So, why do certain part of /tg/ think that Pathfinder is shit?

File: Foolish Pleb.jpg (78KB, 960x931px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 960x931px

Pathfinder is utter shit.

>>50434552
You just need to use Path of War with Expansion and Automatic Bonus Progression.

Suddenly everything is much better.

>>50434588
Why, tho? l'm about to join a group and l wan't to know what am l in for.

well a lot of /tg/ seems to think 3e had major issues with caster supremacy (outside the skill system this is massively exaggerated mostly from people not using enough magic swords)

then pathfinder comes along and makes the caster superiority real along with ruining a bunch of other things in the game and making the systems flaws even worse.

literally the only thing pathfinder has over 3e is the cool abilitys at level 20

>>50434552
/tg/ has terrible taste.

Pathfinder is a great game and you'll have a blast playing it. Don't listen to the angy manchildren on /tg/.

>>50434635
>then pathfinder comes along and makes the caster superiority real
How it does?

>>50434552
Mostly because the OP is always something degenerate.

Short of that, it's a system where you have to build your character, that you roleplay as, with the same level of mechanical detail as you would an MTG deck or an army. That seems to break some fundamental rule of RPGS to me.

>>50434552
It's a bad game that only existed because 3e brainwashed a generation into believing it was not just the only RPG that existed but the only RPG that -could- exist.

>inb4 382 replies, 191 images
This thread gets made every day. I'm 50% sure this is just a bait thread.

>>50434633
not him but
as i mentioned here
>>50434635
martials are fucking useless

also
>at will cantrips
>somehow made the 3e skill system even worse instead of taking the chance to perform a full overhaul of 3es worst aspect
>even worse feat chains then 3e had

>>50434552
a)It's 3.5 with several truckloads of garbage dumped on top of it, so it takes more effort to fix for the same end result as fixing 3.5 directly.
b)It's a reservation for rabid 3e autists who hated 4e but refused to try anything else.
c)It's same old tired crap we've been playing for a decade now but with ass-tier comic book art and awkward attempts at being hip and cool and socially progressive.

>>50434677
Care to elaborate?

Why is it a bad game? Why is 3e a bad game?

File: I can't cast a fireball IRL so we've removed magic.png (45KB, 489x301px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 489x301px

>>50434552
Because this is the mindset of the devs, compounded over years of expansion and errata. If you cut out all of core classes and use Dreamscarred Press stuff instead, it's mostly balanced, but still nothing special.

>>50434703
god dam this still makes me mad.

>>50434552
Oh boy, here we go again.

>>50434552
Cause 3.pfags often thinks that their beloved edition is a cure for all ills and it is retarded.

If you want to run a game for superheroes fighting OP shit in fantasy setting and gain math skills while playing then 3.X is good for you.

If you want something more down to earth, you have to cut over 75% of game so its a shit choice.
Also there are million pages of content if you want to build your character in a best way, if that makes your dick hard. Some like it, I don't have anywhere near that much time.


Sadly many of people on board is behind the monkeys in term of choosing appropriate tool for what they intend to run.

>>50434635
Caster supremacy was already a thing in 3.5, pathfinder didn't make it any better or any worse. Though it should be noted if you just played with the later 3.5 classes (crusader, dread necromancer, binder etc) things were genuinely fun and balanced, it was mostly core 3.5 that was the problem, and most of its issues got passed on to pathfinder.

>>50434552
Do we really need to have this thread every single day?

>>50434552
Is not that bad, in the sense that 3.X is less bad than tg makes it.

Just is kinda pointless, does not fix anything albeit has some good idea. With a group of people that make 3.X work, it will work.

With the kind of sperg you find in /tg/ with the worst possible interpretation of rules and spell interaction, that often breaks the game just to show that the game is breakable and he/she was right all along, it will fold easily.

Is just infuriating because is full of ince ideas but horrible implementation and some ruling absolutely amateurish. I like the monsters, though.

I had fun with the system but I had not autistic people in the group and I was the DM.

>>50434675
>at will cantrips
>school specialization is now a viable option
>shits on the fighter at every oportunity
>removes xp costs from the most powerful spells

>>50434760
also yes, some of the devs are retarded. Talk with SKR in the forums was an assault to the mere idea of logic. There is something lovercraftian in that man's thought process.

>>50434745
putting aside how much caster supremacy 3e did or did not have how could you possibly think it was the same level as pathfinder
they got massive buffs

>>50434662
>/tg/ has terrible taste.
>Pathfinder is a great game
Well you sure proved your own rule.

>>50434552
Pathfinder is shit because 3.5 had a bunch of problems, Paizo promised to fix them with Pathfinder, and then they just fucking didn't. In fact they made 3.5's problems worse

Yes, this is just the subjective opinion of someone who's really bitter about it.

>>50434898
Why be bitter about it? Just play a different game. Nobody's forcing you to play PF.

>>50434692
Okay, at this point I know you're trolling. There is no way you could be aware that /tg/ hates 3.x without reading one of the long and persistent topics dedicated to enumerating its every sin.

>>50434914
I do play other games, but I still have the Pathfinder core rulebook sitting on my bookshelf and I still hate myself for buying it.

Because I was a fucking moron who actually bought into all the hype

>>50434922
>It's not realistic
It's not realistic to start fire with a flick of fingers either, now what? Now the fuck is this argument still around?

>>50434921
>every sin

The only thing people complain about is caster supremacy which, while valid, doesn't mean that whole system is shit.

>>50434898
same poster as above that KIND of praised PF ("is not that bad..") - this is true for the most part. I like it but is wonky.
They said they "fixed" concentration but the math is off - it fucks up low level casters but is pointless against high level. Is the opposite of what people wanted.

Some concept is better from the get-go. A Sword and Board fighter is better in core PF than core 3.X. Same an archer. But the things that will fuck-up an unsupported fighter in 3.X will do the same to an unsupported fighter in PF.

>>50434921
OP here. I am pretty new here, never played Pathfinder or any other DnD for this matter, and genuinely interested in why so much hate.

>>50434922
im not even sure what you are trying to say here.
are you sleep deprived anon

>>50434745
>pathfinder didn't make it any better or any worse
Nerfing the shit out of Rogues, one of the most viable martial classes, is making it worse.
Adding yet more spells for casters always makes it worse, and throwing in versatile archetypes for heavily limited classes like Wizard is making it a lot worse. (3.5 Wizard has to grow by finding spells or deciding on select crucial spells every level up, they have basically no class features to speak of)

>>50434954
They buffed martial classes, but nerfed martial feats and martial maneuvers. Resulting in a net loss of power regarding the classes that needed a buff the most

Also, they just completely ignored all the later 3.5 material, you know, the best stuff in the system. Dread Necromancers and Battlemages and Martial Adept classes and Beguilers and all that jazz

>>50434552
>So, why do certain part of /tg/ think that Pathfinder is shit?
while it is merely a D&D-variant and therefore gamist by nature, which isn't my cup of tea, a lot of those neckbeards blasting it are just attention whores.

>>50434970
3.5 and PF by extension are flawed because of very philosophy - it's high fantasy with magic everywhere, yet there's a defined split between mundane and magical, and magical is always better than mundane. That leaves classes without spellslots (or any creature/class/archetype that doesn't suck magic's cock) strictly worse than magic-using classes/creatures.

I really hope you aren't trolling, because i'm tired posting this shit over and over again.

>move at mach 2
>can charge at anything without hurting myself
>fall from 20 feet
>take damage
Even if I fell from ten billion of kms It wouldn't even hurt 1% of charging at mach 2, this game is a nonsense.

>>50434743
>If you want something more down to earth, you have to cut over 75% of game so its a shit choice.
congrats you just described D&D

>>50435066
>yet there's a defined split between mundane and magical, and magical is always better than mundane
But why can't martials get their own totally-not-magic buffs? In my games, martial characters are usually much better in combat than mages, because they aren't so squishy and better at killing things. They are also much better at all tasks there dexterity and stamina matters - running, hiking, acrobatics, etc. Isn't D&D have skill checks, based on attributes?

Does anyone have a complaint about 3.PF that isn't related to caster supremacy?

>>50434988
>are you sleep deprived anon
I am. What I meant to say was that those who like playing fighter types with 2h/sword&board/archery tend to be massive hypocrites that accept or even enforce the notion that unarmed martials are inferior to armed ones on the grounds of realism, while still demanding balance between a martial and a caster when the other one can stop time and generally fuck physics in the ass, while the other one is just a guy who can swing a sword pretty well.
I'm all for dismantling the caster supremacy, but what I truly hate is the obsession with "fighter types" that most of 3.PF haters have. /tg/ doesn't like it when you suggest that something that is weaker than traditional sword&board should be made more viable which is ridiculous and simultaneously cries about caster supremacy which is a legit problem.

>>50435069
>this game is a nonsense.
it's gamist. simulation (aka realism) takes intentionally the backseat

>>50434552
Have you ever been to pathfinder general?

>>50435145
CR is borked... Oh wait, that's because of spells..

...Hmm, you know what? I don't think there is a problem with 3.PF that doesn't relate to caster supremacy, because caster supremacy is such an all-encompassing system-tumor that every problem with the system relates back to it in some way.

>>50435131
>Isn't D&D have skill checks, based on attributes?
Yes, but the magic-using classes get far more skill points than the martial ones.

>>50434552
Stop paying attention to trolls.
Just ignore them.

>>50435028
For my experience, maneuver nerf was superficial, minimum buffs or appropriate weapons still made them work unless the enemy was colossal, flying, etc. Is true that the ruling is often dumb, in 3.5 in the FAQs the developper said that you can trip a flyer if you find a way (say, bolas on wings) in PF you just cannot because S.K.R.

