Alright /tg/. I just came from the Pazio thread asking for advice

>>53662756
pathfinder a shit.

>>53662816
epic xD!!

File: PFG discovers 5E.png (229KB, 525x248px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 525x248px

>>53662756
Do you want a swords and magic adventure, or an anime adventure?

DnD 5e tends to have a more "serious" fanbase, while Pathfinder seems to have become a more "anime"-oriented fanbase.

>>53662954
I'm not really sure what you mean by anime adventure.

>>53662756
5e is a lot easier to run since there aren't as many subsystems as PF. A a DM, that should be better for you.

>>53662982
DnD 5e discussion tends to be about dwarves and elves and typical western fantasy stuff.

Pathfinder discussion (at least here on /tg/) tends to be about fox girls, magical girls, slimegirls, and other stuff that generally tends to feel alot more "anime".

>>53663036
I'll take the fantasy then.

5e is way easier for new players.
If you like PF for more experienced ones, that's okay, but compare the sheer amount if mechanics you'd need to explain and learn.
Start with a system that is more rules light, 5e or something else

>>53662756
>>53662982

Note here: "Pathfinder discussion"

I really have no idea where this idea that Pathfinder is more anime than most of D&D comes from to the point where that's all it is. I mean yes, the Magus class can be played as MGS Raiden, and it has a Setzer archetype. But just because /tg/ will turn anything into being about lewd shit does not mean that the game itself is about that. The fanbase's reaction is pretty irrelevant to what the actual rules are. And in terms of rules? Pathfinder is pretty bog-standard D&D clone for the most part.

Now, 5e is a bit simpler and it will likely be easier to explain as there's less character variation at level 1 and less stuff to worry about at level 1. I happen to prefer PF but I already know the rules. If you really care I'd skim the rules for both and see if you have a preference. 5e is likely simpler for TTRPG newbies to be honest.

>>53663386
To be honest, I don't really know enough about roleplaying systems to tell which rules I like more. The only thing I can really glean from all the shit I've seen on /tg/ is that there's a lot of people that really hate Pathfinder and Pazio.

>>53662756
5e is shit but pathfider is more shit. Run 5e, but don't get used to it.

As soon as you feel comfortable with tabletop rpgs, dump 5e like a sack of hot shit and move on to something better.

>>53663503
Like what?

>>53663386
Magical child as an official archetype is a big example. You can't even pretend it's anything epse when
>the transformation is quite a spectacle, involving loud sounds or music, brilliant colorful energies, and swift motions
is official material.
Also how a lot of eastern versions of weapons or armor just happens to be superior than their counterparts because reasons.

Pathfinder is about as weaboo as you can go without playing definetely weaboo games.

>>53662756
>Even Pathfinder general is telling people to avoid the system

Loving
Every
Laugh

File: expert.jpg (135KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1280x720px

>>53663512
That depends entirely on how your tastes develop. You may find that you prefer games with fewer rules (FATE, Dungeon World) , or you may find that you quite enjoy the mechanical aspects of RPGs (Mutants and Mastermind, Shadowrun).

Some good transitional RPGs are (New) World of Darkness and Fantasy Craft. Also Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Black Crusade/etc, if you have any interest in the 40K setting.

>>53663435
People don't like pathfinder because pathfinder is based on DnD 3e, and people REALLY hate DnD 3e.
Personally, I quite like 3e, but even I'll admit that it's a bad game and/or single handedly ruined tabletop gaming for a generation.

>>53662756
>>53663435
More importantly, there's a LOT of learning that you need to do upfront with Pathfinder. I would not recommend it for a new group, especially if you're fairly new to it as a player/GM.
For the simple fact that there's a shitload more content to sift through for Pathfinder and within that are plenty of trap options.

If you want a big disparity in player experience between class choice and wasted feats and whatever imbalance results from what your group tries to build, then go for PF.

If you want a game that's fairly simple to learn, doesn't give you a ton of room to make a completely subpar character, and has fewer variables for you to juggle as the GM, play 5e.

I actually like Pathfinder, but it's only good if the WHOLE GROUP knows what's what in the system and has a good deal of familiarity with it. For example. If you were new to PF as a GM and your players were veterans, you'd likely find that the encounters you cook up would be quickly trivialized. The other way around, you'd at least pity your players for every choice they made, or worse tried to micromanage everything they do to be "good"

I would recommend starting with 5e, but trying to play/pick up pathfinder on the side if it is interesting to you.

>>53663036
look just because pathfinder faggots like that garbage doesn't mean weeaboos do

>>53663503
"everything is shit play my niche garbage instead"

fucking /v/ mindset needs to leave

>>53664550
I agree with you, but that still doesn't mean that pathfinder isn't shit. It's shit I enjoy, mind you, but I still wouldn't recommend it to someone green as grass.

File: fi12.jpg (386KB, 1500x1926px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1500x1926px

>>53662756
5e is pretty straightforward, and the basic rules can be found on WotC's website for free and are more than adequate to run a one-shot or 2-3 session long mini-campaign to get players introduced to the idea of playing TTRPGs

From my understanding of it is that pathfinder has lot more "..add this plus that times that modifier and the plus tow from that feat and add this.." versus 5e where a lot of stuff boils down to advantage and disadvantage. Just be sure to make up a cheat sheet for the mechanical aspects of status effects, and making sure everyone knows what to add to what rolls. Do that (And have some jot notes on the plot/NPCs) and you'll be golden.

Whichever option you choose, I hope you and your players have a bit of fun with it.

>>53662756
Play 5e, it's better than PF and 3.5

File: 1405711640720.png (313KB, 1060x1423px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1060x1423px

5e is easy to pick up and relatively balanced. It's hard to fuck up your character unless you start dipping into multiclassing, which is discouraged to begin with.

Pathfinder is a bloated mess of a broken, dated system. But it has a whole lot more options. Not necessarily a good thing. There's a lot more room for mistakes, "trap options" for leveling up perks and so forth.

Like pretty much everyone has suggested, go with 5e.

File: ye olde just pretending.jpg (1MB, 680x1671px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 680x1671px

>>53664956
>believing Monte Cook and his Ivory Tower bullshit
Literally "I was just pretending to be retarded," the argument.

>>53662756
The best advice though is "Run neither of them"
This is from someone who plays both, PF is a massive clusterfuck of clashing, unbalanced shit. 5e is more balanced but is also boring and uninspired. The entire D20 system is flawed and the only reason you should ever play it is when you have no other options. Seeing as your group is new and therefor not stuck in the "Only play muh D&D" rut, stay free of this.
Play FFG or West Ends Star wars RPGs, Play old or new WoD (But not Chronicles of Darkness, it's shit) Play Mutants and Masterminds, play Shadowrun, play any of the hundreds of good OSR games, play Godlike / Wild Talents. Hell, play Exalted over PF / 3.5 / 5e.

>>53662756
You were misdirected.

