>people here actually think that they'll be able to push

>great art, and clear and direct language (something that is actually an unfortunate rarity among games)
>easy-to-understand and mathematically-elementary mechanics that are simple to homebrew with and to otherwise adapt, with plenty of advice on how to do so
>versatility as a fantasy kitchen sink, supporting any kind of adventure or idea that involves the word "fantasy"
>the basics can be learned within an hour, but rewards years of continued play with endless discoveries and revelations
>a "you can do anything" attitude, that even if it opened up doors to wide imbalances, never gave a hard "no" to questions like "Can I have centaurs that are half bull rather than half horse?" or "Can wizards use a point system rather than vancian casting?" or "Can martials have maneuvers similar to spells?" or "Can I ride a dragon?" or even "Can I play a dragon?", with mechanical assistance to all of these questions and more

There's plenty of better systems out there, and it's not even my favorite or close to it. But, it's an impressive system, and if you are lucky enough to have a good DM, you're all set for fun and exciting adventures.

>>53503536
>great art
Now this is what I call trying too hard.

File: 1435732692688.png (1MB, 775x828px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 775x828px

>>53503569
What's not to like?

I like 3.5, but now that 5e exists, I have a hard time justifying a reason to go back to it, just like I have zero inclination of going back to AD&D.

File: 5.jpg (61KB, 306x471px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 306x471px

>>53503529
You are seriously delusional.

>>53504337
I'd say the people who've allowed their contrarian attitude toward what's popular to overwhelm their greater judgement are a typical definition of delusional. In other words, you.

Why is calling a seriously mechanically flawed system contrarian?

It's not about popularity or whether you can have fun in the system, it's about whether the system supports or hinders a GM.

3.PF very much falls into the latter category, with some very fundamental core systems like challenging rating not working as intended, requiring significant work on the GM's part to learn the nuances of and make work right.

This should be clearly obvious to anyone who has ever run 3.PF. The system doesn't help you, it forces you to work against it or just ignore it in many cases where a better designed games mechanics would offer support.

As I said, this isn't to say that people can't or shouldn't run it, but it's about being honest when pitching the system to people, making them aware of the work they'll need to put in to have it run smoothly.

>>53504337
Pathfinder has been either the first or second most popular game on roll20 for the past two years since they started collecting data. 3.5 has consistently been second or third. Pathfinder alone has more active games than 4e, AD&D, WFRP, 40k RPGs, oWoD, nWoD, Call of Cthulhu, and Shadowrun put together. Add 3.5 to Pathfinder's total for the overall popularity of 3.X and you can add in Dungeon World, Savage Worlds, FATE, and GURPS to the grand coalition of non-5e games and still not have as much as just 3.X.

The only way 3.X is going down is if 5e gains even more total hegemony than it already has.

Daily reminder that 3.5 is already dying, 5e is far more popular.

Daily reminder that the only versions of dnd with lasting appeal are 0e, 1e, and 2e being the oldschool crowd with years to come in their life.

Also OP your b8 is stale. Saying 3.pf has "clear and direct language" is just laughably transparent.

>>53503529
>>53503536
>Thinks 4chan is a contrarian cesspit
>Vehemently defends thing on 4chan anyway

The only person you seem to be justifying things to is yourself, anon.

File: HaUgST9.gif (262KB, 244x244px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 244x244px

>>53503529
>>53503536
And today OP realized that having a good GM is the most important part of the roleplay experience.

Fucking faggot.

>>53504468
>Why is calling a seriously mechanically flawed system contrarian?
Because it's not.
Anyhoo, nice to see you here, but as much as you want to rant about "3.PF is bad because I don't know how to play it, it's too hard, it works against me" all of that is largely just you being dumb.
It's a big system, so there's tons of advice in the books on how you need to exercise caution and what may and may not work well, but if you are ignoring that, that's your own fault. Also, it's at least got clear mechanics Take a look at other systems that take decades to unravel all their mechanical flaws, but are so underplayed that no one has even bothered to look into them.

>>53504521
>Daily reminder that the only versions of dnd with lasting appeal are 0e, 1e, and 2e being the oldschool crowd with years to come in their life.

This is kind of a joke, because the "old school crowd" is so small and insignificant, it's more of an "old school gathering."

>>53503529
3.pf has the exact same appeal as every popular shitty f2p mobile game.

Okay, so your argument is that 3.5 is good because:

a) It's popular
b) It has a lot of supplements

I counter your points by saying I am not interested in either, and as such are left with a flawed base system which I'd rather not use. Perhaps with a good DM its problems could be ameliorated but at that point there's nothing you can say in defense of using 3.5 as opposed to literally any other system

>>53504577

But can you counter the simple, direct example I made? That the challenge rating system, as presented in the core, is an extremely flawed to the point of unusable system with no reliable way of knowing whether an appropriate CR encounter will be pitifully easy or a tpk?

>>53504630
If you're just going to ignore what's written, don't bother replying, because all that needs to be said is "you can't just ignore the arguments in order to try to pretend they're not there."

>>53504655

But that's literally what you're doing, right now? Ignoring arguments to pretend they don't exist, calling literally anyone who disagrees with you contrarian while dismissing their arguments out of hand?

>>53504655
"It's popular" is not an argument on the first place, unless you meant for finding a group, but with roll20 and similar sites you can find a group for fucking anything if you're patient. "It has a lot of supplements" is void if you don't want to sift through them in order to polish the turd that is 3.5

File: elder_evils.jpg (429KB, 1280x1169px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1280x1169px

>>53503569
>hating on this

You need to stop.

>>53504468
>it's about whether the system supports or hinders a GM.

Fucking RISUS "supports" the GM just fine, but it's still a shitty game and no one would use it for an actual campaign. Stop acting like one factor is the only thing that determines system quality.

>>53504638
>But can you counter the simple, direct example I made?
Where? I just saw you sort of bitching indistinctly.

>That the challenge rating system, as presented in the core, is an extremely flawed

It presents decent guidelines of what to expect. It's not perfect, but moaning about it being extremely flawed is just splitting hairs. Sure, there might be some outliers, but as a whole it works pretty well within the range of CR 3-14, the levels people most frequently play.

>>53503529

Alright folks, let ol' Wayne sum things up for you all.

/tg/ works by having autists of two or more opposite extremes argue points until a third party is there to interpret a mediating viewpoint that is closest to the truth. This post, as one that summarizes everything, receives exactly two types of replies:

1) A "This." Post that adds a personal view and receives no replies.

2) The third or fourth troll, or OP, who bashes this post with nitpicking that ultimately serves to undermine the posting and keep the argument going until it is so far removed from its original context until it turns into an argument about something else entirely, then splinters off into the actual, real discussion of the thread and the constant newcomers to the thread whose posts can be summarized as "You're wrong, here's why."