The feat thing is true. They just cannot grasp the concept that feat should scale. They started to get it when it was too late so you have this game in which you have some stuff scaling and some other not.

>>50435150
>aka realism) takes intentionally the backseat
Except when you're a martial
>shoot more than 3 shots per turn? unrealistic therefore we release errata to fuck you up
>jump more than X meters? unrealistic therefore we release errata to fuck you up
>grab a weapon that it's tied to your hand as a free action? unrealistic, I tested it for like 1 hour with my mouse cord and it's impossible for my lard ass, so it's impossible to everyone else therefore release errata to fuck you up
And a long etc

>>50435149
No?

I mean, I know plenty of people who love their sword & board fighters, myself included, but not one of them has ever insisted that monks should be objectively worse than other martial classes or anything like that.

>>50434552
>>50434692
2e added expanded spell offerings, 3.0 added even more. 3.5 was a rules correction to 3.0 nerfing martial characters among other things. Pathfinder tried to correct without heavily nerfing, resulting in no real correction.

The problem can be managed by allowing martial extra attacks at the full base attack bonus (BaB) and by banning some overpowered spells. The rage arises because if you do this, you can no longer play the "rules as written", so the players move from "house rule" game to "house rule" game without any stability and you never know what you'll get. If your DM is wise, you'll have fun.

>>50435131
i dont think there is much of a caster supremacy but the fighters dont actually get to have many points in there athetic skills because the designers did not think the skill system through.

the class skill system helps keep wizards from becoming great atheletes but fighters do get left behind in skill points it is by far the systems biggest flaw.

and then pathfinder comes along and makes it far far worse by changing the class skill system from taking a skill thats not on your class list costs twice as many points to having a skill on the class list for any of your classes gives you a +4 to it.

this is why pathfinder is shit it does not fix anything it breaks what works and makes what does not work even worse

>>50435177
Why the fuck should they? They have been studying magic, and magic-related skills should be better, that's basic logic, but why the wizards should be better at intimidating people than big burly fighter?

>>50435177
>Yes, but the magic-using classes get far more skill points than the martial ones.
I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about here.
Cleric's skill growth
>2 + Int modifier
Druid's skill growth
>4 + Int modifier
Sorcerer's skill growth
>2 + Int modifier
Wizard's skill growth
>2 + Int modifier (admittedly Wizards are the only class expected to have a notable Int modifier)
Meanwhile, Bard (partial caster)
>6 + Int modifier
Ranger (1/3rd caster)
>6 + Int modifier
Barbarian (the core class most focused on attack)
>4 + Int modifier
Monk (worst class)
>4 + Int modifier
And fucking Rogue
>8 + Int modifier (highest of all)

In short, the only full caster with greater than 2+int is Druid. Druid is the strongest class in the game, no doubt, but that is not because it gets 2 skill points over Cleric.

The only odd men out at all are Paladin and Fighter (sitting at paltry 2+int) and Wizard (by merit of being the only non-psionic Int-based class).

>>50435145
skill system

it was bad in 3e and even worse in pathfinder

>>50435215
>>50432419

File: Pathfinder sucks.png (256KB, 1353x1666px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1353x1666px

>>50434552
Oh boy, I get to repost these!

Behold! Devs who refuse to acknowledge or fix an obviously flawed product!

>>50435131
martials should get this kind of buffs, yes.
3.PF is not inherently flawed but after 14-16th level, all martials should get way to dispel, "parry" or "block" spells, bonus to saves or stuff like Iron Heat Surge, super-jumps and other things because is the only way to resist in such magical environment.

And I say this as a 3.X fan. There is SOMETHING if you mix 3.X and PF manuals, but is too little, is hard to get, it needs resource investment and so on. Developer just fix this adding magic items. In some game can work but is not for everybody. My players had just a wizard that was a crafter as a character concept and had 5-6 casters buffing them, but not everybody is so lucky.

File: Pathfinder sucks 2.jpg (606KB, 1363x1406px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 1363x1406px

>>50435268
Here's the math on how crafting is absolutely useless.

>>50435237
Honestly I think that particular change to the skill system, in a vacuum, is completely fine

The problem with it is that the amount of skill points per level the classes get is just stupid and horribly designed, the skill lists for the classes got reworked (badly), and the fly skill is just insulting

>>50435204
>>grab a weapon that it's tied to your hand as a free action? unrealistic, I tested it for like 1 hour with my mouse cord and it's impossible for my lard ass, so it's impossible to everyone else therefore release errata to fuck you up
god im still mad
the fighter has trained for years to be able to do shit like that your not gonna be able to do it in an hour.

>>50435262
Hmm, Right, subjective opinions based on personal experience, sorry for my broad statement that assumed others had similar experiences to myself

>>50435242
you are correct
i love 3e and have talked to plenty of people that do but we have all agreed they fucked up skill point allocation

File: Pathfinder sucks 3.jpg (1MB, 1688x2696px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1688x2696px

>>50435286

>>50435289
>Honestly I think that particular change to the skill system, in a vacuum, is completely fine
i suppose so

the only reason the change was a problem was because the old skill system was the only thing holding skills together
take away that bandaid and it all goes to shit

>>50435131
>But why can't martials get their own totally-not-magic buffs?
Because that's weeaboo and we don't want weeaboo. We want only hardcore realism* when it comes to non-magical classes.
>In my games, martial characters are usually much better in combat than mages, because they aren't so squishy and better at killing things.
Maybe better than blaster casters. A single save or fuck you spell can end the combat faster than a whole fighter party. Also at higher levels many monsters are outright immune to non-magical damage and other stuff fighter was supposed to be good at or have so much HP that fighters will hack at it for (in-game) days. Mind, strength of magic was supposed to be balanced by how often can you use spells... while in 3e/PF you have so much spell slots you won't have to ever worry about them by level 6-7.

Okay, that's combat. What's outside the combat? Outside magic gives you way more ways to interact with the world, from batman wizardry to the fact that at some point dungeons will contain magical defenses (and thus defenses simply better than mundane ones).

>They are also much better at all tasks there dexterity and stamina matters - running, hiking, acrobatics, etc. Isn't D&D have skill checks, based on attributes?
Yes, about that. First, flight, telekinesis, the stuff. Now, obvious things out of the way, wizards simply have much more skill points to go around so they can play fantasy renaissance man while fighter has to save up for a couple more skills that are relevant to his background (and god forbid you have "roleplaying" skills, silly fighters need no roleplay).

So fighters are relegated to the singular archetype of dumb non-magical muscle in a system that actively punishes non-magical things.
Here. Have this angry rant on why PF is flawed by the concept, take your (you) and go away. I'm done here.


*hardcore realism in this case means "What SKR can do IRL. Which, him not being athletic by any stretch, is not much."

>>50435327
yes, this is what I mean talking about SKR. Mind it, some other designer is not as bad.

But SKR... is.. kind of alien. I would feel comfortable in a room with him only after a "blood test" like the one in "The Thing".

File: pathfinder sucks 4.jpg (1MB, 1668x3437px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1668x3437px

>>50435327
Here it's explained how even though crossbows have dedicated feats they still end up worse than bows by default.

>>50435376
I like how it took WoW introducing monk as a class for SKR to finally think that monks maaay have gotten the short end of the stick in 3.5 and PF

Becauses jesus that's stupid

File: where do you think you are.png (9KB, 261x103px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 261x103px

>>50435312
>subjective opinions based on personal experience
Gee, who could have known?

File: SKR grows up.png (183KB, 1176x1496px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1176x1496px

>>50435376
Haha, yeah he's a dick, but it seems he was just really bad because he was the forum attack dog for the devs. He does calm down later.

>>50435403
The worst part is how contemptuous he was. Then, when he clearly lost an argument, thread locked. Is unbelievably childish.

This is supposed to be "the best" of game design people. Is like the GW designer and their childish AoS free PDF rules. Then one is surprised why these rulesets are a complete shitfest.

>>50435415
yeah it did become obvious after a while he was a scrapegoat.

It's not really all that bad but DMs have some freakish allergy against giving quality magic items to players and the design philosophy is that the martial classes should have excellent gear

>>50435480
this

i dont like pathfinder but this is where most of the 3e caster superiority stuff comes from

pick up a fucking magical sword you faggots

File: Pathfinder Lead Designer 3.png (109KB, 1052x390px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1052x390px

>>50435430
>"the best" of game design people
Yeah, the fact that these guys made so many horrible design decisions is baffling. This is the one that makes me the most angry. Where the lead designer straight up says that he refuses to remove "sacred cows" despite obvious balance issues.

>>50435360
Not to say that you are wrong, I generally agree, but pull out the right save-or-suck spell at the right moment can be trickier than expected against non humanoids targets, buffed targets, "templated" targets, or any combination.

At Epic play, my players just buffed the melee and controlled the battlefield because they did not want to bother with immunities and they knew that a somehow restrained target in melee range with e melee fighter was dead.

>>50435480
>>50435502
Bullshit. It doesn't matter how many bonuses I have to armour or weapons when the party wizard is able to trivialize encounters with a couple spells. Both in and out of combat martials become useless at higher levels.

>>50435502
No, I'm pretty sure caster supremacy comes from spells being always better than any other approach.

>>50435480
But there's a problem here too

Martials need more magical items than casters to be effective, which means that if everyone's getting an equal share of magic items, casters still come out on top.

You could, as a DM, just give MORE magical items to the martial characters, but since magical items can be constructed by anyone with sufficient creation skills, money and the right spells, you can't really maintain total control over the flow of magic items to the players.

