Are all Pathfinder players this retarded?

>>49427057
The answer is yes.

>>49427057
>>49427140
All Paizo players are retarded shills and SJWs.

>>49427057
I know at least one of them is being sarcastic.

>>49427057
>wealth by level limits
is that a raw pathfinder rule or something they use at pathfinder society to artificially balance the game?

that's dumb but i mean as long as everybody has fun

>>49427726
You talking about the wealth by level for quick character creation? The chart which was meant as a quick guide for higher level characters to have as starting gold?

>>49427726
WBL was in 3.5e as a way to make sure that players had the correct magic items that they were supposed to have (items of primary stat +2/4/6, +x weapon, etc.) because magic items were expected part of mechanical progression.

>>49428320
One of the posters in OP's image implies that characters in pf have some kind of 'cap' of how much gold they can have. I didnt find anything in the rules that implied that, but a few lines in the DMG were disheartening:

>As PCs gain levels, the amount of treasure they carry and use increases as well. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game assumes that all PCs of equivalent level have roughly equal amounts of treasure and magic items

it's probably the thing I dislike most about pf, or at least pf as Paizo intends it to be played, or at the very least Golarion as a setting

No, but all people who unilaterally hate a specific game are probably delusional.

>>49428372
Either the two GM's I had never read that bit, or they hated casters.

The full casters didn't get fuck all item-wise really compared to what he gave the martials.

Which unfortunately made martials impossible to downplay into our retarded creativity-free full casters level.

>>49428427
Martials need items waaay more than full casters. Magic arms and armor are expensive.

Still, balancing the game around the expectation that the fighter has a +X sword at whatever level kinda takes the fun out of magic items.

Paizo have been a bunch of feminist propagandists for years now.

Just like Wizards of the Coast.

>>49427726
It's mainly a character creation rule that helps in making characters at higher levels. If you're level 3 you start with 3k gold ect.

>>49428532
>If you're level 3 you start with 3k gold
>tfw I played AD&D 1E and only got 30 gold and a +1 spear when I started the game at level 5.

>>49428576
3k gold is only barely enough to buy a +1 spear, anon.

>>49427057
The official Paizo forums are probably the worst* online community in tabletop role playing and that's definitely saying something.

*rpg.net may beat it

>>49428641
Here's hoping Pathfinder 2.0 is less bad.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

>>49428400
This.

>>49427057

No, most of them are worse. I worry that may have given you an unrealistically high expectation of them.

>>49428641

Depends on what game you critizing that day. Pazio forums rabidly defend 3.Finder

Sol forbid you point out shitty art in Exalted 3e on RPG.net however.

>>49428483
>balancing the game around the expectation that the fighter has a +X sword at whatever level kinda takes the fun out of magic items
That's one of the reasons I disliked 4e. As much as it solves some problems, it demystifies everything, which 4e already has a problem with elsewhere.

>>49428483
>>49431007
Probably my biggest single gripe with D&D, pretty much every edition since 3rd. IF everyone is expected to have a +1 sword, that's basically the same as no-one having a +1 sword. Nothing is special or exciting, and the players get a bizarre sense of entitlement towards magic items, and even base builds around the expectation that they will get specific items at specific times.

>>49427057

I like the comparison between a wizard and a quarterback. I get what he's saying; all party members have their roles and martials shouldn't feel mad the casters are more glamorous.

But that analogy is kind of moot when the wizard is also the linebacker, receiving end, kicker, coach, referee, and towel boy

>>49431072
It's more like the wizard is a Quarterback on a on a team of amputees that aren't allowed to touch the ball against another team of amputees.

They can assist the quaterback, but the quaterback could still do his job just as well with or without them and the only opponent that could even cause trouble for him would be another quaterback.

>>49428483
Agree or disagree:

Magic arms and armor are over priced in 3e, and the stat increase items are under costed. This in turn means that martials are less gold efficient then casters cross the board.

I think that it is a very large part of the power gap in between martials and casters that most people just miss when discussing the subject.

>>49428783
Truth is that just by taking the unchained era design ideas, redoing the core spells list, and removing these lines " When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, he can repeat the preparation process as often as he likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. ".

It would still have issues, but it would be notably less bad.

>>49428483
>>49431336
Last time I played 3.5 or whatever I remember someone making a caster who was taking skills and feats so that they could produce magic items for the group.

That was kind of neat.

>>49431021
That's really one of the biggest reasons I switched to 5e as soon as I could

>>49427057
Guessing this is a screencap from the Pathfinder Society website. Been a while since I've been there, but it honestly seems to be dead on the money. Attended a PFS game once, by far the most awkward and uncomfortable gaming experience I've had since someone at my FLGS hissed at me and called me "Outsider" for walking near his game table.

File: What the actual fuck.jpg (238KB, 1349x386px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1349x386px

>>49427057
Yes. Also the devs.

>>49431481
Even in 5e I've seen people abusing those items that set your strength to a certain amount, basing builds around them etc.
The mindset of expecting that your DM will just make whatever you like show up I just find so bizarre.

>>49431007
Inherent bonuses yo. 4e solved this shit.

>>49431613
>Even in 5e I've seen people abusing those items that set your strength to a certain amount, basing builds around them etc.
That's ridiculous. 5E does not have a magic item curve. The DM is not instructed to give the players any amount of magic items at any level. The closest possible thing is the completely optional item drop charts, and actually useful items on those are far between.

>>49431613
The closest things to guaranteed magic items in 5e are class features that make mundane ones count as magic weapons. There are monsters that are resistant/immune to non-magic weapons, but that's been a thing long before 3.0

Any game that has flaws also has fans who grasp at straws to deny those flaws.

Frankly I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "We know it isn't balanced and we like it anyway", I wish they were always that honest.

>>49431336

Uh, no, that's backwards. You can buy higher bonuses with weapons or armor than you can by increasing your stats. Also both fighters and wizards have the option of boosting there stats but only fighters have magic weapons and armor, spellcasters have no equivalent to that.

This issue is really overlooked in the opposite way from what you're describing. People don't realize how item-reliant the martial characters are, and when you reduce access to magic items you end up boosting spellcasters even more by coimparison.

I haven't followed Paizo in a few years, do they still produce good adventures and awesome fluff-books to go with their bad mechanics?

Or is it just awkward, ugly rules bloat all the time now?

>>49431809
Their adventures are not that good. A few are, and other have good parts, but they have produced exactly 1 game that wasn't just a series of pre-defined events along a set story.

>>49431828
To be fair to them, they're going with what the market wants.

PF players want games with encounters they can reliably defeat, wrapped in a story so it feels like the game's going somewhere.
PF DMs don't want to have to go to the effort of homebrewing long statblocks, and if the enemy is powerful enough that the players whinge there's comfort in being able to say "it's not my fault, it's the book!"

If you're a good enough DM to run a non-linear or sandbox game, you're a good enough DM to not require official modules.

>>49427423
Not all...
But enough.

>>49428485
They just have more megaphones, and more modules that use them.
WotC at least gives you some breathing time between the waterboardings.

>>49430970
God forbid you go to rpg.net
If I wanted to be flamed by irate assholes then banned, there a dive bars for that.

>>49431578
Gotta exlude to be inclusive, right?

>>49431613
The whole "set strength to X" method seems nonsensical to me, it cheapens the stat investment of most anyone who gains to benefit from it. At the very least it could give a small strength bonus if your actual score is significantly high.

>>49431578
Pathfinder, more so than even 3.5e, is the game I know of where people will be advised not to make martial characters and to roll at least a half-caster.

What do people who bring up the martial/caster disparity meme want martials to be able to do that they cannot do already within the game ? I think that's a good question that was left unanswered here.

I don't mean in comparison either , I get that casters are powerful , I just mean for the martial classes themselves irrespective of what casters can do.

>>49432882
Mostly I want spellcasters nerfed so magic isn't the go-to solution for everything. "You didn't play a wizard so your class is boring" is poo design.

>>49433235
That doesn't answer the question, it's actually specifically what I said not to respond with.

What do people want martials to be able to do that they cannot do already?

>>49433866
Solve a problem in any way other than 'hit it harder'. The issue is that martials have exactly one native solution to any obstacle, whereas casters can have several reliable, varied methods for different results. The skill system is not enough, since everyone has access to it, and spells can obviate it entirely.

>>49431949
Or you can just play one of the good WotC adventures for 5e. They are way better than the Paizo ones.

>>49432882
Move and then attack :^)

>>49433977

Again you are answering the question by comparing martials to casters which is irrelevant to my question.

Petend there are no caster classes in the game , what do you want martials to be able to do that they cannot already do within the game ?

>>49434013
It's called the charge action?

