Does anyone really *need* the granularity of the d20? In 3e/4e/Shitfinder,

File: make b8 gr8 again.jpg (158KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1000x1000px

>>50878151

>D&D
>Number crunching

Retard detected.

D&D is the easiest fucking system in the world, retarded grandmothers learn to play it to spend time with their autistic grandchildren.

Well meme'd OP, now let's move on to how GURPS is bad at everything, masterwork weapon isn't good enough for katanas, elf slaves as a roleplaying premise and GNS theory as a viable way of evaluating RPGs. Don't drop the skub.

>>50878151
A d6 wouldn't work very well at all for D&D. A simple +2 to a d6 roll could change a 50% chance of success to an 83% chance of success. That means that you'd have to be very stingy with modifiers/adjustments. You couldn't have any real stratification when it comes to, say, attributes--I'd say 1 point at the most. So you could have strong (+1), average (--), and weak (-1), but there wouldn't be any room for fairly strong, or very strong.

You also wouldn't be able to have capabilities that gradually increase over time (like your saving throws and your chance to hit). You'd get one or two increases at the absolute most, and even there you might run into trouble. And what about armor? If plate makes you hard to hit than mail, which makes you harder to hit than leather, which makes you harder to hit than being unarmored, that requires 4 different armor class levels at minimum. That's enough to take you from hitting an unarmored guy 4/6 of the time to hitting a guy in plate 1/6 of the time. But while that, alone, might be doable, once you factor in even our modest attribute modifiers (-1 to +1), minimal improvement in your chance to hit as you level (+1), and any bonus at all from a magic weapon (+1), we're now looking at a range of that takes us over a 100% chance to hit (7/6) all the way down to 0%. And we haven't even taken into account a situtional modifier of +1 or -1 (because it's dark in the cave and it's difficult to see your target, or you're shooting your bow at something far away), or a spell-based enhancement of some sort.

Even if we move to a d10, we'll still be struggling to fit things within the available range. That's not to say that a game couldn't be designed to use a d10, but in order to get D&D to work well with it, you'd have to significantly alter things, and for what purpose? I don't see using a d20 as some great detriment.

File: Tricking_people_into_having_fun.png (122KB, 953x564px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 953x564px

>>50878151
We've had these threads before. Their version is much better than yours.

No less stupid though.

File: Having fun is tricky.png (10KB, 651x154px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 651x154px

>>50880290

File: Having to trick people into behaving.png (10KB, 830x145px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 830x145px

>>50880315

File: Having a good character is tricky.png (12KB, 924x180px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 924x180px

>>50880323

>>50878616
>D&D is the easiest fucking system in the world
while i disagree with the OP.... this is quite embarrassing, desu

>daily d&d and other d20 systems are shit thread
What happened OP? Cant find a group for your d8 catgirl maids world war 2 rpg?

>>50878151
it allows for subtle differences between statblocks; this is good.

The system I use replaces dice with decks of 52 playing cards and persistent hands.

>>50880335
>Cant find a group for your d8 catgirl maids world war 2 rpg?
Well, shit. Now I have a system to create.

>>50880333
What's hard about it? Literally everything you do is "Roll d20 add modifiers, DM tells you what happened"

>>50880386
>Roll d20, add modifiers A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I if the situation calls for it, J if it's the second Wednesday of the month, K if your weapon is moldy, L, M, N, O, and P if you're racial power lets you, Q, if you're playing a duck, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z if your DM is feeling generous.
>DM tells you end result, but you disagree with him, so spend the next 1d20x5 mins arguing with him and digging through one of many rules books for support to your demands.

>>50880426
We're talking about D&D, not GURPS, dumbshit.

>>50880426
Do you happen to be mentally retarded?

>>50880434
>>50880436
>Not seeing the obvious sarcasm
Christ you guys need to drink your coffee.

>>50880442
Joke

Your head

File: IMG_8278.gif (772KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 400x225px

>>50880442
>I was just pretending to be retarded

File: not-going-to-talk-about-the-weird-jig-the-other-guy-is-doing_o_5571961.jpg (399KB, 600x740px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 600x740px

>>50878151

When did i realize DnD is garbage?

On the first session after learning about several things:
>your armor makes you harder to hit instead of soaking damage.
>finesse weapon bullshit.
>that no matter how serious my character injuries are, he will get bact to the full form after 8 hours of sleep.
>"resistance to magic" trait, meaning that you have advantage on saving throws.
>no options for any kind of tactical combat. All one can do as a warrior is to stand in front of baddies with around 40% chance of being hit.