This is basically how all "Hot-button /tg/ issue" threads work. These issues include: Quests, 3.5/PF, Elves/Dwarves, D&D, Edition Wars, Female Space Marines, 1d4chan/Old Memes, Nu-/Old-/tg/, Female Players, All Meta Threads, and /Generals/

The phenomenon has become unavoidable, unbannable, and completely immovable. The only hope is basically to change the subject of the thread to anything else so that the thread doesn't become a perpetual hate-machine that is recreated over the next couple days, dies for a week, then comes back again.

>>53504697
Can you point to where someone said "it's popular is why it's good"?

>>53504697
"It's popular" is literally a defined logical fallacy. By any definition it is not a meaningful argument.

>>53504726

But Risus doesn't support the GM. It's so rules light it has virtually no support structures at all.

>>53504677
Not at all. You seem pretty hostile and pretty wrong, a bad combination for any discussion.

>>53504746
Nice Reddit-spacing faggot.

>>53504755
It was implied in the OP with
>People are going to enjoy playing that game for years to come thanks to it still being one of the better systems available.
Then followed by, in short, saying that it has a lot of content. There's also a greentexted "but muh balance" and not much else.

>>53504638
>the challenge ratign system that I don't actually understand is bad
Because you don't actually understand it.

PF challenge ratign is based on three things.
1) Hit Dice are equivalent to levels and monster abilities are equivalent to character class powers.
2) A GM who actually reads the book and understands that the CR is only one part of the encounter build system, which also includes an Experince Point-to-Encounter buy, not only CR based information.
3) Knowing that the monsters have roles, and those roles are integral to choosing what monsters would challenge the characters in the party effectively.

This is actually explained in the books that you don't understand anon, so suck it up and learn to play a simple game before your head explodes from reading too many words.

>>53504818
I'm Wayne. By default I'm expected to commit the worst sins of posting on /tg/. And be a faggot. Thank you.

>>53504521
AD&D is currently the least popular of all editions of D&D on roll20. It has recently succumbed to Dungeon World in popularity. There are no other reliable stats for system popularity.

>>53504468
>Why is calling a seriously mechanically flawed system contrarian?

Probably because it's nowhere near as bad as you contrarians try to make it out to be?

You guys act like it's the worst game of all time, when it's actually closer to being one of the best.

You might be the kind of guy who played 3.5 in the past and then switched to [unpopular game] and felt like you had a sudden revelation and now had to decry everything that's different between the two games, but as someone who's played close to a hundred different games, Pathfinder is far from the bottom of that list. I'd put it in the top 20 without hesitation.

File: d&d_5e_vs_pathfinder.png (36KB, 688x801px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 688x801px

>>53504521
>5e is far more popular.

This is because of a flood of normies that are entering the hobby on a daily basis, thanks to TV shows like Stranger Things and Big Bang Theory, as well as podcasts like Critical Roll causing a greater social awareness of the game than ever before. As a result, loads of normalfags and roasties are coming to play D&D, and most of them are fucking shit at it.

If you want evidence of this, just take a look at your average gatherings at the FLGS. Take a look at Adventurer's League: a bunch of chads and dudebros, mixed with fat cheeto-dust-coated spergs who have done nothing but play Dark Scrolls and Skyrim in their room for the past ten years, playing meme videos and showing each other "here come dat boi" memes while the DM stutters through the latest 50 dollar published adventure wizards has shit out.

Whereas Pathfinder Society is full of intelligent and cultured people who are passionate about the game, know the rules, and aren't fat disgusting wastes of life for the most part. They also aren't retarded airhead women, because you have to actually be intelligent to play Pathfinder, and few women have that level of cognitive ability. Also Pathfinder has far more character building options and despite 5e having better math and better action / movement rules, it still falls behind in pretty much every other category. It is "simple" but that is a good quality only for casuals who can't be bothered to actually learn the rules.

Face it: Pathfinder isn't bad, you're just not smart enough to play it.

>>53504824
You're hoping to imply a lot of stuff, and still trying to ignore, omit, and condense the rest. In short, you're just being unscrupulous.

>>53504791
Same thing with 4e, though. It supports the DM but it still has dumb shit rules where a bunch of orcs can jump off a 10 foot roof and die instantly because they take a d10 of damage and each only have 1 hp. 4e also has Rule 42 so the infinite treadmill is thoroughly solidified.

>>53504776
>"It's popular" is literally a defined logical fallacy.

Nope. Claiming that a statement is true because it is popular is fallacious. Claiming something is popular at all is not fallacious.

>>53504868
You are parroting that 3.5 is "one of the best systems" without ever trying to meaningfully defend it, and completely ignoring or dismissing its specific criticisms whenever they're brought up

File: 1494639282057.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

Holy shit this whole thread

Please stop

>>53504915
Naw, I'm just telling you that you're a contrarian without bothering to clash opinions with you.

How do I know you are a contrarian? Because popular opinion disagrees with you, and from personal experience I recognize that you are pretty full of shit.

Want an argument? Great, but I'd rather not discuss things with a bull-headed contrarian. And go ahead and tell me I'm running away from this, because running from faggots and trolls is a smart move.

>>53504899
Okay, can you try writing something with meaning this time round?

>>53504969
Can you?

>>53504963
>haha I won't argue with you because you're a contrarian and wrong and I know you are wrong because my opiinion is popular
ok

>>53504978
I have said all I needed about the OP. You haven't said anything back.

>>53505000
>>haha I won't argue with you because you're a contrarian and wrong

I mean, up until this part, yeah. The latter part is just you sort of strawmanning because you want me to discount personal experience and popular opinion and to put your gripes on a pedestal in exchange.

>>53504875
>roasties
Yeah, opinion dropped.

>>53505018
You've done nothing except futilely try to dismiss obvious arguments. I've called you out on that.

So far, that puts the score at you-0.

So is Paizo really losing market share that badly that they've resorted to pushing people from their forums to go to other boards and do damage control?

That's just sad.

>>53504468
there are other games with even worse mechancial issues that are even more popular, anon. Seriously, bad mechanics is not one of PFs flaws.

>>53505081
Considering that Pathfinder is still way more popular and better selling than everything other than 5e, it's more likely that all the other companies have shills spending all their time on 4chan to try and decry 3.PF because they are desperate for any players whatsoever.

>>53505070
What do you want me to say. No shit it's popular. Even if it is popular I'd rather play something else. It has a lot of supplements, yes, but using a lot of supplements still won't address the shaky foundations of the system. Yeah a good DM can pull it off but a hypothetical good DM can pull off anything, and there's plenty of systems that don't require as much patching up to get to an optimal condition

>>53505081
No, you're just ignorant of how edition war trolls work.