>>53665231
How? PF sucks

File: heystranger.jpg (49KB, 828x557px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 828x557px

>>53662756
You are new DM-ing. I say go for 5th edition (all the pdfs are here. Read the dm guide) Its easier to learn and take splayers by the hand. Start with the beginers box story. It limits the players. This is a good thing if you are starting. Thing is, if you start by letting your players choose anything they want, you will waste time by trying to balance the game and they will also waste time by askins too many questions. Jesus Christ the people on 4chan are all so salty.... Baby steps. When you finish the story you can move to the real core book and use other resources. Your players will be either motivated or thined down, you will know their play style and can start asking other dms on advice on how to do X & Y. Pathfinder has more customization for clases (since it has been out for so long) and there are a LOT of campaign books, so maybe after you get some experience you can move to that. D&D has more starting races (they have some that are trademarked ) and some unique monsters (trademarked as well). They are both fun introductions to rpg. I say if you are gonna spend money, buy pathfinder because it has more bang for your buck. The starter brings a double sided mat, pre made characters for a demo, intro book for dm and characters, cut outs if you dont have miniatures and you can follow the story with a free online quest after the beginers box. (Everything can be found free on pdf online, but if you love what you play, try purchasing some of the products) I would tell you to go to reddit for more serious questions or maybe facebook role playing pages. 4chan is just full of angry salty sad man babies who just spend their time waiting for threads like this so they can "show you" how "superior" they are by hating on popular stuff and telling you what is the "best shit out there". It makes their days worth living.

>>53663547
>>the transformation is quite a spectacle, involving loud sounds or music, brilliant colorful energies, and swift motions
Are transformations sequences exclusively a japanese concept.
>Also how a lot of eastern versions of weapons or armor just happens to be superior than their counterparts because reasons.
Armor yes, weapons no. Literally every eastern weapon in the game is weaker than it's western counterpart. But that comes down to fiddly +1's the devs probably didn't understand the full implications of altering.

>>53662756
for a new fellow I would recommend a game called "basic fantasy"or continue with 5e, While they're both not exactly "good games" they're pretty decent games and for a new guy like yourself probably great games to start the hobby with.

I would avoid 3e/3.5/Pathfinder, there really isn't much to enjoy with those systems
They're full of problems, modifier creep/bloating would be just a single example

That being said as far as mechanics go and as you get more experienced you may want something more interesting. I don't recommend making any changes until you complete a campaign/dungeon crawl but when you feel like moving onto or looking into a new system and want to stay within the swords and sorcery theme consider things like Riddle of Steel, Midnight, or Basic/Advanced/2e DnD just to name a few

This is bait.

>>53662756
Make no mistake, when it comes to useful info, /tg/ can be a mixed bag where sometimes you get diamonds and sometimes you get clumps of shit-smeared tiger pear cactus.

But, even though there is a fierce fandom rivalry between PF and 5e, there is a legitimate argument to play PF instead if you're completely new to DMing.

Pathfinder is "D&D 3.75", which means that it has a HUGE array of rules, systems, subsystems and sub-subsystems. It can very easily get confusing and overwhelming unless you stick to making very firm statements at the beginning - for example, PHB and DMG only, nothing else until and unless you've got the hang of running that.

Furthermore, as a 3.5 clone, Pathfinder repeats a lot of 3.5's mistakes, which means feats, skills and even whole races & classes can end up crippling you if you take the wrong choices for the wrong kind of campaign you're having.

5e has far fewer options in terms of races and classes. But it also has much, MUCH simpler mechanics and is far easier and more intuitive to grasp. It's not as balanced or even as fun as 4e, but it is incredibly simple to pick up as you go along with and can certainly convey that D&D feel, especially if you're willing to plunder past editions for setting lore & ideas.

Making a decision is ultimately up to you. Pick Pathfinder if you want options overload and aren't afraid of having to really learn a lot on the job. Pick D&D 5e if you want something that's simple to run, easy to pick up on, but doesn't really stray overmuch from the old-school D&D formulas.

>>53667032
>, there is a legitimate argument to play PF instead if you're completely new to DMing.

I'm thinking you meant to say 5e there instead of PF?

But anyway, OP, maybe those people just hate on PF, but this doesn't change the fact that they happen to be right. 5e is a lot better beginner game than PF, hate or no.

>>53667325
Yeah, got that screwed up, unfortunately.

File: PicsArt_08-31-07.02.25.jpg (181KB, 1200x1697px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1200x1697px

I really don't understand the whole talk of crippled characters, power creep etc with pathfinder.

To me the most important part of role playing is options with character creation. I'd rather be overwhelmed than underwhelmed with choices. It seems pretty meta to me that everyone in this thread seems to talk about the game as if it was some kind of ARPG like Diablo or something. To me it's about sculpting a character out of a massive pallet of themes and motifs. The drama is what's important, to me. My player group feels the same way and the system has always worked well for us. It does take a good deal of reading and time to really get a feel for it, but at the same time you don't have to follow every last crunchy rule. There's so much room to rig any system to your liking, the provided rules are simply a guide line. I've never had a problem balancing encounters for my parties because I often don't go by the book on CR I'll custom tailor creatures to provide unique and difficult challenge more often than not and usually keep things on the more deadly side to keep everyone on their toes. No problems at all. All that matters in the end is if you and the party are having fun.

I've tried 5e and it definitely wasn't bad by any stretch but there were definitely many less options given to you. Still ended up making one of my favorite characters I've ever played in that campaign.

D20Pfsrd is free open source material on pathfinder if you didn't already know, you can look up all the rules there and compare the systems to see what you're more comfortable with.

If you have any particular questions I'll stick around in the thread.

>>53667512
>I've never had a problem balancing encounters for my parties because I often don't go by the book on CR
And this didn't immediately alert you that something is wrong with the CR system?

>>53667512
>The drama is what's important, to me.

Thankfully, you don't need 30 base classes and 10 million archetypes then.

>>53667512
Because there's nothing cool about rolling up a Monk because you want to play Jackie Chan and it's the obvious Jackie Chan class except they're shit at doing everything you'd expect Jackie Chan to do.

There's nothing cool about sword and board fucking you over if you use it above level 2 because the game isn't just biased against AC as a defense, but favors killing enemies to the point where a guy with a two hander killing an enemy in 1 or 2 rounds is going to be less endangered than the sword and board guy trying to grind an enemy down over 3.

>>53667874

I've never used any balance methods given by game rules, I always homebrew and test fights for balance beforehand. So that's pretty irrelevant to me.

>>53667952

I think those options can add to the sense of drama drastically if you write well for your players, the complexity of the classes allows you to express more of their 'spirit' than other rule sets imo. So I humbly disagree.

>>53668336

That could well be the case, I haven't had players interested in monks really, most of my settings kind of discourage it with their themes I guess, that being said, you can always homebrew and buff a class if you think it's lacking.

>>53668473
>I think those options can add to the sense of drama drastically if you write well for your players, the complexity of the classes allows you to express more of their 'spirit' than other rule sets imo. So I humbly disagree.

I think PF classes/archetypes are not mechanically complex and diverse enough for this to be true. The majority of them are "like this other class, BUT a bit like this other class as well" which means multiclassing and refluffing already covers the majority of the concepts. The ones that aren1t are easy enough to port.