>me: "I do X"
>gm: "you need a special feat for protecting other with your shield"

>>50880450
>I was only pretending to be retarded

And like always, the retards come out of the woodwork to defend the d20 from nothing.

>>50880465
>oh, he wasn't making fun of how people treat GURPS, he was defending D&D!

You are legitimately stupid.

>>50880460
What did you expect, quality combat mechanics?

From a bunch of basement dwelling, mouth-breathing, lounge chair historians who failed Phy Ed as a child?

Might as well ask a cat for a new car.

>>50880481
>talking about d20's and D&D
>le GURPS

How's it feel to have such poor reading comprehension?

>>50880495
Considering you're the one who missed the link to the GURPS joke yet added it to your complaints, I'd say my reading comprehension is just fine.

Apparently hating D&D causes severe brain damage.

>>50880504
>Being this retarded.

>>50880386
You find that in practice D&D is a bit more involved than that, anon.

>>50880517
>muh hate fur D&D
>SO SRS GUISE
>NO JOKES
>STAAAAHHPP!!!
You people can't be taken seriously to begin with. Calling other people retarded doesn't make it any better.

Take some zanex and valium and go get some sleep.

>>50880532
So is every other game out there, kiddo.

>>50880620
Stay butthurt d20fag.

>>50880657
It's impossible to be hurt by you people. You hate a game SO MUCH you can't stop talking about it! How is that not the most hilarious thing ever? And your responses to people laughing at you is cute. Oh no, you called me names! You said I was mad! How TERRIBLE!

>>50880699
Need a tissue anon?

>>50878151
Scaling.
The more narrow the range, the less room there is for variation of overall capacity. D&D's balancing is all out of wack, but saying that a 20-base scale is too wide is perhaps the biggest reach I've seen in a counter-D&D argument.

Just got home from our holiday dnd session.

How was your evening, complaining on the internet?

>>50880620
I consider a simple game one that fits the entirety of its rules on an A4 page, like Risus. In fact I consider D&D character creation being more rules heavy than GURPS, because of the builds you need to know of beforehand (like picking the correct prerequisites for the feats you're going to need pick up later etc).

>>50880657
>>50880699
Girls, girls!

You're both retarded.

>>50880745
>Evening
It's 6 in the morning here in the real world. How's it feel living in a muslim run shit hole?

>>50880714
Only because I'm laughing so hard, really. Thanks!

>>50880761
>I'm not hurt sempai-sama!

>>50880752
I noe, rite?

>>50878151
The best systems are objectively systems based on normal distributions, like 2d6

These threads were doomed to be shit the second any of the sides took on an air of perceived superiority.

>>50880813
Well yeah, when you beckon d20flies to meat, it's going to spoil the meat.

>>50880813
You mean like this guy?
>>50880819

>>50880819
>cant see the forest for the trees

>>50880825
>>50880827
Man I need a tub for the amount of fish in this thread.

>>50880832
It's gotten s bad no one is discussing the OP anymore.

Which is good, because OP was dumb.

The only system that doesn't have that issue is OSR-forms of D&D....which is D&D.....and Apocalypse World, which isn't a good game.

Here is a good question for those here, not even being a troll just an observer.

How many people are just foaming at the mouth pushing dnd 3.5?

I dont see anyone loyal to the system in /pfg/ or 5e general. Any time I see someone say something about it is when people complain about it, when they get half a thread of bitching before someone tells them to fuck off. The people who liked 3.5 left like two years ago and hardly ever come back.

>>50880846
>OSR
I'm gonna go puke smugly.

OSR just attracts the other end of the autism spectrum.

It's not the mechanics that make or break a game for me, it's the community. D&D and it's near relatives all have a terrible community.

>>50880873
3.5 is at a fraction of it's former playerbase, mostly because of Pathfinder and 5e together covering almost all aspects of 3.5 that people enjoyed.

I know there are still people who enjoy 3.5 on /tg/, I am one of them, but the obsessive fans incapable of seeing fault with their broken-ass system and refusing to ever play anything else are mostly gone

>>50880878
OSR community here is pretty chill though, unlike say Pathfinder threads.

>>50880295
>actually posting green text on dark pink background

Readability is tricky.

