>Had a great game of 3.5 last night
>Everyone had fun, and we'll be playing again next week
This triggers the faggot.
spellcaster edition
Play a game of real D&D with new books coming out all the time, like 4e
You're having fun wrong
Unbalanced
>Had a great game of F.A.T.A.L. last night
>Everyone had fun, and we'll be playing again next week
>Friday I played anima
>Like for over a year
>It's a great system
>We have fun
>Next day we played GURPS
>Then today we laugh at the mongoloids on /tg/ that are unable to do basic math
>>47623367
That's cool. Nobody minds people wasting their own time. The reason people get ass blasted by editions are somebody is trying to assert an incorrect fact.
Like, 3.5 is objectively awful but that doesn't diminish your enjoyment of it. Just don't go around pretending it's good.
>>47623417
>triggered faggot who doesn't know what "objectively" means
Oh, it's you. You never do stop shitposting, do you?
>>47623423
That's fair. It is subjective which is better but becomes objective when we quantify what the systems are good at.
An example: 3.5 is objectively awful at being fast, streamlined, fun, and not being used exclusively by furries and ERPers when compared to literally every other system.
>>47623385
>Need to buy more lube first though.
>>47623446
Why do you post here if it triggers you so much that you can't stop shitposting every time its mentioned? It's like going to /an/ when you can't stand the sight of cats.
Have you considered gouging out your eyes? It's clear that you will never stop shitposting otherwise.
>>47623446
>objective
Learn what that means before you use it, you faggot. "Muh opinion" is not the same as fact, regardless of how strongly deluded you are.
>>47623367
Sure it's fun doesn't make it good.
Getting raped by burly black men with friends can be fun, doesn't mean it's good for your mental health.
>>47623472
Dude I don't lurk DnD threads at all. I just saw this amd thought it would be fun to editionpost like the good ol days.
The point of this thread is clearly to start an argument and it's funny because the only thing 3.5ers have in their wheelhouse is "dude I'm having fun so like fuck off".
The core of edition fighting isn't what is more fun for the players but which is better as a system. I enjoy those wargames with the little square pieces that take 8 hours to play and I find 3.5 to be dense for the sake of density. The worst part is that this density adds nothing mechanically or thematically other than to bog the game down.
>>47623485
Being good makes it good.
Sorry you were raped by black men and somehow you mentally connected that with a great game, to the point where you need to shitpost all the time about it. You probably should go to a pschyiatrist.
>>47623529
>Your mind on 3.5
I'm sorry senpai. It's to late for you, you're the meth addict of the RPG world now.
>>47623455
The same thing can be said about OP.
>>47623517
No, it's funny, because there's really no need to defend the game. Everyone already knows that its great.
What's funny is that morons like you get triggered at the mere mention of the game, because you see it as some "GREAT ENEMY" that must be defeated, like you're doing a service by shitposting at every available opportunity, and that somehow your shitposting will one day make the games you play good.
>>47623558
>triggered
That's like the 8th time you said that. This is a new level of shitposting. If we were playing 3.5 right now we would have to consult 12 tables and a splat book to figure out just how high level this shit posting is.
>>47623603
What word would you prefer to describe people who get ridiculously upset whenever they see something that they've decided to build up in themselves as the equivalent of a personal Satan?
You're triggered. You fly into a fury when ever you see two numbers and a bit of punctuation. You think that your shitposting somehow does anything except make you look like a bitter contrarian, a bitter contrarian who thinks that the gaming world is a zero-sum game and that one game's popularity is the source of all of your personal problems.
>>47623558
>Everyone already knows that its great.
By that same token, League of Legends is great, despite being an unbalanced piece of shit with an awful, toxic fanbase.
Popularity =/= quality.
>>47623863
No, by the same token, [thing that you like that is also popular] is great.
There IS something that you like that is also popular, right? You're not just a bitter contrarian in every aspect of your life, right?
>>47623892
>There IS something that you like that is also popular, right?
>Popularity =/= quality.
Anon Popularity and quality are not inherently connected to each other.
>>47623367
>It's an 'insist 3.5 is totally fine and has no problems' episode
The biggest problem with 3.5 is it's popularity
It's too popular, too endemic, too common. And the mindset that comes with it is the same, it's unavoidable.
There's nothing wrong with liking 3.5, there's nothing wrong with playing 3.5. There is something wrong with not being able to recognise it's enormous glaring flaws, or ignoring all other games in favour of it.
Fortunately, this mindset appears to be dying off. 5e is growing in popularity and is similar enough to 3.5 to avoid getting lambasted by them, but is lacking in 3.5's most glaring flaws. So hopefully, we will see ithe mindset disappear soon.