In my opinion, people sticking to PF because it has "so much options!" are simply creatively barren, and need a book to tell them what they can come up with.

Alternatively, deep down they really like the optimization/character building puzzle, but often pretend they don't, because that's "rollplaying not roleplaying".

>>53663036
>Snobbery to the level of asking him to leave their thread.
>This combined with the whining weener who said they had to rename the thread Paizosomething General because the company had expanded into other stuff.
How long can it last, really?

>>53667512
Because when many of those options are really bad but a cool concept, you either need to minmax a lot as a player, in which case you do know a lot about the system, or the GM has to either help you through fiat abd deliberately creating many situations to help you shine without risking someone doing your thing better(but some players don't need it since their characters work just fine) or just homebrew content to help things work, in which case, you are fixing the issue with crippled characters that you do know the system has.

I don't exactly have a grudge against pathfinder, but I do think it sucks and you should play 5e instead.

5e is best for people new to TTRPGs in general. It's the "beer and chips" fantasy game.

Pathfinder is if you want a TTRPG where making a good character is a side game unto itself. If they find they enjoy the minutia of figuring out how to exactly do some concept to the smallest detail, then PF might be up their alley. (also possibly spending an hour or two researching through all the options to find the perfect ones for what you're doing)

>>53666912
>everything is bait

cancer.

>>53662756
I'm not going to say that Pathfinder doesn't have any good sides, but it's extremely terrible for introducing new people to the hobby. Play literally anything but Pathfinder first, THEN move to Pathfinder when everyone is more experienced if you really want to.

>>53668473
>I think those options can add to the sense of drama drastically if you write well for your players, the complexity of the classes allows you to express more of their 'spirit' than other rule sets imo. So I humbly disagree.
Sorry, but that's just fucking retarded.

>>53673099
Bit of the irony with Pathfinder.

it's horrible to start off as a new player, but by the time you're experienced enough to move onto it, the flaws are blatantly obvious enough to not want to play it.

>>53662756
Pathfinder is really fun, I only stopped playing it once my players started going nuts over all sorts of power gamed characters that could do insane shit in every fight. If you're new and only have a few books it'll be fine and fun. You'll like it. If I have one real suggestion it would be to get a good idea to ask what the players want to do before you start the game and keep the game limited to a few books as opposed to the entire open source paizo network of crazy shit you can find online.

>>53674580
If you like character building it's pretty cool. Anyone can act and add quirks, goals and so on to your character but mechanically, PF is as good as it gets at making your character ideas unique mechanically while trying to actually make them not suck, instead of just rolling the same dice for a different narration of what your character does.

>>53676542
4e does it better while being balanced.

>>53662756
Pathfinder really fucking sucks, and is one of the worst "mainstream" systems to start a newbie off in. The only thing it can do, which is absurdly over-the-top high-flying fantasy adventure, is done infinitely better in other systems that weren't written to be the most obtuse clusterfuck to ever exist.

>>53668650
It's not snobbery. Telling people to get the fuck out and never touch pathfinder is the best advice /pfg/ can give people. I do not play it because I like the system, but because my group plays it and because I like my group.

>>53667512
>seems to talk about the game as if it was some kind of ARPG like Diablo or something

Aside from the game rules being tuned around the fighter having a furious flaming burst +2 longsword of dickslapping at level X and the rogue having some boots of cockmongling at level Y (even though the wizard did those jobs both better 5 levels ago)?

>>53668473
>just homebrew it!
That's not a point in favor of a system, you know? When core materials of the game need to be heavily homebrewed to make it work anywhere close to advertised?

>>53662756
Pathfinder is not beginner friendly. It involves compiling a bunch of +/-1 and +/-2 modifiers from many sources for doing basic to-hit rolls, and the character sheets are dense and ofetn difficult to parse, making for lots of new players staring at a sheet and going 'what do I roll to hit again?' The system is based on the ugly ivory tower/system mastery wank that was 3.5 D&D and the design philosophy carries through, which means your new players can be consigned to be far lesser or far better than their compatriots simply based on character class and to a lesser extent, build choices. On top of all of this, the whole reason it exists is so people who put in the momentous effort of learning 3.5 didn't have to try to put in that effort on another system, ignoring that 3.X D&D is an anomaly in system difficulty, and most other systems are not nearly as hard to pick up.

5e is dead simple, you can make a character quickly, and new players pick it up easily. You could also do microlite d6 or 13th Age or something, but 5e D&D is nice for being very uncomplicated while also having name brand recognition though.

Pathfinder is a very dense, slow and exacting game that asks you to memorize 400+ pages of rules and spend multiple hours per combat encounter (and the game revolves almost exclusively around combat encounters).

If that sounds ideal to you and your friends, by all means, start with Pathfinder. But you will develop a lot of bad habits out of necessity and be lumped into a truly shit community.

File: bird looking at its own reflection.png (293KB, 600x328px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 600x328px

>>53662756
>Is this actually the route I should take
Probably, yes, because 5e is much more rookie-friendly.
>or am I being misdirected by people that have a grudge against Pathfinder?
This is also true, though. The /tg/ hivemind has perfected hating PF to the point of art.

File: cookie-monster-w352.gif (536KB, 351x193px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 351x193px

>>53667512
>To me it's about sculpting a character out of a massive pallet of themes and motifs. The drama is what's important, to me
Can you understand how frustrating it can me to have a cool theme or motif and NOT be able to play it, because it is mechanically shit? I've wanted to make a cool drunken master type monk since 3.0 D&D. Under no edition of 3.PF is a drunken master mechanically sound. It can't mechanically do the thing it's supposed to do. Similarly, trying to play the hypercompetent or just implacable fighter is impossible to do in 3.PF because the wizard does literally everything you do better than you.

>There's so much room to rig any system to your liking, the provided rules are simply a guide line. I've never had a problem balancing encounters for my parties because I often don't go by the book on CR
Aside from the fact that if you have to mangle the system to get it to work in the first place, it's not a good system, think about the audience OP is asking for.

How much mastery of the system you have to possess to do those tweaks? For a new group? One largely learning from the books? How would they know where the pitfalls are? How would they know that CR is a broken system, or that a class is underpowered, other than to ask the ancient grogs on webforums or in the store? The problem is that the book and rules are what a new player or group is presented with, and they can and will take them at face value. They are not seasoned veterans able to make judgement calls and know what the party can and can't deal with.

It's not that 3.PF can't be run, it's that it's a broken shitty mess out of the box, and new players don't have the experience or tools to fix it, much less try to get it running smoothly.

>D20Pfsrd is free open source material
So is Legend, and it's a way, WAY better take on making 3.5 into a playable, fun system than Pathfinder.

>>53664956
What I annoys me every time I see this?
The fact that it completely misuses what Timmy cards are about.
It's not about bad cards to teach people, it's about having big exciting fancy shit because there are people who like that regardless of how good it is. It can be overcosted, undercosted, exactly perfectly costed and it doesn't matter, it just needs to make someone go WOW THAT'S COOL. And sometimes those cards end up being tournament staples anyways.
And that is what it has always meant.

>>53679360
Monte Cook just doesn't know what he's talking about.

