New to Pathfinder. Tips?

>>51632573
Also, is caster supremacy really that bad? I'd really like to play a martial class.

>>51632573
Don't play Pathfinder.

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

606KB, 1363x1406px

>>51632573
Go back to playing 5e.

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

1MB, 1688x2696px

>>51632607

File: Pathfinder sucks 4.png (147KB, 1411x805px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1411x805px

>>51632623

>>51632573
It should be fine, especially if your group isn't all that guys looking for broken builds online.

I generally restrict my players when they're new to the system to the core and advanced players guide, but that's just because I've seen people get lost with all the options of all the books.

File: Pathfinder sucks 5.jpg (1MB, 1668x3437px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1668x3437px

>>51632642

>>51632573
Play Synthesist Summoner. They're one of the few cool things to come out of Pathfinder.

>>51632573
>We are probably going to be playing at the lower levels are there certain classes that I should avoid?
All of the Core classes, all of the Base classes, all of the Alternate classes, all of the Hybrid classes and all of the Unchained classes.

>>51632695
Also any of the races that have words in their description.

File: 1462477225093.jpg (28KB, 350x335px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 350x335px

>>51632695
It's funny because it's true.

any help aside from "Don't play pathfinder" all my friends like it a lot more than 5E. We are all fairly new to the system so no one is going to try to break anything on purpose.

>>51632797
Get new friends.

>>51632805
Ah, so it is just all memes then or do you have any actual problems with the system?

>>51632797
You don't need to be a horrible powergamer to break Pathfinder and make it shitty. Shittiness is inherent in the system, it was built like that on purpose.

>>51632797
That doesn't matter at all. My group didn't break anything on purpose either, yet half the group ended up feeling utterly useless, despite the DM's best efforts..

>>51632860
That either means you're lying or your GM is actually mentally deficient.

You know, I don't like Pathfinder either guys but if you could avoid whipping out your dicks and furiously jerking each other off about how much you hate Pathfinder when someone's asking for help that'd be great.

As for OP, if you're a lower level then it's not a huge problem, most of the big imbalances come in in the late game but here's a thing to remember about this and all other systems. Unless you're playing with a bunch of irredeemable cunts then it's not going to be a big deal. If your character ends up too weak speak to your GM about rebuilding or ways that you could be buffed.

If you want a hand building a character then I'd be more than happy to help, what kind of character are you wanting to play thematically?

>>51632695
So just Occult classes then? Got it.

>>51632821
Worst community, the Race and Class options have to be broken up into tiers by the meta just so you can all play on "equal" ground, found what few roleplayers that hadn't been ruined by 3.5 and finished the job, and theater of the mind isn't an option for combat.

It's just so utterly flawed that merely playing it breaks the game, and it continues to get worse all the time.

>>51632797
it's DnD, just roll characters have fun

I usually run the adventure paths since they're fun, they re-published Rise of the Runelords as a hardcover of all 6 parts of the adventure.

>>51632874
I see Pathfinder Internet Defense Force has arrived. How's your day? Spent jerking off to kitsunes like usual?

>>51632884
Haven't read the Occult classes yet, but I wouldn't count on first-party material being any good.

>>51632898
Excellent counterpoint!

>>51632573
You're probably going to be fine desu, depends on if you want to jump into the deep end and allow everything or restrict it to the hardbacks (Core Rulebook, Ultimates, ACG, Unchained, etc.)

I'd recommend the latter personally, it gives you options without being inundated with all the splatbooks. If you want a basic primer on the rules also download the Strategy Guide (don't buy it, it's a shit book for anyone who isn't completely new), or get a module with premade characters.

>>51632898
No, I agree pathfinder is a terribly designed game. However I stand by my statement in that I myself have ran games for years where diverse parties all felt as if they were contributing. Either your GM has no idea how to bring a party together or someone in your party was purposefully trying to invalidate people and not fessing up to it.

I hate the game, but you're still incorrect here.

Heck especially below level 7.

>>51632797
You're not going to get much helpful advice with the strength of the Pathfinder Bad meme here. Some martial characters are fine as long as you're not playing with powergaming sperglords. Slayer's pretty hard to fuck up with, so that might be a good jumping off point for a new player.

>>51632879
I'm not sure yet, I was leaning more towards a martial class, but have heard terrible things about the magic being far superior in Pathfinder. But nothing concrete yet because I'm waiting for the GM to tell us more about the setting so I know what kind of character would be appropriate for the kind of game we are running.

>>51632954
I second this, Slayer is a really cool class that has a lot of flexibility and is relatively simple.

>>51632911
Counterpoint to what? To your autistic screeching and flailing your arms around?
3.5 is shit, but you can excuse WoTC for it - they didn't know what the fuck they're doing. Articles they wrote reek of naive stupidity, where they boast that monk is their best designed class, since it has no dead levels and there's an "exciting feature" beyond every corner.
Paizo looked at all the mistakes of 3.5 and said: "We don't need to learn from this or improve upon this game's failings. We'll do everything in the exact same way on purpose". Paizo's incompetence is not born of naivety, but of malice.

And if there's something worse than the mechanics of Pathfinder, it's its fanbase, filled with weebs and degenerates, jacking off to monster girls and underage anime girls. Just one glance upon /pfg/ is enough to see everything your community has to offer.

How is Monk in Pathfinder? I love the concept but found the class a little weak in 5E.

File: 1486132920457.png (221KB, 720x1368px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 720x1368px

>>51632957

>>51632990
We'd love to say that we have good news for you.

>>51632990
Core monk is shit. Some archetypes are fantastic. Unchained monk is alright.

>>51632957
Casters with 9th level spells *can* break the game, but that really more due to select spells that people love to abuse than the fact that they're casters. Plus there's plenty of casters with 6th level spells that are well-balanced and fun to play, plus they're usually decent martials to boot.

So here is some actual advice.

Encounter design is relatively difficult in pathfinder as is. DSP's Path of War makes encounter design much more difficult due to their assumptions on how character defense should work.

Instead I point you towards Legendary Game's work on Legendary Rogue, Legendary Vigilante, and the like. They help make martials more interesting. If you head over to Pathfinder General there is a guy who has designed an Unchained Cavalier/Fighter/Gunslinger that make all three classes much more interesting and balanced in terms of campaign effectiveness.

Next is play below level 7. After level 7 once 4th and 5th level spells come into play full casters begin to outpace martials in out of combat utility to the point it needs to be addressed separately.

Next is don't let people bend the rules to walk all over the game, think through the consequences of spells. An example if Charm Person. Charm Person is not mind control despite how some people treat it. After it runs out the person knows you cast it on them as well. Think through the consequences of spells like these. Know that people are aware when they are forced to make a saving throw.

To summarize:
>use legendary games and /pfg/'s unchained martial homebrews to supplement martials
>play below level 7 if you can
>don't let players bend the rules to walk all over you
>think through the player's tools when designing encounters

>>51632995
People also pedal this picture even though it was purposefully made as a joke since essentially none of those work on a dragon.

>>51632990
Unchained Monk fixed a lot of monk's problems. Base monk is really bad. However it is what is called "tier 4". Meaning it does it's job well, but can't branch out into other jobs easily.

>>51633045
> Being this autistic

>>51632573
First of all OP, I'm terribly sorry you came here seeking actual help and advice, that's not what /tg/ is for. /tg/ is a circlejerk for people who hate whatever you like, regardless of what it is. If you had posted a question about 5E an equal number of basement dwelling trogs would have stampeded over, dicks in hard, tripping over each other to tell you how much 5E sucks and how hard you need to kill yourself.

So let me help you out instead. Pathfinder is like 5E but with more rules. Both games can trace themselves back to 3.5 but Pathfinder is a hydra-like bud that grew off and detached itself from 3.5. It has some differences but they are not as drastic as what 5E did.

Pathfinders lack of balance is an intrinsic part of that D&D DNA that traces its twisted path all the way back to the original White Box, only made worse as wizards and sorcerers where given more and more buffs so they couldn't keel over from a slight breeze at early levels. At tenth level a fighter can make up to three attacks on a turn assuming he does nothing else and if he's lucky, might kill one monster. At tenth level a wizard can fireball an entire room and then phase himself into the Ethereal plane the next and run the hell away.

Then you have clerics and druids which at high levels can caste powerful defensive spells, but can also heal themselves and others, and can wear armor and are pretty decent at melee combat.

As a first time player my advice is to stay away from the Rogue as there is another class out there that can do what it does better. It's a sad fact. I would also avoid the Core Monk as it's pathetically inferior to the Unchained Monk. Hybrid classes are wonky if you don't have familiarity with the mechanics of the two classes it combines, and Occult classes should be avoided as they are just strange. If you want to play a caster, go with Sorcerer.

>>51633074
No, literally the picture was made to fuck with people and bait people because most of the listed effects don't work on dragons.

>>51632954
>Slayer's pretty hard to fuck up with, so that might be a good jumping off point for a new player.
If you're playing with friends who understand that this is a cooperative game and that the goal is fun rather than breaking the system or being the main character, then the above is the only useful information you're going to find in this thread. Roll up a slayer, ignore the naysaying chimps, and have fun.

>>51632573

Don't.

Play literally anything else.

You will thank me for this later

>>51632879
>You know, I don't like Pathfinder either guys but if you could avoid whipping out your dicks and furiously jerking each other off about how much you hate Pathfinder when someone's asking for help that'd be great.

Well, it's like someone asking what's the best way to break his toe with a hammer and everyone tells him that's stupid and he shouldn't do it but then some cuck waltzes in talking about how breaking your toe with a hammer is a perfectly acceptable passtime and that anysayers should stop being judgemental.

>>51633106
> Being THIS autistic
You don't get it, do you.

File: tumblr_lwudgwhIJv1qh87wbo1_1280.jpg (67KB, 680x473px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 680x473px

>>51633115

OP I really hope you show this thread to your group.

File: 1444934557210.jpg (22KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x480px

To everyone saying "Don't play pathfinder" what do you recommend instead?

>>51633123
Ok, what do I not get. The fact the picture is serving its purpose by fucking with me.

>>51633096
>As a first time player my advice is to stay away from the Rogue
Oh man, I had actually forgotten just awful the core rogue is. This is really great advice. If you like playing a sneaky guy, don't pick the rogue, because if you want to actually do anything with what the rogue gives you, you'll just be disappointed as a beginner.

>>51633144
I already have. The reactions are mixed.

>>51633163
Really depends on the kind of game you want.

>>51633180
fantasy. just shoot out anything Fantasy and what they are good for.

>>51633163
5e, allow Homebrew under DM's scrutiny if the lack of options is killing you. /r/UnearthedArcana for options.(because /tg/ doesn't get Shit done anymore)

>>51633163
DnD 5e. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e. I've heard good things about Lamentations of the Flame Princess, but I can't vouch for it.

>>51633164
>Bring this autistic.
My God you're dense.

>>51633163
I'd recommend playing We Be Goblins and seeing how you like that.

>>51633164
It's not literally a dragon. It's a picture that's supposed to symbolize an encounter, a challenge. It could be a beholder or a bandit, or any monster at all.

File: bait.gif (686KB, 199x199px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 199x199px

>>51633220

>>51633163
If he already knows 5e, he can stick with that if he just wants some uncomplicated beer&pretzels gaming.
For more crunchy stuff, there's quite a few Fantasy Heartbreakers that tackle the issue in different ways. Fantasy Craft is pretty good and people know a thing or two about it.
If you want to go grittier, you should leave the d20 behind. d100 games work great here, like Runequest 6. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1 or 2 is also an option.
High Fantasy can also be covered by superhero systems, more narrative bends are covered by 13th age (although most narrative games are simply generic, which is enough).
Maybe someone managed to do a fantasy PbtA game that's not Dungeon World.

>>51633191
I like exalted. The balance is fucked, but it at least agrees to be honest about it. You know the solar is better. The mechanics are simple at it's core and it is incredibly easy to spot the problem players from character creation. Just look for characters that have 5 dots in dex and 5 in one combat skills, 0 in all other combat skills, one perfect defense charm and 4/5ths of all the skills are at 0 dots. Or something along those lines.

>>51633163

Fantasycraft
Torchbearer
Castles and Crusades

>>51633163
Oh and of course there's the OSR which has a quite active thread on this board

>>51633163
Anima

>>51633252
I strongly argue against exalted. it's more autistic than even pathfinder.