>>50881027
The haters have a club of their own though, which is hilarious.

>>50880873
Because you're not allowed to have BADWRONGFUN so they make these threads to tell people that they are having badwrongfun in.

>>50880460
>>your armor makes you harder to hit instead of soaking damage.
Good to know that even literal retards like you can have okay taste too.

>>50880873
Please, stop trying to pad up your troll thread.

No one is "pushing" 3.5. It doesn't need to be pushed. It's the 2nd most popular game, even after sixteen years, and is essentially the system you NEED to have at least played in order to even enter the discussion about games and game systems, as it is the most influential game of the last two decades. It would be like saying that people needed to push Evangelion on /a/ or Batman on /co/, when its just their momentous popularity that carry themselves.

What people are tired of are these low-hanging fruit trolls spamming and bumping these terrible threads to argue the most stupid complaints ad nauseum like they think they're game experts, when they're just idiots upset about a popular games continued legacy. 3.5 has well-known issues (since just about everyone has played this game), but the game is, and will remain, popular because it is a mechanically deep and diverse system that rewards system mastery and has been analyzed and improved by tens of thousands of people. It gets undue hate because of its popularity, and people pretend that listing issues, issues often less grievous than those in lesser known games, might be enough to condemn the system as a whole.

These are threads for baby whiners, and the people stupid enough to engage with them. The funny thing, or the sad thing, is that these threads do more FOR 3.5's popularity than against it, because no minds are being changed by these threads (thanks to the raw stupidity of the arguers), and the old adage "any publicity is good publicity."

>>50881051
Yeah but the games are so old and archaic, how can anyone have fun with rules that are more than 30 years old? Not to mention how little customization you get, it's so restrictive! Only four classes? There's no roleplaying to be had in that.
I tried to get my playgroup into BFRPG once and that's basically what they told me.

>>50881051
They're mostly busy actually playing their games or being productive adults. Which is good. But when it comes to anything outside of their comfort zone, I've found most OSRfags are as bad as a Nazi in a Synagogue.

>>50880460
You seem to be talking about, and so I too will be talking about, 5e.

>your armor makes you harder to hit instead of soaking damage.

There's a historical reason for this dating back to D&D being originally a war game, but I forget the specifics, and it doesn't much matter anyway. Having AC be "how hard you are to damage" allows a speedy character and a full-plated character to be equally viable builds.

>finesse weapon bullshit.

¿Por qué?

>that no matter how serious my character injuries are, he will get bact to the full form after 8 hours of sleep.

1) D&D is not a real-life simulator
2) Hit points are an abstraction and do not necessarily represent "meat points" except when convenient for them to do so (i.e., they do when you take falling damage, lava damage, or are poisoned by a weapon that hits you; but conversely the game does not assume that every single arrow hits you and you end up looking like a porcupine). It's up to you whether your 1-hit point character is a broken mess or just winded and sweating like a pig. Shift your paradigm.

>"resistance to magic" trait, meaning that you have advantage on saving throws.

...should things not have resistance to magic?

>no options for any kind of tactical combat. All one can do as a warrior is to stand in front of baddies with around 40% chance of being hit.

...wrong on every level? Even without the Battle Master options, every character can shove, grapple, climb, jump, and interact with the world around them, all of which open up immense combat options.

>gm: "you need a special feat for protecting other with your shield"

You need a special feat for protecting others with your shield *when it's not your turn*. Simply standing in front of them with your shield should properly grant some kind of cover.

>>50880386
>Literally everything you do is "Roll d20 add modifiers, DM tells you what happened"
no, that is NOT all you need to know and understand

File: josephjoestar.jpg (15KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 210x240px

>>50880442
You're next line is "I was only pretending to be retarded!"

>>50881096
>It gets undue hate because of its popularity, and people pretend that listing issues, issues often less grievous than those in lesser known games
Anon, this is the point where you pushed too far.

>>50881155
Yes, it really is.

you can put a character sheet in front of someone, explain that, and give them a little help in adding modifies, and the GM can, if he wants, pick up 90% of the slack.

In ANY game.

>>50881173
No, he's right. M&M, Rifts, WoD, and Rolemaster/LotR Middleearth Roleplaying are all much, much, MUCH worse than D&D about the things D&D haters talk about.

They also conveniently ignore these facts because it doesn't fit their D&D Hate Agenda.

>>50881173
It's true though.