>>53679375
Bad as it sounds, I;'m really glad he eventually left the 5e design team for whatever reason. Reading his articles about 5e, including his famous "I call it "Passive Perception"" thing, made me feel like he had some form of brain damage at times.

>>53678867
>Under no edition of 3.PF is a drunken master mechanically sound.
Beg pardon? What's stopping you from making a monk and fluffing that he drinks all the time?

>>53682368
>mechanically sound

>>53676542
>PF is as good as it gets
Gurps and Mutands & Masterminds do it much better

>>53677977
This is false

File: Cookie_Monster.png (375KB, 690x420px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 690x420px

>>53682368
>Beg pardon? What's stopping you from making a monk and fluffing that he drinks all the time?
Drinking all the time is the natural state of monks, since they're useless in a party and have to drown their woes somehow.

But without sarcasm: Mechanically, monks are the shittiest class in the game, even more than fighters. They’re MAD as fuck, requiring way too many different stats to use all their various abilities.

Even if tricked out with high Str, Dex, Con, and Wis, they can't hit shit. Their primary ability, the Flurry of Blows, lowers their to-hit on an already shitty 3/4 BAB. If you want to fistfight you have no ability to use weapons, so you can't boost your to-hit via magic/masterwork bonuses either. Their damage scales, but at a rate that's hilariously uncompetitive with other classes. At level 12, a Monk's damage with his fists is an amazing 2d6! The same amount a Fighter can do just by picking up a greatsword at level 1.

On top of that, initiating Flurry is a full-round action. So no charging and using all your attacks. Oh, yeah, hope your opponent holds still on his turn, since you can’t make an attack AND use all that bonus movement you gain.

At 4th level, the Monk get to treat his fists like they're magic! Which means that when everyone else gets their first +1 weapons at L2, the Monk gets to sit around being a shit for two levels unable to punch shadows while the rogue and fighter can swing away.

Monk hands and feet are locked out of multiple classes of weapon upgrades; weapon materials, augment crystals, etc.

Monks get immunity to ordinary diseases at L5, two levels after the Paladin, and the Paladin is ALSO immune to supernatural diseases.

>>53684521
Monks are full BAB in Pathfinder as of a major rework. They're by no means OP, but they're playable.

File: cookieblitzer.png (553KB, 681x507px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 681x507px

>>53684521
At L7, when Clerics are handing out buckets of healing d8's, and the Paladin has had Lay on Hands for 5 levels now, THAT'S when the Monk gets his healing. It's shittier than Lay on Hands, and can't be shared with other people. What a steal!

Monk gets Slow Fall multiple times, a shitty ability that lets you treat a fall as less distance than it is if you happen to be next to a wall when you are falling. Feather Fall is a 1st level spell better in every way, affecting more people for a greater distance until you get to L20, where it's still better unless there's a 1201+ ft fall that also happens to be next to a wall.

Monks get to Dimension Door once a day at 8th level. Wizards can Dimension Door 1/day too – at 7th level, and more often after that.

Spell resistance would seem like the one good ability they get, except spell resistance doesn’t discriminate between friend and foe, and if you want to get healed you need to take a standard action to lower your SR and it stays down until your next turn. Just what you want from a mobile melee combatant – make yourself extra vulnerable to let an ally heal you.

At 15th level, a Monk can punch someone and kill them via Quivering Palm once a day. They don’t get more uses. Druids can cast Finger of Death 1/day from 100 feet away at the same level. Wizards do it two levels earlier at L13, and Sorcs can do it three times at L14. They all get more uses as they level. The save DC’s are similar, except the casters are SAD classes and only need to pump their casting stat and can take DC boosting feats, while Monks have to split focus between four stats and likely end up picking up non-spell focused feats.

File: Alistair-Cookie.jpg (71KB, 828x554px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 828x554px

>>53684586
At L17, a Monk gets an ability to talk to any intelligent creature. An amazing ability that Bard players have had from L3, Sorc and Wiz from L5 and Clerics from L7 via Tongues.

At L19 a Monk can go ethereal for up to 19 rounds a day, or just under two minutes. At L19, a Wizard or Sorc can go Ethereal for up to 57 or 76 minutes a day, and can take six other people with them.

And we haven’t even gotten into the Drunken Master PrC. The Monk is mechanically, definitively, shit. It’s always been shit, all the back to 3.0.

Pathfinder puts a couple of soft patches on it, with ki points and things, but it's still fundamentally built on the same shaky, shitty base, and has many of the same problems.

>>53665113
I dont know why this was so late in the thread
Dont fall into the DnD sinkhole its a waste and then your players go "but we already know DnD rules" because they think every system is as shit as them.
Theres a hundred and one systems out there. Remake the thread as "What system is the best for newbies and has swords and wizards and all that good shit" and it would be a lot more informative.

File: autism.jpg (59KB, 540x534px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 540x534px

>>53684521
>>53684586
>>53684619
Are you purposely being obtuse, or have you not actually read what Monks do in pathfinder? Literally everything you just said is wrong.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/monk-unchained/

>Their primary ability, the Flurry of Blows, lowers their to-hit on an already shitty 3/4 BAB. If you want to fistfight you have no ability to use weapons, so you can't boost your to-hit via magic/masterwork bonuses either.
None of this is true. Monks are full BAB, flurry doesn't lower your to-hit, and it can be used with Monk weapons (or an amulet of mighty fists)

No full attacks can be used without moving, even if you charge. They're not gonna be moving away from you because of attacks of opportunity.

With WBL, most characters get their magic items by about level 4 anyway.

Monk fists now count as adamitine/silver/whatever.

They DO get immunity to supernatural diseases. But, diseases don't matter anyway.

Monk healing can come as early as 4th level.

Everyone uses rings of featherfall; nobody actually casts it.

Abundant Step is a Ki Power now, so it can be used more than once per day. And, it can be used as a move action instead of a standard action, which is HUGE.

Diamond Soul spell resistance is a swift action

Quivering palm is a meme ability and is entirely skippable. It also happens to be a Ki Power, so it can be used more than once per day.

Tongue of the Sun and Moon is a meme ability, and doesn't matter.

Monks can go ethereal as early as level 4. It's also a Ki Ability now, by the way.

Drunken Master isn't a thing anymore (then again, neither or PRCs, really), but you can just fucking play a normal monk and fluff that you drink all the time.

>>53662756
5e is simpler, "more balanced" (there aren't as many tiers/distance between them) and has fewer years of system bloat to deal with. One, two books are all you need. Pathfinder is totally free, admittedly, with a searchable wiki- but literally 90% of it is self-harming garbage or just garbage garbage.

I'd suggest 5e over Pathfinder, but it's not like a bunch of newbs will be able discerning about game design. If you're certain you know pf much better and don't mind helping players with a more complicates system, go for it.

>>53685072
Unchained Monk is still mid-T4 due to remaining a MAD mess, though. With relatively more recent splats, even unarchetyped Fighter is a better class thanks to AWT and ironcasting.

>>53685588
Are there seriously fucking class tiers? Pathfinder really is fucking cancerous.

>>53685607
There were defined tiers in 3.5. What changed in Pathfinder doesn't even close them up at all.

