So Pathfinder has some issues. It's pretty well established and has been discussed to death and I don't think this is groundbreaking news or anything.
But one thing I noticed whenever the problems inherent in Pathfinder(DnD as well) is that systems suggested as alternatives are usually shot down or comments are made like 'well at least its not as broken as system x'. My question is is Pathfinder a bad game or is it a bad game even relative to other games? Are there systems that do what pathfinder does that aren't as broken?
>>47633512
i am on the same boat ma friend
First of all it is important to remember that just because /tg/ says that a game sucks does not always mean that /tg/ hates the game. If the people on /tg/ refused to play any of the games that they said sucked, then they would never play an RPG again. As for your question, pathfinder, like a lot of games, becomes grossly unbalanced as soon as some asshole attempts to exploit the system or optimize. As long as you are playing in a good group, it should not be a major problem. Also, there are plenty of other games that are unbalanced like pathfinder, but since pathfinder is the most succeseful, that is the one people talk about.
It's not a bad game. It's just that it triggers three anons who need to shitpost about it at every available opportunity.
Just ignore them.
>>47633512
The biggest flaw with D&D is that D&Ders refuse to try anything else.
>>47633861
The biggest flaw with you is that you believe that because people like D&D that they haven't tried anything else.
It suggests a severe mental issue, a detachment from reality where you find flaws in other people in order to try and excuse your own inability to understand them.
>>47633896
I'm speaking from experience with twelve IRL D&D groups. All had somebody bitch about some issue, real or imagined, with D&D. None were willing to try anything new.
Or are you just another one of those delusions that accuse me of being delusional?
It's more that recently there has been a Pathfinder defense force around here.
Check the Paizo boards, it legitimately highlights the problems with the culture around the game and the game itself in much more elegant words than could be used here.
Seriously, search for Jiggy's martial/caster disparity myths thread. It's perfect.
>>47633952
You seem to think that complaining about a single issue merits changing systems. You also seem to think that changing systems magically fixes all problems and erases the opportunity for new complaints.
That's sort of why I'm calling you delusional. D&D is a good game, and as someone's who's done their tour of the roleplaying market several times over, it's not really a shock that people gravitate towards Dungeons and Dragons and would prefer to stick with it. They're well designed games built from a solid core.
You're right, in that people should explore new games and learn as much as they can about different systems. But, do you speak Korean, Russian, French, and Klingon? If not, you shouldn't really complain about people who prefer to speak English because it's convenient for them, even with its subjectively fucked up spelling, grammar, pronunciation and alphabet.
D&D is fine. Even good. Perhaps even great. There's no point in complaining about it as if it was the source of all misery in this world.
>>47634119
>You seem to think that complaining about a single issue merits changing systems. You also seem to think that changing systems magically fixes all problems and erases the opportunity for new complaints.
It doesn't mean you can't try something new, retard. These people, who identified themselves as "D&D players", were all too quick to deny that other TRPGs exist and can be enjoyable.
>>47634100
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t6ov?Dispelling-Myths-The-CasterMartial-Disparity
Link
>>47634119
Actually, you know what, you start off contradicting me then switch to agreeing with me. Thanks for moving your goal into my ball, I'm out.
>>47633861
Thats what my question was about. Is that because most alternatives to PF are just as broken or worse or due to something else.
>>47633512
It's ok. But it's definitely a system where the GM needs to look over everyone's sheets before playing, to put it generously.
>Is Pathfinder a bad game or is it a bad game even relative to other games?
Not as much as you'd think. No other game has had to suffer as much optimization analysis and deconstruction as 3.5/PF. The kind of stuff that's become common knowledge for Pathfinder is barely even documented for most other games.
>>47633512
Why is it that in half of the artwork for the pathfinder book that fighter guy is bleeding on the ground while the cleric heals him?
>>47633512
D20 is a well-loved and terribly misunderstood family of systems. When assessing the game, one always has to keep in mind that Wizards of the Coast produced 3.0. What were WotC good at? Collectible card games. So let's think about this "balance" issue through that lens.
Would a CCG in which every option was just as good as another be particularly good? It wouldn't have much in the way of deck construction, as a deck of random cards would be almost as good as one thoughtfully constructed. (Almost as good because there might be synergistic effects, although one might argue that these are unbalancing because of "snowballing".)
To phrase it another way, are there any good alternatives to PF or are they all just as shit?