>>51633191
What sub genre of fantasy, there are a lot with a lot of different assumptions.

>>51633206
Gonna say LotFP is god awful.

WHF has a lot of its own issues and does not give the same game experience in the slightest to pathfinder or most D&D games.

>>51633163
Symbaroum

>>51633237
No, I was literally in the thread where that picture was made. It was hand crafted as a troll picture to fuck with people. It's original purpose was to fuck with people.

File: Bishop.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

>>51633309
Jesus Christ, you are a moron after all.

>>51633282
>>51633292
We don't want weeb shit. We are just looking for something easy to pick up but deep enough for last as long as possible without having to resort to third party/homebrew material to fix issues

>>51633316
Ok, please tell me why. I am not arguing that the wizard's tool box is not both larger and more able to deal with varied encounters. I'm saying that the picture you used in particular was made as a troll picture on /tg/.

>>51632990
Unchained Monk is great if you want to punch people really hard a whole bunch. We're approaching the end of a Rise of the Runelords campaign and our party monk is capable of busting out nine attacks a round, 6 of which are at full BAB.

>>51633332
>>51633316
I appreciate the bumps but could you faggots fucking knock it off?

>>51633163
>>51633328
Gurps(3d6 roll under - the system)
sticking to 5e
Dnd 4e (heard good stuff)
Challenger(free rpg on drivetrhru)
>>51633309
You are fucking with people
not the picture

>>51633328
Do you want High Fantasy, Low Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, High Magic, Low Magic. Be more specific because systems have different assumptions.

>>51633332
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU'RE ONE AUTISTIC TWAT.

>>51633348
>Dnd 4e (heard good stuff)
Try to be a little less obvious with the bait, anon.

>>51633357
>>51633316
>>51633123
>>51633074
Ok, not the guy, but what are you trying to say here?

>>51633351
how about your top picks for Low Fantasy and High.

>>51633357
I count three different people arguing with this autist. Are we being baited? I feel like I've been baited.

>>51633373
Now do you mean the classic definition of low & high fantasy or the popculture definition?

>>51633369
That the dragon doesn't literally represent a dragon, it represents a tough encounter. Being anal about the fact that some of those things don't work on a dragon specifically is missing the forest for the trees.

>>51633373
> Low fantasy
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e.
Torchbearer

> High fantasy
DnD 5e.

>>51633376
Wait, what are you even arguing about? He's saying "that picture is correct, but was made to trigger people with the dragon". Is that incorrect? Is the picture not correct at all? Is it correct? I'm confused.

>>51633163
D&D 5e, D&D 4e, B/X or similar retroclones, The Black Hack, Searchers of the Unknown, AD&D, Heroes & Other Worlds.

Those are assuming you want stereotypical D&D fare.

>>51633191
>just shoot out anything Fantasy
Werewolf: The Apocalypse, Terra Primate with Dungeons & Zombies, Mutants & Masterminds/DC Adventures.

>>51633369
He's just shitposting to get a rise out of easily baited anons. It's as simple as shooting fish in a barrel since we're obviously in a troll thread anyways.

>>51633379
He means the best rpgs
low fantasy goes to gurps and wfrp
high fantasy goes to dnd 5e/4

File: 1477534104465.jpg (7KB, 261x159px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 261x159px

>>51633379
Can I just get some good systems and I'll sort it out later?

>>51633387
No, you don't understand what I am saying.

You are seeing it as that. Which it could easily represent that, and is correct if you take it as that. The image conveys a correct statement in that context.

HOWEVER, when the picture was originally made the creator of the picture put the dragon in an attempt to trigger people. Literally was the stated purpose of putting a dragon there.

I am not saying the picture is incorrect, I am saying the picture was designed to start arguments about the fact that half of those don't work on a dragon.

If taken in the context of dragon merely represents an encounter you are entirely correct. However a dragon picture was used by the creator for the stated purpose of trying to trigger people and start arguments. I am not saying this out of an assumption, but literally it was stated by the creator in the thread where that picture was made. That image originates on /tg/.

>>51633441
> Literally being this dense

File: 1479429908218.png (19KB, 481x383px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 481x383px

>>51633394
>>51633388
>>51633351
>>51633343
>>51633249
>>51633096

For those who actually tried to help where is a less autistic place I can go to discuss table top games?

>>51633462
No. /tg/ is actually the best place I've ever seen, which is saying a lot about every other place.
It might have something to do with tabletop hobby attracting antisocial autists.

>>51632797
Get better friends.

>>51633462
Reddit. Maybe. It's better than this thread at least. You might even be able to get actual answers.

>>51633459
What in what I stated was wrong. I am saying your interpretation is correct, but the creator of that picture was attempting to trigger people with how he presented it.

>>51633462
Reddit, GITP. You're not going to have fun playing with your group though.

File: ive had enough.png (768KB, 586x795px) Image search: [Google]

768KB, 586x795px

>>51633495
> When meme's so extreme, you let out a scream

>>51633497
He very well might. I have had fun playing pathfinder with my buddies for years.

>>51633495
Right, as is most Shit posted on here. It doesn't make it any less right, or you any less of an absolute fuckwit for going. This. Far.

>>51633497
> GITP
> LESS autistic than /tg/
Anon, I...

>>51633482
>>51633497
I don't know, they are alot less autistic then you guys.

>>51633516
>>51633507
>>51633495
>>51633441
Gotta say, from where I'm sitting you all look about equally autistic. If anything I am siding with trigger anon.

>>51633462
Stop trying to make strangers on the internet talk you into/out of playing a fucking tabletop RPG anon. Give pathfinder a try. Run an AP so you don't have to invest too much into worldbuilding. If you have fun, great, if you don't try something else. You've got some good suggestions here (I especially like the suggestion of running a slayer, it's a very newbie friendly class) so run with them.

>>51633544
I was merely looking for advice from the more experienced players, but it seems /tg/ was too unwilling to see past edition bias for that.

>>51633462
>>51633544
This guy is right. Try an AP.

We need more shitposting! This thread is only at 105 posts, we need to either get bump limit or get this thread deleted.

>>51633596
Sorry that mention pathfinder triggered you so hard.

>>51633571
>I was merely looking for advice from the more experienced players
Then go back to the catalog and search for /pfg/. Everybody in there hates pathfinder too, but they'll actually offer you suggestions beyond just screetching "NEVER PATHFINDER" like a pack of shit flinging monkeys.

>>51633544
I am willing to give at least some advice.

Generally it takes someone with system mastery to break a full caster because otherwise they won't be able to use their spells/choose spells in a manner that is optimal. However there are some big offender spells like Invisibility which make the rogue, for instance, have a much harder time keeping up on stealth.

On a whole I say below level 7 you'll be fine as long as no one in your group is trying to break the game. If a particular spell is hurting the game then look it over and rebalance it. Head over to /pfg/ and ask about it and they might be able to help you.

Generally mentioning pathfinder outside of /pfg/ will cause this reaction. On /pfg/ you'll likely get people telling you that the edition isn't worth it mixed with advice.

>>51633462
If you ACTUALLY wanted to talk about Pathfinder, you should've posted in /pfg/.

File: __megumin_kono_subarashii_sekai_ni_shukufuku_wo_drawn_by_tom_drpow__a105dae74526f0b6a96cdfdc96c8a834.png (1MB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x1200px

>>51633163
M&M 3e.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279503-D-amp-D-in-M-amp-M-a-new-approach-to-rebalancing-3-5-PF

It's great, as long as you don't actively try to break the system and work with your DM to make the character you want, not just a character sheet.

>>51633788
No, if they posted in /pfg/ he would've talked obout furry traps.

>Play Pathfinder every weekend with a cool group
>Play Core
>Have an awesome time
>Come to /tg/ and watch a bunch of asshats bad talk the system we have a good time on
>This isn't a /tg/ problem, its an internet problem

>>51634522
>Drink stagnant water every weekend with a cool group
>Drink straight from the swamp
>Have awesome time
>Come to /tg/ and watch a bunch of asshats bad talk the drink we have a good time with
>This isn't a /tg/ problem, its an internet problem

>>51634563
>Opinions

>>51632573
It CAN be unbalanced, but it isn't inherently so.
For character creation you pretty much can never go wrong, every class has great guides and basic builds available for them online. (Ex. Google Unchained Rogue handbook or something)

The only time you should avoid a class is when 3pp material is allowed. You don't want to play a 1pp class like Barbarian or Fighter when something like Path of War is an option.

>>51632585
Caster supremacy ultimately depends on how well your GM creates encounters, and if they do. Most pre-designed encounters you might see in modules or adventure paths almost always fail to contest skilled/caster classes. From my own experience it's not prevalent until around level 10. From 15 on up through it's pretty unignorable.

>>51634522
Protip: If you're hanging out with awesome people, you're going to have awesome time even if you're playing Pathfinder or Fatal. Doesn't mean they're not both terrible systems.

>>51632797
>We are all fairly new to the system so no one is going to try to break anything on purpose.
Yeah, see, that's the problem, you don't have to be trying to break it on purpose. Happened to me the very first time I played 3.0.

Anyways, actual recommendation: try a basic beatstick Warpriest. Warpriests are neat in that they're easy to play, teach you several important concepts, like how melee classes work, how important action economy is, and how spellcasters work, all while still being in the sweet spot of class balance.

>>51633788
Has there ever been a more ironic fucking post?
/pfg/ is pretty much weeb, furry, trap, kitsune, DSP dick suck general. Why the fuck would you go there to discuss pathfinder?

>>51634814
Because your thread won't get blindsided by ooga booga mechanics no matter man and go up in flames.

>>51634814
He'd still get more advice there than he has gotten in this thread, not counting everyone whose advice is "don't play pathfinder."

>>51632797
>break anything on purpose
That's what killed the game for me. By the time our levels were in the double digits our sorcerer trivialized every combat encounter and he wasn't trying to become a combat monster while everyone else specced for combat and were shit compared to him.

There are hundreds of other games out there so please, try to find another game. I promise you'll have more fun in the long run.

>>51632573
Character Creation is imbalanced in the sense that there are several things that the book doesn't properly explain and some systems either don't work or work actively against martial characters.

Combat maneuvers are garbage because of how the CMD scales faster than CMB, called shots are practically impossible since the penalties you're taking are too big while the benefits are too small, to say nothing on how a class feature such as the Druid's animal companion or the divination wizard's ability to never be surprised as well as shitloads of initiative bonuses makes it practically impossible for someone to get the drop on them.
>>51632585
Caster Supremacy becomes a thing the further along you get in levels. Even if the caster doesn't mean to, the amount of options that a mage can get far outstrips the average core martial's abilities which come down to "deal damage" and "deal more damage."

Not to mention, core martials are boring because all you'll be doing is attacking.

>>51635588
>Not to mention, core martials are boring because all you'll be doing is attacking.
Really depends. I can make a strange and interesting fighter with a number of useful out of combat abilities.

>>51632573
Why and how is PF broken or unusable as a system?

If there was a GM to limit the excesses of the system, would it be able to run a game well?

>>51632797
The problem is that the mages in the group WILL end up breaking the game sooner or later due to having access to over 200+ spells that gives the mage the ability to do practically anything they want.

People will go "hurr, day only gotz so many spellz lel" but when the right spell can potentially end an encounter in one turn, it really doesn't matter that you only get to cast a certain amount of spells per day. I mean, it only takes one nuke to level a city.

>>51635602
You could but most of the interesting abilities you could find won't be in core and newbies won't be aware of these options unless they do some independent digging on d20pfsrd.com

>>51633328
Based on that, you want 5e.

>>51633441
Not any of them but are you actually autistic?

>>51633520
What's wrong with GITP?

>>51635812
Do you know who Giacomo is? Because that's what's wrong with GITP. Took fucking years for him to get banned and he got dozens of people banned in the process.

>>51632932
>Either your GM has no idea how to bring a party together or someone in your party was purposefully trying to invalidate people and not fessing up to it.
How would you propose an encounter where a) the threat isn't enough to invalidate the martials and b) the threat is enough to challenge the mages?

Because anything that the martial can deal with WILL be invalidated by the mage while anything that can invalidate the mage WILL be practically impossible for the martials to beat on their own.