>>53685588
The tier system is bullshit anyway. It only takes into account classes, and not actual builds that can be done with the classes. All it takes is a bit of know-how to make a Monk who can easily carry his weight and support the party with higher tier characters.

>>53685607
Tiers were something unofficial made by the 3.5 playerbase as a way of organizing the classes based on their power/potential.

>>53685607
Yes, 6 of them in fact:
T1-Campaign breaking a la a carte. All the 9th level prepared casters go here. Some spontaneous 9th level casters can also reach this level through specific builds or archetypes.
T2-Limited campaign breaking power. Spontaneous 9th level casters go here, plus Summoner and a couple archetypes of 6th level casters.
T3-All rounder competents, or strong in their best area but still not particularly impaired when out of it. 6th level casters, and a couple archetypes for the Paladin and Bloodrager go here.
T4. Great at one thing, severely less competent at the rest. Here go 4th level casters, Fighters when they get enough material, Rangers, Slayers, Unchained Rogue, Unchained Monk, Barbarian, Vigilante, Chained Monk and Rogue if they get some specific archetypes, and, most of the time, Kineticists.
5. Passable at their thing, but shit at the rest. The remaining martials go here, and some kineticist builds. The Adept NPC class also finds its home here.
6. NPC-tier class. Vow of Poverty Monk goes here, arguable Core-only monk as well does.

>>53685741
>and not actual builds that can be done with the classes.
Straight from the tier list thread.
>Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier in terms of tier descriptions, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level.

>>53685072
>They're not gonna be moving away from you because of attacks of opportunity.
Yeah, because taking a single hit in a game where a Monk needs like 6+ to down an enemy and where enemies hit hard in fewer attacks than a PC does is incentive to stay right next to them.

The real reason unchained Monk is better is because they get pseudo-Pounce built into the class and they're still not better than a Zen Archer or Sohei.

>>53685818
Exactly. But what it fails to mention is that the higher the tier, the harder it is to play properly. In practice, wizards never achieve the game-breaking potential often attributed to them, even if played by someone who knows the system inside and out. It's very easy to drop a tier even by accident. Conversely, lower-tier classes often need only basic skill with the game to go up a tier in power, and can easily go up two.

In short, the tier system is only useful in optimization, theoretical character building, and other mental masturbation.

>>53685905
>Yeah, because taking a single hit in a game where a Monk needs like 6+ to down an enemy and where enemies hit hard in fewer attacks than a PC does is incentive to stay right next to them.
Nigger that's a free hit. On your next turn, run up to them and attack them. If they move away, that's ANNOTHER free hit.
By moving away from you, they're losing more damage than you are. Keep in mind that most monsters in DnD are designed as glass canons instead of as tanks.

>>53685964
>On your next turn, run up to them and attack them.
Yeah, because this isn't blatantly inferior to being able to full attack or anything.
>glass canons instead of as tanks
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E2-s8weiulPoBQjdI05LBzOUToyoZIdSsLKxHAvf8F8/

>>53685908
Nope, you're full of shit.

>>53686000
It's not blatantly inferior, it's equivalent. It's trading DPS for survivability, and rather efficiently at that.

>google doc
conveniently missing very useful information, like average attacks, average damage pre attack, resistances, DR, and a whole bunch of context on supernatural abilities and other statistics that makes combat more than just melee fighting.

>>53686020
ceci n'est pas un argument.

>>53686147
>it's equivalent
Retard detected, no wonder you think Monk is a good class.

>>53686166
Have you ever actually played high level martials, or does all your experience come from Giant in the Playground optimization threads?

>>53686244
Yup, and that's exactly why I know you're stupid. Chasing someone around to do one hit to them, maybe two if they don't have anti-AoO abilities/Tumble is blatantly inferior to full attacking them. Why the hell do you think Pounce, swift action movement, extremely useful standard action attacks, or being ranged are must-haves for a martial?

File: degenerates like you belong on a cross.jpg (37KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x360px

>>53663641

>Dungeon World

>>53686296
Ah, I see what the issue is. I think there's been a bit of an error in communication.

Allow me to elaborate. Chasing someone (successfully) is superior to full attacking... unless you're alone. In a one on one fight, more damage quicker is always appreciated.

But, as a martial (and a DnD player) you're not alone. You have a wizard and a gish backing you up, and they're responsible for bringing the enemy down while you keep them busy and maybe soften 'em up a bit.

This is, of course, assuming that it's not the other way around, with the wizard keeping the enemy busy and you being the one to finish the job. But, seeing as the enemy is still moving, I think its safe to say that the wizard doesn't know what he's doing and/or the martial is stuck with the heavy lifting in this case.

File: Legion Ed.jpg (14KB, 325x178px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 325x178px

>>53686492
I don disagree with you funnily enough. Dungeon World is an abortion of a game with fans that should have been aborted. But, it was the only other rules lite RPG I could think of that's actually an RPG, and not a combat simulator like Savage Worlds.

>>53686502
>Chasing someone (successfully) is superior to full attacking...
No, no it is not. A full attack should be either killing them or leaving them very close to death. That is outright superior to doing next to nothing to limit an enemy's actions.

Again, who gives a shit about 2 low damage attacks a round from the class whose thing is volume of attacks to make up for their inferior per-hit damage when a Zen Archer or Sohei can arrow their ass to death with impunity or an unchained Monk could flying kick in and actually full attack them?

>>53683016
>This is false

It's true though. Hybrids alone replace the need for the 20 million archetypes, while fulfilling essentially the same function. Classes have more abilities to choose from to begin with, and you don't have to sacrifice advancement in your "main" class for a PrC or multiclass equivalent (PPs, HDs, multiclass feats). There's also a lot less trap options.

Character building in 4e is way better than in 3.PF, and the game is way more balanced. Even better, the characters are set up so that their abilities interact, so even if you feel like you "solved the puzzle", there's still the question of optimizing on a party level (an especially fun task for leader types).

>>53686569
The difference between optimizing a shitload in 3.PF and optimizing a shitload in 4E is that in 4E, optimizing classes I like(and ones I don't) doesn't fuck the game in the ass and leave the rest of the party in the dust. Sure, I can optimize a Warblade or PsyWar to the gills in 3.5 and not make the rest of the party wonder why they even came along, but that's not true for Druids.

>>53686564
>Again, who gives a shit about 2 low damage attacks a round from the class whose thing is volume of attacks to make up for their inferior per-hit damage when a Zen Archer or Sohei can arrow their ass to death with impunity or an unchained Monk could flying kick in and actually full attack them?
The casters and other human artillery who are very happy for the breathing room, wind-up time, and chip damage.

>>53686639
But they're not happy. That doesn't do shit to stop them from getting to the casters.

Also note that neither the charge, nor the AoO benefits from 3.PF monk's buff to flurry of blows, so they are made at 3/4th BAB.

So the higher level they go, the less accurate they will be.

Different fractional stat advancement is one of the more retarded parts of 3rd edition that they never bothered to fix overall (but credit where it's due, kudos to PF for fixing it with skills).