>>53504577
This post tipped your hand, not that it wasn't an obvious bait thread.
The OP might have tipped me off, were I familiar enough with Pathfinder to pick out errors.

>as much as you want to rant about "3.PF is bad because I don't know how to play it, it's too hard, it works against me" all of that is largely just you being dumb.
That post was not a rant, especially not for /tg/, let alone the rest of 4chan.
Your antagonism is obvious. Either tone it down next time or make some attempt at being amusing.

>It's a big system, so there's tons of advice in the books on how you need to exercise caution and what may and may not work well, but if you are ignoring that, that's your own fault.
They aren't ignoring the advice on the parts of Pathfinder that require caution or don't work well.
They're saying that when discussing Pathfinder, be honest about how important those tons of advice are to run the game.

>>53504468
>it's about being honest when pitching the system to people, making them aware of the work they'll need to put in to have it run smoothly.

As for the game itself, it sounds like it reminds me of a spaceship design from some vidya game I can't remember.
It was slow but tough as hell with shields on top of that.
It was designed to be the Armored Turtle option, only good for lower levels and even then it was too slow to reliably hit anything with anything but the expensive guided missles.
The thing was, it could work.
The armor was top notch, you could get the speed up to almost average, and if you were really good, you could steer the sluggish thing well enough and time your shot to use lasers.
I was unstoppable in that thing until late levels where the top speed was much higher.
It was my favorite ship, but I had to work to get there.

>>53505121
If you can't read, you shouldn't be on this site.

>>53505102
Just to start with the only game more popular than 3.PF is 5e. You're full of shit

>>53503740
I want to touch her planes if you know what I mean

>>53505142
Still not saying anything meaningful. How many times do you want me to rephrase and expand before you're encouraged to make anything but lazy comebacks?

>>53505037
If you don't want to argue and POPULAR OPINION and PERSONAL EXPERIENCE have already come down from the heavens to tell you that 3.PF is a good system, and absolutely nothing would make you think otherwise even if you were going to argue, why did you bother posting this on 4chan?

>>53505173
Telling you that you're basically just flinging empty arguments because you can't bother to read anything without first putting on blinders is pretty meaningful. Maybe in a couple years you'll be mature enough to understand that if your only way to argue is to throw out any shred of shame and to just parade around how little you can comprehend, most people are just going to redirect you to either try reading again or to leave the discussion.

But you're right, I'm just leading you by the nose, because honestly no one would ever want to enter a discussion with someone as meaningless as you.

>>53505150
RIFTS and Shadowrun says you're an ignorant retard who doesn't actually know any systems at all.

>>53505195
To point out that you're a dumb contrarian no one wants to argue with? What? Is English your second language or something?

>>53505229
>RIFTS
>shadowrun
>more popular than fucking pathfinder

>>53505195
I think the issue is that you're not here to discuss the game, you're here to be a contrarian. I love discussing games, both their merits and their flaws, but only when I'm talking to someone who's actually hoping to have a discussion.

You're clearly just here for the system war drama. Is there really any reason to discuss anything with you? Is there anything anyone could possibly say to sway your opinion?

I doubt it. That's why I'm off to do better things than deal with an angry contrarian.

>>53505227
Okay, vague buzzwords and personal insults, but this time you wrote a couple sentences so we're making progress

>>53505244
>I came here to argue with a dumb contrarian no one wants to argue with

>>53503529
What made me quite Pathfinder was building a character that the system presented as a viable option, and then watching as I got outdone at every turn by an animal companion.

For a new player, Pathfinder seems hellish in retrospect. Every single upside you listed? Terrible for someone starting out

>sub-systems for everything, so you have to look them up every time something happens
>huge monster list, which is going to have a lot of things a new player won't even get
>giant spell list, so a new player who plays a caster is overwhelmed and a new player who plays a martial doesn't get nearly as many options
>really varied character options, which makes it easy to make something terrible
>mechanics like combat maneuvers or certain spells that seem fun, but don't actually do much unless you have the system knowledge to make them work
>an item list with lots of things, but no indication that encounters are built off the assumption that you have magical weapons and armor to match your level

The last one is the only one that's actually beneficial, and even then I'm taking your word on quality there.

So yeah, if a system is this bad for new players (unless you have an incredible DM willing to explain everything and prevent anyone from making a mistake), then it can't be all that great. And once you're experienced enough at pathfinder to know and understand all of these options and systems and how everything works? You probably would have gotten to the point of any other system where you know everything and can start homebrewing and altering it to suit your tastes and give you more options and sub-systems and things of that nature.

>>53505304
So, you love discussing games and that's why you began this thread by trying to label all criticism to pathfinder as contrarianism, irrelevant or both, and you have better things to do, which is why you've consistently kept replying up to this point and probably will keep doing so

>>53505331
Pointing out that someone is a dumb contrarian is not really arguing with them.
Unless you think me calling you an idiot is a cue for you to try and pretend otherwise?

>>53505447
Didn't you just say were going off, you lazy troll?

>>53505477
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
Are you the dumb contrarian still hoping to rope someone into an argument?

File: Casting_Magic_Missile.gif (2MB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 512x288px

>>53503529
>Subsystems for everything.
maybe, but good luck on the research project needed to find some of them goddamn. You know there're class and PrC combos that make the skill-based ecconomist not only viable but downright disconcertingly wealthy by comparison of the party? One of these days they might hire a higher level group of adventurers if I'm not careful with what I make available as loot.
>monster list.
Can't outright disagree but I'd imagine a lot of that is "X creature, but with a slight flavor difference". Not all, but, well, Dragons.
>Spell List.
You bet your ass there's some repeat offenders in there. Scintillating Sphere and Fireball as an easy example.
>mechanics with evident results.
Kiai strike focused Samurai yo.
>Huge item list
Hope the players look for it instead of more +x stat boosts again.
>Great settings.
Kinda moot; you can use most systems to any setting unless there's some Really specific disparity between the system and the setting.

>Great Art
>laughingElfMeme.cpu
>easy math mechanics.
Easy Math is a Cantrip, and Sacred Geometry is a curse word.
>Fantasy Versitility
Yeah alright.
>Basics in an hour
I can't support this universally. Yeah, the basic dice, MAYBE but this whole mess takes several sessions to get the basics down for real and Years to actually master unless you've dipped Autistic Nerd for at least two levels.
Even then you've got at most 5 levels to figure out how to boost your int else your Charop Techniques will be capped out at like, 4th.
>You can do anything.
The question of "can you do it well" is important too, nevermind how crippling some of the penalties are for it, resulting in, "you can do it well inside of a 3-level/ECL window for the party average.

>>53505447
Not that anon, just spotted and singled out something stupid.
Feel free to carry on like a smoke detector arguing with a car alarm.