It's not the greatest game, but there's no game that is "due" an endless cycle of "HEY GUYS LOOK HOW MUCH I HATE THIS GAME" troll threads made by idiots.

>>50881169
Your next line is that you're a jojofag and jojofags need to kill themselves already.

>>50881096
I don't like Evangelion, but I can see that it isn't bad and understand why it is broadly liked

I don't like most Batman material, but I like some of it, and I can see the overarching strengths that keep bringing people back for more even after Snyder has shat all over them

I LOVE 3.5, but it is a BAD game, it's flaws are the most glaring, game-breaking flaws of any decently popular RPG, it has depth, but only via the value of a broken clock being right twice a day due to it's ludicrously massive amount of material, and it has bred a horrible mindset into the tabletop RPG community that, although it's now faded, we're still dealing with today

File: 1409755087728.gif (901KB, 500x212px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 500x212px

>>50881169
I was only pretending to be retarded!

Ho!!!

>>50881186
that is not satisfying for 99% of the players beyond the first few sessions and you know it.

>>50880460

>>your armor makes you harder to hit instead of soaking damage.
Wrong.
Your touch AC shows how hard you are to hit, and isn't affected by armor.
Your armor bonus to AC makes it more difficult to damage you.
Damage reduction from armor is retarded.
Wearing a breastplate doesn't mean that when someone stabs you with a dagger, it hurts half as much.

>>finesse weapon bullshit.
What's bullshit about using speed instead of strength to hit a target?

>>that no matter how serious my character injuries are, he will get bact to the full form after 8 hours of sleep.
Don't know what edition you were playing, but in 3.5 it certainly doesn't work like that.
>>"resistance to magic" trait, meaning that you have advantage on saving throws.
South like 5th edition isn't your speed.
>>no options for any kind of tactical combat. All one can do as a warrior is to stand in front of baddies with around 40% chance of being hit.
Same as above. 3.5 and PF have more tactical options. There are many classes based around it actually.

>me: "I do X"
>gm: "you need a special feat for protecting other with your shield"
5th edition changed "aid another" to "help" and removed the option to bolster an ally's defense.

>>50881169
late to the party fag

what is it with muslims and having shit sense of punctuality?

>>50881216
Hey! You leave RIFTS out of this! It's not Kevin's fault he has four different rule sets for drowning/choking/breath holding/asphyxiation, at least three swim skills, can't add your Physical Prowess (Dex equivalent) to ranged attacks and refuses to even attempt to collect the rules into a sensible format!

But dammit I still enjoy the game, just wish it wasn't owned by a retard

>>50881186
Two points.

1) Even if this were true, how would that be a bad thing? There is something to be said for having the fewest number of moving parts necessary. Being easy to learn is not a bad mark. Quite the opposite, it's a design goal for any competent RPG.

2) How is the player going to know how to level up his character? That doesn't involve the d20. How is a druid character going to understand Wild Shape? How is a spellcaster going to understand most of his spells? How is a player going to understand what weapons are optimal for his build? I think you'll find that "90% of the slack" ends up being a huge portion of the game.

>>50881096
>as it is the most influential game of the last two decades.
this is beyond ridiculous. it has brought NO innovation that has influenced other RPG systems. in fact, it has been the other way around: it had brought D&D more uptodate with innovations of the era, which was enough for deendeefags to brag about it even 16 FUCKING YEARS later.

>>50881216
>M&M
hitpoint bloat partially works for the genre
>Rifts
generally touted as one of the worst major systems ever, Savage Rifts greeted as a saviour
>Rolemaster
has criticals to offset HP bloat but, yes, shares other issues with D&D (like eventual caster supremacy) but is no issue any longer because it has fallen into obscurity (largely due to MERP losing the tolkien license).

>>50880426
That's 3.5. We don't talk about 3.5 in civilised places.
>>50880442
Poe's law

>>50881259
>Your touch AC shows how hard you are to hit, and isn't affected by armor.
>Your armor bonus to AC makes it more difficult to damage you.
So why don't bigger weapons make it easier to hit you. A giant's non-magical, non-masterwork club should give its wielder an enormous bonus to hit.

the thing is... there are historical reasons why D&D works why it does. it hasn't disposed of AC because it's part of its brand, even though it's a subpar mechanic.

>>50881308
>That's 3.5. We don't talk about 3.5 in civilised places.

How very progressive of you

>>50881316
>even though it's a subpar mechanic.