>>49433866
4e had the Martial Practices idea which was a good approach to the matter. Came in a bit late and wasn't too well developed, however, but the idea was sound.

No sure what you could do that isn't along those lines. Limiting the power and scope of magic users really is the biggest issue here.

>>49428641
This, I've seen five entire discussion on how eternal life and immortality are ruled on those boards because of the druid's timeless body worked. Piazo answers with "it works exactly how the name makes it sound." And people still got confused.

File: IMG_6171.gif (5MB, 350x315px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 350x315px

>>49434056
>charge action

>>49434045
>Petend there are no caster classes in the game , what do you want martials to be able to do that they cannot already do within the game ?

Say that things happen and then those things just happen. Obviously they'd be limited to a very few things that they can say, but I'd like martial characters to have some way to influence what happens in the game that isn't entirely up to the whim of a single incredibly swingy die.

>>49433235

Path of War by DSP for Pathfinder, much like Tome of Battle for 3.5e, solved the martial/caster disparity by creating effective martials that use maneuvers and stances to be extremely effective in combat.

>>49432882
How about be able to use a combat maneuver system that doesn't suck?

>>49427057
>reductio ad Hitlerum
>you're part of a team even if you're the waterboy you're wining when they win
I hate 3aboos and paizofags so much

>>49428372
A Song of Ice and Fire RPG also assumes the players are nobles and retainers for a certain house.

Weird Wars 2 assumes the players are all part of the allies or the resistance

Shadowrun assumes the players are professional criminals.

Its not necessary to follow an assumption given by the creator, fuck I probably unknowingly spit at Paizo's face whenever I run my Taldor game about Stavian III creating his own crown musketeers.

>>49434081
What's the confusion? I just looked up the PF timeless body and it seems clear. Is there an interaction that's in question?

>>49428576
>>49428623
Underrated question and answer

>First time playing 3.PF (never played D&D before)
>What should I roll, GM?
>Whatever you want, Anon
>This monk class look cool
>Yeah, dude, play that
>Literally useless from the 1st level
>Outclassed by the animal companion of the druid and by the cleric (later by the druid too)
>GM, I'm not having fun, I mean, I'm not doing anything, I'm not relevant, literally could sit down and do the others do all the work and they won't miss me, what I'm doing wrong?
>You played a martial, specifically a monk
>Are they bad?
>Yeah, a lot
>Why did you let me play something that's bad?
>Because you wanted to
>Why didn't you improve it with some homerules?
>Because that's not what the game is about, also the important stuff her is magic, and you lack magic
Never more

The only D&D I played after that is 5e

>>49427057
>Q: Why is Pathfinder so imbalanced?

>A: Muh magical realm!!
>A: Herp derp, other games did it too, so two wrongs make a right!
>A: Balance is for losers, man.

Is this a fair synopsis of OP's screenshot?

>>49434236
>things that never happened

>>49434265
>implying it bothers me if you don't believe me
It's a free world, anon. It's good to be skeptical though

>>49427423

Thanks for dragging your political boogeyman into a discussion that had absolutely nothing to do with it from the start. Here's your (You)

>>49434259
Yeah.

>>49434096
So you want to play dungeon world?

You already can say what you do and it happens. Your characters skills and abilities ,outside factors and probability determines if that is successful.

>>49427726

It's both a rule for adjudicating higher player character level starting wealth, and a guide for how much wealth and magic items a PC should have at a given level.

The CRs for monsters are "balanced" around that number, and the generally against the Fighter with that kind of wealth. If there's one good thing Savage Species did, it revealed the designers ideas about how the monster/PC interaction worked.

I want o take a moment to explain that: In Savage Species, they told the DM to balance monster level adjustment against the Fighter. If you'd rather play the monster than a Fighter of the same level, the monster was too strong.

I want you to let that sink in for minute.

The Fighter. Arguably the weakest class in the whole 3.x extended ruleset, was the one against which they "balanced" the entire game. It's one of the reasons a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Druid by themselves is enough to overcome most anything by level 8, and if you give them more wealth than they're supposed to have, it completely fucks everything.

The game isn't intended to challenge the highest powered classes. It's meant to be a cakewalk.

A 13 encounter per level shitcake, but a cakewalk nonetheless.

>>49428641
>The official Paizo forums are probably the worst* online community in tabletop role playing

You forgot Dragonsfoot. There's such a pervasive good-'ol-boy mentality to go around there. Those with the most seniority seem to think they have administrative power, and will push around anyone who disagrees with their opinions until they've effectively driven them off the site.

Really, conventional forum models just suck. When you start attaching names to every post, then people start to manufacture a reputation / sense of notoriety to go along with that. "Oh, it's THAT guy again. He posted an unapproved opinion that triggered me last week. Let's gang up on him!"

>>49434259
Yep.

Doesn't seem to matter that CoDzilla makes every other class redundant, because "Muh core". The only time I ever saw a Pathfinder game actually maintain any sort of balance whatsoever, the GM had entirely overhauled the spellcasters so that core casters ran off the Bard spell progression list instead of their own.

>>49434325
>Dragonsfoot
That's a new one, never heard of these faggots before.

>>49431949
>PF DMs don't want to have to go to the effort of homebrewing long statblocks
I find this kind of weird, because the 3.x chassis (and the way Paizo produce things, i.e. full of option after option after option) is basically for the people who like to mix and match and homebrew things.

>>49434065
So if you played an all martial party in a game with no casters ,you'd be happy?

>>49434065
>Limiting the power and scope of magic users really is the biggest issue here.
Well, it takes a lot less to design spells to fill page space than it does to create additional martial stuff, unless you're also creating Bo9S-esque maneuvers as well.

>>49434583
Different guy but we once divided our group in two, one played only martials, and the other played only casters, then the GMs used precon games and GMd them the same way.

Guess which group was way more effective and almost never had PC deaths?

>>49434357

I've never had this be an issue in any of my games.

Maybe Im some kind of lucky anomaly that just never played with power gamers?

Closest it came was when one player rolled up a summoner (which is hardly core) but as soon as I worked out ways around his invisibility and just targeted him it became apparent he was pretty vulnerable without party support. Granted I still think that class is a bit silly but core has always been fine in practice for me although I can see there's an issue in theory.

Ironically the onky complaint I've had from a player was that his Rogue couldn't deal as much damage as the party Barbarian.

>>49434357
I've seen some limited success with wizards by removing their access to anything besides a single school of spells, forcing them to specialise, and also deleting several spells (Conjuration took the biggest hit).

>>49434390

It's a kind of OSR community that attracts triggered autists and Internet tough guys.

I like OSR, but too many of the people drawn to that scene are insufferable.

>>49434671
>Maybe Im some kind of lucky anomaly that just never played with power gamers?
This has to be bait.
Yeah, you were lucky.
No, this has literally nothing to do with powergamers, more often than not this balance problems happen when people pick something that looks cool and it isn't or that looks cool and it's. Clear example druid who saw bear and think it's cool, boom, literally killed half the martials. This happens even more with new players or inexperienced players.

Funny, Druid is more broken than Summoner.

>>49434597
Feats take up the same space and it would be so easy to have a "Preparation" system in place to trade feats out and also clean up feats so they are not hilariously shitty.

>>49434671
You've never once, in all of your games, had a single player cast Color Spray?

Maybe it's not power gamers, maybe your players are just retarded. They do play Pathfinder after all.

>>49434737
I think Paizo actually did take a tentative half-step in the vague direction of that with the Brawler class, which can switch out combat feats daily?

The problem is that most feats are shit.

>>49434671
So not only did the "only time" you run into party imbalance was with a class weaker than what seems like 1/3 the classes in the game, but you specifically targeted him for it and all he was capable of coming up with was invisibility?

Your players might be the worst players I have ever heard of managing to play 3.pf. Next you will be saying they only play swashbucklers, rogues, monks, and fighters.

I do love that even with all this, your party still managed to question why the rogue is kinda shitty.

>>49434741
I don't see the problem with spells like colour spray ?

It requires a saving throw, has restrictions on how much it can hit CR wise and unless you box all your monsters into a 10 foot cube they're not all going to be in the aoe effect.

. Yes a caster can get lucky and lane a well timed spell that ends an encounter but that's the design. Casters offer limited amounts of burst powers while martials can fight all day. The caster can only use a spell like that a certain amount of times each day so has to preserve them.

>>49434754
The Brawler's feat swapping is really shit but was such a difference making step in the right direction that players got on their knees for it when it came out.

But yes, feats are comically shitty and the game is organized so you can not stray from being good at exactly one thing.

>>49434787
BINGO!