>>47633512
It's bad relative to other games. If you just NEED the Pathfinder experience for whatever reason, play Legend. But there are so many games that are so much better for whatever you're trying to do. It's the fact that Pathfinder is so much more popular than all the other, better games that makes people so angry.Well, that's part of what makes people so angry, but the other things that make them angry aren't relevant to this specific thread.
>>47634977
Cause Valeros is kind of dumb and rushes into every monster encounter.
>>47635053
It depends on what you want.
If you want the D20 "deck construction" experience, there's really nothing else because the alternatives are all too conservative in their design to give the player meaningful choices. If you want something else - there are other options.
Personally, I think Pathfinder isn't fun for a few different reasons:
>too many rules
There are too many rules governing what actions you can and cannot take and how you can do so. It limits your creativity by spelling everything out and leaving little to the imagination. This can be ameliorated by a willing GM, but the game is written in such a way as to imply that's the WRONG thing to do.
>exceptions-based
With the constant splatbook churn more and more circumstantial rules have been added to the game to the point that no "general rule" is applicable anymore. There is always a bunch of of weird exceptions for any particular combinations of circumstances. This is less of a problem if you get rid of splatbooks but that removes one of what I would consider the game's strengths, which is its variety.
>poor balance
The game was never very well balanced due to the philosophy it inherited from 3.5 (fighters vs wizards, ivory tower design, etc) but the various splats have blown it apart.
>BLOAT
Probably my biggest problem with Pathfinder is the sheer amount of things to remember, which can be overwhelming. And those books cost money, though you can pore over the SRD.
>too much math, too much time
There are a lot of derived stats and a lot of math to be done, especially in the case of feats, spells, abilities, etc that modify existing rolls. Once you get past level 6 or so the game slows to a crawl. It can take literal hours to resolve just one combat encounter. There are ways around this, ie E6 rules, but a lot of people who play 3.PF games are in it to powergame big numbers.
>too much combat emphasis
In my opinion a too large proportion of the rules is dedicated to combat and related things; even the book about not being in combat has combat on the cover. This can also be fixed by a good GM but neither the game nor the audience seem to want it.
>awful community
Enough said.
>>47634977
Because even in the flavor text and illustrations, the martials are useless and the casters do everything.
>>47635023
That would make sense if the players were competing with one another.
Remember Blue in the first Pokémon games? It was fun to have a rival against whom you could sharpen your edge, and sometimes you'd beat him, sometimes he'd beat you, and you'd improve and build your team to be sure to trounce him next time.
It wouldn't be fun if you were forever punished for choosing the wrong starter and there was another trainer who started the game with a level 100 Dragonite who fought all your battles for you.
>>47633512
>is Pathfinder a bad game
No, but it does have some big problems (like pretty much every other game I've played).
The basic premise is solid but like many other games there are common balance issues.
I have more fun with it than with games that have good balance but a base premise or basic core mechanic I hate.
>is it a bad game even relative to other games?
This is a matter of opinion. I would say no. I'll play Pathfinder. The list of games I will no longer play at all is in the dozens.
>Are there systems that do what pathfinder does that aren't as broken?
>what pathfinder does
>Gonzo Magic Fantasy Superheroes & DemiGods.
Not really. Mutants and Masterminds, Champions. Both are pretty easy to break over your knee, and I personally have much more fun with PF than M&M.
GURPS, maybe.
>what butthurt anti-magic pathfinder players think pathfinder does
>medieval fantasy gaming & monster hunting, stuff like lord of the rings, or elric, or shannara
Sure! Lots of games
RuneQuest 6, OpenQuest, FantasyCraft, RoleMaster, HARN, HARNMaster, Some Varieties of Unisystem, WoD, and others.
>>47634614
>Is that because most alternatives to PF are just as broken or worse or due to something else?
Depends what you want. If you want basic medieval fantasy, there are tons of good options.
If you actually like pathfinder's level ~11-20 content, and enjoy the power that comes along with it, there's not much that's similar besides 3.5.
>>47633512
>Is Pathfinder a bad game?
In a word, yes. It's bad because of all the things it inherited from 3.5. WBL, fullcaster supremacy, NPC classes, the CR system balanced against the Fighter and assuming the WBL system is in play, splatbook bloat and "exception cases" where rules are changed with every splat. In addition, it has either brilliant or retarded devs who cater to the status quo.
