Why are 3.PF fans so in denial about their system? Why are they

I agree with you that they're idiots, but come the fuck on. At least shitpost in their general.

File: paizils (1).png (206KB, 1700x1129px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1700x1129px

>>49492038

File: 1474169031986.jpg (242KB, 1229x1330px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1229x1330px

>>49492228
As a regular PF GM, this angers and disgusts me.

>>49492010
>he thinks the paizo forums are representative of other Pathfinder players.
Everyone who likes Pathfinder but can see it has flaws quickly gets run out of the paizo forums. Trying to talk game mechanics there is like trying to have deep political discussions with your dog.

3.PF causes brain damage. It ruined a whole generation of roleplayers and continues to destroy the minds of many. We can only hope that one day the mind-plague will end.

>>49492038
The general also shits on these sorts of people, put the guys in /pfg/ use so much third party and homebrew stuff that you could honestly make the argument that they aren't really playing pathfinder.

>>49492496
This is so true. I'm on the forums and only spared because I never enter the horrifying depths of the Pathfinder RPG board. Even Starfinder has people talking more frankly about the issues with Pathfinder only to have the same assholes show up and talk about how they already have the perfect rules for technology as magic and they don't like that the future storyline in Golarion would be set limiting adventure paths to the next several thousand years.

It's crazy.

File: 1414638113835.jpg (31KB, 396x382px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 396x382px

>>49492010
Why do you make this thread every day? Why are you so butthurt about people liking something you don't like? Why do you have autism?

>>49492726
/pfg/ is also the front lines of "Pathfinder is a shit game" and "tier 3/4 games are the best."

The occasional casterfag show up, but mostly to cast some bait and shitpost. It's also a place where trying to make tier 1/2 martial homebrew is just not productive.

>>49492010
>Letting another player "Babysit" your PC.
That does not fly in my group. If a player is absent, their PC is "temporarily indisposed". They can come up with their own damn excuse as to why: Awful hangover, violent food poisoning, stuck waiting at the DMV (Department of Magical Violence), whatever.

>>49492755
And while i readily admit Pathfinder has large, glaring issues:

>Free online rules
>tons of character options
>lots of prebuilt monsters and npcs
>lots of prewritten adventures, some quite good.
>compatibility with lots of other options and adventures not specifically designed for it.
>it can handle high level caster gameplay fairly well, when that's what i want.

It's in my top 3 systems for sure.

Do i run it without houserules? Not a chance.

Would i rather play 5e? Fuck no.

>>49492010
Honestly, the addition of material over the years, both 1pp and some 3pp, has filled the middle ground between a tier 1 class and a tier 5 class, so there's pretty much no concept that you can't iron out at tier 3 or better.

At which point, if you're playing a shitty fighter, you kind of have to go 50/50 with paizo on being retarded.

>>49492854
I personally would only play Pathfinder again with my extensive homebrew - which includes using the magic rules and spells from 5e.

5e easily has the better rules and classes, but I agree that the customization and impossible volume on content does have its place. Out of the Abyss and Curse of Strahd are also better than any of the Paizo Adventures, even though the Paizo adventures are not bad for the most part.

Neither are in my top 3 games though even if they are the ones I play most.

>>49492763
I'll stop making this thread when people STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!

>>49492934
I wouldn't replace pf magic with 5e magic, but i can see replacing it with something else, if you're going to put a ton of time into it.

5e rules are marginally better, but it's so barebones i just can't get into it. It feels unfinished. It doesn't have a lot of options, and they also didn't take the approach of flexible positions like gurps or m&m.

Some of the 5e adventures looked pretty good, and i may run them at some point, but if i do, it won't be with the 5e rules.

>>49492763
I think it's like... guy who got used to 3.PF being the top dog in DD land (be it legit or troll threads) tries to stir shit just so the content isn't limited to the containment thread... which, as >>49492726 moved very far from its roots.

I don't see why anyone would try to take a shit on it for any other reason. You just don't need to. It's been like, 13 years, everyone already knows how they feel about it.

Or it could be a terminally stupid troll I guess, going for the easy bait?

>>49493007
Well replacement magic systems are pretty hard to come by and 5e isn't such a big lift. It doesn't help that Spheres of Power just isn't very fun.

Limiting slots and streamlining spellcasting multi-classes makes things a lot easier to handle, and make more customization easier to handle.

>>49493271
Why not Psionics?
>It doesn't help that Spheres of Power just isn't very fun.
Spheres is plenty fun.

>>49492010
Virgin effect.

I was once a Pathfinder drone, then i looked somewhere else.

Cured my right quick.

File: 1456678560726.png (592KB, 800x979px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 800x979px

>>49493594
Honestly, this.

I used to play Pathfinder and have a hard time thinking of playing anything else.

Now I will never go back to it, because I have a lot of games that I would rather go to.

RuneQuest/Mythras is my fantasy go-to, Only War is typically what I use for military campaigns (though the Halo Mythic system is competing for that), I play Star Wars d6 and really like it for generic pulpy/high-adventure science fiction. Aces & Eights for Westerns. MiniSix for campaigns where I can't think of a better system to use. I played Shadowrun and thought it was fine, too. Might join a game soon that plays Chronicles of Darkness.

Even if you think the systems I use/used are shit, that's fine. That's your opinion. But the point is that I started doing something other than Pathfinder, and that opened me up to more and more stuff to try.

Variety is the spice of life.

>>49493763
>RuneQuest/Mythras is my fantasy go-to
Me too, it even has Classic Fantasy for when I want dungeon crawls.

>>49493430
Psionics requires banning classes.

Spheres is not fun in my opinion, you can't just say "nuh uh" to it.

>>49493967
Pathfinder in general requires banning classes. The game does not run well if you allow all classes.

>>49492934

I've been stuck between the two, because the only other game my group plays is Shadowrun right now and the only person who can run that is a bit flakey as a GM.

I do like the cusomization of Pathfinder (I will say the system is infinitely better if you chuck Vancian casting out on its ass and use that third-party Spheres system instead so there's at least some similarity between how learning magic and learning fighting styles work and magic can't do everything) but in general my 5e vs PF experience can be summed up thusly.

https://youtu.be/Q84nfWkLsYU

>>49493763
>>49493955
>RQ
>Even if you think the systems I use/used are shit, that's fine.

I'm glad you've decided to protect your ego, because you really need to if you like such a set of awful systems.

Runequest is like a retarded cousin. It kind of resembles a roleplaying game, until you try to interact with it and realize it's half-a-brain short of something worth playing.

>>49494479
It's 4chan, m8. The land of "there's always someone here who, no matter who you are or what you argue, thinks you're wrong all the time just for existing and thinking something."

I suppose that following that statement, now I can ask what your fantasy go-to is?

>>49492010
I find it a fun system for creative character creation. I've played better systems, I don't care and I don't see why I have to be denial to say so.

>>49494479
Wait, so what is wrong with Runequest exactly? I've been looking to play it and it seems solid from what I've read. This is the first time I've seen someone rag on it.

>>49495764
It doesn't do anything that any other system doesn't already do better, and the combat in particular is a laborous mess that might seem fresh and different for the first few battles, but after no time at all each turn just becomes a tedious chore after everyone settles into their routines.

>>49495838
So other than combat being bad, it really isn't anything subpar? Sounds better than Pathfinder already.

>>49495932
Rq6 is decent, but it has a few issues.

Players all need to be the same race if you want them to be able to contribute anywhere close to equally. Unless your races have nothing to them but free skill points.

Magic is still king, but the setting assumes everyone has it.

Id consider it, but there are other BRP systems I would look to grab stuff from, or perhaps use as my base system and crib stuff from rq.

Perhaps openquest as a base instead, for instance.

>>49496013
If running rq, basically, either you give everyone magic, or nobody.

>>49495838
>It doesn't do anything that any other system doesn't already do better
Which systems do it better?
I've been recommended systems with really simplistic combat systems that don't actually allow for much mechanical variety, and it seems that what one person considers a flaw is what another actually prefers. When you say "better" what do you mean?