File: received_1298725166812980.gif (944KB, 266x200px) Image search: [Google]

944KB, 266x200px

Tbh all of your players/dm's just sound like whiny assholes
Just play the fucking game.

m-m-muh martials

Y'all need some friends who value RP

And dm's: godamn play your enenies to their intelligence, provided the enemy isnt an animal they can probably recognize the squishy caster as the biggest threat. Also things immune to magic/with SR exist, sprinkle then in.

>>49434779
I was running a module as straight as I could and realised nothing in the module could deal with invisibility that well until I realised how good creatures with scent which the module was full of are good against invisibility.

And it was more the Rogue player who wanted the Rogue to be like a DPS dealing Rogue in wow where Rogues in D&D have always been more of a scout class whose main strength is disabling traps , opening locked areas and alerting the party of danger that lurks ahead.

I think you've hit the circular nail on the head though.

>Push system to breaking point creating overpowered character builds.
>Complain that this makes the game unplayable.
>Complain that anybody who doesn't play to break the game in this way and manages to actually enjoy themselves is shit.
>????

>>49434816
>Just play the fucking game
You can play a game while being critical of its design failures

>m-m-muh martials
Do you know what's not fun? Have your character become useless.

>Ya'll need some friends who value RP
If the mechanics don't matter, stop playing pathfinder all together. Just freeform. Freeform is RP in its absolute purest form.
But so long as we're discussing actual roleplaying games, the game portion of the RPG is on the table for discussion and criticism.

>Also things immune to magic/with SR exist, sprinkle then in.
Here we run into a problem in design.
Putting in a monster specifically to make someone warm the bench is bad design. If your solution to the wizard problem is "make them warm the bench every couple of encounters so the other players get to feel like they're contributing" something is probably wrong.

>>49434741
and sleep and grease and, you know the deal

>>49434787
When it stops being useful you just can change it for another spell, when a feat stops being useful you're fucked, welcome to martials

File: 1424041010522.jpg (143KB, 472x874px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 472x874px

>>49434816
3.PF mechanics punish improvisation

>>49434859
Rogues in Pathfinder are supposed to be a DPR class but are not, and there's the rub. They also suck at scouting and basically everything else but sinking a lot of skill points into skills.

>>49434905
You can retrain feats by RAW let alone GM fiat/house rules.

>>49434905
And by the time you get far enough down the feat tree to get something useful, the wizard is already flying and shooting deathbeams out of his eyes.

>>49434816
>Immune to magic/SR
SR is literally useless unless you throw a way above their CR level thread, in any other case is easily avoidable either by raw spell penetration or by using one of the many spells that ignore SR

Immune to magic actually fucks up casters, but so it does martials beacause the fuckers who have immune to magic are martial eating monsters too

>>49434935
Retraining by RAW costs gold and time, gold might be inconsecuential but the time is the real problem, because sometimes you don't have the time

>GM fiat/house rules
The old "the system isn't flawed because you can change rules" meme

>>49434583
If it was built around it, sure. As long as everyone is in a similar ballpark tier wise it's usually fine, although everyone being top tier is stupid bullshit.

>>49434929
heh

>>49434787
>CR restrictions
Read the spell again. Color Spray hits any number of targets - the effect is limited by each target's HD, but even at its absolute weakest, 1 round stun is enough to get someone dead. Anyway, the point is that at the level where Color Spray is relevant, a single cast shuts down whole encounters. You fill every first level spell slot with Color Spray and you ruin games.

And you can say that 'oh that's fine because once the wizard is out of spells, the martials can shine!' but realistically, once the wizard is done, the whole party is done, because martial-only fights are risky as fuck.

Am I missing something? why some people think being useless is fun for everybody, why do they think one or two PCs doing everything forever is fun?

Oh, I get it, lazy American culture, as long as they get paid they don't care about doing their job. They don't understand the satisfaction it brings when you perform greatly in your job.

>>49434979
Dude, you just got schooled, and you're still trying to nitpick?

No wonder no one can take you guys seriously. You just get pettier and pettier as you get further pushed into corners.

>>49435113
here's a (you), seems you need it more than I

>>49435123
>I can't deny I'm dumb and was being petty

Cool.

>>49435113
>Gets wrong the relevancy of SR
>Gets wrong the balance properties of immune to magic
>Gets wrong that retraining still fucks up martials compared to how easy is to change a spell
>Schooled
IñigoMontoya.jpg

>>49434979
>Relearning new spells takes time. Casters in a party where they have no time to rest will never learn anything new or be able to cast anything beyond the limited amount of spells they have for the day.

>>49435172
Dude, are you really this retarded?
People have already explained to you why you're wrong on all those counts, and yet you're still trying to argue. Sorry they haven't convinced you, because you're insane and delusional.

Congrats. You've proven you're an insufferable idiot who chooses to be more wrong rather than to try and learn something.

>>49435182
Are you comparing 8 hours rest to days of retraining? because sometimes it takes days to retrain feats (on top of money but that's irrelevant).

It takes 5 days if you know someone who has that feat and he wants to teach you for those 5 days.

>>49435255
This is the very definition of pointless nitpicking.

>>49435090
>Range 15 foot
> Area: Cone Shaped Burst

I agree if every single one of your combat encounters is with low HD creatures, with low will saves, who all walk up neatly to the Wizard in a 10 foot square and stand there waiting for him to cast colour spray then colour spray is a pretty broken spell please do ban it from those games.

Likewise sword and board fighters wearing plate are pretty broken in games where all the enemies are low strength mêlée fighters who exclusively attack the fighter one at a time in single file, perhaps we should nerf fighters too ?

>>49435274
>Sorry anon, no trainer so you can't retrain feat
>Pointless nitpicking

>>49435255
Over any normal campaign this isn't actually a problem as there's always space for some downtime between adventures. This is how the game has always been designed. My point is it's just as rare and kinda absurd to have a game where nobody can ever sleep to a game where the players can't take five days out to do something.

>>49435275

>nerf fighters too

Oh yes. We should definitely do that. It'll be a big boost to the druid's animal companion, and a better fighter than the fighter will ever be.

>>49435294
Is not about no time to sleep, you can have time to sleep but not having time to waste 5 days. As for "This is how the game has always been designed" I recommend you to look at precon games, aventure paths, lots of thems have time concerning missions in where you can sleep but not take a week off.

Also, again, you need someone who has that feat, casters get 2 spells for free every level, and can relearn one every 4 levels, they don't need scrolls or spellbooks for that. Bored of Color Spray? no problem, bored of this strange as fuck monk only feat? sorry

>>49435292
Yes, it's nitpicking, because you're assuming hostile DM.

That's kind of how I know you're retarded.

File: 1468461113617.gif (555KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 500x500px

>>49431578
I know I shouldn't be so emotionally invested in a game I don't even play anymore. I know I shouldn't be upset by the words of a dev of a game that I no longer play on a forum I no longer visit. I've been trying to be more chill and laid back, and over the years, I like to think I've done a good job of cooling down my temper.

But this makes me legitimately angry.

>>49435335
>hostile
No, I'm assuming RAW and RAI rules and precon games because those are the most objetive examples and how the devs intend the game to be. Of course if your GM is Dalai Lama and worked around the ins and outs of the system and came with homerules to fix everythign this wont happen, sadly I never found such kind of GM neither did the great majority of the fanbase.

>>49435361
>He didn't have a dm who implemented easy fixes in 3.PF
get gud

>>49435361
>still trying

Quit making a joke out of yourself.
By RAW, it works, and only is an issue if you have a hostile DM, which is a separate issue.

You painted yourself into a corner, and now look like an even bigger idiot for continuing to paint.

>>49435374
Name those fixes. Be specific.

>>49435275
>at the level where Color Spray is relevant
I see you missed this part; you play Pathfinder, so I forgive your poor reading skills. At levels 1 through 4, most enemies are going to have low HD and low Will saves, and even removing a single target from combat with one action is more efficient than the fighter trying to hit it to death. That there is a chance to knock out multiple targets is really just a bonus.

But you're right, in a situation where you need someone to block a hallway, you use a fighter, because dealing with enemies one at a time in a situation where they no longer pose any realistic threat to them is the only time a fighter gets to do anything. Good thing his pal wizard can make that happen for him.

>>49435416
>in a situation where you need someone to block a hallway, you use
A door or something.

>>49435403
No

>>49435455
Smart move. Debating with idiots is a fool's game.

>>49427057
Pretty much

>buah buah casters are stronger
Then play a fucking caster, you mongoloid

>>49435522
Nowhere near as bad as the guys who need to always shitpost about it though.

>>49427057
Yes. That's why their game is dying.

>>49435559
If the 2nd most popular game is "dying", we live in a world of corpse games.

