like that HP problem in 4e. You can talk about it and pretend it's huge, but the fix for it fits on a business card.

>>49309894
It doesn't matter how easy it is to fix when someone thinks it's not an issue and won't take steps to do so.

>>49309924
Cool.
But, we're talking about it being easy to fix.
It's a non-issue, not a "not an issue."

>>49309797

>Unless they end up killing the party because they ignore them and don't respawn.

Any 3rd level+ spell that deals damage in an AoE like fireball is more than enough to torch the average weenie.

>>49309797

>50 damage, every turn. No strategy in that. What do you not understand?

What do YOU not understand?

When you can afford to take damage for multiple rounds, there isn't a need for strategy beyond actions that either deal damage or incapacitates the enemy long enough for you to kill them.

But when you can't afford to take a hit, when you can't afford to charge in like John Rambo every single turn, people start to treat combat with a little more caution and start spending more time researching their enemy so that they don't run into a TPK because the enemy did something unexpected that they weren't prepared for.

Maybe you and your group don't do it but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

>>49309846

What's your point?

Also, how does it make my point invalid?

He's not wrong, OP.

>>49310063
Do me a favor. Instead of working to figure out how to force me to continue down this side path by saying something like "give them fire resistance then" or "buff them instead of adding more," how about you just focus on the actual point.

Both scenarios can be scary. In fact, the former can be downright terrifying even just by including the promise that it's going to be followed by the latter.

So, where does that put you? Still trying to argue that only one possible scenario can be scary?

>>49310144

>Both scenarios can be scary.

Y'mean one scenario can be scary, right?

Because if you're throwing enough weenies to potentially cause a TPK, it still follows my original point, which I'm going to guess you're still going to stubbornly deny even when you agree with me in some autistically stubborn roundabout way.

>>49302886
That's just a popular houserule to shorten combat a bit. My DM used it for one of his campaigns (though he did 1.5x damage because he thought double was a bit much) and it worked out pretty well.

>>49310390
Holy fuck, you are just straight up retarded.

What's your original point? Please, tell me, because I'm at an utter loss as to what you are imagining it to be at this point.

>Because if you're throwing enough weenies to potentially cause a TPK,

Do you seriously not understand what an appropriate challenge is? You literally just went from one extreme to the next, all just so you can try to keep arguing some insanely stupid point.

What is your mental damage? It can't just be that you're too stupid to understand basic math or simple concepts like HP.

It is like you are willingly, forcefully, making yourself stupid.
What's your motive? What's your goal? If it's to make yourself look like an idiot, please, have the decency to just adopt a trip to save yourself the trouble, so people can identify you as an idiot right from the start.

>>49301566
5e didn't really take anything from 4e, and they pretty much ignored it existed during development to win points with the grognards.

Shit, they even had a blog on the old forums stating how they invented this "new unique mechanic" for 5e, "a little something I like to call Passive Perception."

Plus Mearls has a raging hateboner for 4e for some reason, and even buys into the Warlord "le shouting peoples hands back on" meme.

>>49310612

My point was, damage isn't scary unless you're losing more than half your HP in one sitting.

Weenies aren't scary because even if you lose half your HP, your party members will be able to mop them up quickly enough to where they'll never actually cause a casualty.

But if you're throwing enough weenies at a party to where multiple party members are losing half their HP per turn, it's mathematically the same as if you threw a big baddie who could hit 2+ times per turn and deal at least half a PC's total HP per hit.

Again, can't wait to hear how I'm still wrong when you've already agreed with my point and are just trying to save face.

>>49308683
It's also still a viable character.

Whereas you can be tricky and find just the right feat to make a perfect character to do anything you want him to do in 3.PF.

But unless he's a spellcaster, he's just another mindless full attacker that plays exactly like every other non-caster at best.

Ironic that there's so many build options in 3.PF, but they all play exactly the same.

>>49310742
>My point was, damage isn't scary unless you're losing more than half your HP in one sitting.

And, you're a moron.

>Weenies aren't scary because even if you lose half your HP, your party members will be able to mop them up quickly enough to where they'll never actually cause a casualty.

A pretty big moron.

>But if you're throwing enough weenies at a party to where multiple party members are losing half their HP per turn, it's mathematically the same as if you threw a big baddie who could hit 2+ times per turn and deal at least half a PC's total HP per hit.

Probably the biggest moron I've met in quite some time.