>>49492010
A lot of it stems from "if it doesn't happen in my games it isn't an issue" syndrome. If you only play the APs and stuff balanced to about that level, and the casters don't play in a way that makes them overpowered (idk, maybe they play blasters and healbots), martials are completely feasible.

Also, I was on their forums long enough to recognize that specific guy as being one of the worst offenders for Paizo brownnosing. Most of the people there are somewhat less blind to PF's faults (somewhat).

>>49495838
The combat runs quick and fun for my group. We enjoy it, and the various special effects are very fun and add a degree of depth that Pathfinder simply didn't have.

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

238KB, 1349x386px

>>49492755

>>49495838
This is pretty much opposite my experience, and you won't be able to defend it - especially in a Pathfinder thread since Pathfinder is the prime example of what you just said.

>>49496013
>>49496260
Oh, so you had a bad GM once and made a lot of bad assumptions. Good going.

>>49497300
That's funny, because it sounds like you're one of those guys who mistakes the illusion of choice for actual decisions, which is a symptom of RQ6 as well as other mechanically shallow games.

It's a good game if you're twelve, but even just a rudimentary understanding of the system leaves it a rather hollow shell.

>>49498188
Can you give any examples? I have played Runequest before and I thought that it was fine.

>>49498188
You are saying a lot of things with no actual explanation, examples, or even what a better system would be.

Following the comments you are literally trying to say *Pathfinder* is an example of meaningful mechanical choices while RQ6 has bloated and slow combat with little variation.

>>49498311
Not that anon, but all you're doing is insulting him and calling his claims incorrect. Neither of you is providing any evidence or examples of anything.

As someone always looking for interesting new systems to try, I'd like to know what are some upsides and downsides that it has? What does it do well? What sorts of games does it seem designed around?

>>49492010
>Killing an absents player's PC
Ultimate dickery

>>49492010
>That avatar pic
Like a fucking glove

>>49492854
Also 5e is a completely different genre

>>49498688
Mythras (formally RuneQuest 6) is a generic system based on the RuneQuest games published by Mongoose and Legend (also produced by Mongoose I think). It's d100 roll under, using the BRP framework like Call of Cthulhu or Dark Heresy - in fact, Basic Roleplay is based on RuneQuest 2nd edition from the late 70s. RuneQuest was a setting specific system designed basically around hating OD&D.

And that's where the differences begin - it uses the D&D stats along with an additional Size stat. From these stats, a series of attributes are derived (such as HP, bonus experience, luck rolls, initiative, healing rate, bonus damage, etc.) these attributes are permanent. From there you build the character's background and skills.

You choose a generic society the character comes from (barbarous, civilized, nomadic, or primitive) and then you add professional skills and increase skills based on culture. You then choose a career and add professional skills and increase skills. Then you can choose 1 more skill and assign more points to skills. You also have a series of tables to flesh out your family, background events, etc that is optional. There's also a system of passions that can be improved like skills that are a numeric value for how loyal you are to an order or how deeply you love someone. They can augment skills and things.

Boom. Your character is done and you are a fully fleshed out character with a general realm of proficiency and the option to improve on that. And, to me, that's an important strength is quickly generating a person to use as a character.

File: 1474257277320.jpg (674KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 600x600px

>>49499099
You say that like it's a bad thing

>>49499040 (cont)
As for mechanics the game is d100 roll under, 95-100 is a failure even with skills over 100%, 98-100 is a fumble (which are roughly defined to prevent fumble memes with that GM), and 1/10 the skill value is a crit. There is a series of steps up and down for difficulty that are multipliers to give the game much less linear math since there are a lot of time you are making easy or hard rolls. There are also rules for group, opposed, and differential contests that use the value differently (opposed is d100 vs d100 for example, while differential is measured in degrees of success). Since there is really just a series of skills, it's easy to add or remove skills to match the setting.

The gameplay has a wide variety of considerations focusing on heroic or sword and sorcery fantasy stories with a foot in reality despite nothing about the game being less than pulpy fun. HP is assigned to very generic locations (arm, leg, chest, head, etc), and is kept around 5 for a character. Armor is damage reduction and by location with flexible fluff and customization options, weapons deal set damage plus the bonus damage attributes. There are optional features and cults (organizations a character joins) that can give other benefits as well. It's much more like what a Conan book is, but I played a very high magic setting and it was easy to integrate impossible levels of magic without making the party feel useless or making that level unattainable. You can also cut magic out entirely easily, or only let people recover magic points by sacrificing animals in an altar. It's in general a very flexible and common sense based game to GM.

There is a lot of text dedicated to combat. Combat is a series of combat styles that give a special benefit with certain weapons, so an expert swordsman or archer might know 2-3 styles with similar weapons that give different benefits. All combat styles have log and short range options..

Why are 5E players so defensive? Whenever I see a criticism about it, it's always responded to with "you're not being creative enough" or "you're not meant to play it that way.", or as seen in this thread "3.5 and pathfinder are shit anyways!"

Do they just feel scared to admit that they're not smart enough to play more advanced games, which is why they're playing such simplified dribble?

>>49499272
Would you mind telling me what's wrong with 5e? I'm new (to pen and paper RP, not /tg/) and the campaign i'm in is 5e. I'm noticing some issues with there just being not enough interactivity but i'm not sure if thats not just my GM.

>>49499249
Colette

>>49499272

It's because their system is devoid of character options, and they are realizing that being only +6 to hit at level 20 is not as cool after all.

That said I think 5e is pretty good. It just needs more Pathfinder. The good parts.

>>49499362
I'm also new to pen and paper RP, and I thought it was general opinion that Pathfinder is good stuff. Is it just people who play martial classes made they're never going to be as good as wizards?

Help some newcomers out, /tg/.

>>49499469
Pathinder has a serious problem of lying to your fucking face:
1. Unbalance between martials and casters even though they advertise them as "equally powerful" when in reality magic>all.
2. Some classes are fucking shit, like they aren't even able to do what they're supposed to do, CRB monk for example, kineticist is another example.
3. CRs, or monster's level, are also a fucking mess.
4. I swear to god it's untested as fuck.

I kinda like it though, but it really need a group and a GM who know what the fuck they're doing.

>>49499040
>>49499172
This sounds awful.

>>49499540
Ah, and I forgot, CM fucking D (combat maneuver defense) this is the defense that escalate the fastest in monsters to the point trying to do maneuvers becomes stupid, so anything beyond full attack on martials becomes pointless.

>Oh, this monster had 73 CMD? well, let me minmax the shit out of my char...nice, not even with nat20.

>>49499040
>>49499172
Interesting, thanks for the explanation.

It sounds like it's worth looking at the book itself.

>>49499540
Okay, that makes sense, thank you anon.

Another question. As evidence by this thread, a lot of 5E players seem to REALLY dislike 3.5 and PF. I've hear that 5E is more like the original editions of D&D, so is some of the dislike coming from older players, kind of like 3.5 players hated 4E?

File: 3.PF Brain Damage 2.jpg (51KB, 1037x213px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1037x213px

>>49499930
A lot of it's coming from people that played 3.PF, and the hate stems from that.

>>49499930
Imo 5e is a watered down 3.5, it's more balanced, thought still casters are ahead, it's simpler and faster, but lacks the amount of options and character building you could pull of in 3.PF. Its powerlevels also were tuned down a lot, you won't see barbarians lifting houses or monks moving at the speed of sound.

>>49498783

Not enough people admit this.

>>49499930
Edition wars is a tradition for tabletop players. Since D&D is usually the same basic content (adventurers delving into dungeons to fight old fantasy pulp monsters) but with different rules, people feel like the rules they enjoy best must be objectively superior instead of really a different game. 3.5 had a whole lot of problems that 5th Edition fixed, but without going so far as to become totally unrecognizable like 4e did, so a lot of older players like it.

Seriously though, they're all mostly fine games. Even 4th. Edition wars are stupid as all hell when each of the games play fairly well at their own type of different experience.

>>49499930
5e is streamlined and doesn't burden itself with unnecessary rules.