Hell, after a certain point, a monster's defenses will just be too much for a martial to deal with unless they min-max themselves to the peak of human condition...yet the same creature will get rendered invalid the moment they fail a save.

>>51635867
No I'm saying who ever were playing your martials build shit martials. In pathfinder one can easily build a martial that can contribute to any situation.

>yet the same creature will get rendered invalid the moment they fail a save.
See, this shows me you don't play a lot of pathfinder. Name the spells besides Mindscape that invalidate a creature from the get go in mid levels. There are not many and they are situational at best.

>the mage while anything that can invalidate the mage WILL be practically impossible for the martials to beat on their own.
Entirely untrue. A mage who isn't a conjuration specialist or prepared create pit that day gets assfucked by a golem while the martial just beats it to death.

>>51633163
D&D 5th
D&D 4th
D&D Old School
WFRP 1 or 2
FantasyCraft
Blood & Treasure 2nd Edition
Traveller Classic or Mongoose 2nd

>>51635921
>No I'm saying who ever were playing your martials build shit martials.
Or they played core only like every other newbie does before they start to realize both a) how many options there are and b) how most options are worthless for non-mages.
>Name the spells besides Mindscape that invalidate a creature from the get go in mid levels.
>http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/chains-of-light
>http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/treacherous-teleport
Including the lower level spells such as windwall.
>A mage who isn't a conjuration specialist or prepared create pit that day gets assfucked by a golem while the martial just beats it to death.
The funny thing is that both spells that I just posted would be able to be cast on a golem since they both don't allow for spell resistance.

Not to mention, certain golems, like the adamantine variant, fuck up martials so hard it's not even funny.

>>51635864
But he's banned now; what was wrong with him?

>>51636204
>chain of light
>good
>treacherous teleport
>good

yeah not if the GM has anything approaching good encounter design. If single target paralysis fucks your game over then your GM is shit. I stand by my statement.

>Not to mention, certain golems, like the adamantine variant, fuck up martials so hard it's not even funny.
Not if they bypass DR, which by that level if they aren't they may as well off their character with their own weapon, hopefully it can cut through more than butter

>>51635606
>Why and how is PF broken or unusable as a system?

Non-combat actions aren't well supported
Bad skill system
Wealth-by-level means your party NEEDS magic items or they just can't fight enemies
Casters outstrip martials
People still don't understand grappling
Feats range from "you get +1 to Diplomacy while talking to Elves during cloudy days" to "you deal double damage with every attack"
CR system is still busted
LA system is still busted

>>51636248
Because you can troll GITP and not be touched for months while actual quality posters can get banned at the drop of a hat, especially in the homebrew forum, where people were literally banned for critiquing homebrew they were asked to critique. GITP has some of the worst moderation I've ever seen.

>>51636250
>If single target paralysis fucks your game over then your GM is shit.
You asked me for spells that invalidate a creature from the get go in mid levels. Don't move the goalpost just because you got proven wrong.
>Not if they bypass DR, which by that level if they aren't they may as well off their character with their own weapon, hopefully it can cut through more than butter
An Adamantine golem, for reference, can deal like 6d10+13 damage to a martial's weapon/armor as if it rolled sunder, in addition to dealing damage to them. Considering that martials are worthless without their equipment, this is a big fucking deal if they end up eating an attack from it.

>>51636348
Further elaboration please?
I know some posters are fucking overbearing pieces of shit, the moderation can be heavyhanded as fuck, and posters who get chummy with mods can get away nearly scot free but it can be good forums to gain knowledge in and gather critiques.

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

109KB, 1052x390px

>>51635606
No, because it still possesses the design flaws inherent to 3.5. They literally refused to remove broken parts. Pic related.

>>51632573
It's unbalance as people say. It's system where a Wizard can do anything, including being in melee than a fighter at little to no investment, while still get to keep all his wizard goodness (like being flying and invisible at the same time while being able to create a nigh-unbreakable barrier whenever you get attacked).

>>51636455
How are you supposed to gather critiques when people can be banned for giving critiques. At best, you'll get a circlejerk on how amazing your idea is but nobody will offer any actual criticism that could serve to make the game better.

My only hope for Pathfinder is that they release either PF 2e or Starfinder is such an incredible fuck up that it alienates the player base. I've played quite a lot PF, I've seen more than 100 to maybe 250 fixes for fighters and that casters are ok when you enforce material components.
I can't even get mad about it anymore, which I'm pretty happy about - the one campaign that still uses it is on hold for another month and I can only hardly remember all the bullshit the system throws at you.
Now I just want it to die so I can read about more interesting systems on /tg/

>>51632797
If you really have to play it, go for full caster. Always go for full caster in Pathfinder.

Look through spell list. Choose your specialize in anything that isn't a blasting spell.

Sure... fireball can do 5d6 damage, but a group of enemy stuck in stinking cloud is pretty much already dead.

>>51636713
Who got banned and why did they get banned?
They could've been skirting around the edge of the forum rules and just a neck away from being banned.

>>51636767
Nah man, if you have to play PF pick a 6th lvl caster. Magus is a martial that can be fun to play because you have options, alchemist can go at least two ways (bombs or mutagen enabled melee), Warpriest just keeps getting bigger each round and if psionics is allowed, Psychic Warrior can go all the ways.
Don't min/max like an idiot. Take the middle road and make sure the rest of your group is on it. Then it's bearable if you put on blinds and ignore all the other stupid parts.

>>51636809
You never get up to high level do you?

Magus and Alchemist can't compare to fullcaster after level 7 or 8. At level 10+ they are pretty much as useless as martials, since the game become full caster one man show.

>>51636839
>hurrdurr
Uh ok man, did you actually read the thing about taking the middle road which I wrote? Because to me it seems you didn't.
And yes, I've played high level, and it's absolute dogshite. I've made the mistake of using Mage's Disjunction against my party. That was great fun making them rewrite their entire character sheets because their magic dangelangs didn't work. Never again. In that game one of my players also played a conjuration wizard so the campaign was thoroughly fucked. I had no idea how to challenge them without just pulling shit out of my ass. Which is one of the worst parts of PF. With what you're given you can't even challenge okayishly built characters because CR means nothing and everything is dependant on what your party actually brings.
I recently did a 4e oneshot and it was amazing how I could just slap some monsters down and have a nice fight (although I probably won't stick with 4e either)

>>51632585
I'll assume by "martial" you don't mean "good at killing things with weapons" you mean "doesn't have magic".

This means being super reliant on having the right gear, and also means you will suck whenever murder through generic HP attrition is not what the situation calls for. How often that will be will depend on the campaign.

If everything from paladin up is a multiple, you (the fighter) are a basic hammer. You can do the job so long as your one tool is the right one for the job, and that's all.

>>51636809
> Don't min/max like an idiot.
They wouldn't play PF if they won't do that. And Summoner man... summoner... you just break stuff even without min-maxing anything because of that inherit standard action summon monster...

Isn't PF an old as fuck game? They really need to get with the times. You can only progress so far on butthurt.

>>51632573
The unbalance is not so much about power as people often think, (but that's also a thing) it's more an issue of versatility.

Some classes have tons, others have none.

Use tier lists.

WBL is not a suggestion, it's the minimum wealth in the items you need to be able to face challenges of your level. Additionally, some classes (martials, excluding synthesist summoner) are more gear dependent than others, so if you're behind on WBL that matters much more to a fighter than a druid.

>>51632573
Use class guides, and the tier list, until you're more familiar with the system.

Use d20 and archives of Nethys for character options, don't fuss with finding the right splat book.

>>51632585
Look at this spell http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/emblem-of-greed

A Wizard can steal martial only job with just this one spell. Hell, they could even get more caster level from race,trait,item,feat and fight better than a level 20 martials at level 12-13.

That's how bad caster supremacy is in Pathfinder.

Oh and by that point, the material component is dirt cheap for you. Even before taking crafting economy into equation.

>>51636965
Sadly I don't have any statistics to back it up, but even sadder a lot of people still are faced with PF as their introduction to RPGs. I mean, the marketing machine paizo has works well and Pathfinder League or whatever is called is also quite widespread (I'm from germany and there's been one in all big cities where I've visited a LGS)
Luckily 5e is getting more traction which means people still grow up on D&Disms, but at least it's not PF, because fuck PF. I have to hold myself back from writing more because I notice how I am getting mad at PF again, even though I was able to avoid it for some time now

>>51632573
Class tiers don't start to matter until level 8 or so. If you're playing higher levels, I advise sticking to a 3 tier spread on classes.

Good(ish) fighting classes:

Magus
Synthesist
Slayer (ish)
Paladin
Alchemist
Warpriest
Monk

Path of war

But as others have mentioned, the weakness of other martials comes from a lack of usable options besides stabbing.

>>51632987
/Pfg/ is worlds different than the general Pathfinder culture.

Gitp is boss, enworld just treats it like d&d, and the Paizo forums are a den for regressive left censorship and diversity quotas.

>>51632990
Unchained monk is okay.
Regular monk is crap to awesome depending which options you take.

I prefer a punch mystic (pow), punch warpriest (ignoring the nerf errata), a punch cleric, or a magus/druid with monk fluff.

>>51633026
As a guy who prefers 10-16 play, I'd advise tier limiting over low level play.

The fun abilities don't start becoming available until 9 to 11.

>>51637045
Although I have to add one thing. Probably the biggest "crime" PF is guilty of, from my point of view: deception.
For new players it actually looks interesting, especially if you have some interest in mechanics. The pictures and descriptions are nice, everything looks so epic and cool. All that high fantasy crap you can do!
And then people begin to understand how the system actually works, but don't understand that that's not how RPGs are supposed to work, because it was their first RPG. Then they get stuck on it and just breeds the worst qualities.
Fuck PF for that alone, for every single player who never had the joy of a well designed system, for every group that get stuck in railroady APs, for GMs that try to wrangle fun from that broken mess, for every players that's twisted because he doesn't know better

>>51633373
Low -mid magic fantasy
Conan (Mongoose, haven't had a chance to try the new one that just came out yet.)
HARP
GURPS Dungeon Fantasy

High magic fantasy
Pathfinder
Fantasy HERO

>>51637194
Could you please elaborate on that? How is it deceptive?

>>51635606
It's not unusable. It's one of the 3 games I play most and I much prefer it to 5e

It does have issues.

>Trap options.
>Combat maneuvers have badly scaling math and only work at lower levels/against humanoids.
>Drastic versatility difference between classes, which start between 6 and 8 and grow as levels progress.
>Wrong expectations. People assuming the game is all like LOTR, when that only covers like levels 3-6. After that the amount of weird reality warping abilities grows. 7-10 is like X-Men comics from 2001-2012 (not classic x men). 11-15 is like avengers. 16-20 is like magic the gathering planeswalkers.

Play the level range that supports the kind of game you want, tier restrict if playing above 8, and If you want to play 1-20 understand the gameplay changes at a fundamental level as you increase in character levels. As for the trap options, the game has a metric fuckton of options, many of which are strictly ineffective. As a result it has a learning curve. Use class guides until you start to get the hang of the system. Avoid combat maneuvers outside a low level or urban campaign.

Do those things and the system is great. I run level 8-16 campaigns and have found no other games I prefer for the task, and I've tried many.

>>51635867
Tier restrict. T1-3 is fine. T1-5 is not.

>>51637368
What are your issue with 5e?

>>51636297
Pf has no LA system.

The equivalent system is "make sure races are built with equivalent numbers of race points. Don't allow humans and dragon demon snowflake races in the same party. This works just fine.

WBL is a necessity. But there are a few options to replace it. Personally I like just working magic items which boost efficacy into character advancement and I just have the PCs buy them with points and swap out up to 1/3 of them as they level up.