Why, though?

That is to say, it functions well enough. The only truly incongruous part about it is its name; "Defense" would probably be a better term. But from a purely mechanical perspective I don't see an issue with it.

>>50881244
You exaggerate.

Evangelion has incredible flaws that you seem to have overlooked, ranging from a main character that gets less likable as the series progresses and motifs that the director admitted were inserted to pretend to be deep without any meaning behind them. Telling me it isn't bad and broadly liked, by your view, is ignoring those flaws.

Batman has some of the worst problems of any superhero, largely because the rules surrounding him are often contradictory. He's supposed to have "no super powers", but he exists in a world where magic exists and can be learned (by people who are intelligent and have strong will, and Batman has one of the strongest wills in the DC universe), and yet somehow Batman refuses to learn magic.

See? They're bad by your definition, because I can make stupid complaints about them. And that's just a taste, because I haven't even started the whole business about pedophilia in both series.

3.5 is a great game by common measure, and it's popularity is hardly undeserved. It took an already great system and updated it, and though now it is effectively superseded by 5e, it still remains a fun experience and ultimately a necessary one for anyone interested in roleplaying games.

>and it has bred a horrible mindset into the tabletop RPG community that, although it's now faded, we're still dealing with today

Stop. This is a baseless meme that people have tried to conjure up, and it's as empty as trying to blame the worst of /a/ and /co/ on Evangelion, Batman, and other popular series. 3.5 helped teach many valuable lessons to thousands of players, and trying to say that a few idiots who learned the wrong things from the system outweigh all the others is unfair and ridiculous.

>>50881316

>So why don't bigger weapons make it easier to hit you.
Why... would they?

>A giant's non-magical, non-masterwork club should give its wielder an enormous bonus to hit.
Actually the opposite is true in D&D, and for a well justified reason.
Things that are small are harder to hit.
Your foot is several times larger than a rat, but good luck stomping on one.
Vice-versa, something large is easier to hit.

>the thing is... there are historical reasons why D&D works why it does.
I see no evidence for this.

>it hasn't disposed of AC because it's part of its brand, even though it's a subpar mechanic.
They haven't replaced AC because it's a part of the basic d20 system.
If they replaced it, you'd have one major, perhaps the biggest, aspect of the game that doesn't follow the core game mechanic.

>>50878151

Do you also anna use meters? Fuck off commie!

>>50880271
This guy gets it

>>50881354
What good lessons has 3.5 taught?

>>50881355
>Your foot is several times larger than a rat

Clearly you have never been to New York.

>>50881334
>Why, though?

It's an all-or-nothing mechanic that doesn't represent an all-or-nothing concept.

>>50881415

Thankfully not.

>>50881355
>Why... would they?

Try swatting a fly with a coat hanger. Then try again with a rolled-up newspaper.

>>50881422
Never said it was a bad thing.

>>50881417
This, I think, once again stems from a confusion at the fact that hit points are not, and have never, necessarily been "meat points". They are when it's convenient for them to be, but they equally are not when it is convenient for them to not be, too.

D&D has optional rules for true "meat points" (the "wounds" system), as well as optional rules for hitting something like an arm or a leg They slot into the extant d20 system quite comfortably, but they also add complexity to a game that, while it can handle the added complexity quite well, also benefits more from having a simple system.

>>50881425
This is potentially misleading since over our lives we've probably developed Proficiency with rolled-up newspapers and like weapons precisely because of constant attempts to hit flies, whereas few people ever even attempt to do so with a coat hanger.

Just play OD&D or BD&D. It's seriously the fucking best.

Well, the best is Swords & Wizardry: Complete.

>>50881399
Being popular is enough to make you immune to criticism, you only need one system to play everything, OGL dominating the market was the proof that this is true.

>>50881425

A coat hanger would be an undersized weapon in D&D, as well as an improvised weapon.
You're looking at at least a -8 to hit.
A fly would be a fine sized creature, and get +8 to ac.
We're already looking at a disadvantage of 16 on an attack roll.
Meaning you'd need 26 to hit.
Not gonna happen.

A newspaper on the other hand, is effectively as lethal to a fly as a medium sized club.
So you'd only have a disadvantage of 8.
Meaning you need 18 to hit.
Hard, but doable if the fly is sitting still and isn't ready for you.

>>50881497
You're not funny...