>>49435574
Rate of decline is a thing, I suppose. Not that I know about pathfinders popularity one way or another.

>>49435228
>people

>>49435294
>in my game, wizards must prepare a new spellbook from scratch each time they want to add a spell to it.

File: 0a1.jpg (27KB, 428x410px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 428x410px

I've never really understood the whole caster/martial issue, my guess is it only becomes apparent past level 10? That's as far as I've ever gotten with a wizard.

I think not having any downtime between adventures and never fighting other wizards to learn spells from added to it, because I was pretty limited in my choices. Not to mention tons of monsters had spell resistance, and the few turns I actually hit something, I barely did half as much damage as our martials.

Sure I got to end a big fight with a single spell... once... across an entire campaign, but our swashbuckler does that like every session with his blatantly stupid crit range and ability to attack the enemies while it's their turn and negate incoming attacks completely.

I dunno, i get why the fighter is considered shit, but even the other non-casters make fun of fighters, so i thought it was more of a class thing that a martial thing.

So what's the deal, am I playing a wizard super shittily? Or have we just not reached that stage of the game yet?

>>49436552
>So what's the deal, am I playing a wizard super shittily?
Yes. Stop using damage spells unless you're abusing Dazing Spell, they're garbage and you're far better off using spells to buff the party if you want to do damage.

>>49436552
>Sleep
>Color Spray
It becomes apparent from level 1, senpai.

>>49436552
The goal of fights in Pathfinder isn't exclusively get them down to 0. It's to make the enemy stop fighting. Use denial effects that target your enemy's weakest saves, and you'll outmaneuver every enemy you can. No one can use action-denial as well as a caster.

>>49436597
I don't know if the DM is fudging rolls but I've literally never used those spells successfully. After a particularly embarrassing session where not a single spell I casted actually did anything I decided to go for spells that still did SOMETHING on a passed save.

>>49436685
To clarify, I started using buffing and summoning spells almost exclusively. Which while powerful, was more like a support character, and I never really considered myself more capable than the other members. The opposite actually.

>>49436597
>Wand of Infernal Healing
It becomes apparent from level 0, sempai.

>>49436685
The stuff you fight at low levels tends to have shit saves for anything that isn't reflex. He might have fudged them.

File: Absolute_Barbaric.jpg (160KB, 600x709px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 600x709px

>>49436721
>Using evil spells
What do you think I am? A murderhobo?

>All these PF babbys unironically defending shitty design as if it's a personal fight they must win


Guys it just works, ok? My anecodotes > valid criticism, eat shit.

>>49436754
>He doesn't powergame
It isn't evil, because, reasons.

>>49436754
>Friend dying
>"It's okay bro, I'll save you!"
>"The fuck is that shit? Motherfucker that's EVIL healing, can't you tell? get the fuck out of my face."
>Dies

Infernal healing being an evil spell is hilarious stupid.

>>49435416
color spray is shit against rogues and archers.

>>49436818
Why would you even know a evil spell if your a good character? let alone buy a wand of it.

You're metagaming awfully hard.

>>49436833
>Will save SoL
>bad against characters with low Will save
Are you retarded?

>>49436858
15ft cone v. weapon with rng 65-120ft.
low level wizard v backstab

>>49436900
You're arguing with an idiot.
Just a fair warning before you waste too much time.

File: 1461179110139.jpg (22KB, 432x417px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 432x417px

>>49436900
>low level fighter v backstab

>>49436552
>swashbuckler doing anything relevant
This has to be bait

>>49436958
and you call color spray op

>>49436900
>15ft cone v. weapon with rng 65-120ft.
You mean a low level archer vs cover everywhere.
>low level wizard v backstab
You mean low level Rogue vs 5 different Perception checks OR a Rogue putting themselves directly in harm's way.

>>49436552
I played a conjuration focused wizard
Rendered all combats pretty moot since the 1st level or so

>pathwhiners getting BTFO

I love it when people who spend their time obsessing about how much they hate a game get told how stupid they are for doing so.

>>49436974
that's the thing isn't it, there are tons of little details that can brush theorycrafting aside. Not to belittle caster supremacy, but color spray has always been a shit example of it.

>>49436974
>nitpicking
>insignificant arguments

You don't know how to stop. It's like your only method of discussion.

>>49436900
>120ft
Woah, I hate archers now

I guess archers are the most op thing in PF, they can kill you from afar before you can even reach enough levels to do broken stuff

>>49437045
There is nothing insignificant about pointing out that neither of his examples work and it's not nitpicking.

>>49437022
Honestly, Color Spray is still a very practical spell. Most encounters begin within ~30 feet of the party, as martial characters mainly lean towards melee weapons rather than ranged ones. The wizard can move, cast color spray, and probably put one or two people out of the fight just like that, and even if he gets stabbed in return, it won't bring those other enemies back.

>>49437079
>they don't work in these specific circumstances that aren't really as important as I want to pretend they are!

That's called nitpicking.
It must be hard to be so stupid.

Can you put on a trip? You should warn people before you drag them into your increasingly petty arguments.

File: Screenshot_2016-09-20-11-45-13.png (270KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1080x1920px

>>49437105

You're just a faggot thst has posted in this thread at least 10 times already to defend yoyr favorite game from completely valid criticism that you brush off as nitpicking when you don't have anything else to say. Pathetic

>>49437105
You can literally use other party members as cover from ranged weapons and Rogues having to either sneak through an entire party's Perception checks or put themselves in melee to sneak attack isn't a 'specific circumstance', that's literally what Rogues are expected to deal with.

>>49437131
You're the guy who thinks insignificant details count as valid criticisms.

All you want to do is complain about a game you don't like, so you're reduced to nitpicking.

Put on a trip. You seem proud of your ideas, go ahead and attach a name to them.

>>49428623
And he was level 5. 3k gold at level 3 is absurd.

>>49437182
No? Level 3 WBL is exactly 3k gold.

>>49437166

>he thinks he's arguing with a samefag just because he is one

lol no there's at least 3 people including myself who are calling you a dumbass right now. I've had fun with pathfinder, I dont go out of my way to bash it, but I just can't stand wilful ignorance. You can pretend like imbalance isn't a problem but I don't get why. You're acting like it's your religion, written in stone and infallible.

>>49437166
>>49437131
Why don't both of you slap on a trip and fuck off

>>49437571

>im so above it all cause i dont pick a side

Faggot

>>49437208
>I just can't stand wilful ignorance.

Then why do you practice it?

>I dont go out of my way to bash it'
When you're going to go to such great lengths to nitpick about such tiny, insignificant details, and encourage other people to as well?

This is a terrible discussion, because it's less about the actual game, and more about people trying to figure out how to condemn it while others are saying their criticisms are not really that important.

You can pretend that these issues are huge or unfixable, but that doesn't help anyone.

This is less of a defense of the system, and more of an attack on the character of the people who are so committed to coming up with the most banal criticisms they can.

>>49432350

I think the idea was solid enough in that it's trying to be an item that has different values to different characters at different times. The execution...maybe not so great.

desu the biggest problem with pathfinder is that paizo is basically a giant magic realming grognard that managed to luck into a hilariously devoted playerbase.

Who hear remembers how back in the early days they claimed they were gonna fix all the balance issues 3.5 had, then proceeded to ignore/ban all the people pointing out balance issues?

Plus things like the hyena rape mask, and assorted sexual/furry stuff in general, which gets extra hilarious when combined with the things that make you a literal child.

>>49432882

I think it's the wrong way to ask the question. It's really ultimately a question of "how be do we keep class roles defined?" Giving Fighter's Teleport, Fireball, or 30ft Dhalsim arms doesn't correct the fact that the game lacks a Fighter-shaped hole to begin with.

>>49434045

Be better at one meaningful thing that the party needs than any other class.

>>49437799
>
Who hear remembers how back in the early days they claimed they were gonna fix all the balance issues 3.5 had, then proceeded to ignore/ban all the people pointing out balance issues?
I remember exactly that AND Bulmahn throwing a massive bitchfit about Rogues and nerfing them over and over and over in playtesting.

File: 1438546875924.png (139KB, 424x470px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 424x470px

Why the fuck do fighters only get 2 skill points per level?

>>49434265
So someone tells a story about how monks suck
>this is a unbelievable tale!
You're retarded

>>49437836
because they were dumb from the start, they chose to be fighters after all.

>>49437836
Because hurr durr jocks r retard.

>>49437855
>someone repeats the same dumb memes he always repeats
>no one in the group acts like a human, and more just like a story prop

Oh geez, I wonder why it's so fake.