3.x/PF has a fuckton of "mechanically supported character options" that are actually restrictions. It's a game that aggressively encourages min/maxing and pure number crunching and penalizes you for not having a license for a thing that could be ruled on the spot as needed instead.

>>49499930
>>49493763
>>49493594

I started playing with 3.5 and migrated to PF. Never again.

I play B/X retroclones for my D&D needs now.

>>49499980
>but lacks the amount of options and character building you could pull of in 3.PF
I don't know why people keep saying this like it's a bad thing. 99% of the "options" in 3.PF are worthless garbage trap options. If anything 3.PF and 5e have just as many VIABLE, actually useful, options as one another.

>>49492010
I remember when I used to hang on a forum for RPGs in general where no one really played D&D and it was a good time. Everyone was talking about the systems they played, funny stories about weird rules that had come up, and so on. And then one day some D&D fag found his way on there and he felt the need to shit up every thread with how 'D&D is superior' and that everybody knows so because it's the system that sells the most despite never having any sales figures to back it up with and no one agreeing with him.

I've been traumatized ever since.

>>49499469
If you want to play DnD, play 4e, it's balanced and good. 5e is just 3.5e with some houserules, and barely has any content out (there's a new Monster Manual coming out soon I guess)

If you want to play a tabletop RPG in general, there's a lot of options. Star Wars RPG by FFG is pretty solid for Star Wars, for example, and there's probably a decent book for anything (from wrestling to superheroes to Cthuhlu)

>>49502856
Eh, no.
Smaller curve in proficiency bonus means that the target numbers stay reasonable and "level-inappropriate" can be run out-of-the-box, spellcasting is considerably more streamlined, no fucking feat tax and related trap options, skill system isn't a trainwreck, it doesn't assume that everyone just has to have x gold worth of magic items at certain levels...

Basically it has none of the awful shit 3.x is full of.

>>49500725
>5e is streamlined and doesn't burden itself with unnecessary rules.
And by the same token it has nothing even a fraction as interesting as classes like the Beguiler, Totemist, Psychic Warrior, Swordsage, or Magus.

>>49502943
>no fucking feat tax
>implying
There are several feats that are massively better than taking the +2 or another feat to the point where if they fit into your combat style you are gimping yourself for not having them.

>>49502951
Feats are optional. As in "the DM decides if they are used at all"

>>49502994
That means literally nothing and you know it.

>>49502999
"gimping yourself" is playing a monk in 3.5, not skipping PAM/GWM/Sentinel in 5e

>>49502943
>none of the awful shit 3.x
Yeah 5e isn't JUST 3.5e, I was exaggerating a bit because of how similar they are, but it still has hilarious imbalance, some feats are plain useless while others are much better, a couple of classes straight out the book can fuck the game up (Necromancer, Diviner, Moon Druid at level 2), some classes do nothing except "Ok I attack", and non-magical weapon immunities are still around.

>>49502945
And basic classes like the fighter and monk fucking WORK, rather then not being worth toilet paper.

>>49502945
Numbers on a sheet are not interesting, characters are.

Fighter/magic-user/thief/cleric/race-as-class is plenty enough, since I'm not a schmuck spoiled by Pathfindery rules bloat who needs validation from gimmicky mechanics.

>>49503014
They're both awful choices. Losing out on the massive amount of DPR feats like Polearm Master and GWM give you is stupid as fuck when damage is how you end fights.

>>49503026
It's a good thing both 3.5 and Pathfinder have replacement classes for them which are yet again more interesting than their 5E equivalent or that might be a problem.

>>49500837
Thething about PF is that there's SO MANY options that by disallowing the stronger ones, you can set "viable" pretty much wherever you want

This doesn't make the game good by any means, but it does mean that the sheer quantity of options available is a definitive strength of the system

>>49503018
>some feats are plain useless while others are much better

To be fair, 4e also has this problem, made even worse by it's prominent feat taxes

>>49503195
>it does mean that the sheer quantity of options available is a definitive strength of the system
People actually believe this.

>>49503209
Well if you don't find the character building fun I guess it's a weakness, but honestly, character building is the single most fun thing in 3.PF, so I don't know why anyone would play at all if they don't enjoy it

>>49503220
EXACTLY OUR POINT

>>49503220
Lack of local alternatives that fit into your schedule or your group really wants to play 3.PF in particular.

>>49503232
THEN WHY ARE WE ARGUING?

>>49503232
If you don't enjoy character building then play an action video game. They're made so you don't have to think, hope this helps :)

>>49503206
Definitely, although if you hand out the feat taxes you are more or less done.

>>49503018
>some feats are plain useless while others are much better
Very few are useless, most confer a major benefit or otherwise increase an ability score by 1.
>a couple of classes straight out the book can fuck the game up (Necromancer, Diviner, Moon Druid at level 2)
Pretty much just necromancer because spam attacks result in madness. Moon Druid isn't that much stronger than anyone using dual wield.
>some classes do nothing except "Ok I attack"
And Champion Fighter, who embodies that best, is the absolute king of attacking.
>and non-magical weapon immunities are still around
This just means "you're expected to have a magical weapon by level 8". It doesn't even need to be a +1 weapon. A magic +0 weapon is fine.

File: Diablo_II_Coverart.png (166KB, 256x362px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 256x362px

>>49503241
There's a reason 3E was called Diablo edition.

>>49503251
That's why I said action video games and not roleplaying games, anon. Bait doesn't work if you don't read it right, silly.

>>49503257
>Diablo
>roleplaying

>>49503249
>Moon Druid isn't that much stronger than anyone using dual wield.

What? Dual wield is strong?

>And Champion Fighter, who embodies that best, is the absolute king of attacking.

Only by like 5%.

>>49503266
I mean it's more roleplaying than Halo or something. You play your combat role, I guess? Okay listen I might not have thought this shitpost though, I'll admit.

>>49503273
>What? Dual wield is strong?
Before level 5, it's doubling your attacks per turn, so...
>Only by like 5%.
Regardless, they are simple and effective, and for the players who don't want to manage a list of spells or decide what they are willing to spend turn by turn. Some people want to sword at the dragon. There is room in the game design for these players.

>>49503241
Or I can play an RPG I actually fucking enjoy. Like Mutants and Masterminds 3e, which lacks a book that actively lies to me, or Godbound,

>>49492010
Why do we have to have this thread every day?

IS there a game that actually lets you have a decent amount of character customization without having a bunch of options that gimp you?

>inb4 some other edition of D&D

>>49503322
Yeah, 4e. You can still intentionally gimp your character, and there are a few pitfalls, but overall it works.

>>49503241
Or, you know, play a roleplaying game, not excel-for-biggest-numbers.

>>49503305
Because people are actively threatened by people liking things they do not. Especially if it's something you spend a lot of time or money on. It makes you fear that you've made a incredibly poor decision, that you chose the wrong thing and invested resources into the wrong thing and that you are wrong. It is in no way about proving that the other group is wrong, it is about proving that you made the right decision and that you were not an idiot who chose the wrong thing.

For example, people who strongly defend 3.p while hating 5E could be trying to prove to themselves that they're not playing an unbalanced mess of numbers where they can fuck up their entire character due to a poor decision. On the flipside, people who hate 3.p while defending 5E could be trying to prove to themselves that they're not playing an incredibly simplified game that's lacking in content where, besides a single decision at a low level, your character is mostly planned for you.

>>49500837
3.5PF still has more non trap options options than 5e. Having a lot of options is imo a good thing, if they're balanced of course

>>49500019
I know, but it's true, 3.PF is a superhero game in medieval setting, 5e is GoT compared to that.

>b-but you still beat dragons and balors and shit
Yeah, because their numbers were also tuned down, but if you look at what you character could do and not what can beat you'll realize your barb doesn't lift 50 tons anymore, your monk doesn't move faster than a F-18, your fighter doesn't jump hundreds of meters, etc, in fact, they're below olympic level medalist

>>49503249
And champion is the most boring shut ever created, in fact, after 2 years playing almost all martials are, battlemaster is probably least boring as long as you have expertise dice

>>49503693
And BM is still nothing but a shitty Warblade or 4E Fighter.