Years of playing and DMing it have made me sick of it. If you like the game, more power to you, but I won't run or play it ever again.
>Okay, you've shat on it, but are there any good things about Pathfinder?
It's got a lot of options. I'll give it that. Having hundreds of choices is nice in principle, but the trap options are not in the game's favor. If you like having that many options, maybe GURPS is the game for you.
(please note that I don't own GURPS, nor have I ever played it. I have a single GURPS supplement, the conversion of Werewolf the Apocalypse that I picked up out of curiosity. I cannot advise you on the system in any way)
>Is Pathfinder bad relative to other games?
It depends. It really depends on what you want the system to do, and what kind of game you want to play. Do you want to play magical superheroes who will always get the gear on their wishlist and need more and more outrageously powerful encounters in order to challenge them? If yes, Pathfinder is what you want.
If you don't want that, then I'd suggest playing something else, because if you aren't banning splats or higher/lower tier classes, you're in for a bad time.
Honestly, what I would do is ask yourself what type of game you want. If you want a pseudo-medieval dungeoncrawl/hexcral game with gonzo elements, then classic D&D or OSR is probably what you want.
Or GURPS, or RuneQuest, or something else. You could probably run a decent low power game using the Storyteller system and the Dark Ages books for rules.
>>47637115
>If you want
A gonzo pseudo-medieval fantasy game about magical reality warping demigods (IE Tier 1-3 Pathfinder Characters by level 11), like you might read about in a Forgotten Realms novel that doesn't center on Drizz't, your other main options are:
>Mutants and Masterminds
>HERO System/Champions
>GURPS
>... nWoD/oWod Mage? It would take some real doing to make that one work.
>>47633730
>As long as you are playing in a good group, it should not be a major problem.
Unless somebody ends up playing a poorly optimized martial in the same party as a Druid. Then your druid basically just has two animal companions.
>>47635644
The Pokemon example isn't that illuminating. But I agree with the claim that the players are not competing against one another (i.e. they're not directly in opposition). Whether or not they're competing with one another is another question. I tend to think that the design encourages a bit of a footrace. Whether or not any particular person enjoys that is up to them!
>>47639524
To use a better pokemon example, imagine playing as the random level 3 rat that the trainer caught just to break rocks or push boulders, while he has his super-cool starter win all the battles.
You can't contribute in a fight, save to buy a turn by dying. Your only use is to move heavy things, which the starter could easily do as well, but doesn't because it would cut into his movepool.
>>47637268
>nWoD/oWoD Mage
The Sorcerer book (original, not revised) for oWoD would likely help. There's a merit that makes you immortal, for one thing.
>>47633512
Try fifth edition already. The only thing more broken than 3pf is FATAL
>>47633512
Forgive my grammar/run-ons, it's retarded late here.
It does one thing very well: near-cartoonish high-level games with so many different class-oriented mechanics and other shit interacting that one of the only ways to have it work is what Pathfinder has done.
Considering they're planning on releasing a space opera core book soon-ish that's intended to interact with its already myriad expansions and modules means that it's becoming less and less a continued example of 3.5; more and more a less math-intensive GURPS with a worse reputation but better sales.
I've played it for a few years now, and once we're done with our current campaign--whenever that is--I don't think I ever plan on revisiting it. I'm just not interested any more. It's gone from "My friends don't play anything else," to "I would really just spend this evening playing a rail-roaded but fast-playing vidya or read a book than touch that rule set after this last hurrah."
Between things like old and rusted mechanics from an era of games mostly past (OSR still goes strong, and their games are mostly far simpler) that include poor balance, a clear optimization meta (these past two as seen on GitP), unnecessary use of the full set of dice (honestly, why?), and hit points that act as bloat (honestly, the only one that matters is your last), that it's become a tremendous mess. It has a godawful community, it's rules-thick where it REALLY doesn't need to be, and it's very insistent on trying to be that one kitchen-sink rule set that has so much of EVERYTHING that why would you ever want to play another game, anon??
If you want to try it OP, please do. But keep in mind that there are other games, and that unless you just REALLY appreciate the 3.5 model (or you're already stuck in), after a while you're probably going to get sick of it for one reason or another. I have a pile, and I've moved on simpler, faster playing games that give me a better sense of flow, story, and fun.
>>47635053
If you want fast pace combat where martials can be actually fun to play check out Savage Worlds.
>>47641563
We played savage worlds fantasy and it was basically the wizard one-shotting everything with magic missile.