Ok you're a little funny

>>50881503
I'd say a rolled up newspaper is more like a sap than a club. Depending on the size, of course.

>>50881515

Fair point.
I thought club because those are crude and cheap, but a sap is probably closer in size.

>>50881503
substitute a rapier for the coat hangar and try this exercise again

>>50881563
I actually cut a fly in half with a kitchen knife once.

But nobody will ever believe me.

>>50878151
>he finds it hard to count up to twenty
laughinggirls.jpeg

>>50881399
Aside from being a gateway into roleplaying in general, for one thing it helped new players and DM's to decisively move past freeform conventions and expectations.

While some took this too far, 3rd edition's stance of codifying many of the looser aspects of 2e developed the sense that the world really was governed by shared rules to a level not seen in most other games. This is most apparent in the magic of the system, with spell descriptions going from a few lines to entire paragraphs that clearly outlined what the spell could and could not do, based largely on trying to curtail the exploits discovered by players of 2e.

Looking at it from this side of history, you can complain about how it taught some people to be finicky rules lawyers, but that's more of a factor of the person's personality than the game's construction, with these people being the try-hards who would create broken characters in any and every game.

Compared to games of that era that people would call "narrativist", 3e had far more tangible mechanics without being quite as overwhelming as more rule-oriented games of the time were. For its time, it hit the sweet spot of easy enough to start, but with firm rules to help players learn their way through the system. Even the somewhat silly and extensive skills list had its role, acting as a list of suggested actions, with codified behavior all centered around a single, unifying core mechanic.

Ultimately, 4e and 5e realized that many restrictions and rules were not wholly necessary, but those are hindsight developments, and 3rd editions contributions to those games, and other roleplaying games, should not be understated. It was a good step forward, even though we've taken many other steps since then.

>>50881503
why is the coat hangar an improvised weapon, but the newspaper isn't? neither appear listed as simple/martial/exotic weapons

why is the coat hangar and undersized weapon, but the newspaper isn't? if the newspaper is comparable to a club, isn't the coat hangar comparable to a stiletto?

>>50881563

Sorry that D&D doesn't accurately reflect fly vs rapier combat.
You're using a terrible analogy anyway.
A fly is many thousands of times smaller than a person anyway.
In fact, by my math the average fly is nearly 5,000 times lighter than the lightest size class.

At such extremes, of course the system isn't going to be flawless.

That's why I compared a rat to a human, which is a combat that can actually happen in both D&D and real life.

>>50881503
...sooo a larger weapon makes hitting easier, then?

>>50881605

Because of the obvious reasons.
It's a moot point anyway, because its a ridiculous metric to judge a game by.

>>50881647

On a scale where something is a million times smaller than you maybe.

In a giant vs human scenario, the size of your club is virtually irrelevant.

>>50881605
>why is the coat hangar an improvised weapon, but the newspaper isn't?

I covered that. Years of using newspapers (and similar) to hit flies can reasonably make it so that people can be presumed proficient with them. Conversely, few if any people try to use coat hangers as weapons, so they never gain proficiency

>isn't the coat hangar comparable to a stiletto?

Not really? Depends on the coat hanger, I guess, but assuming a wire one, no, it's shaped almost, but not quite, exactly unlike a stiletto, unless you deform it to shape it like a stiletto, but then you probably run into the issue of not being proficient with stilettos.

Jesus christ, AC works because it's a fucking game mechanic, it doesn't perfectly represent reality because D&D doesn't perfectly represent reality

>>50878151
There are better systems, but any system is better than none. With the exception of FATAL.

It's not the game that's shit, it's you and your group that sucks.

>>50881355
>So why don't bigger weapons make it easier to hit you.
>Why... would they?
If I throw a brick at you it's a lot less likely to hit you than if I drop a five hundred pound bomb on the house you're in.

>>50881776
>Years of using newspapers (and similar) to hit flies can reasonably make it so that people can be presumed proficient with them

This argument started out stupid, and somehow got dumber.

Is that the goal of these threads? To highlight just how stupid people who spend their time complaining about systems are?

>>50881605
Have you ever seen how big a coat HANGAR is?
How do you even manage to use a fucking closet as a weapon?

>>50881818

That's absurdly unrelated to the discussion.

>>50881851
Very appropriate, you fight like Kierkgaard.

So which is easier to step out of the way from having swung at you; a baseball bat or a telephone pole? Assume that both are moving at the same speed.