I can't help but wonder if PF would have succeeded as well as it did if WotC hadn't completely fucked up and dropped the ball with nearly everything regarding 4e.

>>53505526
>The question of "can you do it well" is important too, nevermind how crippling some of the penalties are for it, resulting in, "you can do it well inside of a 3-level/ECL window for the party average.

I think part of that involves a lot of "You can do anything, but you really shouldn't". Best example are creatures with innate teleportation at will, which is useful for monsters but extremely powerful for PCs, and can basically undermine the entire game by trivializing a lot of what makes the game challenging (physical obstacles, positioning, escape not always guaranteed, etc.). Any monster with teleport-at-will basically has a prohibitive ECL that's already in excess of the already prohibitive ECL, making it a choice only in the sense that it's there, even if it's mechanically disastrous to take it.

Basically, it's "You can do anything!*"

*as long as you're playing some weird cock-eyed Frankenstein of a campaign and your DM is holding your hand to make sure everything doesn't catch fire

>>53504913
You need to work on your basic comprehension. A response continuing the thought of another doesn't require repeated clauses to please the pedantic, "it's good because it is popular" is the implied argument in the conversation.

File: Impying.gif (3MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x225px

>>53505847
You're the only one implying that that is the implied argument.

>>53503529

All the normies flocked to 5e, the literal only reason 3.PF even still exists is pure nostalgia.

File: wrong.jpg (59KB, 800x798px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x798px

>>53504875
>Pathfinder isn't bad

>>53505379
>so you have to look them up every time something happens
Not really. They're optional rules and just there for inspiration and to serve as guidelines. You don't have to find a rule if you'd rather just make a ruling yourself.
>which is going to have a lot of things a new player won't even get
And a lot of things they will.
>so a new player who plays a caster is overwhelmed
There's not that many level 0 and 1 spells.
> which makes it easy to make something terrible
Which is ultimately relative.
>that seem fun, but don't actually do much unless you have the system knowledge to make them work
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
>but no indication that encounters are built off the assumption that you have magical weapons and armor to match your level
Aside from all the stuff in the DMG about that.

>>53503529
>sub-systems for everything from resolving combat in a subjective-gravity plane to getting addicted to drugs
See, this is misleading at best, and part of the reason I moved on from pathfinder.
The game really only does one thing well, high fantasy dungeon crawling. There are rules and subsystems for other things sure, but they are quite clearly something stapled on top of a game never really meant for them. Take the recent intrigue book for instance. Have you ever tried playing a social focused character in the game? Despite what the book would lead you to believe, it's not really something you can do without heavy GM intervention. All the colorful options and flavors in the game, all the classes and archetypes and hundreds of class features and so on, they're all just so many different ways to fight monsters in a dungeon. Now I could stick around and try to make the best of it. I could try to jimmy the system and squeeze it into forms it wasn't meant for, or I could just pick up some other book that was meant for things like that.

>>53504746
your a tard.
why do you come to 4chan if you don't want to argue about shit?
this is the yo momma of the internet, all posts are troll posts.

>>53506694
>Brag about how great the system depth is if you have system mastery
>Point out how a new player will be hindered by that depth due to a lack of mastery
>I-It's actually not that much depth...

So which is it? Is it a robust system with hundreds of options and rules for everything, or is it a simple system where a new player won't be overwhelmed with a mix of good and bad options with no easy way to discern them?

>>53506981
>The game really only does one thing well, high fantasy dungeon crawling.

Why keep trying with this same bullshit myth? You'd first have to somehow eliminate all the evidence that refutes you, ie. the better part of two decades of material.

> Despite what the book would lead you to believe, it's not really something you can do without heavy GM intervention.

The fuck? Why is it always idiots who come up with their own and entirely wrong interpretation of a book's message always so fervent in complaining about being mislead? If you did more reading, less bitching, you'd see the error falls in your interpretation of the "message".

>>53507109
Why are you so quick to misinterpret things just to set up strawmen? Is your goal to convince everyone that you are just flat out incapable of facing an argument head on?

>>53506981
>it's not really something you can do without heavy GM intervention
Like 99% of roleplaying period.

>>53507109
>It's impossible for something to be capable of fulfilling more than one aspect of gaming anon!
>Impossible, I tell you!

>>53507109
> Is it a robust system with hundreds of options and rules for everything, or is it a simple system where a new player won't be overwhelmed

Man, how crazy would it be if the system was staggered with things like levels so as to not overwhelm new players while still providing depth.
You'd look like a moron if that was the case.

>>53507146
As opposed to taking each of my points and saying 'this isn't an actual problem', despite me just pointing out how everything OP boasted about wouldn't be good for a new player?

>>53506694


You say that all those sub-systems are optional and you can make something up instead, but the system doesn't encourage that in the rules. A new player is going to assume that if there's a table for something, they need to use that table.

If a new player only recognizes some of the monsters, then having a really vast monster manual isn't an advantage anymore. A lot of those are just going to be confusing clutter that a novice DM would scratch their head at while building encounters.

Right, not that many spells. There's at least 100 of them listed here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists-sorcerer-and-wizard/#TOC-1st-Level-Sorcerer-Wizard-Spells

And you expect a new player to pick through all of those and find what's actually good? And then if you assume they limit themselves to just core, you're removing one of the 'advantages' the OP listed

Yes, making a terrible character is relative, but I speak from experience when I say it can happen all too easily. Yeah, if all the noobs luck out and make something terrible, then they'll just be having a difficult time with encounter guidelines. If you end up with a grapple monk with no strength, a finnesse fighter, and a druid though, guess who gets a class feature that's better than the other two party members?

How is it not a bad thing when your system presents combat maneuvers and spells as fun tactical options, but a player who tries to build around them gets screwed over when they try to make a character based around Overrrun to knock people over, but doesn't take enough things they need to actually have it be reliable?

And a new player isn't going to be reading the DMG, so if the DM just dumps gold on them someone who decides to buy trinkets instead of weapons is out of luck.

>>53507211
>>53507304
>Trying this hard to reject the idea that Pathfinder isn't friendly to new players

Sad really.

>>53507337
>but the system doesn't encourage that in the rules

It says so explicitly.
The rest of your post is equally stupid.
You really need to be TRYING to be stupid in order to be so wrong, because otherwise all your arguments fall apart.

>And then if you assume they limit themselves to just core, you're removing one of the 'advantages' the OP listed

How does limiting what you're using eliminate the existence and advantage of more options and material? Quit trying to be stupid here.

>If a new player only recognizes some of the monsters, then having a really vast monster manual isn't an advantage anymore.

What? That makes zero sense. Half the fun of new monsters is being surprised and learning about them.