>>51637299
Well, this will be a lot of rambling, so bear with me here.
First, it looks like your standard fantasy stuff, right? Warriors, Mages, Clerics and Rogues off all the standard races you expect from fantasy going on some fun adventures. Well, maybe it's high fantasy, but honestly, due to how weirdly the system can be applied to the world you play in, it begins to break down. Plus Golarion itself is a terrible kitchen sink of random ass stuff. I'd argue that Pf isn't high fantasy, but has its own kind of genre - sometimes it even feels closer to superheros than fantasy.
Oh yeah, it only feels like superheroes once you break through lvl ~5, because low level is a mad scramble for survival where you can almost play a LOTR (movie) like campaign in. It's occured to me a few times in campaigns that people had problems how their characters are supposed to react to magic or supernatural events. Isn't magic quite widespread? You can get spellcasting services in almost any town and adept is casting NPC class, right? So magic should be kinda normal? Maybe, I don't know and the weirdness sucks, because you have to clearly define the setting outside of the system (and Golarion surely doesn't do that)

>>51636979
Pathfinder turns 8 this August

>>51632573
Have some real tips, OP. Sorry that people can't do anything but bitch here.

>Ability scores don't matter
They do matter, but they matter very little compared to 5e. Basically, if you meet prerequisitea for things, then you're good. After around 3rd level or so your class bonuses will overshadow your ability score bonuses.

>Plan your feats
In 5e feats tend to scale, and you get very few of them. In PF, you get feats constantly, and you progress along feat trees towards an end goal. Planning out your build will help a lot.

>Caster supremacy
Is only for +5th level controller effects. At low levels, casters have pretty lights to play with. At high levels they are very very popular but only really at control. Everything else they are either appropriately powerful or weak at. There's one or two spells of each level that are substantially stronger than the rest, just don't be That Guy with those spells and you'll be fine.

>Character generation
It is possible to fuck up your character at 1st level, but if you refrain from heavily modifying your character, you won't. Just don't pick an archetype and don't sub out features and you'll be fine. You won't be the strongest but you won't be the weakest.

>>51637462
The mechanical complexity is also a vital aspect here. So many options! So many concepts you can try! To be honest, this is what kept me interested in PF for some time. Just making up all kinds of dudes you can play with all these options. If I need to tell how almost all those options are awful, you might want to read the rest of this thread. Nonetheless, half a year ago me and my friends would be grabbed by some of the nice new toys that came out with such and such splat, combine with some old archetype suddenly creates something amazing!
Actually no, you probably still stand there and spam your one option over and over until you realize that the system is so incredibly narrow in what you can actually do and how it punishes you for trying to do more than one thing at once that you end up adding houserules, psionics, initiators, spheres of power and more until it hardly resembles the base game anymore.
Uhhh anyway that was probably enough about that. What else is there? Probably more, but I'm kind of brain drained from dredging that shit up. I just don't care anymore. PF is just awful all around, but by putting on a thin veneer of interesting stuff it deceives people for far too long

>>51637410
>The chassis on which characters are built isn't sufficiently customizable. There are not enough choices in character creation and not enough options your character has access to in a given turn unless you play a mage. It feels like they designed it around some of the most boring parts of 3e rather than making the boring parts more fun.
>Classes are too rigid.
>Not enough prebuilt enemies.
>I hate the skill system. Sometimes you want half proficiency or 3/4 proficiency.
>I hate the skill math. There's insufficient difference between a skilled expert and a chump 10 year old.
>I dislike advantage and disadvantage. 3e has too many fiddly bonuses, 5e over compensated and made the game worse with too little granularity.
>There aren't enough options for the customization slots available.
>You have to choose between keeping up and having options. Feats should be in addition to ASIs, not either/or.
>The guidelines for how much magic gear new higher level characters should have doesn't match up with how much a character would have if they started at 1.
>I'm looking for something generally higher powered and higher magic when I want d&d. I enjoy mid to mid-high level Pathfinder. When I want low magic dungeoncrawling I'm more inclined to go for GURPS Dungeon Fantasy or Conan over 5e.
>It handles unplanned PvP more poorly than Pathfinder due to the large difference in monster HP and damage vs PC HP and damage.

I'll play it in place of Conan or low level Pathfinder, but I do consider it strictly worse.

>>51637590
This is why 4e is the better game, autists and butthurt shits be damned.

With PF, you can either create characters (which is fun) or you can actually play the game, which can be fucking painful because if you choose the weaker and more flavorful option you're fucked.

>>51637510
>Don't pick an archetype
This advice is fine if your class is the or better. If it's t4/t5 choosing the right archetypes is all-important

>>51637634
4e doesn't fill the same niche as Pathfinder, unless you want low level dungeon crawls.

If you like level 10-15 caster and half caster play, well, even upper level 4e will disappoint.

>>51637510
> Is only for +5th level controller effects.
Kind wrong. Color spray,sleep, grease and obscuring mist happen since level 1.

> at high levels they are very very popular but only really at control
Kind wrong again. It's true that they are really good at control. But they can do whatever the hell they want at high level. Animate dead, Summon Monster or even shit like Sonic thrust / Telekinesis are not "appropirately powerful".

It's not one or two spells each level. It's more like 7-8 (because of Paizo spell bloat)

>>51637510
The reason why 4e is a better game is because it know what it is and is a specialized game unlike 3.PF which tries to cover all their bases. It's just a whole other package.

>>51637653
What niche does Pathfinder fill? I always have trouble putting it somewhere except in it's own weird super high fantasy weirdness

>>51637510
There's a lot of bullshit in here, but it's not entirely wrong... Kinda... I mean...

>Ability scores don't matter
Mostly. Your primary score matters. Having an 18 compared to a 16 strength is +1 to hit and +2 damage at early levels for most fighters, and that +2 Int means you get an extra spell per day for a wizard. It'll be overshadowed EVENTUALLY but it makes a difference. It's the other stuff that you can get away with not bothering maxing out.

>Plan your feats
Agreed.

>Caster Supremacy
Glitterdust, Sleep, and Create Pit would like to have a word with you. Even if it's only once or twice a day, being able to end an encounter with a single saving throw is always going to be great when it works. It's even better against groups, who might make the save once but not 3-4 times. This is another moment where maxing out your stats matters; Making a group of goblins roll a DC 17 Will save at first level means that's a group of dead goblins.

>Character generation
Or if you just pick the wrong class combo. Protip, don't go sword and board unless you REALLY know what you're doing, and Monks are shit almost all the time. Lots of classes are all right... If you're familiar with the system; Take the Fighter, who's gotten enough buffs to at least be passably fun if you can gather information from about a half-dozen books.

>>51637613
A lots of you complain can be answer with "learn to refluff" (which is the design choice of 5e, not every little thing have to be reflect mechanically. It isn't a simulation) and "stop being math autistic and play the game, we are here to enjoy the night not doing math homework".

>>51637613
>>Not enough prebuilt enemies.
You fucking wat?
Have you looked at the appendices in the MM and Volo's?

>I hate the skill system. Sometimes you want half proficiency or 3/4 proficiency.
>I hate the skill math. There's insufficient difference between a skilled expert and a chump 10 year old.
Everyone is useful at the very least. But those with Expertise will be head and shoulders above everyone else.

>I dislike advantage and disadvantage. 3e has too many fiddly bonuses, 5e over compensated and made the game worse with too little granularity.
Advantage and Disadvantage is a fucking awesome mechanic, going back to anything fiddlier than that is a step in the wrong/worst direction.

>You have to choose between keeping up and having options. Feats should be in addition to ASIs, not either/or.
Unlike in previous editions, the feats are actually worthwhile.
And DCs aren't as keyed to ability score modifiers as they once were. You can play the meme retarded wizard.

>The guidelines for how much magic gear new higher level characters should have doesn't match up with how much a character would have if they started at 1.
Bounded accuracy.

>It handles unplanned PvP more poorly than Pathfinder due to the large difference in monster HP and damage vs PC HP and damage.
You're playing in a team game.

5e could certainly do with more options.

>>51637653
4e is still high fantasy, perhaps more so because of its at wills and selection of encounter powers and dailies.

Did you even paragon tier and epic tier?

>>51637722
For some reason I want pictures of the holy mafia being all sunny sunlords

>>51637686
5e could certainly do with more options. And bringing back expertise dice for martials and remaking the sorcerers to how they once were, for starters.
Fuck the 3x.e shits who were trying to fuck up the system.

>>51637669
Super high fantasy weirdness is the niche I'm looking to fill.

Tactical fantasy RPG that closely mirrors the recent Dr. Strange movie in terms of character capabilities.


>>51637722

>>51637682
No amount of refluffing will add non-hp enemy elimination, stat drain, or combat capable, highly flexible, reality warping effects control effects which it lacks, such as wall of stone, fabricate, etc. Let alone contingent spells and the like, that are just waiting for the trigger.

4e just doesn't do that kind of gameplay.

>>51637686
>Skills
I remain unconvinced this lack of flexibility and granularity is a good thing. I'd rather have skillpoints, and they're less than ideal.

>Dis/Adv
Its too fucking limiting. I want at least 3 degrees of granularity in each direction, 5 would be better.

>Bounded accuracy has nothing to do with the inconsistent magic item guidelines.

>PvP
A team game that is also an RPG, and therefore the occasional betrayal or party split over major issues comes up, and I want that to be prepared for.

>Options
And more opportunities to take them. There's not enough moving parts. Auto scaling feats is well and good, but I want a variety of feats that give me different capabilities.

>>51637979
>I remain unconvinced this lack of flexibility and granularity is a good thing. I'd rather have skillpoints, and they're less than ideal.
Do you want a maths game or a roleplaying game?

>Its too fucking limiting. I want at least 3 degrees of granularity in each direction, 5 would be better.
How is it limiting? And you want that scaling for what purpose?

>A team game that is also an RPG, and therefore the occasional betrayal or party split over major issues comes up, and I want that to be prepared for.
Everyone needs to be on board with that, or it devolves into shitting on everything.

>And more opportunities to take them. There's not enough moving parts. Auto scaling feats is well and good, but I want a variety of feats that give me different capabilities.
Variety of feats should be good, but not the extent of 3e and PF's feats which provide nothing useful and are entirely wastes of space.

>>51637903
At that point, why not use an actual superhero system? Wild Talents is open enough for stuff like that, but it also manages to codify it to more simple rules.
Please don't get hung up on this, but trying to imagine fluid combat scenes from a movie ported to PFs static combat sends shivers of fear down my spine

>>51637979
You sound like you'd actually enjoy The Dark Eye, a d100-based system like Runequest 6 or Fantasy Craft if you want to stay in the d20 sphere.
If you want granularity and options, do yourself a favor and play a game that rewards that

>>51638009
>Do you want a maths game or a roleplaying game?
I want a role-playing game with mechanics that support drastically different character capabilities rather than washing them out and making things bland and samey and

>>Its too fucking limiting. I want at least 3 degrees of granularity in each direction, 5 would be better.
>How is it limiting? And you want that scaling for what purpose?
Varying degrees of added circumstantial bonuses, such that good planning to manipulate the situation can be used to give a large advantage.

>>A team game that is also an RPG, and therefore the occasional betrayal or party split over major issues comes up, and I want that to be prepared for.
>Everyone needs to be on board with that, or it devolves into shitting on everything.
And I want a game where the mechanics will support that if everyone is on board. 5e does not.

>>And more opportunities to take them. There's not enough moving parts. Auto scaling feats is well and good, but I want a variety of feats that give me different capabilities.
>Variety of feats should be good, but not the extent of 3e and PF's feats which provide nothing useful and are entirely wastes of space.
Many dead weight options in Pathfinder, and many that require several feats in order to be useful. I agree. I want lots of *useful* feats, where each one grants new level appropriate abilities (mundane and magical) that would require special training to attempt, or that make you great at something a normal person would suck at.

>>51638072
>I want a role-playing game with mechanics that support drastically different character capabilities rather than washing them out and making things bland and samey and
Is 5e actually bland and samey or is this the memes talking?

>Varying degrees of added circumstantial bonuses, such that good planning to manipulate the situation can be used to give a large advantage.
What is this going to prove? It's not going to make play faster or smoother? Or the situations any more advantageous.

>And I want a game where the mechanics will support that if everyone is on board. 5e does not.
Does PF? Have you tried 5e PvP?

>Many dead weight options in Pathfinder, and many that require several feats in order to be useful. I agree. I want lots of *useful* feats, where each one grants new level appropriate abilities (mundane and magical) that would require special training to attempt, or that make you great at something a normal person would suck at.
There are UA feats, but 5e does need more options to its name.

>>51638033
I've tried Savage worlds and m&m and aberrant. I'd be happy to use a super hero system with some house rules of I could find one that was any good.