>it's mathematically the same as if you threw a big baddie who could hit 2+ times per turn and deal at least half a PC's total HP per hit.

You destroyed your own argument, and somehow, you managed to not even realize it.

Really, I'm tired of explaining everything to you. You are really too much of an idiot. But, here's a last little "you're a fucking moron", because you deserved to be shamed for being so stupid.

1. Managing HP and healing resources over the course of several (an unknown number) of battles makes any damage significant.
2. Half your HP can be lost easily in one turn from weaker enemies. You went for an extreme of 10 that deal only 5, rather than something like 5 that deal 10, and who don't die from a single attack.
3. You are still projecting that you are an authority on other people's emotions, despite not even understanding simple components of the game.
4. Your original point was it's not scary unless you lose half in one attack, rather than one turn, and your initial complaint is that you think that doesn't happen often, when losing half your HP in one turn isn't a particular rarity in the game at any level. It's likely because you didn't even remember the possibility of multiple opponents, or multiple attacks, because you are an utter moron.

Even with high HP, battles are still often quite scary. Bottom line.

>>49310981

Y'know, if all you're going to do is be an idiot and call others idiots because they disagree with you, it's just not worth arguing with you anymore.

Maybe one day you'll get inspired to play better systems and look at things from other viewpoints but considering your attitude, I highly doubt that.

Ah well, y'can't save everyone.

>>49309434
This entire argument ignores things like special abilities, mid-threat enemies, mixed groups of enemies, and basically anything that could remotely be counted as a "threat"

You are fucking retarded, move on.

>>49311159
>look at all those numbered points
>fuck
>fuck
>"stop calling me an idiot, you shouldn't call people idiots"

And, that's why you're an idiot.

>>49311175

It all comes down to whoever can kill the other side first.

Anything else is incidental.

>>49311259
Except its not. In a physical slugfest, its easy to determine. But the more special abilities the enemies have, whether they be racial traits or class abilities, the more uncertain the outcome becomes.

Take for example death attack from 3.5 assassins. Despite the assassin doing little damage, if it can make the right circumstances, it can outright say "Die", with one attack. Admittedly this is a weak skill due to its requirements, but as a hypothetical it works.

Special abilities create tension because they alter the flow of combat. If an enemy has displacement or blur or something, thats a random chance for your characters to miss, without directly changing damage output of enemies. The more effects that add randomized chance to the encounter on top of the already somewhat randomness it already has, the more unsure players are of winning. And none of it through outright damage output.

If all combat comes down to for you is a group to group mudfight of blows, either your DM is stupid or you are.

>>49311429

Any viable action you choose comes down to one of two things a) does this ability weaken/kill the enemy or b) does this ability make me stronger?

In your example, the death attack would fall into column A, while displacement/blue would fall into column B.

Healing isn't viable in 3.PF because unless you could afford to heal someone to full health every single turn, you were wasting turns that could've been spent weakening your enemies or supporting your allies.

This is also why straight damage in 3.PF was so shit as well, because you and your opponent had so much health that you could be trading blows for five turns and still be in the exact same position as when you started.

Finally, this is why spells in general were THE best option in the game, because the mage could afford to do both without sacrificing anything substantial in return.

You can dress it up however you like but that's how every combat scenario goes down when HP bloat is an issue.

>>49310742

>my point was, [subjective personal opinion stated as a fact]

Damn dude anybody who disagrees must be retarded, everybody knows EXACTLY 50% hp is when EVERY human who plays RPGs decides to panic, yes, good job.

>Weenies aren't scary because I've never been overwhelmed by a group of enemies/am an extraordinarily bad DM

This is nobody's problem but yours. I've killed parties with "weak" mooks just fine, and I've had players single-handedly make a joke "solo party-wipers" on more than one occasion. Sorry your RP life is so shitty brobro.

>But if you're throwing enough weenies at a party to where multiple party members are losing half their HP per turn, it's mathematically the same as if you threw a big baddie who could hit 2+ times per turn and deal at least half a PC's total HP per hit.

Well yeah okay but what if I don't want the cleric to fucking hold monster on it and turn the encounter into a joke (see above)?

Not the guy you're arguing with but I hope you're trolling cuz if not you have like downs syndrome or some shit family i ain't een mad i just feel bad 4 u lil homie

>>49311610
You know you're just flipping back and forth between shit you said earlier, right?