So OP, good for you,enjoy your RPGs with your friends. There is nothing wrong with enjoying it.
Just don't be a fool and pretend it's an excellent system or anything
>>47624670
But it is an excellent system. While it does have some issues, those hardly outweigh all the positive aspects of the game.
To try and force this meme of "it's not great" is basically ignoring all the parts that made it so much fun to play, and while I can agree that the game has evolved and that 5e is the superior system, to pretend that 3.5 isn't a better system than the overwhelming majority that you can find on the market is simply failing to understand what makes a system great.
>>47624749
Well I guess it all depends on your definition of "excellent"
It is a good system, but I can not think of a single campaign that I would rather run in 3.5 than another system, and that is why I do not consider an "excellent" system
>>47624749
You're trying way too hard, OP. Everybody can see that, that's why nobody is getting baited.
Try again tomorrow.
>>47624749
So what makes it so great, then? What aspect of it have you discovered that apparently a decade's worth of play, research, and deconstruction by hundreds of people have somehow missed?
>>47624749
Except 3.5 isn't even as good as 2e. Changing THAC0 to BAB was arguably the only real positive change?
>>47623558
>4452 Games
>16512 Players
You must really, really suck at analytics.
>>47623558
>Pathfinder averages around 2 players per game
That's just depressing
>>47624749
>While it does have some flaws
Kill your self you shit lord pathfinder has flaws 3.5 is perfect
>>47623367
I love 3.5, but I don't delude myself into thinking it is perfect. I'm talking Wizards of the Coast 3.5, not Pathfinder. I see it through the lens of nostalgia because I enjoyed playing it so much in college. That being said, try grappling something without a CMB or CMD to make it clear what the outcome is. Try having your fighter get into a solo boss fight against a wizard. Try duking it out with minions who all deal vile damage in the setting where cleric and pallys are rare. Try doing opposed caster level checks or cleric turning without needing to look up what happens. Heck, try surviving a turn against an Iaijutsu Master- because the DM treats that like Frank's RedHot, and puts that shit on everything. The game was good, but by no stretch of the imagination perfect.
>>47625366
>>47624772
I honestly think that 3rd edition Oriental Adventures is one of the best incarnations of the Legend of the Five Rings.
I've always thought Rokugan was a great setting, but the l5r system itself was just not built for the extremely combat heavy games I tend to play.
>>47625586
I think you've missed the point of Rokugan as a setting
>>47625701
You're right in the sense that the politics bores me.
Crab Clan best clan.
>>47625719
Yeah, I don't think you should be using the setting at all
Try a different setting for psuedo-Japanese stuff.
>>47625749
Please, tell me more about how exciting your games are. You probably play as Crane courtiers and compose tanka all day while sipping persimmon flavored tea and lamenting the loss of both Yasuki wars.
>>47625861
No, I typically prefer mantis and the yasuki family
Mercantile in a world where money is not supposed to be valued, but totally is.
Exploring the contradictions of the society and weaving your way through the social rules when everyone already wants to kill you, and but needs a justifiable excuse to make it happen
>>47623367
A good group can have fun with any system.
This doesn't mean the system is good.
This also doesn't mean it matters that the system is bad, if you're managing to have fun anyway.
I know that 3.5/PF is unbalanced, but I still feel like it has a lot of advantages that many people overlook.
It has a bunch of great settings to choose from. You could play another generic fantasy game, but it won't have the same cosmology or the same unique monsters. It has optional rules for everything from city building to naval combat, something that an average hack and slash would overlook. The interactions between many of the rules are especially fun. All of the rules are free and easily referencable from an online database, something that other game publishers are just too stingy to allow. This comes with people actually being allowed to make and sell third party content.
It's not as if other popular systems like WoD and Shadowrun don't have their fair share of broken shit.
>>47626019
No, a system can be bad while still having fun with it. That just means you're having fun in spite if the system rather than because of it. You would likely be having just as much fun with anything else, if not more.
>>47626077
This.
>>47626116
>>47626019
Yawn.
>>47626077
If you want D&D cosmology and settings, every other edition also exists.
If you want generic fantasy hack and slash, why do you care about city building and naval combat rules? You don't need rules for everything, and the ones 3.5 has for everything aren't even very good
>>47626077
You are not wrong
But the terrible balance is not actually the main reason why people hate 3.5
>>47626181
Yeah, but I don't want a generic hack and slash, I want a comprehensive system that has options for things like that, unlike 4e and 5e which avoid it entirely.
For years I've been told to stop playing DnD but I'm yet to be pointed towards an alternative.