>>53686569
I have 1.5 gigabytes of RPG material and 12 years worth of experience that tells me otherwise, but whatever. I've already spent far too much of my life debating the virtues and flaws of 4e, so I'll concede the point.

>>53686598
I always considered this to be one of the hidden strengths/silver-linings about 3.X. Lots of suboptimal options are as fun and interesting as optimal ones, and the ability to optimize and understand the system only makes these options all the more enticing. Your system mastery ends up being directly proportional to the number of options available, since shitty options suddenly become playable and 'balanced.'
This is especially true if you're playing with less skilled players. Hell, one of the best campaigns I ever played was as a fairly optimized Binder that ended up fitting perfectly with a group of inexperienced players. I've also had similar experiences with optimized an Truenamer and an optimized Vow of Poverty Lycanthrope Monk.

>>53686686
>That doesn't do shit to stop them from getting to the casters
If they're moving every turn, the casters are in no danger. Like you said, all they have to worry about is one measly attack per turn.

>>53686934
Better hope the enemy isn't one of those with Pounce, SLAs, or does most of their damage in one or two hits.

>>53686953
If they have Pounce, have the casters group up so it can't get a charging bonus between them. Then you just need to move it and you can full attack it down, since it won'd be able to play AoT tag with you anymore.

If it deals most of its damage in a few hits, it's very rare, and is either low level or it's swallowing you whole. Sharp pointy things are a good solution to both of these problems :^)

If it has a lot of SLAs, chances are its something like a Pit Fiend or an Angel or a Dragon, and therefore has wings, in which case this whole thing is a moot point because pounce wouldn't be that useful either.

>>53687073
>If it deals most of its damage in a few hits, it's very rare,

There's quite a few on every level of play. Most "big dumb thing" stuff is this. See, Rhino, T-rex, etc.

This is why crane wing got nerfed.

>>53687171
Most 'big dumb things' don't even do that much damage.

I'd never recommend either PF or 5e. 5e is easier to learn than PF, but it's bland and uninteresting. PF takes the base structure of 3e which was a good base structure and then adds way too much junk so in the end it's pretty incoherent.

If you're allergic to thinking, or if you think death should only be a minor inconvenience, play 5e.
If you fetishize balance, play 4e.
If you want to play a half-faerie dragon kineticist/gunslayer/alchemist, play PF.

If you want to play a good game, play 3e, AD&D, or OSR.

>>53687073
>If it deals most of its damage in a few hits, it's very rare,
No. No it is not. That's really common.

>>53687250
>play 3e, AD&D, or OSR.

I'm sure you wanted a different number there.

>>53687266
Can you not read? I mention 2e and 1e right after that.

>>53687274
I just gave you a chance to not be retarded.

>>53687073
You can desperately try to spin that an enemy keeping you from being able to kill or impede it as you controlling the enemy's movements as much as you want, but it's never going to be true, let alone more effective than actually fucking killing them.

AoOs are not an effective denial tool nor are they the carrot that keeps enemies stuck in full attack range unless you tack on abilities that keep enemies in place when you AoO them(see: Thicket of Blades builds in 3.5), and they are certainly nowhere near as good as the same class with Pounce or someone who can thump an enemy with a standard action attack and debilitate/kill them(see: ToB). You have to dedicate yourself to an AoO build to get anything more than bee stings out of AoOs and you would know that if you had even half a clue.

>>53687253
Every big scary monster and its grandma has a bite and two claw attacks, at least.

>>53687327
Nothing wrong with bee stings. Nothing wrong with keeping the enemy moving and on his toes.

Of course, having pounce would be preferable. Having your cake and eating it too would also be preferable. But they've been cutting that shit back in pathfinder so you make do with what you have.
Either the enemy stays still to deal damage and he dies quickly, or he runs around dealing less damage and he dies slowly. He dies either way so it all ends up working out. It would be really nice if he ran around dealing less damage but died quickly and we got the best of both worlds. but we don't because we're talking about martials, not synthesists.

>>53687432
There is everything wrong with bee stings in a game where combat lasts maybe two rounds. That is what you don't understand.

File: cookie baker.jpg (271KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1920x1080px

>>53685072
>Are you purposely being obtuse, or have you not actually read what Monks do in pathfinder?
Oh, no, I just realized I reprised my 3.x rant instead of tweaking it for Pathfinder. Lemme change that. All of that is true for 3.5.

For PF specifically: Monk Unchained is something I'm unfamiliar with. Core PF's Monk is as shit as 3.5's monk.

Damage die scaling and weapon issues remain unchanged. Monk attacks counting as anything short of adamantine is nearly useless. Might be worhwhile if they just got an ability that said 'fuck all damage reduction' earlier.

Core PF Monks are not full BAB, though they don't take as big a hit to accuracy with Flurry because they get full BAB ONLY with flurrying. Which means if they ever want that little extra boost of accuracy from a careful strike, they actually lose to-hit.

>No full attacks can be used without moving, even if you charge
Which is a general problem of martials in general in 3.pf.

>They're not gonna be moving away from you because of attacks of opportunity.
What? Attacks of opportunity don't stop you from moving and the punishment for doing so is to take a single hit instead of 3+. If they're not going to be moving away it's because you built a grapple-monk and are currently holding them down.

Base PF Monks still get healing at L7, when the Paladin has had it for 5 levels. It's still limited to self only and assuming 16's in CHA/WIS at L7, the Monk can self-heal for 21 points a day and the Paladin can dole out six separate 3d6 healbot touches, which averages 63 points of healing to himself or any of his allies. No, keep telling me how great that self heal is.

Abundant Step is still more costly and able to be used less than the equivalent actual spell, though it does gain in becoming a move action.

Diamond Soul, Tongue, Quivering Palm remain unchanged. Finger of Death is shittier, but 130+ damage is still plenty.

Drunken Master is apparently an archetype now - so yeah it's still a thing.

>>53687480
I agree with your estimation of monk abilities.

Info for the future: Unchained Monk fixes a lot of Monk issues, by making them full BAB to begin with (although they use the good Will save) and giving them pseudo pounce and some other features, including quinggong abilities.

It messes up archetyping though, so you lose out on some of the better/unique non-Unchained Monk builds.

>>53687477
combat lasts two rounds because your DM doesn't have monsters flitting around the battlefield like a fucking anime character, I.E. the situation we're talking about now. Those kinds of combat last 4 or 5 rounds, depending on how well your party-members are playing. Because they're playing the dedicated human artilery and they're the terminus for when the fight ends. The martial's damage is unimportant beyond the fact that it exists.

>>53687480
You're looking at the wrong pathfinder Monk, which is really impressive considering I gave you the link.
Here
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/monk-unchained/
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/monk-unchained/
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/monk-unchained/
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/monk-unchained/
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/monk-unchained/

>>53667512
Finally someone tath views the whole thing the same way I do! I am shedding literal manly tears right now!

It is just the totally toxic atmosphere of /tg/ that makes opinions like this totally unpostable.

I introduced PF to a group of totally new players (no TTRPG exp. whatsoever) and we have a blast. They are all on 4chin and it took them not long to know that /tg/ is not the place to discuss Pathfinder when you play the way we do.