>>49503418
Might be technically true, but the qualifier should be the trap:non-trap ratio.

If you put out a truckloads of supplements monthly, that immense pile of filler trash is bound to have a decent number of lucky strikes in it, yeah. But being able to find a few gameable things by digging through mountains of shit hardly makes a well-designed game.

>>49503711
I wish 5e had ToB classes or at least class specializations that turned paladin, fighter and monk into crusader, warblade and swordsage

I really like the maneuver and maneuver recovery mechanics the designers came up with for ToB, and it's really disappointing that they haven't been used since

>>49492010
Haven't played PF but whats wrong with what he said?

>>49503711
Actually, let me correct myself, the least non boring *martials* are bladesinger, valor bard, EK, AK and melee sorcelock

>>49503742
"Maneuver martials are the best in (module that spams shit mooks at the party)! The fact that CMD(maneuver defense) scales much faster than CMB(maneuver offense) doesn't mean anything!"

>>49503742
>We have no interests in balancing classes, we are using 3.5 as template even when we know it's unbalanced as fuck and has caster supremacy, no, we're not going to help martials because we like the game this way even when we lie to our costumers about it
Yeah, nothing wrong with that, right?

>>49503693
I think the least boring martials in 5e are open palm monks

Too bad monks are subpar

>>49503418
The core issue of this options=good delusion is: the player shouldn't have to choose between things that should be hard-written to the standard rules.

For example: you wouldn't have gimmicky special move martial builds that fall to being a one-third pony, if the rules assumed that everyone essentially has improved-whateverthefuck by default.

But no, 3e thinks it makes sense to take a feat so you can drop down a chandelier and ride the rope up.

>>49503746
That wasn't what the OPs pic was saying at all.

>>49503742
CMD, maneuver defense, scales so fucking fast that it becomes nigh impossible to do maneuvers at mid-high levels (the level the due is talking about) so he's lying.

So yeah, I specialized my monk in trip, for example, something normal back in 3.5, I spent almost all my feats into doing that, and suddenly, because PF lies to you everytime, your whole character sucs at his thing once you reach 8th-10th level, I now have 7 useless feats unless the GM starts to throw weak shit at me that I already could beat by punching it meaning my 7 feats are still luseless :^)

>>49503769
If you can't read, maybe.

>>49503761
Monks need a hand in damage, they are good at it at low levels because they make so many attacks, but once every martial reaches 5th level monks start falling behind to the point they're the worst damage dealers at mid-high levels. Also maybe a d10 HD wouldn't be a bad thing, also reducing their mad a little wouldn't be a bad thing.

>>49503766
You're right and wrong

On one hand, "false options" where feats added actually just stop PCs from doing something they should be able to do unless they have the feat are both common and utterly infuriating.

On the other, when you finish a highly complex and specialized build that lets you hurl 18 katanas in one turn for massive damage or throw the known universe at your opponent, it feels fucking amazing

>>49503790
Sorry I quoted the wrong person I meant >>49503752

>>49503793
How would you reduce their MAD?

Nobody in this thread can actually argue with them straight on so you cretins instead circle jerk where you think they won't read it.

>>49503813
There's a difference between not being able to argue with them straight on and being banned and having your posts deleted by shitty Paizo mods for arguing with them.

>>49503813
Of course we can't, they ban us the moment we have different opinions to them

>>49503643
the barbarian is intended to be superhuman, but you need to account for the fact that lifting X tons or whatever is a strength check rather than part of your base lifting ability. they can still survive an inhuman amount of punishment. and PCs can still teleport across planes of existence, bring the dead back to life, turn into a dragon, make yourself immortal, and so on.

a lot of the things you mention about pathfinder were not specifically intended as part of the "genre" of the game but just a result of min-maxing. so the numbers in 5e have been tightened up and the system is better designed, but the genre hasn't changed. both are intended to be heroic fantasy at their core.

>>49503643
I guess this is why so many people prefer 5e to PF.

>>49503837
The lifting tons / running at the speed of sound / etc. is just poor(-ly thought out) design choices spiraling out of control.

True that the different editions are different genres - 3.x is (accidental) high fantasy superheroes, B/X is fantasy-fucking-Vietnam, 5e is something in between, 4e is basically a skirmish wargame/Descent with a vestige of roleplaying duct-taped to the side, and so on.

>>49503875
That has nothing to do actually, in fact, if you ask people the majority are going to tell you that yeah, they want to be Cuchulain tier rather than Jaime Lanister tier, unless they're normal fags, unless you're implying 5e is full of normal fags, in which case, I don't really know.

>>49503894
Nah, I don't think I believe that. I don't think anyone wants to play capeshit in fantasyland. They'd play capeshit systems then.

People want to go back to d20 roots.

>>49503901
>So what the casters do?
>The bend reality at will
>Well, and what martials do?
>They swing sticks pretty good
>Do they jump hight and far? are they supernatural strong? do they move in a blink of an eye?
>No, not only they're constrained by the laws of physics they're actually worse than any olympic medalist
>This is the system for me, epic as shit

>>49503890
>4e is basically a skirmish wargame/Descent with a vestige of roleplaying duct-taped to the side

It literally has better and more involved non-combat system than 5e.

>>49503926
That's why people don't play PF, anon.

Seems like there's a PFanboy trying to white knight his favourite devs.

>>49503971
Implying that needlessly involved diplomacy mechanics are superior to roleplaying it out.

>>49504037
>needlessly involved diplomacy mechanics

You are thinking about... actually, I'm not sure. 3rd edition diplo mechanics are more involved, but otherwise all of them seem to be "roll skill to convince people to do X".

>>49504055
Yeah, might be off the mark, as I don't fill my shelf/hard drive with books I don't like.

Anyway, usually a roll-under-attribute/proficiency bonus-level scaling and (dis-)advantages are sufficient to check if an idea flies when storytime doesn't cut it.

>>49503367
There's very few people who fit those categories. There's no real strife between 3.PF and 5e.

Most of the hate just comes from people who hate popular systems, because they think that if more people shared their hatred, they would play the unpopular games they do.

>>49492010
That's why I avoid the paizo forums.
I only play it with my friends if we're take a break from other systems.

After a while, there's only so many times you can take a purple worm up the ass.

>>49504125
>Anyway, usually a roll-under-attribute/proficiency bonus-level scaling and (dis-)advantages are sufficient to check if an idea flies when storytime doesn't cut it.

Which is what all the editions do, as far as I can tell.

Except 3rd, you don't have a scaling bonus there, you need to mess around with skill points.

>>49504250
Yeah, 3e has the ridiculous dozen sources for stacking bonuses, additional bonus from having high enough other skill and enough skill points to trivialize the die rolled even without them -deal going on, which is atrocious.

I vaguely remember 4e trying to stick in a task-chain type of minigame for social stuff instead of one-roll thing for just getting on with it / for uncreative players, but might be wrong on that one.

>>49503241

Yes, the only reason people play rpgs is so that they can create a big stack of numbers bigger than the nearest hostile stack of numbers. Yes. Definitely. Reading best builds online and emulating them in game is also a mark of a true genius not bound by other inferior forms of fun.

>>49504332
If the DM deems a non-combat encounter important enough that he doesn't want it to end with a single roll, and wants to involve the entire party if possible, he can decide to run it as a skill challenge:

http://www.runagame.net/2013/08/4e-skill-challenge-example.html

If you are playing classic dungeon delving, or whatever is happening isn't important enough, you can just do skills as you'd in any other edition.

>>49504332
>to trivialize the die rolled
That's not a bad thing though, I'm kinda tired that the outcome of my actions remains exclusively on what I roll
>Hey, I made this guy to be more than competent in this fiend, but thanks to rolls it looks like a bumbling retard
Meanwhile casters, independently the edition, cast a spell that doesn't need roll

>>49504346
Not him, but this is not about big numbers, I don't mind having a +6 to hit at 20th level (as long as this is enough to deal with the threats I'm going to face), my problem is the lack of options, I hated mindless fullattack then and I hate it now, but now is the only thing some classes have, literally nothing else.