>And a new player isn't going to be reading the DMG, so if the DM just dumps gold on them someone who decides to buy trinkets instead of weapons is out of luck.

Why is the DM present when dumping gold, but absent when providing what can be purchased and also advising the players? Quit being stupid.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you literally just stupid?

>>53503740
The fact they took those out in the version of the game everyone considers definitive.

>>53507349
It provides clear rules and a strong starting foundation that works better than most rule-lite systems for introducing roleplaying systems because it gives obvious guidelines and direction. It's not the best, but it's hardly "unfriendly", especially when you look at stuff like adventures designed specifically for new players.

>>53507465
Blame hip-hating SJWs.

OP, people still play the older editions too. D&D 3.5 isn't good, (it's also not terrible, despite having some major flaws, I had a lot of fun with it) it's just well-entrenched and there's a lot of stuff to use, so it's going to take the truly devoted fan a long time to fully grow tired of its material.

>>53507349
>getting wrecked so hard you need to take a step back to avoid the direct refutation you just suffered

Sad, really.

>>53507211
>Like 99% of roleplaying period.
This might surprise you but no. There are games that are built around making things easy to actually do. Shocking I know.

>>53505116
Those other companies don't have the money to shill.

>>53507478
I honestly suspect it was just part of an attempt to unify the artistic direction of the core. DiTerlizzi's and Elmore's artstyles look like something out of a different era, because they are.

>>53504521
This desu. PF rulebooks and supplements are abominably written and create a plethora of inconsistencies that make it a chore to process even for me - and I lived through 5 years of law schools.

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

158KB, 1000x1000px

>>53503529

>>53507119
>You'd first have to somehow eliminate all the evidence that refutes you, ie. the better part of two decades of material.
Alright I'm not him but I have legitimately no idea what you're talking about. That two decades of material has been stuff like 6 bestiaries of monsters to fight, and things like advanced whatever guide, or ultimate x always centered around more classes and options to kill people with. I can think of maybe one and a half supplements that aren't centered around new flavors of 'go into this bad place and kill the things there, maybe coming back with the plot item'

>>53507031
Huh. Odd. I actually expected a coherent, intelligent response. I clearly must be delusional.

>>53507587
You mean aside from all the material that is designed around not going out and killign things and doing other things, like roleplaying, thematic choices that aren't centered on 'kill stuff better' and entire classes built around the idea of 'do things other than kill better'? Which all happen to be part and parcel of all those books you say do not contain any such classes, feats, and information?

Really? Your argument is "let me just ignore half of this stuff in these books" and you claim to have read any of them?

>>53507625
>like roleplaying, thematic choices that aren't centered on 'kill stuff better'
Which aren't part of the fucking system. The point is that Pathfinder is built around dungeon crawl, 'lol just roleplay it' isn't a fucking answer to that, I can do that in anything
>and entire classes built around the idea of 'do things other than kill better'?
All of which suck shit and are objectively inferior to options for killing people. Like, have you read any of the published adventure paths? If you don't have combat as a primary focus you're dead weight.

>>53507625
Start listing the material. Put up or shut up.

>>53507569
But, there was still other examples of DiTerlizzi's art, like the Treant. I honestly think it was an objection to the sexy hips. That's also why they changed the Dryad pic, and ironically the Nymph pic to a sexier nymph pic.

>>53507672
I'd argue that those pieces stuck out, (not just the hipling, but also the aasimar) and that the new dryad and nymph better fit the thematic concepts.

I honestly didn't notice that the treant was a DiTerlizzi piece.

>>53507671
>start listing everything not dungeon crawling

Please don't tell me you are this retarded. If you don't know anything about the game, just say so.

>>53507705
I'm not him, I'm asking you to provide a broad sampling of these options in the system that aren't directly related to a combat-focused fantasy RPG (I'd contend that Pathfinder is actually pretty shit at dungeon crawling since it took out the time management and resource management elements that you find in older editions of the game).

>>53503614

Srsly. Binders are fucking awesome

>>53507692
I honestly don't see your "era" argument at all. Look at the merfolk, the unicorn, or the xorn. The latter two could be taken right out of the 2e monster manual.

Aside from what art was added, the big art changes in the MM were the sexy ladies. I'm surprised mermaid stuck around, but it's probably because she's not as overtly sexual despite being more naked.

>>53503529
You do realise you are the contrarian here?

>>53507759
>I honestly don't see your "era" argument at all.

The costumes on the TIefling and the Aasimar don't fit the general costume design of the edition, which was a shift away from psuedo-historical styles.

>>53507724
And I'm saying that you are basically asking for someone to just list all the books.

Like, what? You think the herb that temporarily sterilizes men listed in the 3.0 FR Campaign Setting is going to be used in combat?

>>53507772
>the troll tries

Go away, contrarian.

>>53503529

>don't you guys even know that your opinion isn't that of the greater consensus? Jeez, when are you guys going to learn?

>>53504726
I do, it's better than any DnD campaign I ever played or GM'd

>>53507781
Nope, I'm asking you to give a substantial smattering of the options in the game that aren't related to combat, and show that they constitute a substantial portion of the game. Provide evidence of your claims, because as I remember 3.5, it was mostly oriented around being a half-assed tactical game built on the bones of an old game adventure and exploration game turned fantasy novel simulator.

>>53507805
Read the FR Campaign Setting and come back to me.
You'll get a sense of how retarded you are being right now probably by chapter 3, if not by chapter 1.

>>53507797
Which is funny, because 3.5 being broken is the consensus opinion, hence why everything after it has been primarily oriented around "fixing" it in some capacity or another (4th edition, Pathfinder, Fantasycraft, Trailblazer, Legend, 13th Age, Arcana Unearthed, Blue Rose, etc.).

>>53507828
What's funny is that the consensus is that you trolls try really hard to make the game seem worse than it is, and most people don't bother with any of those "fixes" beyond Pathfinder and 5e.

>>53507824
A single fluff book that was still primarily loaded with options oriented around killing things is your defense? Bravo. Yes, if you include fluff, it represents a significant, but small, fraction of the game.