>>53687745
If you're going to play a beer-and-pretzels game anyway, why the fuck did you bother asking /tg/'s opinion?

>>53687745
You can both head back to the PF forums to be with your kind.

>>53687818
I haven't ...my players did it on their own. We know each other from /a/ related events so they are 4chan regulars. I didn't even mentioned the state of PF on /tg/.

They just came to the same conclusion on their own

>>53687853
I don't know why you expect people who have by-and-large had at least one shitty experience with 3.5/PF to talk about the game as if its flaws don't matter.

>>53687930
I don't, hence I normally don't post or even visit PPF related threads. But since there is nothing else to do in the office right now I brose more then normal.

The thing is that opinions that go along the line of "Pathfinder work well for beer and prezels and actual roleplaying even without min maxing" are attacked instantly. see: >>53667512

Either by the hardcore PFS group "you play it WRONG!" or by the PF haters "PF is shit"

>>53687993
There are way too many basic rules and way too many ways for the game to go sideways without warning for it to be any good as a beer and pretzels game.

>>53688012
We removed some rules. For example: we don't play with a battle board of any sorts.
Players just ask me how far things are.

Whitout the whole moving miniatures around and stuff like that even combat is fairly fast.

>>53688043
... so what 5e does as a baseline assumption?

Why not just play 5e again?

>>53688068
Because shitton of options to tinker with. And I (and my players too) really like the adventure paths.

Between job and wife and 2 small kids I really don't have the time to come up with big plots, interesting NPCs and so on. But I can read the adventure modules while in the bathtube and then run the next 6-8 sessions.

>>53688117
>Because shitton of options to tinker with.

Do you take advantage of those options though? It sounds like you are running a beer and pretzels game where most of that shit barely matters.

I mean... what is your current party like even?

> And I (and my players too) really like the adventure paths.

You know 5e has modules as well, right? I can't compare the quality to the PF adventure paths, because I never ran any of those, but some are imo pretty good.

>>53662756
Probably yes. 5e is basically "D&D lite" so it's pretty noob-friendly. Your players will probably want to expand their horizons sooner or later, but for a start it's just fine. Pathinder is a fucking mess and should be avoided by all.

Play Pathfinder if everyone has autism, can't think for themselves and need mechanical handholding for doing anything and want a spreadsheet simulator.

Play 5e to play an actual role playing game and a good one at all.

This is coming from someone who used to play PF.

File: cookie thoughts.jpg (28KB, 487x280px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 487x280px

>>53687656
I mention I'm unfamiliar with the Unchained Monk in the first line, and repeatedly reference the Core PF Monk.

Unchained manages to be slightly less shit, but it's still not nearly as good as caster classes.

Full BAB, no penalty on Flurry. Good, but all it does it make it able to attack now.

Damage scaling is nearly identical. Still a problem.

Still retains the problem of the punching guy being better using weapons than punching.

Ki power being flexible is good. Some of these options are just god fucking awful though.

Diamond Body manages to be even shittier than the 3.5 version.

Wholeness of Body is now even shittier, just being Cure Light Wounds. Toppest of keks.

Slow Fall still requires you be in arms reach of a wall. Wording looks ambiguous as to whether the ability is treated as casting Feather Fall or just allowing you to ignore damage as if landing under Feather Fall.

Most of the spell duplicate powers remain much shittier than their spell counterparts.

Nice that they finally just admit that a high level ability is just a Permanancy'd Tongues.

File: cookie thoughts2.jpg (25KB, 489x275px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 489x275px

>>53688432
Now all of that said - I can see good tweaks here - Flying Kick is one of the only saving graces of this thing, given that it's pseudo-Pounce, and technically allows you to finish an enemy with the first attack of a Flurry, Flying Kick to another Enemy, and then continue the Flurry on them. One Touch & Spin Kick are cool for giving tools for bypassing high AC. They still manage to shoehorn prerequisite trees into the ki powers though, which is irritating as fuck.

I'll admit that Unchained Monk isn't total shit. However, it continues to have similar themeing problems as the previous Monks, it pretty much requires you take Flying Kick, and some of the various Style and Ki power options are blatantly phoning it in and are pure padding. It is however, returning to the original issues:

1) Not the base Monk, and if you just decided to play Pathfinder as a new player, would have zero bearing on whether or not the Corebook Monk sucks a big bag of donkey dicks.

2) Still has no Drunken Master shenanigans, which is what I wanted to make, and instead it's 'no, make a Monk and make him drink.' Improvised weapons and punching are still inferior to investing into Monk weapons.

>>53688432
You seem to have skipped over all the abilities of the Qigong monk are available to the Unchained Monk as Ki powers.

>>53688432
>>53688440
>>53688453
Meanwhile the 5e monks, apart from the four elements monks, are pretty good, fun and legit

>>53688453
He's right to, most of them are either shit or "you can do the thing a stupid, damage focused caster can do, except you are still MAD". There are a few gems that every monk should take, like bark skin and mist form though. Also Ki Leech.

File: cookie thoughts4.jpg (32KB, 486x287px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 486x287px

>>53688453
What in there should I be looking at? I'm seeing a bunch of temporary feat duplications, spell duplications, and ability duplications, most of which would be pretty handily outdone by an actual caster.

I mean, I see Ki Leech as a pretty gold ability given that it gives you more Ki and costs nothing, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of standouts here.

>>53686598

4e has a rather high optimisation floor and a (Relatively) low ceiling. It means you can expect PCs to stay within a more reasonable range.

>>53662756
I started with pathfinder and I can say that
it is not that hard and the rules are free så there is no risk of wasting your money.

And if you don't want any anime stuff just tell your players that those things are not a part of your world

>>53688539
are free so*

>>53686906
>I have 1.5 gigabytes of RPG material and 12 years worth of experience that tells me otherwise...

I have about 17 years (which honestly makes me feel kinda inadequate on /tg/ where I see 30s being thrown about). And I'm not sure how many GBs of pdfs I've hoarded, but am also not sure why either should matter when discussing 2 specific games.

>...but whatever. I've already spent far too much of my life debating the virtues and flaws of 4e, so I'll concede the point.

Oh so you just try (and fail) an argument from authority, then try to pretend to be the bigger man. Nice.

>>53685908
>Conversely, lower-tier classes often need only basic skill with the game to go up a tier in power, and can easily go up two.
That's complete bullshit, though. There's just no way you can make a tier 3 build with a monk or fighter(or ANY t5 class, for that matter). They simply don't get enough versatility to do it.

>>53662954
This is bullshit some trolls have been trying to spread for awhile now. Just ignore them.

>>53688935
Technically he's still right, going from t5->t4 is up a tier.

It's a stupid argument, but there you have it.

>>53689131
I somehow skipped over the "go up two" part.

I remember Fighter with ALL THE SPLATS being arguably t3.

>>53689131
You need more than "basic skill" to go up a tier, and going up two tiers is far from easy - in fact, it's pretty much impossible.

>>53689146
Dungeoncrasher is as good as you'll ever get with Fighter and it's not very good when bull rushing isn't on the table.