>>49436960
I'm convinced there's something up about his character, he can spend 1 point to negate an attack against him, AND make a free attack with it. That attack has a 25% of critting and paying for itself. His bonuses are so crazy because the DM is too generous and he can't fail to parry. He can do this 7 times a turn. He has literally killed a boss on the bosses turn. Somerhing doesn't add up but I don't want to rule check his whole character, that's the DMs job.

Speaking about monks, what's their fucking role? they aren't skill monkeys, they aren't good at dealing damage, they aren't good at defense, they are MAD, what's their role? running fast? survival by fleeing?

>>49437901
They don't have one.

>>49437677

It's only nitpicking by your decree but if you want to declare the problem fixed well then gee I guess the thousands of people who don't like 3.PF because of balance just weren't playing it right...

You're so far up your own ass though that I doubt you will even be able to read this post. Enjoy jerking yourself off, nerd. I'll just say that the answer to OPs question is a resounding "yes".

>>49437879
>no one in the group acts like a human, and more just like a story prop
Friendly advice, never play online
Double friendly advice, never play with people you don't know in your LGS

>>49437901
They're a mix of rogue and fighter but worse than any of them at the same time

>>49434671
If your Cleric or Druid isn't running roughshod over the entire rest of the party by level 10+, they're either the worst powergamers ever or have more restraint than the average player.

Mechanically, Cleric and Druid become the two strongest classes by default, based on just their core abilities and not any Feats or magical items they may have, somewhere between level 12 and 14, and it only gets worse from there.

>>49434712
That would work as well, I suppose.

Spellcasting in 3.5E is just so fucked-in-half broken it's hard to imagine how you could try to balance it. That's setting aside wands/potions/scrolls/etc, too. Just the core stuff is ridiculous.

>>49437833
>I remember exactly that AND Bulmahn throwing a massive bitchfit about Rogues and nerfing them over and over and over in playtesting.

but why?

>>49435574
That's not inaccurate, RPGs were at their peak in the 80s and the early 2000s.

>>49438106
Because Rogues being able to tumble into flanks was overpowered as fuck, apparently.

>>49438119
That's not accurate either.

>>49437836
Because fuck martial, spellcasters!

In more detail, though... The D&D3.5E skill system wasn't designed to be a cohesive whole (see 1 SP = 1 Language) and it was mainly designed around allowing the Rogue (and Bard, to a lesser extent) to be party skill monkeys.

That's why most classes got shafted on skills: They got just enough skill points for a couple basic, core-class features and then they got nothing else. If they didn't use INT as a dump stat, they might be able to pick up one or two useful skills, but would otherwise still just have those skills as flavor bullshit.

The irony, of course, is that the skill system is well-designed... If it had reasonable caps (and class abilities which would allow it to go beyond reasonable caps). Imagine if skills topped out at +10 (from skill points applied), but class skills put things to +20 and it actually allowed characters to be diverse?

>>49438139
Yeah, how dare a Rogue be able to kickass during a very specific circumstance when a Cleric or Druid could be doing that much damage all the time, ever?

File: smile.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

>>49437676
>implying I said any of that

>>49438106
>>49437833
What about them was nerfed? Had they initially been able to do ranged sneak attacks or something?

>>49438202
>What about them was nerfed?
Lost flask sneak attacking, lost tumbling into a flank and tumbling in general because of the fucktard CMB/CMD system, lost their dominance in skills because of the difference between PF and 3.5's skill system, and their stealth got shit on because Perception is the strongest skill in the game.

And that's just compared to the core 3.5 Rogue.

>>49437901
The Monk makes a very good scout, while also being the go-to survival monkey.

A Rogue can get you through a dungeon filled with traps. A Monk can lead you out of a hostile environment, through enemy lines, without ever engaging the enemy,

The Monk class actually has some pretty awesome skills, overall. The closer to Perfect Self you get, the closer you get to being basically unkillable. Add in the +2/+2/+2 saves, the movement speed, and everything else, and the Monk basically makes for a perfect tank to take aggro off party members.

>>49438254
>flask sneak attacking
Don't think I'm familiar with that one, I never played many/any rogues
And did Tumble get that bad? Once again, I've never used it

>>49438272
That's not how any of that works.

>>49437924
>gee I guess the thousands of people who don't like 3.PF because of balance just weren't playing it right...

What about the thousands more who are playing it right?

Remember, we're talking about the 2nd most popular game in the world, sixteen years after it's release.

Like, you're free to dislike it, free to hate it, but when you try to perform a call to arms about how many other people dislike it, you're going to be terribly outnumbered.

It's got flaws. Flaws some people ignore, most that people fix, and if Color Spray and Sleep are what keep you up at night (the latter being somewhat ironic), give the spells a tweak to suit your games better. You can nitpick about ANYTHING, but to nitpick about a game where people can change things on a whim is wasting way too much time time hating.

>>49438284
CMD
Now you have to beat CMD to tumble, and CMD is the monster defense that increases the fastest, at 8th level you can't tumble anymore because monsters have on average something around 45+ CMD

Same shit happens with maneuvers, only a couple of builds are able to do anything relevant with them and even so it only works like 1/4th of the time in those builds

>>49438331
well, fuck. I suppose their reasoning was "It lets a rogue flank too often"?
which honestly feels irrelevant with how common sneak attack/precision immunity can be

>>49436552
>>49436685
>>49437882

Sounds to me your DM just hates spellcasters and is trying to give the martial some love.

>>49438289
>playing it right
In the OP's screencap you have:
>We want casters>martials so who cares
>Balance is bad because 4e was bad
>Waterboy is also part of the team
>Just homerule it
So what's "playing it right", because one is telling you the system is wrong and you have to homerule it, and the others are telling you fuck martials play caster

>>49434929
This so goddamn much. I'd love to play a martial and roleplay interesting combat maneuvers, but if I do I'm eating so many penalties that it's just not worth it. The mechanics actively get in the way of roleplaying, and any retard who says "Urr you can still roleplay with your martial huuur!" is so full of shit you'd think they were a walking septic tank.

Yes, I mad.

>>49437882
Swashbuckler doesn't work that way. They can only attack an enemy back with Riposte once per round because it's an immediate action.

>>49438356
>Flipping the tables
That's shittier than just keeping the power gap as is. At least one way you can blame the rules, when you intentionally create a power gap the other way, it's objectively your fault.

>>49438359
To start, I don't completely disagree. I like balanced games, kind of why I prefer 5e.

But, poorly done balance can be worse, because sacrifices are ultimately made for balance's sake. Diversity between classes is important too, and 4e failed somewhat in that regard. Ultimately, it's up to the group's preferences, and claiming one is inherently superior over the other is failing to take into account that different people want different things out of games.

I don't even understand why you wanted me to try defending those posters, when they hardly represent the entirety of the player base.

Huh. I don't really keep up with pathfinder and wasn't into rpgs when it first came out, so i know about the balance problems but i'm unaware that the devs actually try and defend it.

>>49438425
With one feat you get your intelligence bonus in immediate actions.

>>49435109
>why do they think one or two PCs doing everything forever is fun?

Because in their mind they'll either get to be the one or two PCs doing everything or they walk. That's why there's so many groups that are desperate for new people but when new people get there they "already have a wizard and a druid, but here's a fighter if you want to play it."

>>49438506
>With one feat you get your intelligence bonus in immediate actions

It's dex, and to attacks of opportunity actually. That can still function with the swashbuckler ability.

>>49435359

They soaked us for a lot of money and picked a lot of fights between us and our friends, and they're now admitting they did it on purpose. Damn right we should be pissed off.

>>49438447
Paizo forum ban anyone who disagrees with them, eventually you start to see everybody that still remain in the forum repeating those exact words
>We don't want balance
>Balance is bad
>Casters should be better because magic
>Martials should be worse because realism
Etc
It makes sense that if the devs promote this way of thinking that's what they consider "playing it right".

That's why I'm asking, what's "playing it right"? Imo if you have fun it must count as playing it right, but I don't think everybody who plays PF (or any game) has fun, and 3.PF has historic records of stockholm syndrome

>>49438506
No?

>>49438551
>>49438537

Ya, he's wrong, but it works out to the same result, better even since Swashbuckler's rely on Dex and not intelligence. It's called combat reflexes.

Swashbuckler power explicitly states you expend one attack of opportunity HOWEVER, he'd only be able to make the counterattack once per round, even if he can negate 7 attacks.

>>49438598
That's exactly what I said.

>>49438602
Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you were saying the parry could only be once a round as well. That and I was mostly just correcting the guy who said you can get int to immediate actions.

>>49438542
>Paizo forum ban anyone who disagrees with them

Perhaps it's the method of disagreeing. Most places don't tolerate trolls to the same level 4chan does, and you seem like one of those people who's so far gone that you don't even realize when you're trolling.