>>53503529
>>but muh balance
>What it lacks in balance, it makes up for having some of the best material and style, with plenty of great things about it.
Balance is extremely important in class base systems, you not caring is not a point for pf.
>>sub-systems for everything from resolving combat in a subjective-gravity plane to getting addicted to drugs
Time consuming and unnecessary. Nobody will submit a bunch of little fiddly subsystems which rarely come into play to memory, and nobody should have to stop the game to look up said subsystems if they do come up.
>>unsurpassed monster list, including classics like trolls and dragons, bizarre creatures like Raggamoffyns and Hengeyokai, and truly ridiculous ones like the Orcwort
While I do love me some bestiaries, wacky wim wam monsters aren't exactly a selling point.
>>gigantic spell list, with campaign-defining ones like Stasis Clone to brain-ticklers like Soul's Treasure Lost
Ahh yes, why do with 1 spell what you can instead do with an entire page of them? As for the campaign-defining ones, that's subjective at best, a hassle for the gm at worse
>>character options that don't just consist of renaming and re-describing a limited set of bland mechanics, like you'll find in many other system
What are these other mechanics and other systems? I ask that like PF isn't full of trap options

>>mechanics that are actually fun to play with because they have clear and evident impacts on the game
The base thing that makes a game system functional? That's like saying a menu is a feature on a dvd. Technically correct assuming that what you've said is true
>>an item list that makes dungeoneering an extraordinarily rewarding experience
By your definition lootershooters/diablo clones are the best games because hey look at all this stuff
>>great settings and adventures, including many of the best from earlier editions of D&D
Subjective as fuck for one, nothing to do with the system for 2.

>>53507788
But I can't go away, I'm you.

>>53507852
>you trolls

Do you seriously take critics to be trolls? Are you that fucking fragile? 3.5 was bad enough to spawn an entire sub-genre of games that can be described as "3.5 fixes." Those other games have small playerbases primarily because they weren't published by WotC (the biggest company in the field) or Paizo (who had already established their reputation with Dragon and Dungeon).

>>53503529
i had more fun in an anima one shot than i ever had in 3.5
3.5aboos are just allergic to actually trying other systems so they never realize just how bad they have it

>>53507853
Look. I don't even understand what kind of idiot you are trying to be right now.

A book that kills your entire argument, one of just about any that you could pick up randomly, and you still run your mouth? Come back after you're done reading, because I'm pretty sure you wouldn't still be so stupid if you actually did what you were told.

>>53503529
What anime is this girl from.

>>53507876
>Do you seriously take critics to be trolls?

No one actually believes you are the former.

> 3.5 was bad enough to spawn an entire sub-genre of games that can be described as "3.5 fixes."

You mean popular enough to spawn variants.
Now, fuck off, your troll. It's easy to see how you spin things, and that's what reveals you as you are.

>>53507892
I've already read it you cretin. It has setting fluff, which isn't the same as "character options" and a small selection of items that may as well be fluff since they only interact with fluff and then is about half options in the vein "help you kill shit good" or "shit to kill."

Just accept that the primary, near exclusive focus of 3.5 was killing things in a half-assed tactical game.

>>53507927
>I've already read it you cretin

I don't believe you, because you wouldn't be this stupid. Read it again.

>Just accept that the primary

Sure.

>near exclusive

No, you fucking moron.

>>53507912
>No one actually believes you are the former.

Your butthurt projections wont change the truth, friend.

>You mean popular enough to spawn variants.

If that were the case, WotC would have just continued pumping out books for the original system and let others develop for it.

>Now, fuck off, your troll. It's easy to see how you spin things, and that's what reveals you as you are.

The only person here "spinning" things is you, desperately trying to pretend 3.5 didn't have some glaring issues. Is it so hard to admit your game had some glaring faults? Even Shadowrun fans will admit that their matrix rules have serious issues or that their cyberware systems are prone to abuse.

>great art, and clear and direct language (something that is actually an unfortunate rarity among games)
Art literally doesn't matter. Second is again something that all games should have (and yes many don't but that's a point away from them not a point for PF).
>easy-to-understand and mathematically-elementary mechanics that are simple to homebrew with and to otherwise adapt, with plenty of advice on how to do so
First point is again something all games should strive for, second isn't true due to all those fiddly little subsystems you seem so keen for. The more of those that exist the more things homebrew rules have to potentially account for, and the more unwieldy the system becomes by introducing them in the first place.
>versatility as a fantasy kitchen sink, supporting any kind of adventure or idea that involves the word "fantasy"
Any idea that involves pathfinder's specific brand of fantasy
>the basics can be learned within an hour, but rewards years of continued play with endless discoveries and revelations
I'd like to see you run a new player through character creation in an hour let alone the system. But you mentioned the basics which don't include most of that. The latter is true of damn near any non-extremely lite narrative focused rpg.
>a "you can do anything" attitude, that even if it opened up doors to wide imbalances, never gave a hard "no" to questions like "Can I have centaurs that are half bull rather than half horse?" or "Can wizards use a point system rather than vancian casting?" or "Can martials have maneuvers similar to spells?" or "Can I ride a dragon?" or even "Can I play a dragon?", with mechanical assistance to all of these questions and more
Yeah a "fuck it" attitude isn't exactly a pro from a system stand point. Further more half of that is gm advice 101 if applied by a sane person.

>>53507941
>I don't believe you, because you wouldn't be this stupid. Read it again.
>If you don't agree with me, you just read it wrong!

3.5 fans, everyone.

>No, you fucking moron.

Yes, jackass. Combat was both means and ends of the system, there's basically nothing else to it.

>>53507952
>If that were the case, WotC would have just continued pumping out books for the original system

I guess we're gonna go ahead and call 3e a 2e fix and talk about how broken 2e is.

>desperately trying to pretend 3.5 didn't have some glaring issues

Saying it's not as bad as trolls pretend it is isn't pretending it didn't have issues. It's addressing that it gets a lot of hate and attention mostly because of its past (and present) popularity, and it's a target for trolls because everyone has played it making it a point of common discussion.

Calling out trolls is just stating the obvious.

>>53507964
>there's basically nothing else to it.

And you wonder why it's clear you haven't read even a single page of the game?

>>53508011
>I guess we're gonna go ahead and call 3e a 2e fix and talk about how broken 2e is.

But 2e did have glaring issues, even TSR was trying to fix them.

>Saying it's not as bad as trolls pretend it is isn't pretending it didn't have issues.

It has massive, glaring issues that can easily sneak up on you. Like a broken challenge rating system or spells that can invalidate entire scenarios or encounters.

>It's addressing that it gets a lot of hate and attention mostly because of its past (and present) popularity

SHOCK AND AWE! More people are analyzing and criticizing this system because there's more people involved in it? IT MUST BE A TROLLSPIRACY!

>Calling out trolls is just stating the obvious.

Automatically assuming anything with something negative to say about a game is a troll just reeks of insecure fanboyism.

>>53507578
You posted the wrong bait image. OP is replying every post. OP's gone between calling disagreements "trolls", claiming intellectual superiority, and quote-replying to every individual sentence of a post. Hell, even the OP was so fucking long that anon had to split it into 2 parts.

This is honestly some of the highest-effort /tg/ baiting I've seen in weeks.

>>53508026
And you wonder how it's clear you're a fanboy who doesn't understand hyperbole? There's nothing of substance in 3.5 aside from combat. Hence, means and end.