But hey, maybe the casters and martials play along, and the casters make items for the martials rather than making things that make them better, well, then you're faced with the simple fact that martials need a band-aid to be able to compete at all, a band-aid that can only be supplied to them by the good-will of casters. Which still isn't a pleasant idea for a game to have.

>>50435360
>A single save or fuck you spell
Well, thankfully I have the system there those are curbed. Besides, magic resistance is a thing, you know? There is no reasons to have save or dies in the system unless you WANT martials to suck. By DnD paradigm, I think that martials should get progressively better save throws ESPECIALLY against magic. Or just get magic resistance outright.

>First, flight, telekinesis, the stuff.
They negate some things, yes. But there is no reason to let spells, which make some skill completely useless. For example, spell which opens all locks are just making thief useless. So why let it exist? It should give a bonus for Lockpicking skill, allowing wizard to open simple locks by himself, but absolute version of this spell just suck.

>>50435553
>>50435553
your not meant to use swords with high numbers you are meant to use swords with versitility

to be clear i am talking about 3e nothing can save the fighter in pathfinder

>>50435563
the martials and casters may have the same amount of magic items but the magic items are much more useful to the martials.

and you can just buy magic items in any large city

>>50435565
>For example, spell which opens all locks are just making thief useless. So why let it exist
because the wizard has a limited number of spells per day. The rogue can pick locks all day.

every prepared knock spell is a spell slot that was not used on some other spell

>>50435145
>>50434552
I actually don't have a problem with the caster supremacy, because I don't think it's as big an issue as tg makes it out to be unless you have someone intentionally trying to fuck your game up, but there's a lot about the system that kinda sucks and that I houserule out. Feat taxes on some chains are retarded (rogues burning literally all their early feats on two weapon fighting), skill point distribution is kind of fucked and there's no reason for fighters to only get 2 per level or for that int casting Inquisitor archetype to get 6, the skill system makes it impossible to adequately represent your character's background on classes that get few skill points because you have no room for profession when there are 3-4 skills you have to have to not be useless. There are a lot of errata that are the consequences of designers just not thinking things through at all, the one that's come up most recently for me is that the new occult spellcasters RAW have spells that are 100% completely undetectable, since somatic, verbal, and material components are all converted to mental things instead, so where before a wizard would have to be talking or gesturing a mesmerist now can just be talking to you while casting and you'd be none the wiser. Looking into the errata page reveals that all spells cast have some unspecified visible effect when cast, regardless of components involved or effects of the spell, and this is never mentioned anywhere else except in that one errata. There are a lot of little ones like that, that's just the one I've seen most recently.

Class balance is also kind of fucked. With unchained paizo sort of half backed out on their commitment to never edit their released products, but they didn't go far enough or actually fix shitty classes. Barbs are one of the better core martials and got fucked hard, rogues got really good bonuses and are arguably the only class that really got helped.

Tldr designers are retarded houserule extensively

>>50435599
>magic items are much more necessary to the martials
Fixed that for you, mate.
>>50435627
>the wizard has a limited number of spells per day
Wands/scrolls make your entire argument a moot point. You are assuming the player is stupid enough to use spell slots for highly situational spells, and not leaving them to scrolls and wands that can be used when needed and never go away.

>>50435069
Is there a single RPG system that has rules for the damage you take from moving too fast?

>>50435627
>Whispering
Wands or scrolls

>>50435669
>the new occult spellcasters RAW have spells that are 100% completely undetectable, since somatic, verbal, and material components are all converted to mental things instead
what the fuck thats retarded.

>>50435681
>magic items are much more necessary to the martials
yes but that is not a bad thing it is just the design philosiphy of the game it does not mean martials are underpowered
>Wands/scrolls make your entire argument a moot point. You are assuming the player is stupid enough to use spell slots for highly situational spells, and not leaving them to scrolls and wands that can be used when needed and never go away.
why waste money on making those wands and scrolls when you can have a rogue pick a lock instead

File: Autism.png (1MB, 800x474px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x474px

>>50435069

>>50435708
I'm reasonably sure GURPS handles it by having collision rules deal damage based on closing speed.

>>50435708
I know Anima has them, surely there're more
They also have rules for speed, you start with penalities, but the faster you go the less penalties you have to a point in where you actually have bonuses (to hit and defense)

File: 1468616536767.png (177KB, 697x768px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 697x768px

>>50434552

Pathfinder is great.

>>50435749
Because it costs more money overall to have an extra body in the group, needing his/her own magic items, than to keep stocked up on scrolls and wands

>>50435783
no 3e was great pathfinder is just the dirt scrapped off 3es shoe

>>50435783
If by Pathfinder you mean 3pp only, then yes.

>>50435599
They're more useful, in the sense that 10+10 is a more noticible increase than 50+10.

All that money spent on buying weapons, armor, and utility items for martials is a waste when they can just play a caster, have spells to eliminate the need for much of that, and buy wands, scrolls, and other equipment to remove the need for martials even more.

Why would you ever play a Fighter or Rogue when Summoner is a class option? You can become a literal combat monster or have a literal skill monkey, and also be able to buff yourself or allies and summon a horde of monsters.

The fighter getting a +2 to hit and damage doesn't matter in comparison.

>>50435809
wait are we talking about pathfinder instead of 3e again

alright yeah fighter is useless

as for why you would play a fighter because the wizard would get slaughteded without a fighter
bear in mind with scrolls you have to get them out of wherever you are storing them then cast them so its not as quite as it seems

>>50435749
>it does not mean martials are underpowered
But that is exactly what it means, in the course of actually playing the game. The game expects supernatural ability after a certain point, and if a martial does not have it, they literally can not function. Caster characters are not limited in such a way.
It's why taking the players' gear is viewed as a mortal DM sin.
>why waste money on making those wands and scrolls
>implying that wands and scrolls are a waste of money
Anon, you clearly have not played a decent caster. Wands and scrolls are absolutely the smart way to approach day to day spells.
>rogue picking the lock
Until you don't have a rogue for some reason, like death. Or they can't pick the lock because the rogue went face, not trapmonkey. Or literally can not roll high enough.
>>50435809
This.
The argument being made, before you lot scream, is that it is inherently awful design to have a class' point become obsolete by another class almost by accident.

>>50435832
Change Summoner for Druid for 3e and it's the same thing

>>50435809
Ahh, the synthesist summoner. AKA the caster that proves, unequivocally, that casters are just better than martials, despite being overall weaker than the baseline summoner

So the Pathfinder society banned it, because it messed up their worldview

>>50435832
>bear in mind with scrolls you have to get them out of wherever you are storing
You aren't keeping them in your scroll case? Or haversack? Making it a move action at best to retrieve, and all scrolls are standard to cast from?

>>50435836
>he thinks the disparity is an accident
It was pretty much made on purpose, I don't have the screencaps but there're a couple in where the lead designer pretty much said "we want casters to outshine everybody else because magic>realism".

>>50435832
yep, they are more vulnerable than a sword, too.
Again, not defending the flaws of both systems they are there but many time people just downplay the shortcomings of many "caster cheats".

>>50435836
>The game expects supernatural ability after a certain point
yes
and there is nothing wrong with that
>Anon, you clearly have not played a decent caster. Wands and scrolls are absolutely the smart way to approach day to day spells.
yes but you still want to avoid wasting them

and wizards are actually the most fucked without there gear even if they have there spellbook they are still stuck without any of there material components

File: cheeted.jpg (88KB, 773x960px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 773x960px

>>50434552
In the end for me there was so much bloat that I just didn't want to keep track of every ability and bonus and feat. It gets so crunchy and unbalanced at higher levels that it becomes unplayable for me. That, and its a system that rewards minmaxing and optimization so much. I can see some of why people are so into it, but it's just not my cup of tea.

>>50435858
how do you decide which scrolls you put near you and which you pack away in your bag of holding though

you will eventually run out of space in your pockets

>>50435832
No, Fighters are still pretty useless in 3.5, just not as useless because they do have high damage charge builds.

And no, you don't need a Fighter to 'tank'. Firstly, unless you invest in it, you have no way to stop enemies from walking past you. If you're just serving as a meatshueld to die first, you'd be better off playing a Druid and having a Bear do that, since a Bear won't be begging for magic items.

In addition, a Cleric and Druid can both survive well enough on the frontline. They can defend the wizard well enough for him to end the fight.

Instead of playing a Fighter and buying a +1 sword, why not buy a Wand of Bless, and give the entire party a bonus to hit? That'll be more damage anyway.

And that's ignoring the fact that straight damage is one of the worse ways to deal with threats.

Consider opportunity cost. How much are you giving up by bringing that Fighter instead of another caster? How much ate you losing?

You gain a lot of utility and power, and in exchange you're down a few hitpoints, feats, and BAB, before using buff spells or healing.

>>50435898
>he doesn't know how bag of holding works
Read the damn manual
>Retrieving a specific item from a bag of holding is a move action
The bag gives you what you want in that moment, you don't have to look for it

>>50435883
Man, if only there was some sort of feat to eschew the need for materials.

>>50435883
>material components
Those things made almost entirely irrelevant by a single feat.

>>50435898
A typical Wizard has intelligence far beyond human norms.

I thin having their spell scrolls organized and remembering where they are is a simple matter.

>>50435929
>why not buy a Wand of Bless, and give the entire party a bonus to hit
because that will only be good for about 10 encounters

with your plus one sword you can cleave and smite all day and use the money saved on the wand of bless to get a wand of cure light wounds instead

>>50435951
>>50435959
the fuck kind of dm allows escheh material components

>>50435959
Only if they cost below a certain threshold.

>>50435980
One that allows core feats I guess.