>>50880460
Which editions have Final Fantasy inns? The only version I played has you recovering 2-3 hp per day from bed rest.

>>50881912
The editions I know of have you healing your level per night of rest. So wizards actually get back to full faster than warriors.

>>50880733
>You have a 5% of getting anything from a (+1) to a (+20) based on the die rolls
>Having a roll of 20 is enough to beat at least half the DC requirements in the system
>Somehow this isn't too wide of a gap.

Kys

>>50881354
>I haven't even started the whole business about pedophilia in both series.

Wut?

>>50881382
>when you're so excited to post in the troll thread that you can't take the time to verify your autocorrect

>>50881601
>you can complain about how it taught some people to be finicky rules lawyers, but that's more of a factor of the person's personality than the game's construction
Actually, it's an issue with the game because, to be quite honest, I've never seen a bigger concentration of power gamers or rules lawyers outside of 3.PF's community.

People who will argue for five minutes about how they receive another +1 bonus because of some obscure rule in some splat that nobody else owns.

People who will play backseat driver to you playing your character because they think that they know what's best for you.

People who will make gimmick characters and then arbitrarily kill them off once they get bored and wish to play another gimmick character for teh lulz.

Among other things.

And I'll continue to blame the community for how shit the game is when it's billed as a tabletop RPG made with the intention of playing w/ others.

>>50881912
>Which editions have Final Fantasy inns? The only version I played has you recovering 2-3 hp per day from bed rest.

I started in 3e and Pathfinder and with how easy it was to get magical healing, you were pretty much always topped off.

>>50882103
Well... yeah

Why the fuck would you even play 3.5 if you aren't powergaming in some way? The vast array of options available, combined with the pseudo-point-buy leveling system, and the (fairly) clear cut tiers of class power make it pretty much the best game in the world for charOP

That's the community zeroing in on the strongest part of the game and playing it for that, instead of trying to force the system to handle something it's bad at, can you really fault the community that plays the game for playing to it's strengths rather than it's weaknesses?

>>50882172
I'll fault the community when you sit down for a T3/T4 game and the asshole comes in with a build that's borderline T2 thanks to a bunch of feats and abilities from splats that nobody at the table has heard of, let alone used.

Or force a campaign that was roleplay focused into yet another number crunching session due to them stacking +32 onto the "win the campaign" skill which will inevitably turn into 10 minutes of whining because you decided to throw a curve ball at them.

Or they sit down to a game with a gimmick character who doesn't fit with the rest of the party, can only do one thing, and inevitably gets retired from play because they get bored and wish to try something else.

>>50882265
The powergamers are not the problem there, you are (except for the last one, you should always build your character around what other people are doing, group optimization is better than individual optimization)

Why the fuck are you making a roleplay-heavy campaign in 3.5? Why the fuck is only one person in the game optimizing? You are making games that 3.5 is bad at with apparently only one person who understands 3.5.

>>50882103
>Actually, it's an issue with the game because, to be quite honest, I've never seen a bigger concentration of power gamers or rules lawyers outside of 3.PF's community.

That's because 3.5 is popular and had the most players, attracting the spike types.

Even so, those type of players are a minority, and it's an exaggeration to say that 3.5 is a shit game with a shit community, and comes mostly from weird people who are upset about the game's popularity. While there's arguably better games and we can argue forever about the communities, it's unfair to try and promote your personal experiences as somehow representative of the larger community.

I have had plenty of good games in the past with 3rd edition, and that may just be because I personally know how to communicate with players, even those predisposed to aggressively challenge the system. But, I'm not going to bill it as a utopian happy system just because I know how to interact with people while you may not.

It's just a system, and hating it like you do is just as ridiculous as any other fanboyism.

>>50882359
I really need you to explain to me how someone being a shitty power gamer is my fault, while at the same time citing that group optimization is better than individual optimization.

Because if I want to run a roleplay focused game in 3.PF, I should be able to do so without one errant sperg jizzing all over the campaign just to show off his latest OP build he got from charops when the rest of us sat down and agreed to a more roleplay focused campaign.

If I cannot run a roleplay heavy campaign then that means one of two things, either the system cannot handle everything like so many 3.PFags claim or the community is so shit that the only campaigns that one can run are dungeon crawlers with enough context to fit on a dirty napkin.