It sounds like your whole goal is to find something to complain about, and all you're ending up doing is making it clear you're just an idiot.

>>49311610
Sheer effectiveness of the actions isn't the point though. The question was when does combat become exciting/scary/worrying. The original argument is that only a big baddy can really cause the player to be afraid.

Looking at this at a different angle, would you be more afraid of a dragons claw attack, or its breath weapon? Probably the latter because it might level your entire party, not just you.

Its not about sheer damage, nor about solely death. Even just taking control away from a player puts them in a state where they are afraid of what will happen. Even just forcing that character to take actions out of character due to some sort of charm, spell, or otherwise, can immediately make a player shit themselves.

You are not wrong, at the end of the day all things come down to causing damage or reducing it. However, the means to achieving that is the important part, or we wouldn't be playing roleplaying games, now would we?

Again, if combat comes down to nothing but a mudfight, you or your DM is doing something wrong.

>>49296596
the main reason why I don't really play tabletop RPGs anymore.

all the people that I know who would want to play them are too chickenshit to play something that isn't DnD or PF

>>49311610
>HP Bloat

Y'know what? I'm going to just treat this as an instant "This guy has no idea what he's talking about" keyword. It really seems like the people who use it really just have no idea what they're talking about, but they like the phrase because it sounds negative.

>>49311915

Okay, then everyone can call you a butthurt 3aboo who has a blind devotion towards a brand.

>>49312075
What is wrong with you? Whoever even specified an edition?

Shit, you're one of those ETDA trolls, aren't you?

>>49312216

Man, can you 3aboos even keep your forced memes straight anymore?

I know at least one of you got banned last night so maybe you should take that as a hint to, I dunno, fuck off for a while?

>>49312288
Can you please start wearing a trip? People wasted time today thinking you weren't an idiot troll with a hate boner that makes you retarded.

>>49312333

You're just not going to be satisfied until you get perma-banned for spamming aren't you?

>>49312437
>wah, he keeps calling me an idiot

If you think that's spam, you really are an idiot.

>>49311915
>I'm going to just treat this as an instant "This guy has no idea what he's talking about" keyword.
Because noticing HP tripling between 2E and 3E is such a hard thing to do, apparently.

>>49312492

Come on chief, call me what you actually want to call me.

Roll the die, force the meme, you know you want to and who am I to stop you?

>>49296779
I agree. I let my beard grow everywhere else except the neck. It's just itchy.
I usually have the Basch Ronseburg look.

>>49311764
Seriously, fuck this mindset.

Tried joining a PbP game, against my better judgement, on the GitP forums since it was for an evil campaign, and I hadn't had a well-done evil game since my group broke up.

Of course, one guy almost immediately goes "I won't play if it's not Pathfinder" and kills any excitement I had for it.

>>49305823

There is an optional 5e houserule in the DMG that has healing surges.

>>49311610
>This is also why straight damage in 3.PF was so shit as well,
No, straight damage in 3.5 was shit because thanks to shitty design and with VERY few exceptions, martial builds that weren't either 2H or TWF with lots of bonus damage couldn't output enough damage to kill dangerous enemies in anything less than three rounds, which is extremely, extremely shitty in a game where combat is functionally over in two rounds.

Then you add on mechanics like full attacking, which make it impossible for melee characters to do appreciable damage on the first turn without dipping Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian, and miss chance and it all goes to hell for them even harder as levels go up.

>>49299486
Did your group consist of two incestious tiefling cousins and a half elf? Because that's the same for my group.

>>49297604
>I don't need to cross reference a library of supplements just to make sure your character is legit.

Yet.

>>49309058

>Rogues are perfectly serviceable tier 4 characters in 3.5, thanks to UMD and various magical prestige class options.
>Pathfinder decided to nerf them to tier 6.

Could you please elaborate? UMD is stil an option in Pathfinder, they got some stuff via talents and the less resistable sneak attack.The prestige classes were weaker, sure. I still think even pre-unchained PF rogues were between Tier 4 (passable, but not great in several areas) and 5 (just okay in one area or bad, but not useless,in several), though.

>>49315089
This, it's clearly going this way, if the arcanas are anything to go by.
It'll never be 3.5 amount of splat for sure, but it's pretty clear that the balance of the game is already getting fucked by what little splat is out.