>>50435867
It was an accident in 3e due to the way they tested the classes.
After that, it was a design feature.
>>50435883
>there is nothing wrong with that
There is when it works against the game.
>you still want to avoid wasting them
That is why you don't use them carelessly, but when you need them. However, scrolls can be made, and wands come with 50 charges.
>>50435967
You mean 50.
>>50435980
The ones who aren't trying to make the game about bookkeeping.
>>50435986
Which is 80% of all spells.

File: wizard sees a martial.jpg (365KB, 1693x569px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1693x569px

>>50435480
Wouldn't it be wiser to kick the losers out of the party and instead have a party of casters with all of that magical bling?

>>50435933
>unless the bag contains more than an ordinary backpack would hold, in which case retrieving a specific item is a full-round action.

>>50436012
>ignores scroll case
>ignores handy haversack
>ignores belt pouches
Stop being willfully dense, anon.

>>50436003
>You mean 50.
you said buff the whole party

>>50435986
1 gold or less if I remember correctly. And most components have no listed cost and so are auto covered. Really what you have to worry about are focuses.

>>50435967
>10 encounters

Try 50. It lasts 1 minute per level. Unless your fights drag on forever, a simple cast before you bust down the door or in the first round will be a more noticible bonus for the entire party.

>
with your plus one sword you can cleave and smite all day and use the money saved on the wand of bless to get a wand of cure light wounds instead

Ignoring numbers once more? A +1 sword is 1000 gold. A Wand of bless is 750. You're getting the sword instead of the wand of bless.

If anything, the wand of bless makes you more able to afford a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, since the total is 1500.

Also, don't forget the magic armor your fighter also needs, meaning you'll actually be spending 2000 gold on all that.

And then with the extra 500 gold you can either save towards another wand or buy a scrolls.

And then instead of a Fighter you can bring something that doesn't siphon funds from the group for meager +1s

>>50436027
Bless is a 50' burst, anon.
That easily catches all party members.

>>50435980
We're discussing rules, not houserules

>>50435986
And yet, in a situation where the part knows they'll be without equipment, the Wizard will still be better off, since the fighter needs even more feats to fight unarmed and will be really behind without weapons and armor.

>>50436019
none of which are infininte
remember every scroll case is a box of crossbow bolts you are not carrying

you people seem convincedd that you do not need to put any thought behind what you carry on what part of your body each thing you carry is another thing you cannot carry

>>50436047
well fuck i forgot that

disregard my faggotry then

>>50436075
Basic scroll case carries 4 scrolls.
Magic scroll case carries infinite scrolls.
Handy Haversack holds 120lbs of scrolls, and whatever else you want, and retrieving an item is always a move action with no AoO.
Stop it, anon, you have descended to foolishness and goalpost moving.
>crossbow bolts
I'll just craft a wand of magic missile.

>>50436075
You're right, because my Wizard should be smart enough to know how to organize all this.

Most scrolls are going to be for occasional utility spells anyway. Quick access isn't always a concern. And from there, you can have the combat utility scrolls in a small case for quick-drawing, and the rest in a bag of holding. If a scroll you need is a utility one and its an emergency, just draw it as a full round action, then pass it to the party member next to you as a free one so they can cast it.

You're making a way bigger deal over this than is reasonable. Do you also insist martials clean and polish their armor and sharpen their weapons every night?

>>50436144
oh i agree that you are unlikely to actually run into trouble with your scroll supply my objection is to people acting like its not something you need to think about

>>50436144
>>>
> Anonymous 11/28/16(Mon)18:16:15 No.50436144▶
>>>50436075
>You're right, because my Wizard should be smart enough to know how to organize all this.
>Most scrolls are going to be for occasional utility spells anyway. Quick access isn't always a concern. And from there, you can have the combat utility scrolls in a small case for quick-drawing, and the rest in a bag of holding. If a scroll you need is a utility one and its an emergency, just draw it as a full round action, then pass it to the party member next to you as a free one so they can cast it.

Of course. It's not realistic, otherwise.

Also, everyone should use the houserule that says someone using a weapon should get -2 to strength every two rounds. I've tried swinging a sword replica for twelve seconds and it was so heavy I definitively had troubles continuing.

>>50436173
As >>50436133 pointed out, it really isn't. There's so many trivial solutions to this 'problem' it's not even funny.

Forcing your players to meticulously model where each and every scroll is on their person is just busywork, and isn't really relevant to how casters are better than martials anyway.

If you prefer, you can forget scrolls entirely. They're usually just there for rare things like waterbreathing anyway. Wands and spell slots are more than enough to cover everything in a typical day

>>50436133
>Magic scroll case
what book is this
>I'll just craft a wand of magic missile.
ok yeah i will admit that in most cases you are better off just doing that but in the long run crossbow bolts are far less expensive

>>50436065
Again, not defending the system, but is not a yes-or-no situation. If the Wiz is without the pouch because of a sunder or because it caught fire does not mean the fighter has a broken sword (or the other way around, say a rust monster).

>>50436338
Again with one feat the wizard ignores every spell component covered by the spell pouch.

>>50436065
>We're discussing rules, not houserules
and yet we are pretending that retrieving an item from a bag of holding is a standard action

>>50436377
No, those under a certain gold cost.

>>50436338
So spend 5 extra gold and carry 2. Or 3, why not?

If your DM is actually wondering and using item damage rules, it's a prime feat to pick up.

Plus, there are spells without material components, as well as wands to fall back on.

A wizard excels by options

>>50436461
A spell component pouch contains any component with no specific cost and eschew material covers any component with a cost of 1 gold or less. So eschew materials covers anything a standard spell component pouch has.

>>50436144
let's put in this way OP: PF can work if you don't play with people like this guy. These people have no saving grace will fuckup the system exploiting its (glaring) flaws.

All the shit me and other people said about PF and its designers is still true and valid, especially JK "Howard Phillips" Reynolds.

>>50436461
Which is all the ones in a spell component pouch, which was being discussed

>>50436502
> nice goalpost we have here, it would be a shame if someone moved it

>>50434552
The only path it finds is the route to failure.

>>50436523
What?

>>50436505
Oh, I don't play Pathfinder anymore. I rolled up a Fighter in the same party as a Druid my first time playing and it left a bad taste in my mouth.

I find it amazing that I could spot the imbalance on my first time playing when so many people fight to pretend it doesn't exist.

Pathfinder isn't even that great of a system. Even outside balance issues it's clunky and convoluted and requires large overhauls to work as advertised.

Don't assume I'm a minmaxer just because I know how easy it is to break the game.

>>50436474
> A Schrödinger's wizard excels by options
FTFY

>>50436561
Still workable, and the druid can still be fucked.

Mind it, I am aware of the flaws, but as another poster said, I find far more infuriating stuff like concentration not working as advertised or the feat chains as if is still 1990.

I feel my liver pulsating just thinking about that.

>>50436523
what goalpost
this whole argument is me trying to prove that wizards are not autopilot and for every thing they do its one other thing they cannot do.

in this case (although any sane dm will ban it) taking eschew materials is one other feat you cannot take

im not even sure what goalposts you are looking at

>>50436565
Oh boy! Bingo already!

>>50436561
i think most of the people in this thread are auctualy defending 3e rather then defending pathfinder

>>50436628
sorry answered to the wrong one, I agree with you :P

>>50436645
The point is that if you like most of 3.X you will like most of PF even if not everything is an improvement, better tailor what you find better.

I like 3.X/PF, but many find (rightfully) infuriating that it just changed random things and some ACCIDENTALLY came out as better. But some other not, or remained bad or good in different ways.

Is quite an hackjob and the more Paizo published, to more people was clear that they did not know what they were doing.

>>50436633
Schrödinger's wizard is misused but exists.

see>>50436628

and the points it raises.

>>50436608
>>50436608
The druid player was also new, so it's not like he was optimizing. True though, it might have been balanced, if I had built my Fighter correctly, and the DM had specifically screwed over the druid.

Unfortunately, he was of the disturbingly common mindset that Pathfinder is totally balanced because of daily spell limits. He though the couple extra points of AC and HP I had over the animal companion was enough.

>>50434779
Unfortunately, while half of it was SKR being a genuine douchenozzle, the other half of SKR's dumb posts was because he was the go-to "fall guy" who's job it was to go to the forums and justify all their stupid decisions so Buhlman wouldn't be the one getting blamed.

>>50436645
I honestly don't see much difference. Pathfinder pretended to polish things while breaking them further, but 3.5 isn't much better off. I would have had the same results.

>>50436747
I have the impression we already discussed.
Anyway, you have not to specifically screw over the druid, but for my playstyle as DM, spell slots still count, and the ability to carry a tower shield, a polearm or a bow from the fighter's part still count.

Now, if Paizo wanted to ACTUALLY fix the druid there would be not shit like Natural Spell in Pathfinder :)

>>50436747
Could be worse my first character was a monk.

>>50436725
I'm not trying to argue that a Wizard can be prepared for everything ever, but this is basic stuff. Buy some wands, buy some scrolls, prepare some good spells. You're still far more versatile than a Fighter, doubly so for a Cleric or Druid.

A Cleric with Bless and Cure Light Wounds prepares is going to be pretty close to a Fighter at level 1 in terms of damage, health and AC, and that's before getting in to anything more extensive. As you level, those Cleric spells get better and he gets more of them, while a Fighter just gets marginally more health and BAB.

Buying Wands for the Cleric so he can use those spell slots for something other than Bless and CLW is both cheaper and more effective than buying magic weapons and armor for a Fighter.

This is my point, that you don't need to be a Batman Wizard to outpace a fighter. You just need to think for a minute about what the benefits are.

>>50435627
>because the wizard has a limited number of spells per day. The rogue can pick locks all day.

How often do you really run into locked doors that the ability to pick locks 24/7 really makes a difference over just being able to do so 2-3 times a day?