>>50882631
>Because if I want to run a roleplay focused game in 3.PF, I should be able to do so without one errant sperg jizzing all over the campaign just to show off his latest OP build he got from charops when the rest of us sat down and agreed to a more roleplay focused campaign.

Have you tried communication? It seems like you're just a shit person, hoping to blame a system on your inability to actually talk to people.

>>50882623
>Even so, those type of players are a minority, and it's an exaggeration to say that 3.5 is a shit game with a shit community
As someone who has been in close to 30 3.PF games over the course of about a decade, you're full of shit.

If anything, you've got it backwards.

>>50882657
>30 games where I huffed and puffed and bitched like a little shit

I think the problem is you.

>>50882651
Anytime you try to call out one of these spergs, they always go on about "muh rules" or "muh character" until either they leave or you kick them out.

That isn't to say that every power gamer I've played with was unreasonable but it's enough of a problem where I just boot anyone who displays too many red flags by default.

Since I've done that, my games have been marginally smoother, though it's also much harder to get a good group.

>>50882670
>Been in close to 30 games where power gamers and rules lawyers ruined the campaign
>Obviously the problem is you Huck :B

Is it really that difficult to admit that D&D has a shitty community? Because its been 10 years so far and even hardcore fanboys will admit that there's a lot of undesirables that ruin games for people.

>>50882657
As someone who played thirty 3rd edition games in the course of a year, and many after that with somewhere of around sixty groups or so, I think my experience may outweigh yours.

While I have not played 3.PF since 5e came out, I'm still in contact with a fair amount of groups that still play, and no, it's really not fair to call it a shit community just because you have had a few bad experiences.

Among the many games I've played, some of the better games and groups I've played with were with 3rd edition. Admittedly, there's also been some terrible games, but that's really just what happens with a popular system, a larger sample size gives you more extremes.

>>50882686
So, you've failed at basic communication. Got it.

>>50882739
It's hard to use basic communication with people who have never been told "no" throughout their entire lives anon.

Especially when it's autists who feel entitled to more fun than the rest of the party just because they spent more time researching the system.

>>50882732
>Been in 30 groups
>Over the course of a year
>Spent more time getting kicked out of games than actually playing in them

Thank you for proving my point.

>>50882807
Thirty games over that year, not thirty groups.
Are you the anon that has trouble with basic communication?

>>50882830
So you're lucky enough to have gamed with people who aren't shit and you're stupid enough to claim that my experience has no merit just because it paints your community in a bad light?

Okay, I can already tell that we're not going to get anywhere with this, I've met plenty of your type before and I've learned that it'd be easier to crack through solid bedrock with my bare hands than attempt to break through the delusion that you've set up around yourself.

You don't even get a (You) for the road, I'm legitimately saddened by your existence.

Try to have a nice life.

>>50882980
It's not that your personal experience has no merit.

It's that it's unfair for you to try to claim your personal experience is reflective of the community as a whole or somehow indicative of the nature of the system, when it's really starting to sound like you personally have a lot of people issues.

The reason "we're not going to get anywhere with this" is because you're hoping to tell me something based on your personal, rather limited, and extremely biased perspective, and unfortunately for you that's outweighted by not only my own experiences, but by that of the majority of players. You need to remind yourself that this is not some unloved, unplayable system that was picked up and immediately discarded, but an enduringly popular system that shattered records, won awards, and was the premiere system of the role playing community up until its successor editions were published. These are not fanboy exaggerations, but facts that you are forced to deal with, and you have chosen to deal with them by bull-headed denial and the assumption that you are somehow superior to the people who play a popular game.

I understand you value your own opinion very highly, but I think I'm going to have to weigh my own experiences and those of the overwhelming larger community over yours. Not because of any hopes of playing a populist game, but because I earnestly believe you are an unlikable person who doesn't know how to interact with people, judging by how you have a hard time believing that people can have fun with a game as if it were some incredible challenge.

So what we learned today was to just plain out ignore these threads, make as many 3.5 generals as possible and just call them cucks based on their reactions.

>>50883136
>it's popular, so it has to be good
>No, it's not
>FUCK YOU YOU DON'T KNOW DICK I'VE BEEN PLAYING SINCE BEFORE YOU WERE BORN FUCKING SPERG REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

3.PFags in a nutshell, I don't even know why they bother replying anymore now that 5e exists.

>>50884156
>gets completely obliterated
>still tries to salvage your ego

The guys not even a 3.pf fag, and you look retarded as fuck.