I have not tried wild talents. Been also contemplating trying fantasy hero. Haven't had the chance to try either yet.

But so far I find Pathfinder acceptable (but not perfect) and every superhero esque system I've tried has fallen into the category of "that system was awful and hindered my enjoyment of the past 6 months, I'm never playing it again"

>Fantasy craft could be good for the non gonzo superhero scale magic if they finally got finished magic rules for mages and a decent bestiary. Not familiar with tdes gameplay, but I don't find rq very impressive. not a big fan. I prefer Unisystem, or even Rolemaster, to RQ. But I have not yet tried the, so I might like it more than RQ, Who knows.

>>51632573
Rape every NPC you meet as early as you possibly can.

>>51632573
A new group won't really run into the severe imbalance as long as everybody intends to work as a group and uses online character building guides to about the same degree.

Also, when I want to kill people with weapons I typically have the most fun with the semi magical classes (Paladin, Inquisitor, etc) rather than Fighter&co. Something to keep in mind.

Also, if you want to play as a Rogue or might want some Rogue levels later, talk to your DM. Rogues require a little more DM attention, though at the same time Ninja is literally "Rogue but better" so that one is less tricky. Not sure how the unchained Rogue is, though, since I haven't looked at them yet.

>>51638117
>>I want a role-playing game with mechanics that support drastically different character capabilities rather than washing them out and making things bland and samey and
>Is 5e actually bland and samey or is this the memes talking?
I found it samey and restrictive. Didn't have enough choice when building a character. Too much similarity between characters of the same class.

>>Varying degrees of added circumstantial bonuses, such that good planning to manipulate the situation can be used to give a large advantage.
>What is this going to prove? It's not going to make play faster or smoother? Or the situations any more advantageous.
It would make the gameplay have higher fidelity, AND if be looking for higher circumstantial bonuses. That's kind of the point. Being limited to the +3.whatever that advantage grants is creator than a +6 or +9 or so.

>>And I want a game where the mechanics will support that if everyone is on board. 5e does not.
>Does PF?
Like 8 weekly 8 month long Pathfinder campaigns since 2009 lead me to say: yes. Yes it does.

>Have you tried 5e PvP?
No. Not yet. But I have seen the math of how much damage PCs deal vs how much monsters deal, and the same for HP. 5e Monsters have more HP and deal worse damage. 5e PvP will be much more rocket-taggy than 5e PvE.

>>Many dead weight options in Pathfinder, and many that require several feats in order to be useful. I agree. I want lots of *useful* feats, where each one grants new level appropriate abilities (mundane and magical) that would require special training to attempt, or that make you great at something a normal person would suck at.
>There are UA feats, but 5e does need more options to its name.
And feat slots that you don't have to sacrifice anything for.

>>51638265
Too much similarity, and not enough versatility for non casters due to too small a number of class features.*

>>51632667
Synthesists are indeed fun, but they can easily outshine a Fighter so be careful.

Note that this is largely a case of Fighters being subpar, Synthesists are right about the power level the game should be.

>>51632573
> Is it really as unbalanced as people say here or is it just a meme?
It is unbalanced as hell, and it is a meme about how unbalanced it is: but, and i want to stress this: if your party isn't a roving gang of murderhobos, which is unlikely, but still, if thye cooperate and use teamwork instead of trying ot kill one another routinely, then the gaps in relative power will become less noticeable. not absent, but less noticeable.

if you are only using Core rules, then there are significantly worse gaps between relative power levels, compared to casters playing with a restricted list and martials being afforded a few additional splats. Personally, i'm a fan of granting Martial heroes Mythic progression.

>>51638300
Synthesists are what the fighter *should* be

>>51638265
>I found it samey and restrictive. Didn't have enough choice when building a character. Too much similarity between characters of the same class.
>Too much similarity, and not enough versatility for non casters due to too small a number of class features.*
Explain this further.
This is only true if you're actively trying to restrict yourself.

>It would make the gameplay have higher fidelity, AND if be looking for higher circumstantial bonuses. That's kind of the point. Being limited to the +3.whatever that advantage grants is creator than a +6 or +9 or so.
Dis/Adv gets rid of the modifiers, because the granularity is already built into the swinginess of the d20.

>Like 8 weekly 8 month long Pathfinder campaigns since 2009 lead me to say: yes. Yes it does.
Then you only have experience in one system and not enough experience in the other.

>No. Not yet. But I have seen the math of how much damage PCs deal vs how much monsters deal, and the same for HP. 5e Monsters have more HP and deal worse damage. 5e PvP will be much more rocket-taggy than 5e PvE.
This was probably intentional for good or ill.

>>51638323
Allow all sources. Anything else is missing the point. And you can't point to unfair availability like in 3e because everything is on d20pfsrd and archives of Nethys.

Making mundane martials mythic would help, so long as they can't take any mythic things that primarily boost their numbers (is that a thing, my copy of mythic is across the country and I'm on a phone).

>>51638265
>Like 8 weekly 8 month long Pathfinder campaigns since 2009 lead me to say: yes. Yes it does.
>No. Not yet. But I have seen the math of how much damage PCs deal vs how much monsters deal, and the same for HP. 5e Monsters have more HP and deal worse damage. 5e PvP will be much more rocket-taggy than 5e PvE.
>>51638356

With PF PvP, how are you dealing with the widely imbalanced classes?

>>51638356
>>>51638265 (You)
>>I found it samey and restrictive. Didn't have enough choice when building a character. Too much similarity between characters of the same class.
>>Too much similarity, and not enough versatility for non casters due to too small a number of class features.*
>Explain this further.
Other than spells on a mages, there were not enough new capabilities (active or passive) which could be added to a character. Haven't played 5e in almost a year at this point so I don't have the specific examples that bugged me.

I also found it annoying how much of what you got from a class was fixed, rather than having a list of substitute class features which could be taken. Pathfinder is both more flexible in this regard, and it has lots of combinable archetypes.

>>It would make the gameplay have higher fidelity, AND if be looking for higher circumstantial bonuses. That's kind of the point. Being limited to the +3.whatever that advantage grants is creator than a +6 or +9 or so.
>Dis/Adv gets rid of the modifiers, because the granularity is already built into the swinginess of the d20.
Negating the swinginess through planning is the reason you to want large modifiers.

>>Like 8 weekly 8 month long Pathfinder campaigns since 2009 lead me to say: yes. Yes it does.
>Then you only have experience in one system and not enough experience in the other.
I do have a great deal of experience with Pathfinder, and a reasonable amount of experience in other games, but yes, I've only got about 6 months of biweekly 5e under my belt.

>>No. Not yet. But I have seen the math of how much damage PCs deal vs how much monsters deal, and the same for HP. 5e Monsters have more HP and deal worse damage. 5e PvP will be much more rocket-taggy than 5e PvE.
>This was probably intentional for good or ill.
Probably, but I don't have to like it.

>>51638394
Tier limiting and innate WBL. Fortunately PF has lots of classes.

>>51638552
Typically we play T1-3.

In a game where PvP was at the forefront, I'd make it T2-3, and might consider using some of the variant mechanics in Conflict PVP by Conflict Games.

>>51638537
>Other than spells on a mages, there were not enough new capabilities (active or passive) which could be added to a character. Haven't played 5e in almost a year at this point so I don't have the specific examples that bugged me.
Then you're relying on what you think you experienced.
And not enough new capabilities? You wat, what do you mean?

>I also found it annoying how much of what you got from a class was fixed, rather than having a list of substitute class features which could be taken. Pathfinder is both more flexible in this regard, and it has lots of combinable archetypes.
Multiclassing is a thing. 5e, instead of substituting class features like PF does, is more about adding onto the class chassis themselves with the archetypes already built in.
What levels did you play to or DM for?

>Negating the swinginess through planning is the reason you to want large modifiers.
This doesn't mean Advantage isn't going to work with this example.

>>51638552
Then that's restrictive. What if the player really wanted to play a tier 1 class?

>>51638683
Yes I'm relying on the frustrations I and my group experienced building for 5e.

>Not enough capabilities what?
Distinct class features. Things like different paladin auras, different bard songs, smite, each of a monks ki powers, cleric domain powers, cavalier challenges, etc. Distinct capabilities. 5e characters didn't feel like they had enough of them. They often had less than their 3.0 counterparts, like clerics only getting one domain.

We played up to around 7 or so. It was a low level campaign.

>Advantage gives the average equivalent of a bonus of more than +3, and less than +4. That's far less than the range of 1-20. If advantage could guarantee no result lower than 10 and allow up to a 30, or guarantee like a 15-20 range, it might negate enough of the swinging to "negate the swinginess through planning". But of course, it doesn't.

>>51638683
Read >>51638624. Unless the game focuses on PvP, they can play T1 just fine. If it does focus on PVP, and someone wants T1, then I might allow T1-2 instead of 2-3, depending on the campaign.

I also do race availability from one campaign to thee next depending on what the campaign is about. Sometimes it'll be standard Tolkien races, other times it might be only drow. Depends on the campaign. Same idea. Starting level, and Class and race availability will depend on the setting, and the power level of the campaign.

If they want to play below tier? I explain to them that they're building with a less versatile and potentially also weaker class, the game may have PvP, and the party may not want to carry them if they build a character who is dead weight. If they are undeterred, I make them announce in front of the group that if they're being outshone they did this to themselves and they promise not to bitch, before they ask the rest of the group for a majority vote to allow them to play their weak character.

>>51638961
I'll also explain in detail how they might be outshone, particularly if the party has a better martial like a druid, combat cleric, warpriest, or synthesist and they're wanting to play fighter.

>>51638961
Then you're biased in your assessment of the system.

>Distinct class features. Things like different paladin auras, different bard songs, smite, each of a monks ki powers, cleric domain powers, cavalier challenges, etc. Distinct capabilities. 5e characters didn't feel like they had enough of them. They often had less than their 3.0 counterparts, like clerics only getting one domain.

What rules did you use? Book rules or rules you found on the Webs?
You must therefore know that each class has at least three archetypes they can take at 3rd level, with more options available to them through the UAs and the SCAG.
And unlike PF's variety of class features, most of 5e actually works out of the box.

>Read >>51638624. Unless the game focuses on PvP, they can play T1 just fine. If it does focus on PVP, and someone wants T1, then I might allow T1-2 instead of 2-3, depending on the campaign.
This is still restrictive, and won't be what a player hopes for if they want to play a T1 class.
Limiting or restricting classes is already an indication that system is failing at its intended purpose, in this case PvP.

>>51639098
I don't play Pathfinder in e6 mode, so class limiting is done regardless of PvP.

But yes, it would be better if all classes could be built to all tiers based on campaign tastes, or if there was a different version of each class for whatever tier you wanted to play.

I never said Pathfinder was perfect, it's far from it. It's filled with flawed just like every other RPG I've played. I just said I prefer it to the various alternatives I've tried, including 5e.

The rules were book rules plus scag. GM probably would have allowed UA, but I don't think most of us knew about it at that point.

Yes, we used the subclasses. Yes it was nice to not have to sift though the options which are a waste of paper, but it certainly *felt* like the amount of customization and flexibility was less than Pf had after 3 years.

>>51639555
Flaws*

Auto correct

>>51639555
I may run 5e again in the near future, I've got out of the abyss here and nobody in our group has played it.

>>51639555
But games using a system shouldn't be limited in or restricted in using the classes of that system. If this is the case, that says a lot about how well that system is designed.

Some RPGs are less flawed in their mechanics, 5e being one of those.

>The rules were book rules plus scag. GM probably would have allowed UA, but I don't think most of us knew about it at that point.
And in what way did you feel limited or restricted or how poorly the 5e classes were designed?

>Yes, we used the subclasses. Yes it was nice to not have to sift though the options which are a waste of paper, but it certainly *felt* like the amount of customization and flexibility was less than Pf had after 3 years.
You seem to be somewhat conflating the number of options with how useful those options actually are; if the options are indeed varied but they're shit or less than useful in actual play then would you still take them?

>>51639555
>>51639674
Now don't get me wrong, I do really like the fluff the PF writers write and would use that in addition to 5e fluff, but PF mechanics sure leave a lot to be desired.

>>51632990
Unchained is playable but all monk options are much weaker in PF than they are in 5e.