This is the issue with it. Yes, the Wizard can only do these things 2-3 times a day, like lock-picking and sneaking in this case, but 90% of the time you won't need to be able to do these things more than 2-3 times a day, unless your DM is running you through the Temple of Locked Doors and Overpowered Monsters That Instant Kill You, But Are Blind.

Also, as mentioned, Wands and Scrolls negate even this problem.

3.5 Nostalgia fags. 4.0/5.0 casual babies.

/thread

>>50436798
Yeah, but again, I was new, so Sword and Board it was.

Even if I had been more optimized, all that would mean was that I'd be more clearly better than the animal companion. Except I still wouldn't have a spellcaster backing me up, so I still lose out.

>>50436809
I certainly don't envy that.

>>50436892
>How often do you really run into locked doors that the ability to pick locks 24/7 really makes a difference over just being able to do so 2-3 times a day?
every time i come across a major vault of any sort

>>50434662
The "Caster Superiority" is a myth you're only going to encounter in late-game min-maxing shitfests, and only if you play with extreme autists. Just avoid Pathfinder Society like the plague and play with your friends.

It's good. You want to play it.

>>50435669
Really, just do what I did and ditch Paizo and make Dreamscarred Press material the new core, then cherry-pick what works from everything else.

Speaking of, is Sphere casting still alright? I havent kept up on the material since the first Sphere book which was pretty ok.

>>50436964
>myth

Fighter and Druid, level 1.

>>50436935
And how often does that happen?

>>50436964
I bet you're the kinda dumb fuck that thinks monks are op.

>>50436932
We did built it for a middle-level campaing but I remember a player of mine built in PF a decent S&B. Bull rush shield smashes and trip with flails. Good control, but a caveat: the adventure was humanoids mostly.

>>50436964
This.

The only people who complain about caster superiority are autistic power gamers. Thank god I play with a chill group who doesn't care about that.

The fighter in my group is actually one of the coolest dudes I know.

In short, don't listen to the crybabies on /tg/. PF is a blast and I hope you'll enjoy it for many years as my friends and I have.

>>50436975
every time i adventure in old dwarven ruins or a ruined castle

>>50434944
>doesn't mean that whole system is shit
>What is CR
>What are completely fucked skill DCs
>What is with saves and AC getting wildly out of wack as level rises
>What is custom enemies following the rules for building a fucking player character
>What is the christmas tree effect
>What is wrong with item crafting
>What do you mean full attacks make combat a boring slug fest with no movement

Boyo, 3.x has a lot more sins than just caster supremacy, and many of which are far more fundamental problems of how the game is set up than a bunch of poorly designed spells.

>>50437042
It's still better than 4e though.

File: Trunks_Burning_Attack.jpg (33KB, 386x267px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 386x267px

>>50435758

>>50437002
Yeah, I didn't know to do that, so I was stuck watching the wolf trip things on every attack while I looked up the pile of feats I'd need to do the same.

>>50437057
How exactly?

>>50436608
>the druid can still be fucked.

Anything strong enough to fuck over a Druid is going to steamroll a Fighter.

>>50437076
Haha I tried to build a monk focused on grappling.

>>50437057
I might dislike 4e for being too gamey, but even I can admit least it's functional if you aren't playing with retards

>>50437077
More variety in classes (4e classes are all homogenised in the name of "balance") more options, more material, combat isn't a slugfest, you don't need to use minis and a grid to play...

It's pretty much superior in every conceivable way.

>>50437114
I see you never play 4e before if you fall for any of the statements in your post.

>>50437114
Most obvious (You) fishing I've seen in weeks.

>>50437042
>What is custom enemies following the rules for building a fucking player character
this is the best fucking thing about the edition holy fucking shit you fucking faggot fuck you

>>50437134
>>50437138
Keep telling yourself that.

The only people who like 4e are butthurt martials who just can't stand the idea that anyone outshines them at the table. Textbook autists.

>>50437102
Tetori is the best at it... and yet still can't grapple shit at high levels

File: 1468429736075.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>50437160

>>50437134
I'll give him the minis and grid thing. Positioning is super important in 4e combat and while you can do it without minis and grid it's a lot harder.

>>50437162
Yeah our DM loved big monsters too.

They decided to take 3.5, which was already broken, had uneven distribution of power, and had terrible ivory tower game design, then they made it worse. They "fixed" several of the less powerful classes, like the monk and the fighter, by making them worse in comparison to the other classes ported over. The game still suffers from ivory tower game design, and took none of the later additions from 3.5 to make classes more functional. It also took nothing from the replacement classes that were added later on in 3.5's lifespan. You know, the ones people now toss core to use. Their additions have only helped strengthen the divide in power between casters and martial characters so that casters make the martials feel useless at 7th level. Even half casters, like the magus do the fighter's job better than he does and have magic to boot. Only the barbarian stays useful, and that's because it's the best place to put a few buffs on and throw out to get in people's faces. More like a Pokemon and less like a fellow party member.

The game isn't well designed and carries the baggage of multiple generations of D&D forward without doing much to fix them.

>>50437180
Eh, not all that much more than say, 3.PF where your positioning and exact location matters for a lot of shit too.

>>50437180
>you can do it without minis

Stop lying. You can't play 4e without minis and a grid.

It was just another ploy by Hebrews of the Coast to get you to fork over more shekels for their minis and battlegrids.

>>50437076
Yes you are the sam anon butthurt about the wolf, we talked :D

Listen, if it depended from my choices, I would nerf the PF druid more, so i do not invalidate your opinion (see what i wrote about natural spell). BUT the way we play in my group, the wolf is doing something better of a fighter with a guisarme, but such fighter has bows, bolas, a tower shield and other stuff to make it more flexible.

The druid spell still do not catch on.

Does it mean the system is perfect? Shit not. The durid spellcasting will eclipse both fighter and wolf, and the retard feat chain will render the fighter "level-appropriate good" only in 2-4 things tops.

My point is not "WAAAHHH PF IS PERFECT" is just:
"I strongly suggest to be flexible with melee and strict with casters, we know the flaws of the system and we know shit will hit the fan if we don't"

If I designed this game from scratches you would need 1 feat to trip your enemies, you would get level-appropriate bonuses and you would be able to parry spells with your shield at higher level. So i feel you, anon.

>>50437210
Holy fuck stop lying dude. 3.PF plays just fine without minis.

4e is literally a miniature wargame. That's like the only thing it's got going for it.

>>50437160
In had a couple of players like you, the kind who call others autistic for wanting balance. So I GM'd Fantasy Crasft (martial focused system) and holy shit the butthurt and hypocrisy, now we were autists for not forcing balance. Any way, autism stopped being a meaningful insult year ago in here, while you're thinking on something new I'll be fucking you're mom and waifu.

>>50437224
>3.PF plays just fine without minis.

Yeah no. I DM Pathfinder every week. It's enough of a nightmare as it is, I'd strangle anyone who tries to get the group to run it without minis. That'd be a goddamn nightmare.

>>50437224
>(You)

>>50437220
>make maneuvers harder to land
>divide feats for maneuvers in two
If this wasn't the most obvious warning sign i dunno which could be

>>50437224
>have reach and step up and a feature that gives me bonuses for each enemy im flanking and for each I'm threatening
This is literally impossible to play without minies and grid

>>50437230
You don't want balance. You want your martial to be more powerful than everyone else at the table so you can rub it in their faces.

Pure autism.

>>50435478
I could forgive SKR for defending 'party doctrine' that the other devs insisted on.

But I can't forgive HOW he defended it, by making shitty strawman arguments
>water balloon fighter
or scoffing with
>google how long it takes to make chainmail or a breastplate
Which, incidentally, doesn't take nearly as long with period tools as PF insists it would.

Also, of course, how he'd lock threads the second he started losing an argument.

For a PR guy, he is utter shit.

>>50437259
same anon you answered to. yes that was beyond retarded. People panicked about the CMB/CMD but my players worked around it fast, because the bonus to hit goes to CMB. A magus player made wonders with a famous 1st level spell.

The retarded part of maneuvers is the feat taxes and other "hidden" limits like the size.

>>50437243

You can do fine with pen and paper. We did with sort of eyballed "engagement distance" back in 3.0 but is donwright houserule territory.

>>50434552

TG is full of a lot of theorcrafters , power gamers and 40k / magic the gathering players who have never really played in real groups but decided that Pathfinder is imbalanced based on setting up competitive scenarios that make no sense in the context of a co-op game and only work in the vacuum of a forum not in real life play. This also implies that balance actually matters ( again the issue of power gamers and wargamers viewing rpg's in that very small lenses ) in a co-operative roleplaying game.

If you're going to join a normal group it will be fine and you'll have fun.

>>50437320
true

>>50437333
True strike with spellstrike, nothing new, still infuriating a caster is unintendedly better at it, without even feats, than classes and subclasses supossedly created for that purpose.

>>50437371
he could not spam. the S&B was able to pull off a trip&bullrush away to many enemies around. even better if you smash them to the wall, reread the feat :D

But the True Strike thing is an example of why Paizo ultimately fails as a true "fixer" of the system: such thing was not by design, is yes another unintended consequence of a system they meddled with, but it was too complicated for a group of adventure writers.

>>50437360
yes and no. You will probably have less problems than expected reading here, but is better for players and DM to know the caveats.

>>50437371
Every Magus I've ever played with doesn't use True Strike with Spellstrike. It's completely pointless because it eliminates one of your main damage components (aka spells), where you could do Shocking Grasp and deal more damage in the first place. The Shocking Grasp is probably a guaranteed hit too.