>but I don't think everybody who plays PF (or any game) has fun, and 3.PF has historic records of stockholm syndrome

This is where I can't take you seriously anymore.

>>49434236
>monks
>bad

Monks are mad as fuck, but build them right and he destroys the rest of them. Both main and unchain just wreck face. Its primarily your fault for building it like shit and gms fault for being a caster supremacist fucktard.
Also, that reminds me.
>casters are better than martials
You and your gm are fucktards for thinking that. Casters are great battlefield control and utility but against a martial who knows how to play the game, caster will get his face wrecked. I have many ways to kill a caster as a martial.

>>49435574

You only get to be second if you lump all of Pathfinder together as one game but insist everyone else break up by version/line and comparing all Paizo books together versus everyone else's corebook. Paizo makes their money publishing new materials for someone else's 16 year old game system, and I don't know how many times they can get by with charging $15 for a 32 page book that's mostly just another book tax on the PFS players.[1]

They make a pretty neat card game, though.

[1] http://paizo.com/products/btpy9grw?Pathfinder-Player-Companion-Occult-Origins

File: userious.png (102KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 300x256px

>>49438542
>That's why I'm asking, what's "playing it right"? Imo if you have fun it must count as playing it right, but I don't think everybody who plays PF (or any game) has fun, and 3.PF has historic records of stockholm syndrome

File: whocares_t463.jpg (48KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x500px

>>49438542

>>49438650
>Perhaps it's the method of disagreeing
No, it wasn't, there're dozens of screencaps of posts, polite as fuck, harmless and sometimes just asking, getting banned and insulted by not only other posters but also devs (devs usually just use sarcasm). Srly, just google it.

>This is where I can't take you seriously anymore.
>Implying is not right
Sorry if this hurts you but there're many people playing 3.PF who hate 3.PF, I'm don't know the number nor if it's the majority or minority, but as personal experience (been playing ttrpgs in 5 different countries) I can tell you the number isn't negligible.

>>49438660
>fast movement
>flurry is a full round action
Great design lads.
>You and your gm are fucktards for thinking that. Casters are great battlefield control and utility but against a martial who knows how to play the game, caster will get his face wrecked. I have many ways to kill a caster as a martial
Objectively false. The caster simply has more options, and can play on entirely different levels. (Invisibility, flight, planar shifting, terrain manipulation, summoning, attacking your will saves, etc. etc.

File: faerie_dragon_by_carolina_eade-d4o8omm.jpg (88KB, 600x792px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 600x792px

>>49427423
whats SJW about pathfinder? serious question, i am ignorant.

File: 1461607582343.jpg (51KB, 649x437px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 649x437px

>>49427057
How to fix Pathfinder martials and make them fun in one move:

Martials don't need feats to perfrom combat maneuvers.
Instead of penalties, combat maneuvers give bonuses.

You want to trip that guy, but don't want -2 to your roll? Don't worry, now it's +2 on your roll!
Sunder? Bonus to roll! Flurry of Blows? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT, NIGGA - BONUS TO YOUR ATTACK ROLL. ON ALL HITS.
Encourage verbose and creative descriptions of combat maneuvers by giving bonuses instead of penalties.
Switch that minus to plus.

There you go.
>b-but wizards are still superior, numerical bonuses aren't even that good when you got Save-or-Die spells!

Yeah, but are wizards still more fun than martials at this point?

>>49438677
>insist everyone else break up by version/line

Not really. Even by lumping entire systems together, or even gathering together diverse systems underneath something like "Warhammer roleplay" or "Star Wars", Pathfinder remains comfortably in second.

>>49438660
Druid
Summoner

CBR monk can't do shit, they deal literally to no damage, can't manuver even if their life depended on them, and their way of improving their weapons and AC costs 3x more than the rest of classes

>>49438748
Well you also have to restrict casters to a single school in order to make the range of options closer to par, and there are still issues with things like extraordinary senses, flight, etc. but yeah that's a good start.

>>49438738
Majority of characters are either furries, trans, homosexuals, etc. In lore somehow persecuting Tieflins is ok, but don't you dare persecuting furries, trans or homesexuals.

>>49438735
> there're many people playing 3.PF who hate 3.PF

Same could be said about a lot of systems. Sadly, you really won't be able to ever produce any numbers on that sort of thing, so you're just arguing about "what you feel."

>but as personal experience (been playing ttrpgs in 5 different countries) I can tell you the number isn't negligible.

That's not how statistics work. In fact, that's the exact opposite of how statistics work.

The fact that you think there's a possibility that a majority of people who play 3.PF hate it makes me wonder what is wrong with you and your understanding of other people.

Please, if your entire world view is built on exaggerating your personal experiences, that's where you need to start warning people before they start discussing anything with you.

>>49438692
>Implying those that are shitting on PF here right now aren't also playing it
You know it's true

>>49438816
I didn't say the majority, I didn't say the minority either, I in fact didn't point out a number, just told you that they aren't negligible

I also said that happens with other games

>>49438820
I mean, you can shit on a game and like it. This implies they outright aren't enjoying themselves but play it anyways.

I love pathfinder, even if it is a big mess... like... a really big, broken mess.

>>49437901

The monk was originally intended to be a multi-attacker with great resistances who could abstain from equipment entirely in a very equipment-focused game.

That didn't exactly work out.

5e's monk is not really terrible although Four Winds has to pay way too much for what benefits it gets compared to other classes, but it has become a thing shaped like itself now.

>>49438820
That's not even farfetched, because it's that exact kind of bitter insanity that is the hallmark of a troll.

>>49438846
You said it as a possibility.

You don't even realize how ridiculous you sound.

>>49438859
Well, 5e isn't very equipment dependant
Also Monks, though still the MADest of the classes, isn't as MAD as before

They had to give up on some stuff though, mainly maneuvers (the most martial artsy thing ever) because they can't into Str now.

>>49438289
>2nd most popular game in the world, sixteen years after it's release

No, we're not. Pathfinder wasn't released until 2009. 3.0 is 16 years old, but it and 3.5 aren't Pathfinder.

>>49438862
No, that doesn't happen, is literally impossible to hate something and do that something.

File: 1387502851000.png (677KB, 1280x1092px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 1280x1092px

>>49438791
those anachronistic historical settings have always bothered me. it doesnt really make alot of snese to have some kind of turbo liberal social society in the middle of the dark ages where 95% of the population lives in rural buttfuck nowhere and has zero education and civilization was destroyed 100s of years ago

>>49438931
What is compromise? Only reason I play 3.5 or PF nowadays is if nobody is playing a system that I like. Even then I'm just forcing myself into social activities to stay mentally healthy.

How SHOULD magic-users be designed so that they remain fun, effective, and interesting without making them outshine the martial classes? Aside from making sure they can't make themselves better martials than the martials, unless that's ALL they can do.

>>49439041
For starters don't create spells that turn clerics into Paladin+++, Fighter+++, etc

>>49438927
3.PF is the general designation for the three, similar to 3.X. When talking about PF specifically, they just say PF.

>>49438791
I mean, it doesn't take that much to see. Whether you hate gays, trans and furries or not, they aren't literally the spawn of evil like tieflings.

>>49439041
Make any encounter-ending powers encounter-slowing powers instead (except for direct damage, that's a non-issue).

Give the mundane classes the ability to do things out of combat at least as effectively. Give them more skill points and casters less, nerf mind-control spells, et c.

What >>49439076 said.

Also >>49438748

>>49439076
That's what
>Aside from making sure they can't make themselves better martials than the martials, unless that's ALL they can do.
meant. With some wiggle room allowed for a theoretical spellcasting class whose entire spell list is nothing but self-buffs.

>>49438738

Their understanding of diversity is a bit off sometimes. They've done some pretty cool understated stuff, especially with their art direction and the Shaman iconic. But then they produce some shitty dickgirl succubi on the run from the double reverse inquisition that's even worse.

The result is a whole design studio suffering from "What This Village Needs is a White Man" syndrome where they spend more time talking than listening and going off half-cocked (in some cases literally) as a result.

>>49439133
I said tieflings as an example, but it works with half-orcs or anything non-human non-elf.

Similar lately with religions, is ok for clerics or nations of different deities to kill eachother, but if you try to start a fight with a Not-Middle East religion or nation, you're literally Hitler.