>>49503206
That one's solved really quickly by just giving them the 2 feat taxes as bonus feats, since they really should have been part of basic progression in the first place.

This is why I still play 4e over other editions. It has some problems, but they've either been fixed by now, or the fixes are braindead simple.

>>49504411
5e recommends not rolling when isn't necessary, and 3.PF had take 10 or 20 (though this was outside of combat), problem with these two rules is that I dunno why literally every GM I encountered ignores them and forces you to roll just to laugh when, of course, you roll below average.

>>49492010
The thing is, regardless of its faults, you can still have fun with Pathfinder. It can even be a really balanced game if you have the right people at the table.

So when you bring up faults in Pathfinder, these people think "well I've never encountered them at my table, therefore the game is flawless."

At the same time, yeah, they do have a point. If they have fun playing their game, they're doing something right (even if it's with something as hopeless as Pathfinder).

>>49492010
I don't play 3.PF at all, but the only part of that post that infuriated me was:
>A character died when their player wasn't there.

Fuck you, that shouldn't happen.

>>49503643
>in fact, they're below Olympic level medalist

This was even sillier in the playtest, where the numbers were so low, and the DCs set so high, that even literally gods were incapable of surpassing Olympic level feats, and it was literally impossible for Asmodeus to escape from a completely mundane jail cell, especially after he got bluffed by the level 1 Paladin into putting handcuffs on to turn off all his magic.

>>49504482
Sometimes is pretty unbeliable though, example being CMD, saying you never had a problem with CMD is like saying you have never suffered mana flood or mana screw.

Another example is druid not outclassing crb monks, I refuse to believe no one never suffered this at least once in their life.

>>49504411
>independently the edition

Well, except in 4e.

>>49504332
>and enough skill points to trivialize the die rolled
Better that than the alternative of having the majority of your check result be based on the dice, which should be obvious based on how godawful 3E's attribute check system was. A system where a crippled Wizard out-armwrestling an ogre isn't an uncommon occurence is obviously fucking stupid and should be reworked from the ground up.

>>49504411
The problem with the modifiers being bigger than the max value of die is that it makes some tasks literally impossible to do, and when things like AC happen to go by the same scale, completely fucks up the game if one tries to go outside the level-appropriate bracket.

Back when I did play Pathfinder, the usual MO was to bump up encounters so that CR was consistently APL+2 or so to keep things interesting and eliminate resource-draining, waste-of-time goblin fights.
If there are multiple instances that require rewriting to avoid the PC's not being high enough level to actually do anything even within that small deviation, I see it as a problem - being out of your league is more interesting as a hindrance than a stonewall.

>>49504538
>tfw playing low-level
>Wizard doesn't have enough spells to do anything yet and spends most rounds plinking away with crossbow
>Druid doesn't have Wild Shape yet and the GM banned her snek
>Ranger tried to be a switch-hitter with his no feats
>my Brawler is at 3 feats, can gain one more combat feat for a minute at a time four times a day, and does the most damage out of anyone
>when Brawler is supposedly the same power as or even worse than CRB Monk

The joke is that I've never gotten to play as an actual player rather than running NPC's at a level higher than 3.

File: Carlos.jpg (35KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x600px

>>49503793
>monks need a hand in damage

>>49504661
Brawler is better than CRB Monk, dunno who told you is worse, but it isn't.

Also
>Wizard using crossbow
>Not cantrips
Switch hitter has proven to be bad outside core only
And druid getting banned his animal companion
Of course you were the best damage dealer

>>49504551
Technically you could with rituals in certain cases, but they took a while and had a resource cost, so it was generally better to skill-check it if you could.

>>49504661
>>Wizard doesn't have enough spells to do anything yet and spends most rounds plinking away with crossbow

Wizard can spend 1 spell slot and basically end an encounter at level 1.

>>49504661
>>when Brawler is supposedly the same power as or even worse than CRB Monk

Brawlers are on the better side of PF martials desu.

>>49504762
Rituals also require a skill check IIRC.

>>49504804
Some did. Others had a listed skill you needed to use it, but didn't actually need a roll.

>>49504661
>No MAD
>Better BaB
>Better HD
>More feats
>Martial versality
>Medium armor
>Can use weapons like cestus without hindering himself because he uses brawler damage of 4 levels lower with them
>"same or worse than CRB monk"
Only if you can't read

>>49504777
See, if you exaggerate like this, people won't be able to take you seriously.

>>49504859
That's not an exaggeration in any way, shape, or form.

>two "let's bitch about what's popular" threads up

What is wrong with you?
Stop feeding these trolls.

>>49504859
A level 1 encounter can be ended by a single color spray

Granted, the scenario has to be just right (enemies bunched up, all enemies fail the will save that isn't insanely high DC), but it is possible

>>49504950
It being possible does not necessarily make it a valid point. In fact, it requires extreme circumstances for it to be relevant to the discussion.

That's what makes it an exaggeration, because this anon clearly believes that low level D&D is wizards casting Color Spray and Sleep all day while the rest of the party sits around. Otherwise, why would he bother opening his mouth to talk about an insignificant point?

If he wants people to take him seriously, he needs to come up with points that aren't invalidated just by casual exposure to the game and how it's actually played.

>>49504984
>In fact, it requires extreme circumstances for it to be relevant to the discussion.
How the fuck is fighting orcs extreme circumstances?

>>49504990
Sorry, can't take you seriously until you actually play the game.

>>49504984
Two be honest I once played a wizard and he was systematically ending encounters with 1 or 2 spells for the first few levels, precon campaign in dungeons and other narrow spaces so maybe it wasn't prepared for such shenanigans. Eventually retired it because conjuration specialized wizard was stealing the spotlight of everybody

>>49505001
Been there, done that, it's why I know that orcs, what with wielding an 18-20 crit range weapon by default and having high STR, need to be taken out with spells that target their literally negative Will save because otherwise there's a good chance of at least one of them oneshotting a party member.

>>49504984
A doorway in an encounter vs a bunch of orcs will create the scenario I presented

Hell I experienced that example myself when the party ambushed a bunch of thieves in the back of a merchant caravan. One color spray, and the DM kicking himself for shaping the encounter around tight spaces with a sorcerer in the party

Always enjoyed the unbalance factor in pathfinder. Sometimes it is fun playing a class that you know is weaker than others. Somtimes playing a class that is stronger feels fun as well. What is comes down to for me isnt balance it is fun and 3.PF is fun.

>>49499540
I kind of wonder why everyone touts this line.

Pathfinfer never claimed to bebalanced or to fix 3.5.

FANS claimed that.

>>49505072
I personally never found any of these issues in the thread yet but that's probably the "never at my table so it's not real" syndrome or whatever.

I did see game breaking cheese though, like our investigator turning into a large gargoyle and firing 4 guns to deal some 1200+ damage at some 30-40 health troll.

It took him 8 rounds to get to that point by downing potions and extracts but we let him have his moment.

>>49505034
You presented one encounter out of a possible infinite amount.

It would be like me arguing that color spray is absolute shit, and then saying "crypt of undead" and expecting that to end the discussion.

>>49505072
They don't care. They can't understand that concept. Their next response is "you're brain damaged".

the only brain damaged people I see are these people obsessing so much over somethign they hate so much that they can't help but scream "I hate thing, if you don't hate thing, you must be brain damaged!"

It's pretty certain that the brain damage isn't in PF players at all.

>>49505072
>It's fun when you can't bring anything interesting to the table, when everybody outclasses you and when you're as meaningless as a pebble just for chosing something that, while advertised as equaly powerful, different than a caster
Thank god that thought is not the majority

>>49505072
Okay. What about people who end up with the short end of the stick and are so disgusted with the experience that they never touch RPGs again?

>>49505072
Some people like to ram stuff in their butts, it's ok, others not yet they're forced to ram stuff in their butts just because they chose something that the devs thought it should get things rammed in their buts without explaining this to the costumers.

>>49505230
What about the hypothetical and at best anecdotal non-people that I pull out of my hat?

>>49505072
You can make a weak character in any game that gives you freedom of character building, no matter how balanced.