>>50437294
thisisafishingpole.jpg

>>50435565
That's good and well, but tweaking the system requires certain knowledge of what does and what doesn't work. The problem is, unmodified Pathfinder isn't exactly a good learning environment OR a good system at all.

Also fixing pathfinder is like puting layers and layers of band-aids on a bear attack victim until he's more gauze than man.

>>50437405
>he could not spam
he must be doing something wrong then, because when it matters I could. By matter I mean against enemies that aren't going to die from one hit so tripping them wasn't stupid and a waste of attack and AoO

>>50437435
you do not always want to do damage.

>>50437360
The question was not "Is pathfinder shit?", but "WHY /tg/ dislikes Pathfinder?". And so far most of the points here were highlighting them or offering suggestions on how to fix the problems.

"Come on man, just have fun with it!" is not an argument.

>>50437464
I will give you an example. In a certain moment he had to cover a retreat, and a troll and an ogre were climbing a wall he was protecting (or a corridor, don't remember, but he was something with height difference).

He used the maneuvers to push back the enemies and deal falling damage. Terrain is important.

>>50437435
Depends the situation, a well placed trip (or other maneuver) can be better than a shocking grasp

Look, I dislike D&D period, but at least criticize it rationally.

>>50435255

That's a balance mechanic, idiot. Check some charsheets, what's the Int Modifier od the average Ranger or Bard?

>>50435708
World of Darkness does, and it claims up and down to be narrativist.

>>50436924
what is actually a good game according to you

>>50437502
My point is that the complaint made as to why pathfinder is bad ( it's balance ) misses the point that it's a roleplaying game not designed to be balanced as game balance is meant for competitive games like 40k or magic the gathering not roleplaying games which are about unsurprisingly roleplaying a character, telling a story, playing as part of a group and are inherently run on the assumption that players aren't going to try to break the game and the DM is there to.mediate it.

Ive had power gamers who come from this type of forum try to join my group ( by stupidly telling me all their broken character combinations ) and I just tell them no.

For normal players the game is a lot of fun and probably the best version of D&D around. (5E is good but a lot more simplified ).

>>50437672
This. Holy fuck thank you sir.

Balance != Fun

If you want a balanced game just make everyone roll a >male human fighter and be done with it.

Every system has imbalances and PF is fun in spite of them. If you really can't have fun because your character isn't the most powerful thing at the table then honestly, roleplaying just isn't for you.

>>50437672
Except that's wrong. You still need balance for a role playing game when the story is about a group of allies of similar level.

It's hard to role play as a great swordsman who's a grand hero when he's incompetent at the job.

It'd be like asking a spellcaster to just role play being a great Wizard if they only had Ray of Frost

>>50437672
>it's a roleplaying game not designed to be balanced as game balance is meant for competitive games
No, roleplaying games just have a different definition of balance.

If Player A picks a class specialized in one area and Player B picks a different class that renders the majority of Player A's character irrelevant for more than filling space, THAT IS A DESIGN FLAW.

>>50437672
I think you are the one missing the point.
Balance is important so that each player is able to contribute equally to the story. That's a difficult proposition if one class can replace another with a single class feature.

>>50437739
>Every system has imbalances and PF is fun in spite of them. If you really can't have fun because your character isn't the most powerful thing at the table then honestly, roleplaying just isn't for you.
What a lovely strawman you have there.

The issue isn't
>If you really can't have fun because your character isn't the most powerful thing at the table
The issue is
>If you really can't have fun because your character isn't capable of doing what the game explicitly says he should be able to do

>>50437749
>>50437759
Explain to me how thousands of players enjoy 3.PF every day. More people enjoy it than any other edition of D&D going on the stats from roll20.

Are all those people just not really having fun?

>>50437749
You don't need the game to be perfectly balanced, you just need your players to voluntarily steer clear of unbalanced builds and options. If you can trust your players to do this, PF is a lot of fun; if you can't, it's fucking awful.

>>50437320
>For a PR guy, he is utter shit.
Design guys do tend to make godawful PR guys. Go ask the Exalted generals about how Holden deals with criticism.

>>50437581
>bait
also
>bullshit

>>50437807
Give me an example of a character being unable to do what the book explicitly states he should be able to do.

>>50437818
So play nothing but blaster casters and completely ignore the monk?

>>50437824
Are you kidding? "Hit it with a car" is THE standard method for taking down monsters in World of Darkness because of how the collision rules work.

"Use a high-powered sniper rifle from blocks away" being the #2 option, but that requires specialized training, setup, and equipment most characters won't have access to. Most World of Darkness PCs are fully equipped to run a motherfucker over with a car.

>>50437818
Yep. PF works just fine as long as you aren't playing with autists. That explains why so many people on tg hate it.

>>50437851
He said steer clear of unbalanced builds.

>>50437815
>Argument from popularity.
Not knowing better, mostly. How many of those people have only played 3.x systems?

You can have fun in spite of imbalances, but tell me how fun it is to sit at a table while knowing you have nothing at all to offer the group. It's a mine field. Some people step on a mine, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

>>50437815
You can have fun with any system anon. It's just a matter of how much work you have to put into it.

If you had a god-tier DM who was willing to sort through the rules and make adjustments, you could probably have a fun campaign out of FATAL.

However, that doesn't make a system good if you're just ignoring the glaring flaws and praying a player doesn't pick monk. If you're ignoring the rules or throwing them out to have fun, why not use a game with less rules or better rules?

The answer is that 3.5 is often the first game people get introduced to, and is so hard to learn that sunk-costs makes them stay.

If you just want to role play and have fun, then Pathfinder brings nothing to the table except hindrances.

>>50437879
Are you trying to say that blaster casters are unbalanced?
Because if you are I'm gonna have to call bullshit.

>>50437886
Your contribution to the table is more than just your attack roll you know.

>>50437838
Here: >>50435268

Also, the game states that the monk is a competent unarmed combatant. This is blatantly false.

>>50437739
Two/three classes >>>>>> rest =! fun either

>>50437864
>>50437818

Total noobs can break pathfinder without even trying. All it takes is picking the wrong class or some different spells to show the glaring flaws.

File: 1410287911512.jpg (16KB, 300x278px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x278px

>>50437922
Yes, but if all you're bringing to the group is your personality, then you may as well use freeform.

>>50437922
And I can do that without picking gimp as my character class.

>>50437838
Monk

>>50437956
You're bringing more than that. If you can't have fun without being as powerful or more than everyone else then just stop playing dude. Roleplaying isn't for you.

>>50437851
For wizards: run a more balanced point buy, learn spells based off a character theme.

Save-or-lose/control only reaches maximum bullshit when you pump your DCs and have a spell for every situation. This is something you do intentionally (even though it isn't hard to accomplish), not something you just get for being a wizard. Everyone and their mother knows how the God wizard build works, and everyone and and their mother knows that it's anti-fun horseshit. Why not just discard that way of playing?

>>50437970
Someone explain this meme to me.

>>50438004
Eventually it gets boring to play as the Wizard's dumb manservant.

It's more fun for everyone when people can actually back up their role play mechanically. Hard to claim to be a great knight when you're so useless.

What do you lose by playing a more balanced game? Then if somebody wants to be weaker than the rest of the party as a role play decision, they can choose to do so, rather than doing it on accident because crossbow fighter sounded cool.

>>50437957
So don't. Pick something you enjoy playing or discuss adjustments with your GM. It's not rocket science anon.

>>50438004
Example: Rogue.
>Medium BAB
>Half your skills are worthless if the wizard happens to know a selection of spells.
>Blindsense enemies get progressively more common with level.
>Enemies immune to critical hits get progressive more common with level.
>A bard could diplomance as well as you while still having spell slots.
>You're that guy that banters with the group without contributing anything towards their goals.
>Why are you getting a share of the loot again?
There's a million ways of having fun. If you aren't contributing to the group's success, maybe a group based game isn't for you.

>>50438066
If you can't have fun because you think the game is unbalanced you should obviously play something else.

Just don't act like your opinion is sacrosanct. 3.PF is still the most popular edition and plenty of people have a blast playing it.

>>50438069
Or, play a better game that doesn't need fixing right out of the box to have classes actually function as advertised.

If I'm playing a Lord of the Rings game, I'd rather have all the classes be equal so O can intentionally give Gandalf a couple extra levels and Frodo a couple less, rather than having to fiddle with the system. The best thing about a balanced game? You can still have an unbalanced character if you want, it's just easier on everyone else who wants to be a team.

>>50438095
Nobody gives a shot about your perceived contribution to the table. As long as you're cool and fun to roleplay with people will invite you back.

I've literally never in all my years of roleplaying heard anyone complain that another player wasn't contributing enough mechanically unless it was said in jest. You must really be playing with autists.

>>50438118
People often play pathfinder because everyone else plays it, and they have fun because they're hanging out with friends and making Monty python jokes.

That's well and good, but don't try and pretend like that makes Pathfinder a fun system. You can have fun with a bad system. I'd argue you can have more with a good one.

>>50438118
Why are trying so hard to defend a game in a thread about why people dislike it?

>>50437815
>Explain to me how thousands of players enjoy 3.PF every day.

Stockholm Syndrome
Sunk Cost Fallacy
Brain Damage

>>50438145
Every single game has imbalances and imperfections. 3.PF is so popular for a reason: it's fun, easy to pick up and its flaws don't detract from the enjoyment of the game.

>>50438162
I'm happy for you, but here's a very important point: You experiences are not definitive evidence.

"I had fun, so your group must be doing it wrong!" is a flawed argument.

>>50438182
To be kinder I would also add playing with friends.

File: 1471625584520.png (60KB, 267x246px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 267x246px

>>50437815
>Explain to me how thousands of players enjoy 3.PF every day.