>stop playing DnD
>okay, what system would you suggest
>try this game about vampires in the modern day or this game about space marines or this game about anime maids or this generalist system which is just freeform with d6s
>no no you don't understand I want to play in a kitchen-sink fantasy setting, clearly since DnD is so bad but there is enormous demand for it someone somewhere could've made a game which fixes 3.PF's supposed flaws while maintaining the flavor?
>...BUTTHURT 3.5ABOO!
>>47626210
GURPs
Literally any other edition of DnD
>>47626190
The main reason people hate 3.5 is because people have fun with it despite being told they're not allowed to.
>>47626200
>I want rules for absolutely everything
>God forbid I have to think
>Or worse, make something up
More rules doesn't make a system good.
>>47626077
>It has a bunch of great settings to choose from
Beyond Eberron though, most of the settings predate 3.5. There's 3rd-party settings to pick from, sure, but how many of them are unique to 3.5 and not transported from other systems during the d20 boom? And of the uniquely 3.X settings, how many of them are 1) still around, and 2) still lauded as good?
None of the settings barring perhaps Planescape require using D&D rules to play, either. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from using a different ruleset to play in those settings.
>It's not as if other popular systems like WoD and Shadowrun don't have their fair share of broken shit.
I'm guessing you don't mean to do this, but just because other systems have broken rules doesn't excuse 3.5 from having a broken ruleset.
>>47626116
That doesn't contradict anything I said.
>>47626226
Then you are ignoring the system in the first place if you are just making up rules for it. Why not just make a homebrew system at that point? Face it, 5E doesn't have nearly as much content at previous editions, and I don't just mean different variations of magic missile.
There is a subset of players who have something wrong with them that try to shoehorn EVERYTHING into 3.5's system which is barely good for what its designed for. Or who simply refuse to play anything else.
That is how you get idiots suggesting Pathfinder for a Metal Gear Solid style tactical operating game.
>>47626200
And how many rules do you need for building a city or doing naval combat? Is of worth having to use the rest of the system just so you can have a page on how much it costs to construct a fortress?
>>47626220
I've been getting into 5e but /tg/ barely tolerates it as well.
GURPS is too generalist for my tastes.
>>47624907
>>4452 Games
>>16512 Players
>You must really, really suck at analytics
~3.7 players per game doesn't seem unreasonable. What is your point?
>>47626210
I like 3.pf, and one system alternativeif you want to call it thatis Microlite20,
A little simpler system for people to learn, 17 pages long, works on the SRD/PSRD, and it's free.
pretty sweet little thing.
going to be running it soon for some friends.
>>47626252
>Then you are ignoring the system in the first place if you are just making up rules for it. Why not just make a homebrew system at that point?
This is really funny coming from a 3.5 player, when most people playing are ignoring half the tables and rules in the game and house ruling anyway
>>47626190
>But the terrible balance is not actually the main reason why people hate 3.5
It's absolutely the case with me. I played a lot--a LOT--of 3.5, ranging from level 1 scrub-tier to reality-altering 20+ campaigns, and I had enough experience with the system to know just how imbalanced and broken it is.
It's dense and complicated just for the reason of being dense and complicated, and the wildly differing power levels between classes--hell, between CASTER classes too--is blatant once you look at it with a critical eye. The whole thing is busted, right from the core, and I realized that I could be having more enjoyment out of other systems without having to wrangle 3.5's weirdly obtuse bullshit to make it work.
That, and running games is a chore. I do enough homework as it is, I don't want to be doing it as prep-work for an ostensibly enjoyable past-time.
>>47626200
>I want a comprehensive system that has options for things like that
Why?
>>47626220
>GURPS
This meme needs to die. GURPS is ironically the exact opposite of what it tries to be.
It's a game that pretends it can do anything, and ends up just doing everything poorly.
>>47626255
Missing the point.
More options=more personalization available to the world builder and his players.
3.PF is a more easily understood (i.e. less math heavy and less "GM allows this or not") GURPS now. That's what it has always been aimed for, all the way since AD&D, where there were rules in the DMG for science fiction and class building.
It's always been meant to have everything shoehorned into it.
>>47626252
Most of that content was taking focus away from the players. Once you get into city building and army management, why do the players need characters? D&D was never meant to be a game of SimCity.
Also, the first part of your post is just blatantly false.
>>47626222
Yes, and no
It's because people refuse other options
The OGL does high-magic psuedo-medieval fantasy with vancian magic systems very well, but nothing else. Star Wars d20 is shit, Oriental Adventures was the worst official 3.5 product and that's saying something, d20 modern is an abomination that should never have existed.