You can make a weak character in 4e by ignoring your main stat, or going for some fringe build like trying to use "help" in every turn of combat.

Plus you have to keep in mind the other players. A weak character could be annoying because it's pointless to drag his ass around, and a strong character is annoying because it'll inevitably hog the spotlight.

Unless by "weak/strong" you merely mean a bit less/more good, at which point praising 3.PF's ability to make broken characters kinda pointless.

>>49505195
>It's pretty certain that the brain damage isn't in PF players at all.

anybody who identifies themselves a "Pathfinder player" or a "D&D player" or a "GURPS player" is shit shit shit

blind loyalty to a single system is tantamount to brain damage

for SOME REASON this phenomenon seems to be way more prevalent among the PF crowd--how many threads have you seen that started like "Hey, so I want to run a sci-fi political intrigue game...what's the best way to do it in PF?" and ended with the pathfailures shouting down any attempt to suggest another system?

>>49505163
My point is that it's both technically, and practically, possible to have a level 1 encounter ended by a single spell

Remember, this all started with >>49504859 and >>49504777
For >>49504859 to be proven wrong, all it takes is it to happen, by accident, once, that proves that the scenario can occur, and therefore is not a total exaggeration

>>49505276
Wow, can you put on a trip?

You sound like you've got anger issues and brain damage.

>>49505159
fans and the devs in the forums, one of many examples seen above. ( >>49497141 )

>>49505284
The exaggeration is treating a minor point as if it was significant to the discussion.

It's like me saying Color Spray is shit, because skeletons are common enemies. It's the same level of "Okay, who cares? You're technically right, but it's not really as important as you're trying to make it seem."

>>49505288
>le olde "u mad" meme

>>49505294
I mean, this'd be true if the bitching was actually about the most popular D&D game.

But it isn't. It's about 90% of the time 3.PF.

>>49505324
No, seriously. 100%, start using a trip so people have fair warning that you've got the opposite of brand loyalty, brand rage. Or brand retardation.

Whatever you want to call your insanity you try to justify to yourself.

>>49505319
Isn't there a specialization of some kind in PF that lets wizards use illusion magic on undead?

I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it exists, might have been gnome exclusive

>>49505367
Illusions work on undead unless they're mind-affecting, which not all of them are. It's also why golems are laughably easy to cheese with Silent Image.

>>49505325
>I don't like it so it can't really be that popular.
Uh huh.

>>49505325
The 2nd most popular game.

And, 5e is TOO popular right now. Trolls can't bitch about it without hitting hard opposition. That, and they don't know 5e well enough, and they can't google up old complaints about it either.

3.5 is really just in a perfect spot to be a shitposting target. Popular, but with well known flaws, and plenty of people upset and even jealous of it's continued popularity despite its advanced years.

>>49505367
Okay, who cares? You're technically right, but it's not really as important as you're trying to make it seem.

>>49505394
This is absolutely true. Pathfinder is very, very easy to troll and has a bigger audience to troll.

>>49505394
Also 5e fans haven't been jerks to everyone else

...Yet

>>49505408
Downplay your game's flaws and try to pretend that they don't matter more, SKR.

>>49505438
Exaggerate and do nothing but focus on a game's flaws and people will oust you as trolls who enjoy shitposting more than they do having civil discussion.

File: 1379093588974.jpg (47KB, 435x571px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 435x571px

>>49505438
How good even are Color Spray and Sleep in 5e?

From what I've read they're based on HP now instead of HD, and if the HP bloat complaint (as claimed in this thread) is true wouldn't that make them much less effective?

>>49505387
I said "most". It is not the "most" popular.

I know it must be hard to swallow.

>>49505487
Sleep is good at low levels (no save makes it reliable), color spray IIRC isn't really good in comparison. They both scale terribly. Basically everything based on HP scales terribly aside from fireball.

>>49505487
Not very.

>>49505499
>Basically everything based on HP scales terribly aside from fireball
I dunno, damage cantrips really scale pretty nice, being able to reliabily deal as much damage as a monk might be not that good though.

>4d10+5= 27
>3d10+15= 31.5

>>49505537
You're talking to the "HP Bloat" guy, who thinks that people not constantly dying from single hits at high levels is a problem.

>>49505349
the more you whine about tripcodes, the more it seems like somebody hit a major nerve

I'm guessing you're the kind of pathfag that tries to run every single game, regardless of genre, in the same shit system?

>>49505408
Was never trying to make it seem important, YOU made it seem important

I was just pointing out that you were wrong on a minor issue, you've admitted that I was right, there's no reason to argue anymore

>>49505537
Right, I meant when you put them in higher slots, which is not something you do with damage cantrips.

>>49505563
When the monsters/fights are as boring as in 5e, even 1 round is too much :^)

>>49503807
The fixes in my group are:
HD is now 1d10
At 11th level they can spend 1 ki to add 1d6 holy for Wis turns to their unarmed damage
They can use Acrobatics instead of Athletism to perform grapple, disarm and shove

>>49505569
I play 5e mostly.

Now, can you put on a trip? It's not because I want to defend "muh system", it's because you are genuinely too angry and unreasonable because a game upsets you too much, and all your posts are basically you being a little bitch because a game is too popular for your tastes.

>>49505563
>who thinks that people not constantly dying from single hits at high levels
No, dying from 1-2 rounds of full contact as has been the case in every other edition ever made, get it fucking right if you're going to shitpost about someone who wasn't even me.

>>49505596
>3.PF isn't that bad, you just hate it cause it's popular!
>So you play it a lot?
>Heavens no, I play 5e

>>49504984
Assuming that a 15ft cone hits 2 or more enemies isn't an extreme circumstance.
Assuming that the level 1-3 enemies don't have ridiculous will save bonuses isn't an extreme circumstance.

Color spray and sleep end fights. And even in the case that they don't, a color spray practically eliminating 1 foe is still them doing more work than <insert low level martial here>

>>49492010
I think the real question here is why are you so fixated on someone else having fun that you have to make a thread about it every day? Do you have OCD? Are you so depressed you can't get over somone else having a life? You may need to speak to a therapist.

>>49505596
how about I start using a trip when come up with anything to say besides "lol u mad bro"

deal?

>>49505659
Not OP but that pic doesn't say "I'm having fun despite this", no, he's saying "I'm see nothing wrong with CMD, I never had problems with it also we killed a ausent player's PC", he's lying though his teeth plus they're dicks as fuck, they fucking killed the PC of a player that couldn't make it? come on.

>>49505573
The point I am making, and was making is that these are tiny insignificant details that are hardly worth discussing, especially when talking about the system as a whole.

It's really easy to find flaws to obsess about in any game, and just as easy to find counterarguments, fixes, and otherwise methods of reducing those arguments to mere nitpicking. Effectively, one side needs to try and pretend either their criticisms or their refutations are "worth more" to the discussion, when ultimately both just end up going deeper and deeper into pointless and needling details while ignoring how most people actually run games.

It's always the people who criticize it that demand that the DM NEEDS to be inflexible, and to only run encounters based on the worst possible set ups, all so that their flimsy points can have any ground whatsoever. But, with most DMs having access to rational minds, those flimsy points fall apart.

It's sort of like arguing that in playing GURPS, running a mail man campaign is suicide because even just a few angry dogs are enough to tear a human apart. Even though any GM would make the fair adjustments to suit their style of play (or the question could be raised as to why anyone would run a mail man campaign), this is apparently taboo in a discussion about the system because it leaves the trolls without anything to say that can't be rapidly deflated.

That's the major issue with these system discussions. They are so far removed from having any connection to people, all for the sake of petty arguments.

>>49505641
>3.5 isn't that bad
>HOW DARE YOU ATTACK MY WORLD VIEW YOU FUCKING PATHRETARD
>I don't play it much anymore, I just know the game and recognize when people are being dumb spergs about it
>FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU WAH WAH FUCK I SHIT MYSELF WAHHHHHH

>>49505670
But, all you are is mad though.

>>49505744
>The point I am making, and was making is that these are tiny insignificant details that are hardly worth discussing, especially when talking about the system as a whole.