>Explain to me how thousands of people enjoy McDonald's every day.

>Explain to me how thousands of people enjoy huffing spray paint every day.

>Explain to me how thousands of people enjoy licking one another's assholes every day.

>>50437548
>That's a balance mechanic, idiot.
Why not give all classes the same amount of skill points, if you want to have balance?

>>50438198
>easy to pick up
This is false. Pathfinder is like English: A pain to learn and so convoluted that it hampers the ability to learn other systems.

>>50438173
I'd argue that the system you're using is a very small contributing factor to how much fun you're having.

>>50438175
To provide a contrasting opinion as to why /tg/ thinks it's shit. You can go and make your 3.PF hate circlejerk thread if you want.

>>50438182
>stop liking what I don't like

>>50438204
Neither is yours.

"I didn't have fun, so the game sucks!" is a flawed argument.

>>50438205
Well yeah there's no point in investing time and money into a system that nobody plays (like 4e).

>>50438270
>>stop liking what I don't like

>ask a question
>get an answer
>ree because the answer isn't what you wanted to hear

File: Funny-Sad-Angry-Baby-Pictures.jpg (30KB, 1024x684px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1024x684px

>>50438219
>stop liking what I don't like

>>50438270
>"I didn't have fun, so the game sucks!" is a flawed argument.
My argument is and has been "The ease of a character being rendered redundant is a design flaw that threatens player enjoyment."

If you want to write it off, whatever, your disagreement won't harm me.

>>50438198
It's fun

It's no. If you disagree, point out the rules that make it fun, outside of the fact that it's a social role playing game

>easy to pick up

It REALLY is not. There's pages upon pages of spells, feats, classes, alternate classes, skill rules, and combat mechanics. And then you have to separate which of those aren't trap options or things that will break the game.

>flaws don't detract from enjoyment

Being Maximus, mighty hero of the land, and having trouble leaping medium sized gaps or wrestling a giant, would probably detract from having fun role playing a mighty hero. Doubly so when the Wizard just turns himself into a giant and does your job better.

All this because it's too much work to play any other edition of D&D where casters aren't gods and martials aren't useless.

>>50434552

I presume that it's because despite claiming to try to "fix" 3.5, it does little to nothing to spellcasters, with some cases even improving them more than they were before.

That aside, I actually like PF.

>>50438270
>I'd argue that the system you're using is a very small contributing factor to how much fun you're having.

Thank you for making my point. People having fun playing Pathfinder aren't having fun because of Pathfinder, so why is it so important to play it? Why not play something with simpler rules and better balance so there's less work for the DM, and he can focus more on fun NPCs or stories?

>>50438021
what meme? monk is a shitty martial, shitty skill monkey, shitty mobile combatant, a barbarian is better at whatever the monk does

>>50438219
hey mcdonalds and licking arseholes are both great

>>50438398
They also taste the same.

>>50438310
Nothing a good GM can't fix.

>>50438313
People complain about caster supremacy in EVERY edition of D&D.

>>50438357
Because it's the most popular edition so that's what most people play?

That said nothing's stopping you from running your own homebrew game that's balanced to your liking provided you can convince players to switch to it.

>>50438429
>Nothing a good GM can't fix.
If you have to house rule the system to make it not suck, congrats, you are no longer playing Pathfinder.

Thank you for conceding that PF is shit.

>>50438429
AD&D and 2e have enough restrictions on casters that they actually need martials to survive. Combined with slower leveling and they aren't gods.

4E should be obvious, but I'll just assume you don't count it and move on.

5e still has aspects of ut, but it's mainly the realm of a handful of high level spells. It's much easier for everyone to contribute, and a Wizard can't replace the entire party on his own outside of weird exploits that are far easier to spot and shoot down than half the stuff in Pathfinder.

>>50438460
Okay cool thanks for clearing that up. I guess my friends and I weren't really having fun playing PF all these years after all. Good to know.

>>50437581
WoD is the prime example of designers drinking their own kool-aid.

>just find the best GM ever
>just find the best group ever
>just dont play this char option, nor this, nor this, nor this one
>etc
Never played 3.PF, only DnDs I played was 4e and 5e liking the later better, but these "advices" make me think to not even try rather than try it

>>50438509
Yep, you were playing a d20 homebrew built off a d20 homebrew. Fascinating, isn't it?

>>50438509
Well yeah you weren't playing pathfinder you were playing a homebrew based on pathfinder.

>>50438429
>That said nothing's stopping you from running your own homebrew game that's balanced to your liking provided you can convince players to switch to it.

As an another guy, easily. I played/GMd weird homebrews, GURPS, Japstuff, even dungeons:the dragoning.

Never have my players complained i wasn't running Pathfinder. As i wasn't interested in PF games i wasn't playing in them either.

"Pathfinder is popular so you must play it!" is a meme.
Then again, i don't live in bumfuck nowhere so i actually have a choice what games to participate in.

>>50438524
>>50438530
It's weird though because I genuinely felt like I was having more fun than I had with any other system. I guess that was all an illusion though.

>>50438522
If you enjoy 5e, you have zero reasons to play 3e or its derivatives.

Literally the only possible reason to play 3.x is the amount of content to choose from, between splats and homebrew. But 5e will eventually catch up.

5e doesn't appeal to me, personally, but it's superior to PF.

>>50438563
Obviously, personalized homebrews are often superior to professional products.

>>50438563
And you've proven you're either incapable of comprehending the point or you're just plain illiterate.

>>50438569
>5e doesn't appeal to me, personally, but it's superior to PF.

So you don't like 5e or PF?

Maybe you just don't like D&D at all.

>>50438601
I quite enjoyed 2e.

>>50438601
You never know, he might be an OSR type of guy,

>>50435145
I guess that it is tangentially related, but looking at the feat trees on d20pfsrd always makes me butthurt when, after scrolling through the convoluted chains of prerequisite hoops that maartials are required to sacrifice all of their feats to jump through, you get to the metamagic shit and there's not a single prereq to be found.

That's not even getting into how a mage can respec into whatever archetype he wants overnight while the Martial characters, locked into feats, take months to retrain out of.

and one final Fuck You to weapon specialization as well.

>>50438625
So did I.

How can you not enjoy 5e if you liked 2e?

>>50435145
maneuvera are impossible unless you optimze hard and sometimes not even with that

Speed factors nothing, you can be running at light speed and enemies hit you better than standing still

Dim light vision is useless

>>50435145
I hate how with Skillpoints the average Fighter has to decide if they'd like to Jump, Climb, OR Swim, since they only get 2 skill points. And eve, if you get more, you probably aren't going to be doing other stuff like intimidating people, spotting things, or sneaking around in the slightest.

>>50434552
Punch your sentences into Word before posting, or something.

>>50438522
What didn't you like about 4e?

File: SaadMaan.jpg (26KB, 599x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 599x400px

>>50438649
To be completely honest, it's mostly disappointment with the playtest phase. There were some sigh inducing iterations along the way, such a couple that left some classes half-finished so that I couldn't play test them, so I drifted away from it midway through.

I'm not saying 5e is bad. More that I feel no need to pick up the final product when I have so many OSR options I haven't given a try yet.

>>50438419
what no mcdonalds tastes great but licking arseholes is just fun im neutral on the taste

>>50437749
Well this brings me to the second point that these complaints of Balance being an issue of of themselves are made up as they only apply in a very limited vacuum on an internet forum.using the most optimal builds in the most optimal situations to place each class in tiers against one another, not in real play.

In reality the barbarian player has a huge amount of fun smashing stuff with his sword and the wizard had a lot of fun summoning illusions and shooting fireballs. They don't obsolete each other.

>>50438773
Too gamist, it seemed more like a tabletop game than a rpg one, but could have been the group/GM

>>50438569
>Literally the only possible reason to play 3.x is the amount of content to choose from
or maybe the fact that 3e does not have advantage

>>50438819
There's no point in trying to reason with the 3.PF haters my friend.

They simply cannot fathom how someone can have fun without being OP.

Everyone in my group has fun playing PF, martials and casters alike.

>>50438819
>In reality

You mean in your anecdotal evidence. In my anecdotal evidence, all it takes for a Fighter or Monk to not have fun is to look at the stats of the Druid's animal companion, or for the Wizard to be using hos spells in clever ways to avoid combat entirely.

These are not some theoretical that only occurs at high levels or with minmaxing. There's a reason Synthasist Summoner got banned from their adventure league despite being weaker than a stock summoner, and that's because it's a caster that's blatant about how much better it is.

>>50438837
No it wasn't the group or GM. That's the way it's designed. It's not an RPG. It's a tactical minis game with the D&D logo slapped on.

>>50434552 I cast Wall of Text
having magic is inherently better than not having magic
martial need magic items to remain relevant
casters are magic and magic items only extend their reach
not all classes are created equal
point buy only makes this worse
if your dm tries to do a "low magic game" stress that a "low magic ITEM game" hurts martials more than the people who are magic
if it is low magic make sure casters have an appropraite nerf (just hit their spell progression)

>these problems aren't as bad early levels (1~5)
casters are high risk high reward
sleep and color spray are often save or die
but casters don't have many spells per day (if your group only has 1 encounter per day this is less relevant)
martials act as a buffer between an instant win and a TPK
>in the mid game (5-10) these are the most fun in my opinion
Casters are getting better spells but haven't fully ascended
they'll have access to buff spells that really help martials (haste, I'm talking about haste)
martials are hitting some nice power spikes
iterative attacks at 6 BAB / power attack increase at 8 BAB
this is when the martials act as a meat shield and primary dps and casters are utility debuff and buff
>levels 11 onward
a party's martial characters might as well start turning to NPCs
the amount of save or die mechanics in enemies begins to increase from here onward.
as well as encounters where some martials can do literally nothing with magic intervention (most likely from the casters in the party)


anyways I'll say what I always say if you like the people in your play group, you're gonna have good time even if you don't like the system. As long as you don't whine about every shortfall like everyone, on /tg/, who wonders why they don't have a long term group

>>50434552
>It's a D20 system
If that wasn't enough for you to think it's shit you're a lost cause.