And of course also the usual "unpowered vs powered" stuff, where the wizard gets to fly and teleport and the martial gets to whack someone 3 times if he takes a huge penalty to hit (or a huge penalty to defense to offset the penalty to offense).
Mind you, it was still way more fun than playing a PF martial, and I enjoyed not being bogged down by the rules, and taking powers is open for everyone.
Also, the weapon balance all over the fucking place but w/e, that's why you've got fan supplements.
>>47641690
I may have jumped the gun with the recommendation. I ran my first game of Savage Worlds just yesterday and we had a blast.
Compared to Pathfinder it is really fun system far (then again so was Pathfinder before noticing the flaws).
On the Wizard thing: doesn't everyone pretty much one-shot all the extras? Although wizards can machinegun three of them per turn so they can be more efficient.
>>47634895
>No other game has had to suffer as much optimization analysis and deconstruction as 3.5/PF. The kind of stuff that's become common knowledge for Pathfinder is barely even documented for most other games.
I think this gets to the heart of the problem.
3.PF has been "solved" in a way that other games haven't been, and the Best Builds are like watching a five-minute speedrun of a game that normally takes days: victory, at the cost of cutting past >95% of content.
And once you've seen it, you can't un-see it: you'll always have the reminder that "crouching at this wall will reveal the secret door and let you skip past the Cave of Trials" in the game, or "taking this particular feat/spell will neutralize 25% of known monsters". Much of the content now gets seen as a boring detour, rather than a normal part of gameplay. The Evocation school, with its iconic Fireball, gets regarded as shit by "pro wizards"
The closest other system I know of that was analyzed in a similar manner was Exalted 2e, and it got similar levels of hate until it had a massive overhaul in the 2.5 patch.
>>47641786
>On the Wizard thing: doesn't everyone pretty much one-shot all the extras? Although wizards can machinegun three of them per turn so they can be more efficient.
That, and their single target shot deals more damage than the heaviest crossbow available.
An enemy wizard basically oneshot my (fighter-ish) character as well, for example.
Take this with a grain of salt of course, it's been years since we played and we did have good fun.
>>47641915
Sure, maybe that plays a part, but shit like the druids animal companion being worth more than the fighter is pretty fucking apparent right from the get go if you do ANY amount of analysis.
I mean, I KNOW I'm not the only one who had "core only finesse fighter and druid with bear in the same group" happen, and that was before I started using the internet for things.
13th Age is pretty good if you want Pathfinder high-powered gonzo but more balanced.
It's still not GREAT balance, but it's BETTER.
You need to talk about what you like about the game.
High fantasy? I can nominate so many similar games.
Level of crunch?
Character building?
You need to give parameters before recommendations can be given. Otherwise I can only give the 'most similar' good game, which is 13th Age.
I've heard decent things about Radiance, but it looked just like a lower-budget, slightly better balanced Pathfinder. Still full of kludge.
>>47642160
>I mean, I KNOW I'm not the only one who had "core only finesse fighter and druid with bear in the same group" happen, and that was before I started using the internet for things.
I agree. But what I'm getting at is that this kind of shit happens in many systems; 3.PF is just the one where it is most common knowledge, and there was a subculture dedicated to the speedrun-equivalent of how hard you could break the hell out of the game.
Exalted 2e had its own "the fighter is an extra animal companion" issues where social influence was mostly worthless because I CAST FIST was a perfect defense against social attacks, most attack options were worthless because perfect defenses against them were ubiquitous and cheaper than the attack, combat was a game of attrition that tended to devolve into either "ambush->ded" or "whiff whiff whiff whiff whiff whiff whiff whiff whiff dead", people would occasionally stumble into "I accidentally invincibility to everything" builds, and high-level combat had strict participation requirements: go 2/7+RST or go home.
>>47642423
That's mostly a White Wolf problem, because almost nobody associated with that company actually thought about game design. Justin Achilli once said of Vampire "we made the rules bad so you wouldn't use them".
Things have gotten somewhat better in 3e, but not by much.
And you STILL get retards who look at any semblance of decent game design, and start screaming VIDEO GAME VIDEO GAME WOW MMO
>>47633512
Nothing does what PF does at this point with one exception.
Rolemaster is the only other game that has no level limits and a class for every option, including science fiction and dark space genres.
Yes, it's broken. It's also got most of the genre's covered without being GURPS.