>>49296596
>"advantage/disadvantage is an unnecessary simplification"
It's not terrible, but the math makes it become less and less useful as the game goes on, and I don't understand why people always complain about things like +3 as opposed to +2

>"the proficiency system is dumb
But aside from the allotment of points, the skill system was cool and allowed more flexibility. It also meant there was more material for playing a game that wasn't just dungeon crawling.
And the simplicity of the system get's messed up with classes that add or change it, so it doesn't end up being too much easier than just skill points. Even 4e with all it's issues, was more roleplay friendly than 5e.

File: 1446439952689.jpg (36KB, 479x492px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 479x492px

>>49310032
>>49310063
>>49309804
>>49310144


>>49309846
He's right, Congrats on the successful troll. I didn't expect that you were actually retarded but damn did you try to convince me.

>>49315216
Skills in general are more available to everyone in PF and this indirectly nerfs stealth because Perception is an insanely useful skill for literally everyone, several rogue tricks from 3.5 got broken, nerfed, or weren't carried over(see: flask rogues, tumbling into a flank, Craven feat), and in general the class was shat on because Jason Bulmahn hated rogues in the alpha and nerfed them over and over.

It's actually to the point where a 3.5 Rogue can do more sneak attack damage at *half* the number from Penetrating Strike than a PF Rogue can do with full SA, and they're far more likely to be able to get into position to do it too.

>>49308082

A forced meme that one sad guy keeps using, hoping it'll catch on. "Eternally triggered bitch anons"

>>49296682
to be fair, nobody in my group has figured out sorcery points yet either.

they just view it as a wanna be a dragon class.

>>49296596
I'm kind of one, in that I really don't mind the downsides with a decent group (and I tend not to play full casters). Probably the largest thing is that there are a lot of fun looking classes and builds that I haven't had a chance to try yet, and after i've played them I'll be more ready to move on.

It's mainly that I like 99% of games for some aspect or another, though, so I'd happily play 5e if I had a chance and I have happily played 4e (and want to go back to it sometime, when I have a group that's open to it).

The only game I've seen that I actively disliked was FATAL, and that one's kind of a gimme.

>>49315705

Hm, I have not had characters who ran out of skills to take, but the bard did take the social skillmonkey niche, fair enough. Craven was good,but I still found the 3.5 limitations on SA way too hard,which made penetrating strike somewhat of a feat tax. I found rogues tier 5 except certain definite builds, who crawled up to 4.

I still think PF pre-unchained rogues have some ways to get pretty decent damage if they can get to position right or have the right party support. They did need a boost, and before unchained they were between tier 4 and 5,post-unchained I think they are a decent 4. The tier 6 seemed like a memetic exaggeration on near anything, really.

>>49316049
Penetrating Strike is an ACF, not a feat, and it trades out arguably the Rogue's worst feature for it.

>>49298038
You're both kind of right. You want magic items to actually have some story aspect, and be useful beyond "tiny bonus to something," and 5e has one way of helping with that, but 3.x allows items to be upgraded so you can totally do the same thing in it (you just need to Mae sure it gets upgraded periodically so it'll actually keep up).

Personally I'd prefer something like 3.x but with items automatically getting better along with you (consult the magic sword chart to see how big of a bonus it gives at your level, or some shit), but there are a lot of changes I want to make to 3.x and I really don't have the spare time.

>>49308082
The answers right here.

>>49296847

>>49312537
Jesus christ, that's not fucking bloat.

If the rest of the system was 2e, and the HP jumped like that, THAT would be bloat. But it's not, the rest of the system adjusts for it too. Fuck's sake.

In 5e particular, the fights are tuned to not be over instantly. You can not like it, but crying about bloat just makes you look like a retard.

>>49316094

Ah, my bad. That is handy, then.

>>49298275
>they can deal at least 50% of your HP in one attack.
>>49298751
That's what the first anon said.

Granted, it's dumb to think that level of overkill is the only way to make something scary, but that's what that other anon wad responding to.

>>49316242
>If the rest of the system was 2e, and the HP jumped like that, THAT would be bloat.
Which is why it IS bloat - it's pretty clear that in 3E, this was an unintended effect due to designer incompetence. A lot of combat styles in 3E are barely any better than they were in 2E, and that's if they're not objectively worse than they used to be like sword and board.

>>49316447
I'm sorry this is so hard for you.