>>50438890
>muh caster supremacy ;_;

>>50438868
>They simply cannot fathom how someone can have fun without being OP.
Further evidence that Pathfinder causes brain damage, as I'm sure you believe this statement to be true.

>>50438890
>martials act as a buffer between an instant win and a TPK

Only if you consider Wizards as the only casters. Clerics and Druids don't need a babysitter and can easily frontline, especially at early levels where the difference is a few points of AC and Damage.

Now, of the system was honest about martials being NPC classes, I wouldn't have any qualms.

>>50438868
Correction. I can't have fun role playing an adventurer in a group of adventurers unless I'm playing someone competent. Playing someone incompetent breaks immersion, since you have to stop and ask why he's tagging along if he isn't up to the task

>>50438924
Okay dude. Keep crying about caster supremacy and I'll keep enjoying the most popular RPG out there.

>>50438868
I like how wanting non-casters to be competent means I want to be op.

>>50438952
You're probably an incompetant player.

Every class has something to contribute.

>>50438958
5e?

>>50438965
They are competent. They're just not as versatile.

File: 20160824_RBS_DIN_7203.jpg (3MB, 2032x3048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2032x3048px

Wanderson Maciel Sousa Campos (born 7 October 1994), known as Wanderson or Wamberto, is a Brazilian professional footballer who plays for Austrian club FC Red Bull Salzburg as a winger.

Born in São Luís, Maranhão, Wanderson joined AFC Ajax's youth setup in 2002, aged eight, as his father was playing for the club. In 2009, again following the father, he joined Beerschot AC. After progressing through the latter's youth setup, he made his first team – and Pro League – debut on 31 October 2012, starting in a 1–3 away loss against Cercle Brugge KSV.

Wanderson appeared in six league matches for Beerschot before it was relegated and subsequently declared bankrupt. On 20 June 2013 he signed a two-year deal with Lierse SK, after impressing on a trial.

Wanderson made his Lierse debut on 27 July, in a 1–2 home loss against SV Zulte-Waregem, and scored his first professional goal on 23 November, netting the first in a 4–2 win at Cercle Brugge. In October 2014 he was linked as a target to the likes of Celtic, Swansea City, West Ham United, Queens Park Rangers, Sunderland and Aston Villa,[9] but none of them made any formal bids for the player.

In 2015, after Lierse's relegation, Wanderson failed to appear in the club's pre-season; despite Lierse alleging he was under contract, his father alleged he was a free agent after receiving a FIFA clearance. He subsequently went on a trial at Getafe CF in July, signing a contract with the club.

Despite being assigned to the reserves in Segunda División B, Wanderson was called up for the pre-season with the main squad, also scoring a goal against Port Vale. He made his La Liga debut on 30 August 2015, coming on as a second-half substitute for Emi Buendía in a 1–2 home loss against Granada CF.

On 1 July 2016, Wanderson signed a three-year deal with FC Red Bull Salzburg on a free transfer. He scored his first goal on August 3, 2016 in the match against Partizani Tirana by the UEFA Champions League.

>>50438978
Oh righty, yessir. Ill be a gud boy and mop up those sleeping kobolds for you sir.Boy I sure do love me some helpin'

>>50438978
For the non-casters its services as a pack mule

>>50438983
3e and PF combined are more popular than 5e. Although 5e is pretty good too.

I'll play anything except 4e.

>>50434552
Often it's just a matter oft players preferring to continue playing what they already know, rather than learn a new system, though not always; some games are just bad. I'm a guy who firmly believes that variety is the spice of life, so while I started with 3.5 back when, and stubbornly stuck with it for some time. What initially started as trying older editions of D&D rapidly grew into giving just about every system I could find a once-over at least.
The point of this being that I've notice most people complains about most systems are largely superficial, or inaccurate. They stand as a testament to the fact that the person likely had long decided to disregard it before they even began reading the book, or they'll disregard an entire system because of a singular ruling they don't like.
There are lots of people that like stuff I don't like, obviously, and vise versa I know. It only bothers me when it's evident they've not actually given it a chance. If they gave it a play or at least read through the whole book before sending a a shit review down the pipe.

Most people give Pathfinder a bad rep just for being an off-shoot of 3rd. However, this is partially fair as most of it's primary problems are leftovers from D&D's general flaws; both mechanical and logical; balance issues, illogical systems, and ironically lacking reasoning in matters of realism and verisimilitude from a development team that somewhat infamously experimented with catching a mouse by pulling it up by the cord to test the rulings of some weapon draw-cord mechanic, as I understand it.

>>50438997
>>50438998
Pure hyperbole. Have you guys ever even played PF or are you just parroting memes you heard on /tg/?

>>50438988
>They are competent.
The way cmb scales compared to CMD makes me think otherwise.

>>50439000
If you are basing this on the roll20 graph, you know that people play more than 1 game on it, right? The 3.PF graphs are the same length because people playing one also play the other.

>>50439019
Yes I have played pathfinder. My experiences playing pathfinder are the primary reasons I no longer paly it.

>>50439019
Hi! You might remember me from up thread as the guy who had a Fighter outclassed by the Druid's wolf.

Mind explaining why a none would ever bring me along when it's cheaper to buy a pack mule and a few hunting dogs?

>>50439066
>Fighter outclassed by the Druid's wolf

You're doing something wrong.

>>50439086
Yeah, playing PF.

>>50439086
He probably tried to do a finesse fighter in a core only game.

>>50439086
Yeah, being a new player and assuming the Fighter class was good at Fighting.

But as we know, the imbalance only crops up if you min-max right? I shouldn't need to min-max to be a Fighter who can Fight as well as a random free dog, right?

>>50439122
>I shouldn't need to min-max to be a Fighter who can Fight as well as a random free dog, right?

You don't. You just need to not be a complete retard when creating your character.

>>50438988
I'm in a PF game right now, I'm playing an Umonk, I even put the stats in PF general, it got the OK of everybody (taking into account only 1pp is allowed), well, the Barbarian and the Summoner are literally better than me at everything. The barb has better defense, attack, damage, HPs and skills, the summoner has better attack (Eidolon), HPs (his+Eidolon), defense (weird +X bonus if the Eidolon is near), etc.

Btw, in order
18, 14, 14, 8, 16, 8
Power attack
Dragon Style, Ferocity
Combat reflexes
Imp Trip
Imp Grapple
Flying kick
Barkskin, Elemental Fury

At least I'm better at combat than the cleric (weird archetype with light armor, tons of skills and other stuff, more casty than smitey).

>>50439152
Right. That's easy to do for a new player in a system so laden with trap options.

Still haven't answered why it's any better to hire a fighter than some hunting hounds.

>>50439152
>Nobody ever experiences this in reality
>I experienced this in reality
>Y-you did it wrong

The point is more that a Fighter and Animal companion are even comprable at all, when one is a Class and the other is a Class feature. You might have a point if the Fighter got a slightly weaker druid to follow him around as a base feature, but that isn't the case.

>>50439258
>You might have a point if the Fighter got a slightly weaker druid to follow him around as a base feature, but that isn't the case.
Having a free buff/healbot follower would be a pretty sweet fighter feature, actually.

>>50439301
That's what healsluts are for anon.

>>50439185
>Imp trip with int 8
Go fellate a shotgun you fool no one with your shitty attempt of trolling

>>50439301
It would be. Maybe something like
>a mystical spirit, divine presence, or unholy aura follows in your steps, proof of your talent's recognition by higher powers
>during your initiative count, if your health is below half, you heal (some) HP. Otherwise it provides one of the following benefits, chosen after a long rest
>bonus AC/DR until your next turn
>bonus hit/damage for all attacks this turn
>some utility benefit

Put in some work to actually balance it, and it could be pretty good for a fighter rework.

>>50435145
> HP Bloat
> The vast majority of how well your character can defend themselves is based on the armor they're wearing. A handful of points points is usually all that separates a martial and any other character wearing the same type of armor.
> Shields only give you +1 or +2 AC
> At level 1 a fight-guy is generally only 5-20% more likely to land an attack than any other character, while skill-bots and caters both are already infinitely better at what they do than a martial would be by a margin as wide as 25-100%; depending on which two we're comparing.

>>50439405
So bring back tome of battle?

>>50435131
I used to spend hours trying to figure out how to buff martial characters in Pathfinder to fun levels after my fighter player started complaining, but these days I just run GURPS: Dungeon Fantasy.

He seems to enjoy his role far more, now. Martials in GURPS get a lot of cool shit if you allow the right rules (namely, Martial Arts, Extra Effort and Targeted Attacks). Pay attention to surprise rounds in particular, they're what separate the martial killing machines from the squishy support fighters.

>>50439530
>Martials in GURPS get a lot of cool shit if you allow the right rules (namely, Martial Arts, Extra Effort and Targeted Attacks).
I'm GURPS player too. Martial are much more interesting in battle, mainly because there is a ton of things they can use and do: hit location strikes, Deceptive Attacks, Rapid Strikes, Feins, Beats, Ruses, hundred of different techniques... and that's all _before_ you start to use Powers and Imbuements to make them really over the top.

>>50439528
Well yes, it made the system not suck by giving martials cool things that let them contribute to the group.

No wonder Paizo ignored it.

>>50439645
Unfortunately it sperged out casterfags and mundane only fighterfags.