Paladin is a different story because it has some really fucking powerful ACFs, but outside of that, the only thing that will boost you 2 or more tiers are PrCs.

I cannot fucking believe tier lists exist in an rpg.

>>53689949
I meant PF, where Weapon Master's and Armor Master's handbook combined with a few archetypes can give you a fighter who is the master of every skill and can UMD his magical items to do all sorts of effects, like flying, and can also deflect spells.

>>53690262
It's a natural consequence of a game where class(and build) power is all over the fucking place. It's significantly different from competitive tier lists, though, because its purpose is to help you pick an appropriate tier band for the game you want to run or to help a player's character actually mesh with the others on a mechanical level.

>>53662756
OP, do not under any circumstances introduce yourself or others to tabletop rpgs using pathfinder.
Pathfinder was my first experience with ttrpgs and frankly I felt like I needed therapy to get over the experience.
It was like being ineptly molested by a bored accountant. A slow, miserable grind through endless, mostly pointless options, which serve more to define what your character can't do than what they can.
I was the GM so I had it worst of all. All my ideas and creativity bludgeoned to death under a tide of modifiers until I gave up and just eyeballed literally everything to the point where we weren't even really playing pathfinder anymore. It improved the game considerably.
It all encourages the worst possible kind of classification and categorisation of every tiny detail until you want to stab yourself in the eyeballs because it would be more fun. It turns normal people into powergaming, nerdraging snivelling snotty autists and I hate hate hate it more than any entertainment product I have ever experienced.

Anyway my advice is play 5e or better still dungeon world.

>>53684578
The rework also loses out on most of the archetypes that Monks had that made them good, so it's still a net loss.

File: 1375240183280.jpg (142KB, 500x381px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 500x381px

>>53685908
>the higher the tier, the harder it is to play properly. In practice, wizards never achieve the game-breaking potential often attributed to them, even if played by someone who knows the system inside and out. It's very easy to drop a tier even by accident. Conversely, lower-tier classes often need only basic skill with the game to go up a tier in power, and can easily go up two.

3/10 bait, at least got me to reply.

>>53688498
They don't seem to add anything to making a drunk master either.

>>53696015
You can still choose to use original Monks (and their archetypes) if you want to. It's not a net loss.
The only class that you have to play the unchained version of is the Summoner, for obvious reasons.

>>53697286
>The only class that you have to play the unchained version of is the Summoner, for obvious reasons.

I'm behind on following Pathfinder since the unchained business happened.

What reasons?

>>53697476
Summoners were too fucking strong. Especially synthesist summoners. The eidolon on its won would often be more powerful than a martial of equal level, and it had a bard-level caster backing it up.
The Synthesist archetype was especially egregious, since it let the Eidolon and Summoner fuse together, combining their HP, taking the best of their Abilities, retaining all of their evolutions, and making the Summoner an absolute powerhouse in melee. It was retarded.

>>53697619
>Synthesist Summoners

Oh, you were just meming. Ok, carry on.

>>53697642
What's so funny about Synthesists being good?

>>53697663
Don't get me wrong, they're good. I wouldn't call them in the same league as normal full casters and base Summoners though.

>>53697677
Yeah, synthesist is easily one of the weakest summoner archetypes. They're obscene because they're still full casters, but from a powergaming perspective, you'd want the extra actions of controlling two PCs over one superpowered PC any day.

>>53697663
Synthesists aren't all THAT great compared to just the base Summoner.

They're obscene compared to Martials, but the biggest thing about Synths is that the Summoner itself is more durable....but a well-played caster should never be in a situation where they'll in danger of dying anyways.

The problem is, you're losing out on the extra action economy. A Synth is good at punching faces in AND casting spells with a pretty good spell list, but it can only do one a round. A base Summoner can do both at the same time.

A base summoner also gets separate feats for both the Summoner and the Eidolon. A Synth has to pick it's one feat list with both aspects in mind.

>>53697677
Of course they're not as good as full casters, but they're significantly better than regular summoners.
Besides, big things tend to be a lot more powerful than a lot of little things in DnD.

>>53697717
No pun intended, but the fused Synthesist is more than the sum of its parts. The freedom to completely ignore all physical stats when making your character gives you unbelievable freedom in your ability choices, and your access to the Eidolon's evolutions gives you offensive and defensive capabilities that martials would drool over. This isn't even mentioning all the sweet tricks and loopholes you find in the Fuse Eidolon ability, like being able to apply your Eidolon's impressive CON modifier to your own HP, instead of "just" getting the Eidolon's HP as a bonus.

>>53697908
>but they're significantly better than regular summoners.

Anon, we're discussing the Synthesist here.

>>53697885
>but a well-played caster should never be in a situation where they'll in danger of dying anyways.
Unfortunately, you don't get that freedom as a Summoner. Your Eidolon is constantly going to be in danger, and if it dies you're basically neutered. You can't just hang back and pretend you're not invested in the ongoing melee like other casters, because 50%+ of your character is almost always at risk of dying of HP damage.

>>53697918
Synthesists are good for the same reason that Broodmasters are bad: one big thing is a lot stronger than two half things.

>>53697986
>You can't just hang back and pretend you're not invested in the ongoing melee like other casters
Except you can because aside from a few buffs you throw out, the Eidolon is handling that. Even if something happens to it, you can just heal it back up afterwards, and at worst you're just a regular full-caster with a weird spell list for a bit.

>because 50%+ of your character is almost always at risk of dying of HP damage.
Thankfully it's the 50% that can just be recalled again later. Plus considering the Eidolon usually has more hit points than your average Fighter, dying of HP damage isn't really that big a problem unless your party Fighter is at risk, which means you usually have bigger problems anyways.

>Synthesists are good for the same reason that Broodmasters are bad: one big thing is a lot stronger than two half things.
Except the problem is that a Synthesists is literally just a base Summoner, except...
-They have less action economy
-They have less overall feats
-You put the spellcaster in melee range of Team Monster.
Your analogy doesn't quite work as well in this situation as you think it does.

File: 2deep.jpg (58KB, 500x559px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x559px

>>53697908
>Of course they're not as good as full casters, but they're significantly better than regular summoners.
>They're not as good as a full caster, but they're better than a full caster.

>>53696429
There's a drunken master monk archetype from a UA.

>>53698072
The loss of action economy ends up not mattering because, as you already touched on, a lot of your time as a Summoner is supporting your eidolon with half decent buffs and meh heals.
Being in melee range ends up not matter because you have higher HP, AC, DR and Saving Throws than anyone else in the party.
The loss of feats does suck, but not as much considering you don't need to take any of the useless feats that the Eidolon had to take (weapon proficiency being a big one). Still, I think that the improved mental abilities and general freedom in character building more than makes up for it.

>>53698075
Full casters have 7th level spells, anon :^)

>>53698783
>Being in melee range ends up not matter because you have higher HP, AC, DR and Saving Throws than anyone else in the party.

Except you have this while still being able to cast spells in the same turn with just the base Summoner.

This is the problem with the Synthesist. Literally every relevant benefit you're listing for it is already available to the base Summoner, except you get extra feats and basically 2 turns a round on top of that.