Is there any critique that could be brought up against a game that, in your opinion, wouldn't be "hardly worth discussing"?

>>49505744
Why keep arguing then?

>>49492010
you're system a shit

>>49505805
No, and that's why his argument is totally fucking worthless.

See,then if you know there's skeletons,you only prepare one color spray in case of non skelly fight,then use the rest for something against them.

That's part of the problem with wizards. If they run into something one win button doesn't work on,they have about 4 other buttons that will.

>>49505858
It's not like skeletons are all that dangerous if the party beatstick remembered to bring a club or a greatclub.

>>49505744
>It's always the people who criticize it that demand that the DM NEEDS to be inflexible

Okay. If we assume that DM has to make his own rules to fix the all the problems with the game... why are we playing that game? Because the DM having to fix stuff seems like extra work. Why not just play a game that works straight from the box? A game where all the classes are about the same powerlevel (so we don't get into cases where one person is literally retarted while one player destroys cosmos), a game where it's easy for DM to create new encounters and settings regardless of party composition, a game that's actually worth your money?

>>49505487
Not vertu,but by the time they get outdated,you generally get some replacement encounter winner.

>>49505872
Fuck, the classes don't even need to be on the same level as each other as long as they're clearly and obviously labeled.

>>49505872
I'll take your "why are we playing that game" and raise you a "are we actually even still playing that game".

>>49505897
This.

If the tier list was just included in the core rules, or in the DMG, shit would make a lot more sense.

>>49505805
For the majority of the games discussed on this board? No, not really, because most of the games here have some degree of merit that hardly validates a blanket condemnation just for a few grievances that are based mostly on personal preference.

For games like F.A.T.A.L. and bad homebrew and heartbreakers? Sure, those games can be called terrible, but here even games that I dislike (I'm not a huge fan of the FATE system, for example) I am willing to acknowledge that just because I don't like something (like how loose the rules feel) that doesn't mean that I need to shitpost about them at every available opportunity. Some people prefer a more relaxed, narrative system, and that's their preference.

I'm not saying it's wrong to bring up criticisms about a game, but the level of shitposting about 3.PF has gotten ridiculous, because there are people genuinely convinced that it is somehow intrinsically wrong for other people to enjoy themselves playing a game that they don't enjoy.

It's silly board politics, and it's gotten quite out of hand, with TWO dedicated shitposting threads right now just because they can't contain how much they hate a game, with idiots who are stupid enough to argue with them just because it's so easy to poke holes in their arguments.

File: 1473787060384.jpg (223KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 900x675px

>>49492228
>Those of us that stuck with Pathfinder don't want balance. That word is unimportant to us.

Fuck, I am legitimately triggered.

>>49505872
"Fix" 3% of a game if you enjoy 97% of it.

>>49505870
The skeletons themselves are irrelevant. What matters is that wizards have a ridiculous amount of fight ending abilities. If they bump into one thing, be it skeletons, dwarves, killer trees, that is immune to one of their fight enders, they just use a different one.

Whereas if a Fighter ruins into something they can't just beat to death with their current equipment, they have to either run away (unlikely since 90% of monsters are faster than your average PC) or just Lau down, die, then reroll into something else.

>>49505967
What first level spells do they have are "fight ending" against skeletons?

Oh wait, we're getting deep into the "trivial shit" part of the discussion again.

>>49505933
I can agree with that, but I would still really like an example of a critique of a major flaw you have in mind for something (other than FATAL).

>>49506008
Let's see
>Exalted paranoia combat
>OWoD's dice mechanics meaning that on difficult checks(TN>11), higher skill means a higher chance of failure because you become more likely to roll a 1 and cancel out your success than you are the number in question

>>49506007
Admittedly not as much. Grease is always handy against things that walk.

Add I said though,the exact creatures is irrelevant.

>>49506072
Sorry, but if we're talking about things like thinking wizards always know what spells to prepare and that everyone plays at levels 10+, we get to poke holes in your ideas because it's only too easy to.

I used to complain in some threads like this, even in Paizoblog, years ago due bad experiences that in the end were the system's fault, I couldn't blame the GMs for doing what the system and the precon campaigns told them to do. But I realized complaining is futile, they aren't going to fix anything, they want this kind of game and they also aren't going to make trap options clear so no one is going to fall for them anymore, no, they want people to develop a system mastery from trials and errors and "netdecking" builds. That's something that doesn't stick with me so I moved on, it's sad though that some people still have a bad time due Paizo lying about their product.

>>49506096
>I used to complain in some threads like this

Why the past tense, you retarded troll?

>>49505897
Oh god this

3.5 is a good, fun game, IF you go into it pre-equipped with the knowledge required, because none of the official material will tell you jack shit about what you really need to know

This is the worst thing about 3.PF, the utter lack of transparency, as if the game developers are trying to trick you into making horribly unbalanced parties

>>49499040
>>49499172
I'm gonna have a look for this now; I've been looking for a fantasy system and been getting really annoyed that a bunch of systems do One Major Thing Wrong according to about half my players.

>3.PF - just boring after doing a 3 year campaign (admittedly the RP being way better than the combat), though the SRD is damn useful
>5e - Nothing particularly /wrong/, but occasionally veers into sleepytimes during combat
>AGE - muh divine spellcasters
>GURPS - not even once
>RIFTS - like Gurps, but more.
>Cypher - Great ideas, shite execution
>Cortex - as yet untested, but if we're playing Cortex why not just play Firefly The RPG
>Fate - I personally dislike it; something about it makes my head hurt every time. It's my That One System, where a bunch of other peoples' is Gurps.
>Savage Worlds: broken by that one guy taking Great Luck and a bunch of d4 skills.

>>49506051
>>OWoD's dice mechanics meaning that on difficult checks(TN>11), higher skill means a higher chance of failure because you become more likely to roll a 1 and cancel out your success than you are the number in question

I've played some WoD but I've never even got close to having to roll a TN of 11. It seems like an edge case, not a major flaw... Or at least way less minor than CMDs and saves out-scaling martial abilities in 3.PF.

>>49506092
At level 10, the only that to a Wizard is a higher level Wizard,so it's fairly moot.

>>49506111
>as if
...they actually where, there's essays talking about this by repentant devs. They wanted to make something similar to what happens to mtg, but, unlike mtg, D&D is not a competitive game created for the sole purpose of winning tournaments.

>>49506114
Have you tried Anima?

What about 13th Age?

There is no end to the number of fantasy systems out there, if you haven't found what you're looking for, keep digging

>>49506115
It's more important in long running games.

>>49506144
I know 3.5 is like that, but Pathfinder doesn't have that excuse

>>49506155
So's the scaling.

>>49506008
In Dungeons the Dragoning, Plasma overheat is (or at least was, haven't touched that shit in ages) retroactive.

>Fire
>Roll Attack
>If Hit:
>Target rolls dodge
>If dodge failure:
>Roll Weapon Damage, adding more dice as per things such as weapon mastery
>Were *ANY* of the dice a 9? If yes:
>WEAPON OVERHEAT
>WEAPON HAD ACTUALLY FAILED TO FIRE
>ABILITIES/RESOURCES SPENT ON DODGE OR ON TANKING THE INCOMING DAMAGE DID NOT OCCUR
>DODGE DID NOT OCCUR, DEFENSE VS SUBSEQUENT ATTACKS THEREFORE REVERTS TO BEFORE THIS ATTACK
>ABILITIES AND RESOURCES SPENT ON THE ATTACK ROLL WERE STILL EXPENDED
>NOW ROLL DAMAGE AGAINST YOURSELF

>>49506174
Ahaha, okay that's pretty hilarious.

But if a single stupid rules element counts as a major flaw, that throws like 90% of the games under the bus.

>>49506163
see >>49497141

Thank god for Unchained Monk and Rogue...not so much for Unchained Barbarian which is technically, on paper and taking only into account the class features, better but now feats don't work with it so it's actually worse. Now I need to find a GM that allows those.

>>49506233
Informative

This shows that they aren't actively malicious like the 3.5 devs were, they're just totally incompetent.