>>51633163

d&d basic or 2ed
E6 D&D
Warhammer 2nd edition
Savage Worlds
GURPS lite

5e > 3.5pf > 4e

File: Tigrex.jpg (85KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1024x768px

>>51632667
>>51638330
>>51638300
Synthesists are banned in nearly any from of public play, not to mention 6 more of the other 10 summoner archtypes. Hell, standard summoners were banned from organized play as soon as the Unchained Summoner nerf came out in 2015.

Fuck, I need to find normal people to play with.

>>51639674
If the system has enough content, I don't feel I have to include all of it. I wouldn't try to allow/include everything in a GURPS campaign either.

In games that do work on a "include everything" approach, that's good for having a larger percentage of options that apply to your campaign, but it does mean a standardized gameplay, which, if it's not what you're looking for, means you don't want to play that game.

4e is a well balanced combat game which I have little fun playing, for instance.

I am not conflating number of options with how useful the options are. I believe you're not understanding me.

I want a large number of useful options, both to choose from on a game turn, and to choose from during chargen. Pathfinder generally fills that want better than 5e, despite the minefield to navigate in avoiding the crap options.

IMO 5e is 'fine'. Pathfinder is 'decent'. Both have different flaws that annoy me, and the ones for Pathfinder simply annoy me slightly less, and Pathfinder covers a desired per level better than 5e. When I want low-mid magic fantasy, I lean toward non d&d systems.

>>51639808
While I will generally agree, I will also include the important distinction that it's not absolutely true. There are some things that I prefer in 4e more than the other two, and somethings in 3.pf that I prefer over 5e.

>>51639904
Oh. Yeah, PFS is a Clusterfuck.

Summoner in general is a T2 Martial, including Synthesist. Synthesist is a weaker archetype because you're getting comparable numbers but half as many actions.

A t5 class (like fighter) shouldn't be in a party with a T2 class (like summoner, Oracle, sorcerer) because it's going to be outshone. This is more obvious when the T2 is doing the same job as the fighter.

>>51639920
Then are they really options if these options aren't good and will rarely see gameplay? Are these false options?
Saying that a system has a huge number of options while another doesn't is disingenuous if the system with the options heap has rarely useful options and the system with the relative lack of options has well designed classes.

You still haven't explained how you felt restricted or limited in playing 5e classes or how the class features didn't have the capabilities you were after.

4e is pretty fucking fun though, will also disagree with you there.

>>51632573
Play a Gnome Barbarian

>>51640001
Many of them are false options. I'm saying the number of *usable* options is higher in Pathfinder than 5e.

As for what I was dissatisfied with, there didn't seem to be enough choices during chargen, and I wanted a higher number of usable class features than I had.

The characters were fine in capability but felt lacking in versatility.

Im not sure how better I can explain the experience.

>>51639904
>>51639954
Is master summoner banned? Over synthesist?

>>51640044
So you're saying you wanted archetypes off the bat rather than waiting for 3rd when they come online, as they do in 5e.
Do you actually use the number of class features you find yourself with in PF?

And is it really the case that the number of usable options in PF is higher than it is in 5e? Considering nearly all of 5e just works.

But you said you felt the 5e classes lacked capabilities.

>>51640090
And there's the UAs, which the other guy didn't know about.

>>51640125
Didn't know about them at the time buy have been made aware of them in the past few months, yeah.

>>51640090
No I'm saying I wanted the ability to take multiple archetypes, or the ability to choose individual class features out of a list.

>Do I use the class features in PF?
Once in a while I get stuck with a dud that's not very helpful but generally yes.

5e characters lack in capabilities (plural). They have capability (singular). They're good at what they do. That is not the problem. The problem is that the number of things they can do is too small.

Yes I would say the number of usable options is higher in PF, but it certainly takes more effort to find them.

>>51640050
Both are banned in PFS.

>>51640209
Choose more class features out of a list*

Much like selecting spells. Or choosing a ranger fighting style in Pathfinder.

>>51640209
Can't you take at most three archetypes in PF at the same time?
>the ability to choose individual class features out of a list.
This is possible in 5e, the system is very modular.

>The problem is that the number of things they can do is too small.
Could you define this using examples with both systems?

>Yes I would say the number of usable options is higher in PF, but it certainly takes more effort to find them.
Then it's just a slog and chore just to find usable options, that's definitely not a good sign.

>>51640090
Not him but I love how the 5e classes work, I just wish we had more supplements. UA is good but it's not "hard" which bothers me, and as someone who sticks to a small count of the total classes, I'm waiting awhile between each option.

PF options are shit but sometimes a shit option is interesting enough to try. If UA is for testing, they can release a few more misses each month.

>>51640359
>>>51640209 (You)
>Can't you take at most three archetypes in PF at the same time?

No hard limit. You can't alter the same class feature more than once but there's no limit on how many archetypes you can take. Though you'll rarely see more than 2 on a single classed character in practice.

>>the ability to choose individual class features out of a list.
>This is possible in 5e, the system is very modular.
>>The problem is that the number of things they can do is too small.
>Could you define this using examples with both systems?
I'm gonna try. Booting up my computer to compare two similar builds in both systems.

>>Yes I would say the number of usable options is higher in PF, but it certainly takes more effort to find them.
>Then it's just a slog and chore just to find usable options, that's definitely not a good sign.
Agreed. I'm not saying it's a good thing. In fact I'd say That's the worst part of Pathfinder.

File: Screenshot_2017-02-09-09-04-02.png (694KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 1080x1920px

>>51632573
Don't visit /pfg/

File: Vecna_by_jdillon82.jpg (36KB, 300x453px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 300x453px

>>51640419
Just a bump. Doing a side by side ranger comparison at level 8 to illustrate what I meant, and to evaluate it more objectively rather than just based on feel.

>>51640777
Use the UA ranger. They released the UA ranger specifically to address the problem of the PHB ranger.

>>51632573
inquisitor is a simple and fun class to play, i recommend for new players

>>51640818
I think I get some of what he wants, he wants to be able to multiclass, and have it end up more powerful than a straight class, and also if he's playing a straight class wants to be able to switch between archetypes to pick the bonuses he wants from them, 5e RAW doesn't allow for this, the main reason being that it would take a truly exceptional individual to be able to study two different fighting styles or entirely different class or what have you, and actually be competent at both.

>>51641164
Can PF do that competently?
And yes, 5e does require a shifting of genre in thinking. It's not as high-powered fantasy as PF or 4e.
But there's an ease to refluffing what you need to or can do.

>>51641202
I know nothing about PF, I've just read most of the relevant 5E material, and have gleaned that from his posts, 5e is suited more towards high fantasy a little above Tolkien in power and also towards low fantasy if you exclude most of the magic-users, it's not like what everybody who seems to describe pathfinder (memes aside) as being suited for.

>>51640777
>>51640818
>>51641164

I compared the 5e Revised Ranger to the PF Ranger. Perhaps Hunter would have been closer as 5e ranger has more magic.

5e
Ch: Race+Subrace (No real difference from more races)
Ch: Class
Ch: 3 Skills
Ch: Background
Ch: Favored Enemy
Ch: Greater Favored Enemy
Natural Explorer
Ch: Fighting Style: of 4
Ch: Conclave (from 5) (Lets choose beast for the example)
Ch: 5 Spells Known
Ch: 7 Spells Per Day
Ch: 2x Feats OR ASIs
Primeval Awareness
Fleet of Foot
Conclave: Animal Companion
Conclave: Coordinated Attack
Conclave: Beast's Defense

Total Choices: 3 skills, Race/Subrace, Class, Background 2x FE, Combat Style, 1x Archetype, 5 Spells Known, 7 Spells Per Day, 2 Feat or ASI, Animal Companion, 1 Bonus Language

Ability Count: 5 Skills, Basic Combat, Natural Explorer, Beast Companion, 5 Spells Known / 7 Spells per Day, Detect FE, Talk to Beasts, Travel Unhindered w Party, Fleet of Foot, Improved Tracking

PF
Ch: Race
Ch: Class
0-~4 Archetypes (From 36)
Ch: 6-8 Skills at Full, or 12-16 at Half, or any combination in between.
Ch: 2x Traits
Ch: 2x Favored Enemy (one of which scales up)
Track
Wild Empathy
Ch: Combat Style: (of 7) (Scaling)
Endurance
Ch: 2x Favored Terrain (one of which scales up)
Ch: Hunter's Bond (Share FE w Allies, OR Animal Companion)
Woodland Stride
Swift Tracker
2 Spells Per day, changeable each day.
4 Feats, 2 ASIs.

Every class feature has archetypes that you can take which will alter or replace it, meaning every class feature can be replaced, even if they can't all be replaced 1 by 1.

Total Choices: 6-16 Skills between Full & Half Progression, 2 Traits, 2x FE, Combat Style, X Spells Per Day (Full List), 4 Feats, 2 ASIs, 2x Favored Terrain, Beast Companion, 0-4ish Archetypes Which act as a sort of multiplier to choice count.

Ability Count: 6-16 Skills, Basic Combat, Charm Animals, Improved Tracking, Travel Unhindered (Alone), Beast Companion, 2 Spells per Day (Exchangeable)

>>51641164
>wants to be able to multiclass, and have it end up more powerful than a straight class
This is almost impossible in PF because PF penalizes multiclassing. Going straight class is the better option by far.
In 5e, all classes have the share proficiency, you're not penalized for going multilass at all.

>>51641270
Abilities:
The Pathfinder ranger is effective at *WAY* more skills, can take any skills he wants (he just doesn't get the +3 bonus if theyre not class skills) has a similar, comparable ability count (spells: less per day, way more to choose from).
Choices: Take a look at the list. It's not even close.

The 5e Ranger is a rigid, rather inflexible thing, with a few opportunities for customization.

The PF Ranger is a tracker who can be anything from what the 5e Beastmaster Ranger is up to a brawny thief with some spells, to a Tracker/Assassin, and many things in between.

>>51641321
All of 5e is like this. It's why my group has a preference for PF.

>>51641284
Doing so, weakens you, no multiclass turns out better than going straight class in 5e, the option is there more for flavor and player customization than anything else. So what if PF penalizes multiclassing? from what I've gathered that penalty can't be too terribly bad if people consider multiclassing at all.

>>51641321
It bothers me so much that I can't use two-handers or polearms on the 5e Ranger, not even on the revised one. My favourite style of the "skillful hunter" characters is the spearman who stalks his target and wrestles it down.

>>51641343
>So what if PF penalizes multiclassing?
So it shuts down your ridiculous notion that multiclassing makes stronger characters in PF.

>>51641343
You have to understand that most people who are hardcore PF players will have a dozen characters that they have no intention on playing simply because you have more options during character creation than the actual fucking game.

The only reason anyone would say that PF is better than 5e is because it offers more character creation options but actual play...not so much, unless you're playing a mage.

>>51641270
How are you comparing the two? Through sheer quantity of class features/options alone or how functionally well its class features/options handle themselves?

Sure, you get the two-weapon fighting tree in the PF ranger but it's shit.

>>51641371
Does it really though? I'm never going to play pathfinder, so anyone who isn't you please answer the question with clarity and with as little bias as possible
>>51641382
I've heard that, I'm never going to touch it, not just because it seems like it has a shitty community, but because the developers literally stole someone else's work and changed it just enough so that it couldn't be called plagiarism and then published it.

>>51641367
Wat, rangers are proficient in martial weapons. Two-handers and polearms are martial weapons.
How do you figure?

>>51641367
Yeah, I know the feeling.

>>51641402
I typically don't go for TWF anyways. I go Archery, Polearm, or Greatsword.

I will grant you, TWF is more appealing in 5e.

IG Options.
5e Ranger has:
>~8 "Things" Theyre good at.
>5 Skills
>5 Spells Known and 7 Spells/Day.

PF Ranger Has:
>~5 "Things" They're Good at (Worse)
>6-16 Skills (Probably like, 10, because you dont need everything at full but you'll want some things at full).
>Unlimited Spells Known and 2 Spells Per Day. Less Good.

In Terms of what they can do throughout a day, the 5e Ranger /CAN/ Do More (which is good, Ranger is one of the weaker examples in PF, Being a T4 Martial.)

In Terms of what a ranger has to be?

In 5e it's this really tight, restrictive thing, with a small number of choices. In PF you can swap out nearly any class feature that doesn't fit your concept and keep the ones that do.