>>49435109
>Oh, I get it, lazy American culture, as long as they get paid they don't care about doing their job. They don't understand the satisfaction it brings when you perform greatly in your job.
I can tell you why this is, too. It's because you're either beyond excellent to the point of genius or nobody cares what you do as long as you pass a certain threshold.
It's really one of the worst parts of American culture, IMO.
>If you do well in academics you're a nerd
>If you do well in athletics you're a jock
>If you're good at socializing you're a prep
>If you're good with art you're a kook
Unless you're the very best, then everyone wants to know you. Either the parents don't care or their standards are so high there's no positive feedback.
>Get 70 on a test
>"Son, we need to talk about your study habits."
>Get 90
>"Oh, that's nice."
In their defense, the American high school standards are abysmal and teach to the test more often than not. People pay lip service to excellence, but the main line of thought is crab bucket syndrome paired with, ironically enough, hero worship.
Everyone wants to become the rich person with a fancy car and desk job, but nobody wants to know him, because it's American to have geniuses, but somehow not American to have someone who's 'better' than the next man. America is really keen on Equality.

>>49439133
>Furries
>Not the spawn of evil

Jokes aside, prejudice is prejudice. Even if it makes some degree of sense to be afraid of the guy who looks like a demon even if he isn't, prejudice and indeed humans in general are not rational. In real life humans are prejudicial against all sorts of things. Skin color, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, disabilities and deformities, hair color, eye color, fucking height.

If humans can be prejudical against orcs and tieflings in a setting, they can be prejudicial against homoesexuals and black people.

>>49435109
>as long as they get paid they don't care about doing their job
Isn't that also one of the factors that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union?

>>49438752

Amazon thinks you're in 16th, behind "Sexy Truth of Dare: Pick-a-Stick" and "Crossy Road Game Character Unlocks."

But sure, be my guess.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/16211/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_3#1

>>49434816

Oh, you mean like Golems?

Yeah, my party figured out pretty quickly martials aren't actually great at going up against golems, which have a lot of DR and often hit absurdly hard for their CR, but using magic to drop the magic-immune monster into a hole and kick its ass works fine. Or you can fly around and acid it to death.

At levels where golems regularly appearing is CR-appropriate to the party's level, there's a spell that drops them in a hole and kills them with acid AT THE SAME TIME.

>>49438272

It's a terrible shame that core monks have fairly bleh HP and AC compared to the guys actually wearing armor, APs are usually specifically designed so you can't avoid engaging the enemy, and Pathfinder doesn't have an aggro mechanic so tanking isn't actually a thing.

If you use your superior speed to run away faster than the chimera can charge, they'll just slaughter your allies. The one time Paizo actually tried to make something that could make the guys who can take hits force monsters to actually focus on them first rather than just killing the mages and going after the warriors last when there's no more healing or battlefield control to get in the way, people whined it was too MMO-y.

>>49438789
Actually, you can fix martials even better.

Reward martials mechanically for "stunting" (performing cool, risky and flashy actions).
Reward casters mechanically for "planning" (playing carefully, and being boring no-fun-allowed, "no risks - no nonsense").

That's literally it.

>>49439041

The vancian system is bullshit. Use Spheres of Power.

>>49427057
No, most of them have beaten wife syndrome.

>>49439343
We already stablish that doesn't exist.

>>49439301
Reward casters mechanically for "planning" (playing carefully, and being boring no-fun-allowed, "no risks - no nonsense").

That sounds awful. The game is already restrictive on roleplay enough without needing to say "Sorry, you're being being too fun to be rewarded."

>>49437083
I use to do drive by color sprays on my horse. Shit was pretty cash.

>>49438492
Doesn't one of them just really hate monks for some reason?

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

186KB, 500x731px

>>49439292
This might give you a better picture.

>>49437815
Give them the opportunity to counter basic attacks or draw the enemy towards them. Give them feats like power attack and cleave on top of what they're already given. A little battlefield control is all I want in a fighter.

>>49439465
>Lower sample size than Amazon
>"better picture"
Kek

>>49434717
Such as?

>>49439496
>game sales
>for roleplaying games that came out years ago

It still being on the list in the top 20 is actually pretty impressive.

Overall though, roll20's sample size is quite satisfactory to provide a good sense of what people are actually playing.

File: 1451874332893.gif (2MB, 236x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 236x224px

>>49439465
>5e has nearly 2x as many games as PF, 4x 3.5, and 10x 4e
Woooow.

>>49439496

In your link, after you get past all the D&D 5e and 5e accessories, the games that aren't TTRPG, and the novels, pathfinder IS in a comfortable second.

>>49439292
>volo's preorders are on the heels of Pathfinder
>But-but... most of Paizo's sales are trough their own website!
It's amazing how well the Pathfinder fans take up the #2 mantle as a defense. I remember six months ago you'd regularly here the #1 number tossed around a lot.

>>49434096
I wonder how it'd play out if you stole the power points by level progression from expanded psionics and used it as "martial points".

You pick which stat gives you bonus martial points when you create the character. Spend at least one point to make the next attack automatically hit (even if it's invisible. You have to be aware of where it is and able to reach there, though). For each point you spent, you also do one more point of damage, which bypasses all defenses (DR, SR, spells, it's ethereal and you're not, whatever). You can only spend up to your martial level in points per round. You still have to roll for the attack to see if it crits, but if you spent at least ten points and it's a threat for crit, it's automatically a confirmed crit; if you rolled a 1, it's not a miss or fumble.

Same thing might work for rogues, too, for skill checks (except knowledge) instead of attack rolls. Spend a point or more to automatically succeed at a skill roll; the number of points you spent is applied as a bonus to the result. If the total would normally have failed, it's a succeed-with-complications result. Can't spend more points per round than your total rogue-related levels. If you spent at least ten points, any base roll that was under 10 counts as 10.

These points aren't magic/psionic, they're just a representation sometimes exceeding your limits by way of sheer luck and general badassery.
Maybe it's not as powerful as the way a psionic turns power points into d6s-save-for-half, but it helps address the fighter's woe of "I can't even fucking hit this / the dice hate me / I can't even damage this" or the rogue's "everything hangs on this disable device roll that I just failed". Without being a feat/level/gold/skillpoint tax.

>>49439811
What weirds me out is that even with it now being #2, the pathwhiners still feel the need to endlessly complain.

What's even worse, I suspect they actually believe their whining has had some effect, and will continue to whine until pathfinder has reduced in popularity enough for them not to be triggered by how many people play it.

So, they're going to make these sort of threads forever.

>>49427057
they're right though, most people still playing pathfinder don't want a balanced game and are playing PF because it isn't balanced

i don't see what's wrong here

>>49440685
What about those poor souls that are playing martials and feel like they are useless?

>>49440748
they probably should have not played PF

or done one of the initiator classes like warblade or whatever

or asked their gm if they'd run with the gestalt rules where anyone playing a tier 3 or below class is allowed to gestalt with another class somehow

that's what i do when i run and someone wants to play fighter or something like that, let them gestalt with rogue or warlock or something while ignoring spell fail

>>49438735
gotchu covered man

rip in pies ash

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2twkm&page=1?Questioning-User-Ban

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500653-d20legends-Development-aka-Off-Topic-discussions-Ask-Ashiel-Anything-The-Askening

>>49438748

this is a great simple fix

>>49438748
this is also a good fucking idea

>>49440813
Wow. I mean that's an overraction, but also some of the worst moderation going. 4chan troll moderator level bad.

>>49440792
>or done one of the initiator classes like warblade or whatever
>or asked their gm if they'd run with the gestalt rules where anyone playing a tier 3 or below class is allowed to gestalt with another class somehow
Not allowed in PFS

>>49440921
The best part is that of everyone involved in the shitshow in the main argument, the one person who didn't get banned was the instigator.

It's a shame too, because ash's posts were pretty much the only reason I used the paizo forums. They had lots of interesting stuff on almost every aspect of RAW, and even if you didn't agree it was well argued.

Oh, and a few years back, ash got doxxed by another user, and the other guy got off scot free, until he picked a fight with a developer regarding something about an upcoming product release. You can't make this shit up

>>49440813
That thread shows exactly the "regulars" who get away with whatever the fuck they want because they fellate the staff there. People like Kobold Cleaver are some of the worst on the internet, seriously.

>>49437815

If you're basing it on fantasy literature and movies, then mages should be amazing when they have a chance to plan, and fighters should be amazing at surviving the unplanned.

Spellcasters should stop gaining hitpoints at level 5. Warriors should be the only ones who can fall off cliffs and get back up.

>>49431336
I'd personally argue that all stat-increasing magic items should just be flat-out removed from the game.

>>49440877
>>49440838
>>49438748

It would be really fun for about 5 minutes and then everyone would find the maneuvers with the biggest penalties (bonuses) and use them every round and it would be the stupidest game you've ever played in.

>>49441209
For mental stats for casters? yes
For physical stats for martials? fuck no, it's already impossible to beat CMD, more so if you remove the +5 from physical enhacement

>>49441310
Maneuvers are for monsters not for PCs.