File: nowthatswhatIcall.jpg (30KB, 600x691px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x691px

>>53508076

>>53508076
I really don't think it's bait. I think it's just a butthurt fanboy.

>>53508074
>SHOCK AND AWE! More trolls troll about a system because there's more people involved in it? IT MUST BE A TROLLSPIRACY!

No, it's just obvious.

>Automatically assuming anything with something negative to say about a game is a troll just reeks of insecure fanboyism.

The opposite is what's occurring.
Automatically assuming anything positive to say about a massively popular and award-winning game is fanboyism just reeks of insecure trolling.

>>53508088
>There's nothing of substance in 3.5 aside from combat.

Go read, and come back when you can say something that doesn't make it clear you are an idiot troll.

>>53508122
>No, it's just obvious.

Please. The most trolled system on /tg/ is Fate, by a long stretch. Look at the state of its general right now. 3.5 just receives criticism.

>Automatically assuming anything positive to say about a massively popular and award-winning game is fanboyism just reeks of insecure trolling.

"Everyone that criticizes my game is a troll in it to piss me off" is not a positive statement about the game, it's a butthurt deflection of criticism. I don't care that you said positive things about the system, I just take objection to you claiming that anyone who criticizes it is a troll.

This is fucking /tg/, we probably all played it, and not all of us found it to our liking. It's a massive game with glaring issues.

>>53508147
You haven't provided a single item of substance that deflects this claim. Even most of the skill checks are binary interactions that might as well be a coin flip for all the substance they possess, and most of them are designed to be used in combat as well. You provided an example of an item with no mechanical impact whatsoever.

>>53508158
>"Everyone that criticizes my game is a troll in it to piss me off"

Congrats, that's grade A strawmanning, to the point where you basically concede any right to even pretend you are arguing with a shred of earnesty.

I'll give you a chance to fix your post and your entire line of argument, but if you do something so blatantly fallacious, you'll be giving me no option except to dismiss you as an empty-headed troll.

>>53508190
You can't strawman with the truth. Your whole argument has been that the people who criticize the game are trolls.

>>53508178
Go read, and then come back.
Until then, you are just an idiot who can't read.

>>53508190
You're actually doing that very thing you're saying is a strawman. Like full on that post is exactly what he's talking about. You're unironically doing exactly what he said you were doing.

>>53508204
Z E R O E X A M P L E S

E

R

O


E

X

A

M

P

L

E

S

>>53508203
Nope, just the one's who do so like you do.
Using empty strawmans and poor arguments to try and construct a one-sided view that's so far from the truth it does no one any good. Criticisms are good. Pointless bitching and trolling however is all you seem capable of.

You are a dumb troll and have revealed yourself as such.

File: 1494505717780.jpg (558KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 600x900px

>>53504875
>Pathfinder Society
>full of intelligent and cultured people who are passionate about the game, know the rules, and aren't fat disgusting wastes of life
/pfg/ degenerate here. PFS is the biggest pile of shit ever. Encounters are balanced around the lowest common denominator, the players will whine about the minimum of optimization, or what they see as optimization, seeing how much they raged about Synthestist, Crane Wing (fuckers got it nerfed into uselessness), Quick Runner's Shirt and Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier (RIP).
Heck, I only like the system because Path of War lets me go full wuxia fighting styles.

>>53508228
Whatever helps you sleep at night bud.

So, lets prove you're not a raving fanboy, admit one of the substantial flaws of D&D 3.5/PF.

>>53508242
Would it be enough to say I prefer 4e?

>>53508301
No. That's simply trying to avoid saying anything just to avoid saying bad things. Which is a personal pet peeve of mine.

>>53504875
Perhaps try sounding like you aren't a /r9k/ mongoloid before you try convincing people of things.
On /tg/, we don't take kindly to your type, and you are the normalfag.

>>53508322
Then I'll peeve you once more by saying it's all opinions at the end of the day, and I have no qualms with the people who like 3.PF more than 4e, nor do I hold any special love for people who prefer 4e.

The only people I dislike are mindless trolls like yourself, regardless of what game currently is the focus of your attention.

File: e9d.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>53503529
Congrats OP you used shit tier bait and still managed to win. gg OP gg

>>53508301
No. It's easy to go on the internet and tell lies.

>>53508370
Still not doing much to dispel the image that you're a raving, butthurt fanboy.

>>53508377
It's not shit-tier if it works. /tg/ needs to (and can't) chill the fuck out.

>>53508410
You're doing a pretty fantastic job of confirming your status as a pretty inept troll.

>>53508377
I'm not sure why people keep calling this bait. It's probable that it's just some fanboy who wants to convince people of his position. Proof of this can be found in the fact he keeps replying to posters.

>>53508417
It's not bait if the only people who'd get upset by it are idiot trolls.

It's just the unfortunate truth they will do everything they can to desperately dismiss.

>>53508430
That just means he's a modern troll.
They're the type to stick to a routine for decades straight.

>>53508425
Haha. Ok. Asking you to provide honest criticism of a game you like is trolling. Well, I've had fun with this discussion, but you're very clearly too far up your own ass to provide any actual discussion. Have fun knowing that Pathfinder's market share continues to shrink, and that people who think 3.5 is a mess are more common than those that don't.

>>53508430
edition flame wars are bait

>>53508445
Whatever lets you sleep.

>>53508437
It's a difference of opinion. There's no reason to argue about it, one way or the other. It's pointless. Nobody is going to change anybody's mind on the matter, ever. You're just posturing for your own benefit. Just go and play your fucking game and come back with awesome stories, don't sit on 4chan and fling shit. Your time should be better spent.

>>53508241
Fun fact, master summoner is technically compatible with unchained summoner, which means it's technically legal under PFS rules

They banned synthesist, but allow master summoner, and people defend this shit

>>53508461
NO! ANY DISSENTING FROM THE ONE TRUE WAY IS TROLLING.

>>53508461
Essentially, it itself isn't bait in the ordinary sense. But, it does attract trolls who provide actual bait of their own, escalating nothing into a full conflict.
It's bait bait.

>Just go and play your fucking game and come back with awesome stories, don't sit on 4chan and fling shit. Your time should be better spent.

Wise words.

>>53503536
>clear and direct language
>easy-to-understand and mathematically-elementary mechanics that are simple to homebrew with and to otherwise adapt, with plenty of advice on how to do so

Until you said this, I was actually taking you seriously, but now I know you're trolling.

>>53504746
You're wrong, and here's why:

You could avoid the situation by not starting the thread with an inflammatory troll post to begin with. But the only ones who start threads on /tg/, other than generals, are stale trolls.

>>53504818
Speaking of stale trolls, are you never going to give up on trying to force this meme? It's been months, and nobody ever gives a shit.