>>51641493
What makes you think you can't go greatsword or polearm in 5e as a ranger? They are proficient with martial weapons.

>>51641452
Those're unavailable under your combat feats so you can technically wield them but you'll typically be denying yourself your primary weapon.

Though I suppose you can take a bow and switch hit, it weakens a class that's already considered weaker for potentially wasting a major feature if you opt out of your combat style.

>>51641428
I'm a separate person to the one you responded to there. So, that's two people.

>literally stole someone else's work
D&D 3e (core 3 books plus psionics and a couple other things) was published open source, with permission to repackage it up and do what you want with it and resell it. That's not Plagiarism, there's even a copy of the license and which works they converted/referenced at the back of the book, and they release their own stuff under that same license, which is why their mechanics are available for free on d20pfsrd.
This is why Pathfinder CORE and Bestiary 1 are so similar to 3.5. The other Pathfinder books are both where the originality comes from, and where everything good and interesting comes from.

>>51641321
All 5e have classes are 'trained' in skills but can choose to be proficient in and therefore specialized in some skills.

>The 5e Ranger is a rigid, rather inflexible thing, with a few opportunities for customization.
What makes you say this?

And the built-in ranger conclave changes what you're going for, don't make disingenuous points.
But is the PF ranger actually good at doing what it does when you decide to: " from what the 5e Beastmaster Ranger is up to a brawny thief with some spells, to a Tracker/Assassin, and many things in between."?

>>51641549
That's not an answer to the question I asked and I was aware it wasn't legally plagiarism, it was still dishonest, and I don't care how original the rest of their shit is, it's built on a system that fucks over, everyone who isn't a wizard.

>>51641516
Wat, they can be taken as feats by the ranger. Unlike in previous editions, there's no prerequisites stopping you or needing for you to fulfil.

You're not getting it as combat style, but that means denying yourself a +1 or +2 bonus.#

How is this different to what you get as a PF ranger?

>>51641549
Actually it is plagiarism. What it is not is copyright or trademark infringement. If you rip off ideas wholesale, you are a plagiarist. Even if that work is CC or public domain.

I recall someone saying Paizo had ripped off homebrew works (which would be infringement) but I forgot to drag him over coals for proof.

>>51641321
>The 5e Ranger is a rigid, rather inflexible thing, with a few opportunities for customization.

>The PF Ranger is a tracker who can be anything from what the 5e Beastmaster Ranger is up to a brawny thief with some spells, to a Tracker/Assassin, and many things in between.

The 5e ranger's ranger conclaves would like a word with you.

You said you were going for objectivity, you're still mixing subjectivity into it and also being wrong.

>>51641634
For someone to get Paizo in that though they'd have to trademark or copyright their ideas, and how many homebrewers actually do that?

>>51641611
There's no feat to take styles, Great Weapon Fighting Style is distinct and different from Great Weapon Master. Granted, Great Weapon style is one of the weaker ones and missing it isn't a big deal, but it's less a matter of efficiency and more a matter of flavour. There're a lot of small things like that in 5e which limit your character builds.

The PF Ranger has a huge range of fighting styles available, and while a lot of them are frankly shit, they're there and give you a wide range to customize your character organically.

I do think there're more competitive options in 5e, I like having easy ways into these silly personalized builds in Pathfinder. As a fact though, Ranger's just don't have access to as many of these options in 5e. I much prefer the 5e system but its tools are limiting, of so many fighting styles you're only allowed to choose from the small handful available to Rangers.

>>51641270
You realize you can go multiclass relatively easily in 5e don't you.

>>51641333
But you've been completely wrong in your points. So you're asserting points from a position of not understanding how 5e actually works.

>>51641656
When you publish a work, it is automatically copyrighted. All registering it does is make an official independent record of it.

>>51641493
Classes in 5e have skills they're proficient in, ie they get a bonus equal to their proficiency bonus. Otherwise every class gets all skills.

>>51641698
Even if you just post it on here or elsewhere on the internet? I was under the impression that if you don't legally copyright something or state that it is your intellectual property or any of a number of things you can't sue someone for using your idea.

>>51641593
>It's still dishonest.
But it's not at all dishonest. WotC literally gave anyyone permission to do it, IN WRITING. Thats why there's so many different d20 systems and products, many of which are not made by WotC.

>That's not an answer.
That's not an answer because >>51641371 This was my answer, and >>51641284 This is the person who called your claim of multiclass to be superior out as being incorrect.

>Fucks over, everyone who isn't a wizard.
Eh. Only classes that are *really* fucked over are core Rogue, Fighter, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, and Cavalier. It's a small subset of the classes that get screwed over, and they get screwed over because of the notion of "cool shit requires magic and these guys are defined by having none". Which is unfortunate. Though there's enough other good classes that fill the fluff and party roles well enough that you can just excise the weakest classes from your game and everything works much better.

>>51641611
There are many more combat styles in Pathfinder for Ranger to choose from, and Polearms and Two-Handed Weapons are among them.

>>51641647
Conclaves are some of the few choices I mentioned. They're in my analysis. I didn't forget or omit them. There aren't enough of them to choose from. I also find the mandatory class features annoying.

>>51641634
It's only plagiarism if you take the credit. They gave credit where credit was due and only took credit for their original work. Hence the list of sources and the license at the back of the book.

>>51641656
Copyright has been automatic for like half a century. If you can prove first use, you own the copyright.

Much like WotC stole the Githyanki and Slaadi and several other monsters which they did not own the rights to, that were published in white dwarf. either white dwarf only had the right to print them once, or TSR only had the right to print them once. I don't recall which.

>>51641722
Nope. If you can prove your work came first, you can claim copyright. They can either back down, settle, or argue your idea wasn't sufficiently original to warrant copyright and they developed it independently.

>>51641722
Nope, it's yours unless you explicitly put it somewhere that states that all content is CC (most wikis and even then) or public domain or declare it as such yourself. If I posted something here on 4chan and some fucknugget ripped it off though, I would have a horrible time proving that it was me who created it unless I used a tripcode or something else that can unambiguously prove that I was the poster.

>>51641682
>There's no feat to take styles, Great Weapon Fighting Style is distinct and different from Great Weapon Master. Granted, Great Weapon style is one of the weaker ones and missing it isn't a big deal, but it's less a matter of efficiency and more a matter of flavour. There're a lot of small things like that in 5e which limit your character builds.
Then go fighter and take the great weapon fighting style.
Have you heard of Blade Mastery or Spear Mastery?

>There're a lot of small things like that in 5e which limit your character builds.
You're deliberately doing this and somehow asserting this as fact when it's simply not true.

>The PF Ranger has a huge range of fighting styles available
Which are?

>I do think there're more competitive options in 5e, I like having easy ways into these silly personalized builds in Pathfinder. As a fact though, Ranger's just don't have access to as many of these options in 5e. I much prefer the 5e system but its tools are limiting, of so many fighting styles you're only allowed to choose from the small handful available to Rangers.
You keep saying 5e is limiting. How is it limiting? Every example you've been giving isn't true.

>>51641727
>There are many more combat styles in Pathfinder for Ranger to choose from, and Polearms and Two-Handed Weapons are among them.
What are they?
And are they comparable to the fighting styles you get in 5e?

>Conclaves are some of the few choices I mentioned. They're in my analysis. I didn't forget or omit them. There aren't enough of them to choose from. I also find the mandatory class features annoying.
Then it's not limiting.

> I also find the mandatory class features annoying.
And you don't in PF?

>>51641718
Yes, and? That doesn't change my observation that characters get more skills in Pathfinder - and is not limited to the class skills. Having ranks in a class skills is a +3 bonus in Pathfinder.

IMO "Any 6 skills, +3 if they're class skills, and you can feel free to take some at less than full progression if you need more skills" is better than "3 class skills and 2 background skills from this limited list".

>>51641694
What's been incorrect? I've seen some disagreement with my opinion on the facts, that you think the customization in 5e is plenty, whereas I do not, but I have yet to see anywhere I was pointed out as being factually incorrect in my assessment (>>51641270).

>>51641740
Oh all right.
>>51641727
It's still dishonest doesn't matter how many others did it, they're no less dishonest and quite a few of them modified the system way more than Paizo did.

How badly does it penalize multiclass? that was what I was asking? I wasn't clear initially, sorry, not sorry.

>>51641769
Guy who did the comparison here. You're talking to at least 2 people arguing about the inflexibility of 5e, possibly more.

>>51641769
I wouldn't call it a *huge* range, as he did, but:

Archery, TWF, Sword & Shield, Mounted Combat, Crossbow, Natural Weapon, Two-Handed Weapon

>>51641785
It changes because you seem to think that PF classes get more skills but I'm saying all classes in 5e get all skills.
This is different because it mean some classes can't use or don't get skills, whereas this isn't true for the 5e classes.

>What's been incorrect? I've seen some disagreement with my opinion on the facts, that you think the customization in 5e is plenty, whereas I do not, but I have yet to see anywhere I was pointed out as being factually incorrect in my assessment
You think the 5e ranger can't get GS or polearms. This is wrong.
You think the 5e ranger aren't versatile in the type of ranger they want to become. This is wrong.
You think the 5e ranger and all 5e classes are inflexible and rigid. This is wrong.

You're being dishonest and wrong.

>>51641783
>> I also find the mandatory class features annoying.
>And you don't in PF?
In Pathfinder I can trade any feature I don't want for something else through the choice of one or several archetypes. So, Not so much.

The only question is i there are several such things, can I trade them all without choosing archetypes which both try to trade away the same feature (because RAW you can't do that, though some GMs will still let you).

>>51641809
They seem to be written in your own writing style. But making up statistics is good though because no one can check.

>>51641769
If I take a level in Fighter, then I delay and dilute my character concept. Maybe at 20 it's no big deal but the goal of every roleplaying game is to define your character, hit your stride, and roleplay. And granted, I'm not necessarily adverse to roleplaying within limitation or anything but it doesn't change the fact that it's there. The comparison, this entire topic, doesn't exist in a vacuum where "5e offers enough options", but in a world where the question is, "Does 5e offer enough options to play my concepts", and in extension, "Does 5e offer enough options to play my concepts that Pathfinder might have available."

And if I want to play a Ranger who spend some time in formal martial training to master the use of his spear or sword, then sure, that's doable. But Pathfinder allows me to play my Ranger who's never lived outside of the forest, wields a bastard sword he filched off an ogre which he taught himself, and fights primarily through screaming his enemies down and bashing them in when they're still afraid.

As it stands, the comparison is something like Pathfinder having 20 Ranger archetypes to 5e's 6~, in addition to a wide array of feats you can pick up more conveniently, before you get to things like classes that can retheme as Rangers but use different primary mechanics or background.

>>51641844
You can trade them as long as those archetypes don't conflict. And then you need to decide whether these archetypes are worth it because many are objectively worse than others.

File: 8cdbd912868a9d01d0c4191fbaf015f99aeb56912ee96760dfc8d2840b2a9ac1.jpg (206KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1536x2048px

>>51633441
Well, the creator obviously did a poor job with his bait because it's easily read as the dragon representing any tough encounter, and as such, the OC spread widely for its unintended message. The origins of the work are irrelevant here. Bait isn't bait if it doesn't bait anyone, just as OC isn't OC if no one saves and reposts.

Also, either the person you're replying to is actually baiting, or he's actually autistic. Or just such a dense motherfucker he can't articulate a point without being seriously pressed, nor can he defend it in any way once its wrenched out of him. The only autistic thing you've done is keep responding to him.

>>51633074
>>51633123
>>51633237
>>51633316
>>51633357
the fuck is wrong with you? Do you need help?

>>51641864
This is only true in PF, the diluation of your character concept. Namely because you come from the PF mentality where multiclassing is worse than taking a straight class.
This isn't true in 5e.

Also I can't find anything about polearms as a PF ranger.

>>51641786
>Still Dishonest
Paizo used to just do Dragon Magazine (as the official publishers) and their own adventures. They had few choices when WotC suddenly terminated their Dragon contract to publish their shittier online version in-house, and 4e's initial license was downright caustic to anyone else trying to publish for it. Paizo looked at their legally available options, and chose the one that allowed them to continue publishing their adventures and stay in business.