I'm honestly not sure which is worse

>>49502945
>Beguiler
Achieved with bard, illusionist wizard, or enchanter wizard

>Totemist
Never saw one in play but it seemed focused on natural attacks and endurance. Several 5e multiclass combinations can fit that theme.

>Swordsage
3 monk archetypes grab stuff from the Swordsage, and monk/rogue multiclassing is a thing

>Psychic Warrior
Order of the Immortal Mystic

>Magus
Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Valor Bard

When you stop obsessing over specific mechanics and go with themes, the ideas fit into 5e.

I realized after years of DMing 3.5 most of the extra classes were just different ways to play the same stuff. The different mechanics exist for strict-interpretationists to feel like they are doing something different while achieving the same result with a different flavor. Explaining why this is actually restrictive feels like trying to explain blue to a blind person. Because so many explicit rules exist, strict-interpretationists lose sight of roleplaying their combats and making the rules fit their mind's eye instead of making their mind's eye fit the rules.

>>49506351
3.5 devs were malicious AND incompetent. Nobody competent would playtest with an INT 10 Wizard or a 12 STR Druid that ignored their animal companion and spells and did nothing but hit enemies with a scimitar.

>>49506387
>When you stop obsessing over specific mechanics and go with themes, the ideas fit into 5e.
Which is fine and dandy except for the part where the mechanics inform the theme and thus no, 5E can't do any of those. Why should I give a single shit that 5E has gishes when every single fucking one of them is woefully incompetent at it compared to the Magus, even the 9th level caster, or that three separate Monks in 5E can kind of sort of do things a single Swordsage can do?

>>49506351
Eeh,they have their moments. Like when Pathfinder was first in playtesting, the devs hag a habit of banning people who points out mechanical flaws, and they basically just wanted people who said how fun the game felt.

>>49506387
>When you stop obsessing over specific mechanics and go with themes, the ideas fit into 5e.

Specific mechanics are important for the theme.

For example, let's take the Magus example.

5e EK has no mechanical reason to blast. Ever. Your spells are way, way, way better spent on Shield and utility stuff.

He doesn't fuse spells and sword; he is a sword guy, who can use a few utility spells and has ridiculous AC as long as he has slots.

By the same token, Bladesinger has no reason to go in close. He's just a wizard with better mobility and AC, and a single weapon prof.

Valor Bard is actually the closest, but still nowhere near the level of the Magus (plus it's CHA and not INT based, but we can let that slip I think).

File: sf197_fel.jpg (401KB, 620x482px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 620x482px

>>49506387
Totemist is, for a lack of a better example, Synth Summoner. Also 5e, unless you're a druid, is really bad at natural attacks even when you're a creature with natural attacks.

Also immortal Mystic only has like 10 levels and is not official yet, and doesn't have multiclass rules, and other stuff.

As for Magus, Magus and other classes like Arcane Archer have as their signature features deliver touch spells in their attacks, EK, Bladesinger and Valor Bard can not.

So you basically are doing like Crawford
>What should I roll for a geistmancer in my next innistrad focused campaign
>I dunno, roll a wizard
You just name a class that has something similar and forget about everything else

>>49506387
>Literally It should only be Fightingman and Wizardude classes: The post

>>49506473
>As for Magus, Magus and other classes like Arcane Archer have as their signature features deliver touch spells in their attacks, EK, Bladesinger and Valor Bard can not.
You may have missed the EK and Valor features that let them cast bonus action spells while attacking. You can roleplay that as the fusion of sword and sorcery if you stop obsessing over the idea they must be the same action.

>>49506387
I think it's more that the differences between classes have fun mechanics with them. Just making something thematic similar is simply not as fun or effective to play.

>>49506492
>You may have missed the EK and Valor features that let them cast bonus action spells while attacking.
Which is not just shittier than what the Magus does, but has very little overlap.

>>49506492
You have it backwards, EK/Valor can attack as a bonus action after casting a spell, not the other way around.

Everyone can attack after casting a bonus action spell, that doesn't make EK/Valor any better at "fusing sorcery and sword".

>>49506492
I can also roleplay that my full plated 2hd greatsword weilding Paladin is a nude monk who punches, but that doesn't make it right.

Also, Imagine that I want to cast shockign grasp through my arrow and do what you say, fire an arrow...and? nothing, because enemies are far away and shocking grasp doesn't have a range beyond touch.

>>49492010

I know this nigger in real life, he's a turbo-autist and throws a shit fit over the smallest things in person, especially if it's during game time. He builds busted-ass characters (and so does everyone else he plays with). I seriously think that group of players all hate each other.

>>49506387
>Why are you playing a Warblade the core Fighter is just fine.txt
Fuck off.

>>49506387
>3 monk archetypes grab stuff from the swordsage

And none of them have ToB maneuvers or stances

>>49506671
Talking about 5e. In 3.5 I think you'd be retarded to play a fighter and I'm glad 5e fixed that so they won't have to print a "fix" class years down the line.

>>49507472
The same logic applies. Why would you ask someone to play a shittier version of a class if we aren't talking about obviously broken shit like Wizards and CoDzilla? Why pretend that a class that only vaguely overlaps with another is perfect to represent the other one?

>>49505212
Must not know how to build an interesting character, not everybody can.

>>49503736
ToB's dirty secret was that it was based on 4e development material.... where all of what you are talked about liking is.

File: 1424041010522.jpg (142KB, 472x874px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 472x874px

>>49507777

So is it just martial players who are too scared of spooooooky and complex magic that bitch about "imbalance"? Way to play the stereotype of being a dumbass who can only lift a sword, I'll be over here, enjoying being able to control time and space.

>>49509886
Strawmanning so hard I think you might actually be a scarecrow.

The problem isn't that wizards can break continents at end game but that fighters cannot. If a wizard takes months of preparation to bring ruin in one fell swoop a fighter should be able to smash his way through all those armies and cities in the same amount of time. But, because fuckers like you have apparently never heard of Samson, Hercules, Achilles, Gilgamesh, or even fuckers like Beowulf, Lancelot, or Galahad, all fighters can do is "lift a sword" since no pure martial in all of mythology has ever done anything impressive ever while all those wizards of myth are so great.

File: Beowulf.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>49511031
Beowulf was fucking HUGE.

>>49511031
the funny thing is, wizards dont even really exist in myth, the "caster" is largely a modern invention

>>49507978
4e removed the recovery mechanics. I can't say I fault them, since in practice the recov mechanics were either ignored (as you had more than enough powers to carry you through an encounter), or used to spam the same action over and over.

They were a really, really cool idea though, and I do wish some of it would have been carried over in some way.

>>49492010
>Why are they shills?
Unless they're saying this shit at the behest of a designer or for a cut of the profits, they're not shills. Stop ruining a perfectly good word.

>>49506114
>>Cortex - as yet untested, but if we're playing Cortex why not just play Firefly The RPG
That's valid, it's just one of the varieties of Cortex Plus. I want to say it's...Cortex Action?
I've played Marvel Heroic (which uses "Cortex Heroic"), and after skimming a few Firefly characters I can say that they are actually fairly different, just with the same core Total/Effect resolution mechanics.

I don't know if there's a vanilla "Cortex Plus" at all, like there is with Fate. Aside from the system tookit book they have, I guess, but that wouldn't be a great way to learn.

>>49495838
>It doesn't do anything that any other system doesn't already do better

so it's exactly like DnD?

>>49506114
>>GURPS - not even once
Missing out, m8.
D&D-type games in GURPS are pretty great, the Dungeon Fantasy line is real good.

>>49492010
Why are Dungeon World fans so in denial about their system? Why are they such blind fanboys? Why are they shills?

>>49515856
>implying you have to be the fanboy of another shit system to see the flaws in another.

>>49511507
The encounter/daily/at will replaced the recovery ability.

>>49515742

Yep. DF's working out great for my group - the wizards do wizard things with distinct flavour from their Style without stealing all the spotlight, the knight is some kind of ridiculous engine of murder, and the scout is scary good at called shots to the eyes.

But, fuck it - if someone isn't even willing to test the waters, they'll just get defensive if you point out that they have no idea what they're talking about.