>>49441310
+6 from items, and +5 inherent from Wish.

axing mental stats is an issue too though, since Will saves are tied to Wisdom. With the release of the unchained monk, it can be said that "Although not all casters have a good will save, all classes with good will saves are casters".

Also, I like the fact that the stat boosting items are actually worth the gold they cost, even if they are boring. The solution is to create more stuff to compete with the big 6, not to remove the only things I can spend my gold on to improve my character.

>>49431336
Spellcasting needs to be tied to holding a weapon in some way so that casters need to spend gold on weapons in the same way that martials do.

>>49441310
>>49441209
I feel that high level rogues should be able to dance on a blade of grass and high level fighters should be stronger than giants. The game system does a surprisingly bad job of this and if you take out stat enhancements its even worse.

>>49441335

Maneuvers are for PCs to use on non-fighter NPCs. And some of the squishier monsters. And as you get to be mid/high level you'll occasionally knock an elephant on its ass, not because that's the best way to beat the elephant but just because you can.

Pathfinder didn't fix caster dominance but the maneuver system isn't that bad and is definitely an improvement over playing a trip/grapple/etc fighter in 3e.

>>49441433
No is not, it's fucking worse, back in 3.5 I didn't need to be one or two builds to trip/grapple effectively, now in PF you can only do that with like 3 builds and not even effectively

>Maneuvers are for PCs to use on non-fighter NPCs
Mythology is full of heroes tripping and grappling fucking huge and strong monsters

>>49441433
What the maneuver system really needs is a way to allow PCs to get rider combat maneuvers, like how Lions Grapple with their bite, or wolves trip with their bite.

You still have the issue of CMD running away way faster than CMB, but if you could get a Trip or Dirty Trick rider with every attack, it'd also help with the issue that a martial's standard action is worth less and less as they increase in level.

>>49441485
Having a trip chance with every attack means shit when you can beat the CMD unless you nat20

T. Monk player

>>49441467
>tripping and grappling huge monsters

Which wasn't possible in 3e and is now possible in 3.p. I don't know what you're complaining about. In 3e it was all based on raw ability checks and size bonuses, no bonus at all for your level.

>I didn't need to be one of two builds to trip/grapple effectively.

Yes you did. It's not that bad in 3.p but it was in 3e.

>>49441467
3.PF is not mythology ;^)

>>49441518
>3e
Sorry, I meant 3.5, never played 3e. In 3.5 my Monk was able to grapple and trip Balors pretty easily, they only had like +32 to grapple/str contest slightly less than my char

Now Balor has 56 CMD, not even in my wildest dreams can I trip that unless I nat20 or use Punishing Kick.

>>49441485
>>49441517

Rider attacks are a good idea but yea they won't necessarily fix anything. The ideal point for balance is where maneuvers are generally worse than making regular attacks, but are significantly better against certain foes or in certain situations, so that fighters have to be smart and consider the option. It should be balanced so REGULAR fighters have to consider the maneuver option, and benefit from using maneuvers selectively, and then you start at that baseline when you talk about how to design a trip-fighter or grappler.

I don't think that Pathfinder does a bad job of that. Not only that but I think it's a mechanically elegant system (especially compared to some of the ugly bloated subsystems they wrote in later boos). My issues with pathfinder are elsewhere.

File: pathfinder houserules.jpg (789KB, 1349x2074px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 1349x2074px

>>49441517
You're not wrong, but it would be nice as an option, like Dazing Assault, which is probably the 2nd best feat for martials after Power Attack. Something does need to happen regarding soaring CMD as CR rises though. I'll try and find a post from the paizo forums detailing how bad the situation gets.

>>49441517
>Can
Fuck, meant can't

>>49441578
>Tripping a Balor with a monk
Fucking how?

>>49441642
Not him but Jotunbrud, Passive Way Monk, Imp Trip, Broken Fist Master I and II and some others, it was pretty doable with almost any martial class.

>>49441597
I found the thread for the interested: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sccg&page=1?CMB-and-CMD-a-Broken-System-With-No-Point

And a brief summary from a page or 2 into the discussion:

>Oh, and for the ones that can't replace attacks, the numbers are (assuming 17 Str, and using boots of haste, ioun stone, and tomes):

1-6: 64.16%
7-12: 48.3%
13-20: 33.75%

With 20 starting str:
1-6: 71.67%
7-12: 56.67%
13-20: 41.25%

>I really appreciate you running the numbers Cheapy! That being said, I think it also helps underscore my point: in levels 13-20, a min/maxed Fighter who's invested substantial resources into performing a given combat maneuver has about a 40% chance to successfully Steal/Grapple/Bull Rush/Dirty Trick a level appropriate opponent. That's a 60% chance of completely wasting his turn every single round.

>>49441578

I hate to say it but that was probably intentional, as a designer you don't WANT solo boss-monsters to be reliably shut down by grapples because a.) that becomes the only correct way to fight a balor and b.) you're forced to balance grappling for that situation and it ends up being sub-par in other situations.

>>49441740
Jesus christ.

The only thing grappling does is giving the monster penalties and hindering his movement, he still can hit my with it's natural weapons.

Same for trip, it only reduces it's AC and to Hit.

It's a martial way of debuffing monsters. But I guess it's fair that a caster can power word kill shit instantly or other SoD but a martial can't fucking grapple/trip a monster to give him some penalties because unfair(?)

>>49441642

Its size is only large, its strength is below 40, and it only has 20 hit dice. Balors were very soft targets for grappling in 3e, at least compared to other monsters of the same CR. Most monsters are a lot bigger with higher strength scores (and lots of hit dice contributing to a high grapple bonus, though tripping doesn't care about your attack bonus).

>>49441857

Tripped characters have to spend an action getting back up and this costs them their full attack.

Grappling is a good way to shut down spellcasting, also if you can grapple you can pin which shuts down actions in general.

Maneuvers can afford to be more powerful, but if you ddi that you'd have to make attacking in general more powerful too in order to match, and you can't do that because then martials might be worth playing in certain kinds of combat. Which opens the door to a world where martials are worth playing in general which is just silly.

>>49442166
>Tripped characters have to spend an action getting back up and this costs them their full attack.
They can still attack from a prone possition, even move 5ft as a move action.

>>49440984
Who in their right mind plays PFS?

>>49442272
The paizo defence force mainly.

Since most of the gear/option killing errata is almost certainly inspired from PFS GMs bitching to paizo about Crane Wing and friends, I'm almost tempted to make the dumbest conjuration focused wizard I can and create pit my way to victory, soloing as many PFS campaigns as possible. Maybe then casters will see an actual nerf.

>>49442320
>synth is banned
>master summoner and pack lord aren't

>>49442483
Those may or may not be powerful, but anyone that floods the board with summons to bog the game down should be banned anyway regardless of how mathematically powerful it is.

>>49442483
>umonk is banned

>>49439465
Wow, 4e is doing pretty well all things considered. Shame it got such a smear campaign about it when it was relevant that newbies think it's actually bad.

>>49442819
>Shame it got such a smear campaign about it when it was relevant that newbies think it's actually bad.
Paizo protecting its income stream :^)

>>49427057
I don't know about Pathfinder, but the 4e guys are pretty much right there.

Took a look at the 4e general just now. Saw Read the OP, thought 'I think I might like to ask about that points of light setting stuff'...then read the first dozen or so posts.

No wonder people try to keep 4e away from everything.

>>49442819
>>49442909
Just let it go man. 4e just didn't appeal to as many people, and the fact that 3.5 and PF still have like 8 times as many people, and 5e eclipsed it so much easier than 4e did 3.5 is proof of that. PF is basically reveling in every mistake 3.5 made, but marketing alone can't explain this when every single pathfinder players knows what DnD is

>>49442496

If you're going to ban a class that only allows me to wear my eidolon as a meat suit while letting the class that can summon 20+ critters per turn remain legal, you deserve every ounce of pain I inflict upon you for having to keep track of my summons.

>>49442483
>>49442320
Synthesis Summoner isn't even actually overpowered, it's weaker than straight summoner. The "problem" with it is that it shows how much better casters are than martials in a way that CANNOT be avoided, argued around, or sidelined. So it is decried as overpowered by people who frankly don't know what they're doing.

>>49444243
This. It doesn't even outdamage a barbarian, but it can do everything a character has to do and almost never actually hits a hard wall in a campaign - all while being a martial class.

>>49442819
>>49443026

5e is simply the correct answer for noobies, it's an easier game to learn and does better justice to the D&D genre of fantasy.

But yea I'm personally still playing 4e and I think it stands on its own as a very good action fantasy RPG.

I know 3e diehards and their games are fun but I still try to get them to check out 5e.