>>47633861
PF haters really believe this.
>>47634119
>D&D is fine. Even good. Perhaps even great.
I never played anything besides 3.5 and PF, I like those systems, yet I still can't say those are good, even when I can't compare them to anything else.
>>47642160
>core only finesse fighter and druid with bear in the same group
Exactly what happened to me, except it was a wolf so it was also tripping people.
Even my noobish self was able to compare my fighter to that and see how much he sucked
Nobody has so far managed to provide me with an alternative to DnD. You get recommendations for incredibly broad generalist systems or games about vampires and space marines and cyberpunk and shit, but what if I just want to play a kitchen sink fantasy game? Surely if DnD was worse than genocide but this popular, someone has come up with a system that fixes DnD's flaws while retaining the flavor? Yet, most of /tg/ is still playing DnD, and the most vocal of DnD haters can't suggest any alternatives except games utterly different in tone or setting.
>>47643914
If we're taking specifically heroic fantasy games with elves and wizards and shit then I have in the past enjoyed
>Earthdawn
>Fantasy Craft
>Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
>Strike!
There's plenty of variance there. FC and Strike! require you build your own setting and decide what options are available to the characters, though they approach it with very different philosophies. In Earthdawn everyone is a caster, literally, while WFRP is for a lower magic game with a few historical elements.
They're all basically D&D. But if what you want is precisely D&D, then keep playing D&D.
>>47644049
New guy and new DM coming into the thread, I'd notionally chosen Pathfinder pretty much out of a hat to use as a starting system, but I always had the idea of tossing out the setting and writing my own. Fantasy Craft and Strike! interest me as a result; can you give me an overview on how the pair of them work? I'm still looking for that high fantasy feel, but not perhaps with magic being all over the place.
>>47643914
You're retarded and lazy. People have posted fantasy alternatives since the beginning of this thread and in every other thread where "don't play D&D" gets posted a lot.
>>47644199
Honestly, just go with 5e as a new game. Play it for a bit and answer these questions three:
>I don't like that there are so many rules
Use a lighter system, either OSR or HeroQuest or even Dungeon World
>I like the crunch, but I would like some more interesting and make-sense gameplay
Try RuneQuest 6 for terrific rules and gritty battles with a good amount of plot armor, or try something like Fantasy Craft that has more crazy shit in there and more options
>I like this game
Then keep with it, there's a huge player base and lots of media based on it with the many streams and podcasts going on. I encourage you to branch out and try new systems and begin taking what you like from a large variety of things and tell the stories you want to the way you want to. There's far worse out there than 5e to do so.
>>47641915
>The closest other system I know of that was analyzed in a similar manner was Exalted 2e, and it got similar levels of hate until it had a massive overhaul in the 2.5 patch.
Within a month, one person was saying that all you'll do in exalted 2e's combat is use perfect defenses. Paranoia combat happened sooner than anyone was willing to admit.
Even pathfinder took longer than that to get to the level of analysis if you "adopt" the idea that it's merely a rules update to 3.5. If you consider Pathfinder a separate game, than it was faster. Pathfinder was fully spaded before it was born.
>>47645961
Alright cheers, I'll give it a look. Honestly I hadn't thought about looking into 5e much after hearing about 4e, and steering clear of edition war threads. Is there a link floating around somewhere for the rulebook and essentials so I can give it a once over?
>>47641915
>>47646363
Hey at least 3e has fixed basically all of those problems. Not perfect or anything but its pretty great.
>>47634614
So the longer answer is that most systems have serious flaws, just like Pathfinder. Which flaws the system has depends on the system. Dungeon World, for example, is very rules light. That means that problems of optimization dont really happen, but it creates new problems where the system is so shallow that it is basically playing pretend with friends and some dice. If that sounds good to you, Dungeon World is a great system! If not, its just as flawed as PF.
And pretty much every system has these issues. If its a high crunch (read: rules heavy) system, there are always logical and thematic flaws with it. Shadowrun armor makes you easier to kill. Gurps rules are all over the place and have some serious balance issues. Mutants and masterminds has balance issues even though its kinda rules light. And all of those 3 have HORRIBLE sourcebooks that make their rules even more confusing.
PF is flawed, its true. But at least its easy to reference rules thanks to the wiki, its rules make some sort of sense, and if you have played for a while it rewards your knowledge. So these are all things that keep people in the game rather than switching.