File: 1428995619445.jpg (377KB, 1106x822px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1106x822px

Luckily, outside of this cesspit the 4e is bad meme can be dispelled as well, and I can actually get players by cherrypicking my 5e audience that wants more interesting combat and showing them the best resources for playing the game and running it how it's meant to be played.

>tfe tha ks to normies being sub 110 iq pes I get to easily filter 99% of subhumans by not playing d20

Feels good

>>53508460
I've never seen anyone this butthurt, holy shit

>this whole thread
>taking the bait this hard
Never change tg

>>53508546
The situation has become unavoidable. This is, what I assume, the best we can make out of a bad situation on a board with trolls who know they can get a rise out of the same subjects over and over again because we fail to ignore bait.

But you're probably right. My explanation is likely a result of Stockholm Syndrome after having given up all hope that /tg/ will ever learn from its mistakes and ignore inflammatory posts in the first place, thereby removing the reason they're posted in the first place.

>>53508828
There's basically an endless cycle of bait and getting baited. A lot of the community on /tg/ crossposts on reddit, which significantly dilutes the amount of banter one is exposed to. Not only that, but the need to save face on anonymous boards, when one can merely just close the tab.

File: 1465787207814.png (71KB, 1354x467px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1354x467px

>>53508935
This.

File: 1415920275117.jpg (39KB, 466x641px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 466x641px

>>53503529
>tfw you got out of 3.PF and find out a group willing to try anything, and you can play a wide variety of actually good systems

I think the guy making the "3.PF is good, you just hate what is popular!" posts is legit autistic.

He may or may not be a troll. It doesn't matter at this point. It only matters that literally nothing can come out of interacting with him.

>>53508935
I know. It's made namefagging on here an interesting experience. For once, anons have been able to call me out on my shit. Half of it is outrageous moronic shitposts I throw out there in a vain attempt to mitigate the shitposts and threads that have actual malice and salt in them.

The rest has been genuine advice I try to give out to people... Oh, and my attempt at running a localized Fetlife Campaign... which has actually gone quite swimmingly. I just need one more player.

Overall, the general opinion of me is "Total Asshat, thinks he's clever; but really he's retarded, and sometimes isn't an asshat, but usually is."

>>53508997
The problem is that so many people DO hate DnD because it's popular. It means they become easily aware of any issues they'd have with it. They don't hate it because they're contrarian. They hate it because it can so easily be found for what they hate.

Like if Justin Bieber wasn't a pop star, no one would care. They wouldn't hate him because suddenly being not popular makes him okay, they just wouldn't know a damn thing about that "baby baby baby baby baby baby" shit.

>>53507902
Not OP but Aki no Kanade

>>53509029
Oh yeah, definitely part of the reason that it is so universally reviled is that it is so well known. 3.PF is one of the (if not THE) most explored systems out there.

But the other half is actually just being kinda bad. If bieber wasn't bad on top of being popular he wouldn't get as much hate either.

>>53509130
>If bieber wasn't bad on top of being popular he wouldn't get as much hate either.

That's what was implied with
>they just wouldn't know a damn thing about that "baby baby baby baby baby baby" shit.

>>53509029
>>53509130
Also, I personally shit all over indie/obscure systems that make terrible mistakes with math and stuff. And I'm not even talking of the only the d20 ones, which often inherit the problems of 3rd to begin with.

Bad games (and bad parts of good games) deserve to be ridiculed, if for nothing else so you put into words, for yourself or those who may care, why you shouldn't do that.

>>53503529
>3.PF
>anime pic
like clockwork

>>53508995
RIP sweet prince

File: 1475568674575.jpg (214KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 600x620px

This whole thread is shit but let me point out one utterly hilarious detail-

>Pathfinder is good! It's popular, you know it's good!
>But anon, 5e is already overtaking 3.x in popularity.
>REEEEEE newfag normie roasties flooding muh hobby REEEEE

>>53503529
>You don't like this popular thing, therefore you're a mindless contrarian and everything you have to say about it is meme parroting
Ok buddy

>>53509029
It's not that they hate it because it's popular, they get to know it because it's popular and then hate it.
Being popular is not WHY they hate DnD just how they get to know of it.

>>53505064
Not an argument.

>>53510315
Nah, knowing about it gets them to dislike it.
Its popularity is what brings out their autism and hatred. By itself, it's between a good and average system that no one would have a problem with if it weren't so popular.

But, because it's popular, it triggers them constantly because they see it all the time.

>>53503529
>Lacks in Balance
A game that is unbalanced, which I take to mean that the majority of playable combinations are bad at fighting/skill-playing compared to a few is a bad thing. Roleplaying games are not MMOs, and you shouldn't have to feel useless every encounter because you couldn't decipher the wizard's thoughts in his ivory tower. Games that enable munchkins also attract them, invariably leading to a worse roleplaying experience. Some roleplayers may ignore their "bad builds", but then they would demand time to roleplay, which goes against all the munchkin's motivations for being in the game, leading to conflict.
>Best Material and Style
Having a lot of material does not mean any of it is good. Again, if the game is already unbalanced, and the material doesn't fix this, how can it be the best material? Having tons of well-written lore is very attractive to build universes and immerse yourself in, but it also represents a barrier for new players, which roleplaying games need to stay alive. I don't see any arguments for why it is the best material, and I honestly don't believe you. As far as style goes, that is entirely subjective, but at least it should be consistent, pleasing to the eye, and try to be original.
>well-written mechanics
now I know you are just memeing

>>53503529
It's not enough to shitpost every 3.5 thread that isn't /pfg/(because you know they'd tell you the fuck off) now, now you have to make your own threads, Petty?

>>53507876
>Do you seriously take critics to be trolls?
Is there anyone who doesn't recognize that there's some particularly dedicated anti-D&D trolls? Haven't paid attention to to guy who keeps making the same "Why is D&D so shit" thread and filling it with the same arguments with the same people?
I understand you sort of have to do damage control to keep trolling like this, but it's not exactly believable at this point to try and pretend that these trolls aren't here and that we should just treat everyone who does nothing but criticize D&D like someone just hoping to politely express their opinion.
It's just bad system warring. These trolls are just particularly unscrupulous.

>>53504875
>5e panders to anime fans and Pathfinder doesn't

Is this Opposite Day? I invite you to look at any /pfg/ and also ask yourself which system always has two guys playing kitsune and has rules explicitly for playing a magical girl.

>>53508241
Tell me more about your pic and tales about games there.

>>53514431
I think you vastly overstate their presence and influence on the site. I think 3.PF just attracts many vociferous critics because there are many people that have interacted with the system and come to dislike it.

File: 1385585579176.png (103KB, 240x249px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 240x249px

>>53503529