But. Its not bloat when it's fucking intended. They didn't want the hyperleathal combat of 2e, and thus, took steps to remove it.

Can you get that through your fucking head? Can you understand this shit, nigga?

>>49316501
>Can you get that through your fucking head?
No, because you're wrong on both counts.

>>49309434
You do realize you're comparing a bunch of chumps who total 50 damage per round(if they all hit, also they'd need ranged weapons or something similar to be able to focus one character) vs someone who hits for 50 TWICE per turn? This boss character is literally doing double the damage of the chumps, so of course he's more scary.

>>49316556
The point that guy was trying to get across was that the big guy will do consistent, big damage on turn 1 and turn 2 while mook spam will do progressively less damage as they lose attacks because of kills/ease of debuffing a crowd.

>>49296885
speaking as a fa/tg/uy with a beard (although I have more on the face than that guy, still can't grow moustache though) this is the absolute truth. I am trying hard to lose weight but everything I do in the meantime is trying to disguise it. It sucks.

>>49316571
I get that, but he's specifically talking about a boss that does twice the damage per round. He even referenced it again later, though I cba to look up the exact post.

>>49315716
Thanks based anon for the info

>>49315716
I prefer to read it as "Enters the Battlefield Arnrey."

>>49307286
4e is nigh unplayable past level 11 because of the sheer amount of dumb bullshit that gms have to keep track of though

3.x is at least playable up to about level 15 before character power levels start to ruin everything

>>49319763
A new Anon enters the fray.

I never played 4e that long so I'll just believe you on that point. But I have to say I got bored with 3.5 well before level 15. Maybe around level 10 or so. Can't remember exactly what level we were, but a few more games were still boring. In the end I just ended up finding 3.5 boring.

I've never played PF, and I will admit I might find 4e boring in play now, not sure because I haven't played it in years.

>>49319829
PF is really just mildly refined 3.x

I honestly find 3.x/pf more fun to run than play, i still crank out crawls for that system for fun now and again, and run them one shot with friends.

>>49319870
I don't think so. But I only tried running 3.5.... twice? I might be mistaking the second time and just splitting out one experience into two. Players read me like an open book and just stomped anything I tried. Made me shy away from running games. I've only run a handful since.

I was told my Deadlands 3-shot was fun though. Well the first season that went full Western climax with everyone stabbing each other in the back that I thought was a disaster.

>>49319905
I played in it a lot before I started running it, to be fair. Encounter design is a fucking art form in 3.x, especially once you move past level 6 or so.

My favorite power level to run is levels 3-6 mostly, since you can start throwing in the monsters with more abilities and players can also fight back with their own stuff.

I guess it's just a matter of experience in a lot of ways, not trying to be insulting or anything. I just started doing it after a while because I think I have just about every monster manual ever published (3rd party or otherwise) for 3.x/pf, and wanted to actually put them to use.

>>49319968
I don't feel insulted. I agree. I just find that my GMing style is better suited for games with less fidly bits but that's because I don't have that mastery of 3.PF, I don't really want it, and I'm lazy so I don't take a lot of time to prep for running a game.


That lazy bit also makes me less likely to start a game so it's a hindrance in other ways too.

>>49299043
>>49297753
>ITT: People that love GURPS but refuse to play it.

>>49320310
Gurps is an unbalanced mess that requires three splatbooks just to have your characters able to wipe their asses or not starve to death from forgetting to put food in their face holes.

>>49296779
No idea. It looks horrible like someone took a proper bears and it fell down someone's face.

>>49320350
I think you're confusing GURPS with DnD with WotC. It's OK, they're both a bloated mess (though I hear 5e has cleaned some of that up).

Besides, that is literally what those Anons said they like about 3.PF.

>>49309298
>But, at least they made the classes level up uniformly, which was a good step forward
Why do you feel this way? I never had any issues with classes leveling at different XP values in 2e.

>>49297713
>>49297609
I don't run 5e currently but the inclusion of electrum inspired me to create more alternate currencies for my setting

Scrimselks: Scrimshawed thin rectangular pieces of beast horn worth about 3gp each

Giant Pieces: Squarish rectangular stamped pieces of gold the size of a small ingot of gold, used by giants in a long lost civilization, worth 50 gold each

Adamantium pieces (personally prefer these over platinum): Used frequently by drow and other deep races, forget the exact worth but calculated from the PHB
I also started coming up with names for stamped currency from each country