>How badly does it penalize multiclass?
Ah. Pathfinder discourages multiclassing in that many class features cease scaling when you're taking other classes. Most of the time Pathfinder Multiclassing ends up being a 2 level dip. It's a weighing of "How much can I afford to sacrifice from multiclassing without crippling myself?" Additionally, There are "Capstones" at 8 and near 20, which are intentionally stronger abilities than you get in a typical level, further encouraging people to stay in a single class.

File: 62fb503b6574ae5cd07944df26506223a45d7abd202d552be7696c43e5a42aaf.jpg (32KB, 392x409px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 392x409px

>>51634607
>drink swamp water
>"that's gross dude"
>that's just, like, your opinion, man

File: 1.png (141KB, 1280x680px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1280x680px

>>51641854

File: 2.png (144KB, 1280x680px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1280x680px

>>51641854
At least 2 people.

>>51639904
Synthesist is the weakest summoner, why would someone ban it?

Oh right, Pathfinder causes brain damage.

>>51641896
Good for them, i don't give a single fuck that WOTC cut their funding for an out of hous dragon magazine, my objection is with the fact that they took what wasn't theirs(legally or not doesn't matter) barely fucking changed it and then published it as their own thing, I call that dishonest. I'm right, you're not.

So it's not really a penalty so much as it reinforces minmaxing but typically within classes, that's fine.

>>51641892
Yeah. I misremembered the separate category for it. You just take the Two Handed category for Polearms.

File: 151d26ba2bf1a26385f06f5a1cbe40b2bc4264aff26170dcd5d3a557edd92d17.jpg (47KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x375px

>>51639808
B/X > OD&D > 1e > 4e > 5e > 2e > 3e > PF

>>51641967
Similarly, you can take blade mastery and spear mastery in 5e.

>>51641892
The issue isn't the viability of multiclassing, it's about the flavour. Strictly speaking, the moment you take a dip in Fighter for something, your Ranger theme will be diluted in part because you've become a more honed martial artist - with fighter being an extremely light example - and your Ranger theming is delayed, potentially preventing you from playing the character you want another level. This isn't true of Pathfinder, where I'll have a wider range of options simply because there is, in a measurable and clearly visible way, an objectively wider range of options. The debate on viability is another issue entirely. Pathfinder is a broken mess, but I can't imagine how anyone could look at the spread and think it's not a significantly larger amount.

In regards to polearms, you can just take Two Handed and then pick up your polearm related features at convenience through your natural progression. You have a wide range of what kind of polearm fighting you're doing as well, whether you theme as someone playing keep away with your range or abuse it to pursue and pin targets down.

>>51641952
>>51641939
>>51641854
>>51641809
Who said what is irrelevant on an anonymous imageboard.

>>51641985
>Listing old school D&D and 4e among 3.PF and 5e
Not this shit again

>>51642018
Why not? 3e is a more smooth transition from 2e than any of the later editions had.

>>51642000
>an objectively wider range of options
That's not true when the strongest melee ranger is a ranger with a bow starting at lvl 6 (archery style -> point blank master)

>>51642000
You're also comparing two products with different design philosophies, 5e is more about balance and Wizards is publishing slowly with a lot of playtesting, Paizo publishes something new much more frequently and gives no fucks about balance. one is also much older than the other. The disparity in your "options" will disappear in time.

>>51642038
So it's like B/X, OD&D and 1e, then 4e on it's own, then 2e, 3.PF and 5e?

>>51642000
Then it's your mentality of the one-class mind coming into play and not actually a relevant point of class dilution.
Multiclassing with ranger into other classes in 5e is still a continuation of your ranger theme. The only difference is that in PF doing something like this becomes mechanically incompetent.

For PF, how are the options stacking in actual play? You yourself said a lot of its class features aren't actually good. Then this class is fast becoming a class with wasted potential and a class no one would want to take.

>>51642040
>>51642046
Optimization isn't the concern, I would never defend Pathfinder as a well built or remotely balanced game. Hell, I fucking hate the system.

I just think it's fucking ridiculous to make a claim that 5e gives you a wide range of options when the ubiquitous character of a wilderness spear ambusher still asks for some compromises in 5e, when in Pathfinder I can theme myself as an admittedly weaker, but still playable pirate captain who can tie in his character with his gameplay by improving his crewmate's ability to focus and flank a target and scares enemies into submission.

>>51642046
>The disparity in your "options" will disappear in time.
This. Guess what people said about PF when it came out? It didn't have the same amount of options as 3.5 and even today stuff like psionics are still not availiable without third party content.
Additionally, the extra content in PF killed any class identity they had, because with archetypes every class can be class x but with features from class y

File: 268918d09fa544923c4939f6b337f6eb67c3aa34226f1c51886c18892ec2feef.jpg (128KB, 1000x1254px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1000x1254px

>>51642051
As far as I see it, yeah. Except if you place old school on the left & new school to the right, 1e leans towards the right and 2e & 5e leans more towards the left than 3e, if that makes sense. So like

0e, B/X, 1e // 2e, 5e, 3.PF

and let's call 4e the third position.

>>51642090
>the ubiquitous character of a wilderness spear ambusher still asks for some compromises in 5e
How? And what compromises does it suffer?

>>51642090
It does give you enough options for a game that is barely out of its infancy, you want the fact you can't be Spear-chucker Fucking Jones(even though you can it's just not the most optimal) as a ranger out of the gate fixed, take a Survey on WOTC website, and contribute to the further development of the game.

>>51641868
Of course. And sometimes they won't be. But often they will.

>>51641892
Which is to say that multiclassing does not make you stronger than a straight class.

Though in 5e that's still the case, where additional attack is concerned, and where the spell levels you can cast and spells known are concerned.

>>51641960
Penalty in that you can make a character who is so far behind as to be useless through over-multiclassing. But yes, there are no additional penalties steeped on top of that like in 3.5.

If someone gives you written permission to do a thing, it's not dishonest to do it. I don't understand how you're struggling with this concept.

>>51641994
No no, I mean you can take the a *ranger combat style* that applies for it. Rather than having to ranger combat style into something else.

>>51642016
Until someone starts claiming that several people are all one person and it ceases to make sense. Then showing they are not all one person can make it clear that not all of the points he's responding to are being made by the same person.

>>51642000
What? No, that's ridiculous. Character Class is just a loosely themed collection of character abilities. Any fluff that can make sense with it is completely legitimate. If I build a quarterstaff wielding ranger and theme it appropriately, I'm a monk-hermit. Do the same thing with a Magus? I can be a monastic mystic-guru monk. Find effective crunch to match up with your fluff as best you can, and have-at!

>>51642051
(B/X/OD&D/1e), (3.0/3.5/PF/FantasyCraft/True20/Conan/D20Modern/StarWars/SpyCraft), 5e, 4e

>>51642093
>the extra content in PF killed any class identity they had
Classes aren't isolated chunks, they're on a sort of continuum, allowing you to build concepts between archetypal concepts. That's one of the best parts of Pathfinder.

>>51642090
Take the ranger, take the defensive fighting style or dueling if you want to fight with the spear in one hand. Wield a spear, go hunter's conclave and ambush to your heart's content.

>>51642093
>>51642093
>The disparity in your "options" will disappear in time.
We'll see. It's been 3.5 years. 5e does not have what I would consider 3.5 years worth of options. Maybe in 2025 you'll be right If they're planning to draw this edition out over a couple decades or something.

>>51642141
>Just out of its infancy
3.5 Years. It should be well into hitting its stride at this point, and hitting its peak in a year or so. 4e Only lasted 7 years, 3.5 is half way to 7. WotC controlled 3.x lasted 9, and it's over a third of the way to that. Pathfinder is 7.5, again, 3.5 years is near the half way point.

>>51632573
You can break the system very easily. If you want to have gun just dont. And play with people who dont.

PF have billion more option than 5e, and you can make alot more diverse and unique special snowflakes. You dont just "roleplay" that your fighter prefer defencive combat style, you can pick feats that actually show that.

>>51642165
>3.0/3.5/PF/FantasyCraft/True20/Conan/D20Modern/StarWars/SpyCraft
You could've just said "d20"

>>51642175
PF is closer to 9 years old.

>>51642175
Content inflation is not a good thing. Look at what happened to Minecraft and Terraria for vidya examples.

>>51642187
I suppose. Then they might have thought I just meant 3.x and d20 modern though.

>>51642165
Depending entirely on how many levels you put into the multiclass

I'm not struggling with anything, it's dishonest because they didn't take it and change it enough that it could truly be called their own even after years it's still basically 3.5 with slightly different mechanics at its core.

>>51642175
Has it really been that long already? I didn't even think there were 10 books out yet, including the core three.

>>51642175
5e was initially released in july 2014 it's not even 3 years old yet, you fucking idiot.

>>51642195
August 2009. It turns 8 in August.

Unless we're counting playtests? If we're counting playtests, than 5e isn't 3.5 (August or September 2014), it's almost 5 (May 2012)

>>51642175
I still have a 4e PHB on my desk at all time. I have a monitor sitting on it to get it at just the right height. Turned the other two books into dice trays.

>>51642224
>>51642221
You're right. 2.5. When I was doing my math I was thinking summer 2013.

That's not nearly as bad.

>>51642201
After all these years I would say PF is significantly different that you can't really mix and match character options, the math isn't quite the same, and the character design metagame and process are very different.

If someone asks me if I want to play PF I will say yes. If they offer 3.5, I will say no.

It's more than a coat of paint.

>>51642165
>Of course. And sometimes they won't be. But often they will.
If the options are bad and shit, there's no point in choosing them. Which ultimately means these options are worthless.
If you need to wade through these options to actually find something worthwhile, it makes the point and fun of playing the system even less.

>Which is to say that multiclassing does not make you stronger than a straight class.

>Though in 5e that's still the case, where additional attack is concerned, and where the spell levels you can cast and spells known are concerned.
But many of the class features in 5e aren't dependent on the class level and you gain the most out of multiclassing.
This isn't true in PF.

>No no, I mean you can take the a *ranger combat style* that applies for it. Rather than having to ranger combat style into something else.
The 5e ranger gets archery, close quarters shooting, defensive, dueling, mariner, tunnel fighting, and two-weapon fighting styles. These rangers also get proficiencies in martial weapons.
These fighting styles are also deliberately vague enough that you choose whatever weapon is appropriate and choose a fighting style that suits your character.

File: lord_of_the_mountains_by_designes-d47xra5.jpg (1MB, 1575x787px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1575x787px

>>51641958
Because Synthesist can be a Fighter about three times better then an actual Fighter.

This made the people who play Fighters mad, so they complained to the people who oversee PFS. The PFSociety Rulers then said, "Fucketh the Summoner." and it was banned from play.

Later, the Unchained Summoner fix (mostly nerf) came out and once again the PFSociety Rulers said, "Fucketh the summoner, one one may play a summoner unless it of the Unchained." and now you have to buy the unchained book if you want to play a lower powered Summoner.

You must remember, these are the people who banned Evil as a option for a player alignment.

>>51642294
But the master summoner makes a lot of classes irrelevant and it usually is banned way after the synthesist.

>>51642294
I'd ban evil as an alignment for PFS. I fucking love me an evil character in a good campaign, but I've rarely met anyone who I'd trust to handle one.

>>51642280
Whatever, you and I obviously have different marker for what is a dishonest business practice, and what isn't, and for me, no matter what you do later to differentiate yourself from your predecessor, if you copied them nearly verbatim initially, you're dishonest and nothing you do has merit in my view.

This is all well and good, but how is the PF ranger and 5e ranger in actual play?
Comparing hard numbers and "options" is irrelevant and also downright useless.

>>51642294
"Unchained" Summoner isn't meaningfully weaker than regular Summoner. It's just more fluff-restrictive with more of a "pick from a list" eidolon rather than freeform lego monsters.

And a couple eidolon evolutions had their point costs changed. But I mean, they could have just errata'ed the points costs.

>>51642281
You know, this thread has me viewing 5e a bit more favorably. I still don't like the clearly defined classes as much as the ambiguous piecemeal hybridization you can do in Pathfinder, but nothing is perfect.

Still not convinced the new skill system is an improvement or that dis/adv is sufficient, or that feats costing ASIs is a good idea, but for class gameplay it seems better than I remember it now that I examine it more closely.