I do enjoy 3.5 from time to time, I only started to hate it when a friend of mine asked me to join his high lethality game about hunting vampires in modern day chicago, and was using 3.5 to run it when Hunter: The Vigil was RIGHT THERE
>>47626312
>It's a game that pretends it can do anything, and ends up just doing everything poorly.
But enough about D&D.
>>47626190
It's what got me to stop playing. Being a Finesse Fighter alongside a monk in a party that had a Druid.
Guess who the best CC fighter in the party was?
>>47626311
What if the players are actually important individuals, who are able to buy their own boat or have risen to important positions in the kingdom? Whereas in 5e, you will have to stick with murderhoboing. Of course it won't be the focus of the campaign, but having rules for that allows for a much greater degree of customization than other games (Except GURPS, I will concede that it is legitimately superior to all versions of D&D other than the ugly artwork).
>>47626316
But it doesn't actually do those things well. It doesn't matter if you have rules for everything if the rules are overcomplicated shit.
>>47626329
You're thinking d20, not D&D.
And, yes, d20 can hypothetically do everything well. The core of its mechanics revolve around one of the simplest and easiest to use resolution methods, making it readily adaptable to just about any genre or style of game.
>>47626077
As a DM I find that most of 3.5 and Pathfinder's optional rules are bored to the point of uselessness.
Strongholds, businesses, mass warfare, country building, ritual sacrifice, etc range from barely working to being such a hassle wit a payout so low no PC will ever willingly use them
Like 3.5 has some nice books like Lords of Madness, Elder Evils, Magic of Incarnum, Weeaboo Fightan Magic, and the binder parts of Tome of Magic, but pulling out 3.5s shitty optional rules is only hurting any argument you'd present.
>>47626340
>What if the players are actually important individuals, who are able to buy their own boat or have risen to important positions in the kingdom?
>Whereas in 5e,
"Hey GM, how much is a boat?"
"I'll say 5000 gold. That seems fair."
Yeah, you really needed a page for boat costs, didn't you?
>>47626328
>It's because people refuse other options
>You can't possibly have fun, you should play anything else, even if you are having fun because your fun is badwrongfun.
This is always your argument.
Every.
Single.
Time.
>>47623863
>unbalanced piece of shit
That's intentional, though. Constantly "fixing" the balance issues only to have new things pop up is how the company artificially ensures continuing player interest.
>>47626392
If you're having fun, then keep having fun. Just stop pretending that the system is good, because it isn't.
>>47626340
>What if the players are actually important individuals, who are able to buy their own boat or have risen to important positions in the kingdom?
Play a system that is good at handling that. D&D is absolutely horrible for large-scale political and economical stuff.
>>47623367
I don't have the picture with the car analogy but it summarises my argument perfectly:
When you go on a road trip, and all you've got is a rusty, beat up old banger of a car with no AC and an engine that makes funny noises when you brake, you can still have fun if you've got good friends, good food and good times.
Doesn't mean the car is good.
>>47626312
>everything poorly
It is one of the best games around for several genres, stop this bullshit.
>>47626408
But it is good. It's got a lot of great options to choose from with fantastic flavor and interesting mechanics, and your decisions actually have weight and value. There's so many different ways you can build a character, and so many ways to interact with the world in exciting and dramatic ways, that it's no wonder that even to this day there are games that can't help but copy it in one way or another.
In fact, it's better than good, it's great. There are so many great books and exciting adventures, that the only game that can really compete with it is its predecessor. And, luckily, it's semi-compatible with it's predecessor, making it easy to convert the wealth of fantastic material over.
Add that to what was the largest homebrew community in roleplaying game history, and you've got a system that is really a gem of the RPG world.
>>47626500
But how many people actually want to play accountants struggling to meet their paperwork deadlines?
>>47626500
Which genres?
I want to try GURPS, but have no idea where to start with it, it's so huge
>>47626535
In the game or in IRL?
because GUROS is both.
>>47626586
>GURPS can do both.
I messed that up.
>>47626510
No it isn't. The classes are unbalanced, and trap options abound, so most character concepts that might sound neat are actually trash. The mechanics aren't interesting. They're all tedious bullshit for things that don't need that much detail, and tries to mix realism and abstraction in the worst ways.
Literally the only thing it has going for it is have booms and books full of rules, but 99% of that is crap anyway.
Seriously, have you heard of the idea of quality over quantity? It doesn't matter if you have 100 character options instead of 20 if only 7 of the 100 are viable.
I'd almost think you were trolling if there weren't 3.P fans brainwashed and brain damaged enough to actually believe this.
>>47626535
Very funny.
>>47626577
Well its great at anything involving combat whether hand to hand or tactical operating. Great for espionage, cyberpunk and near future sci-fi stuff too.
For starting though just use GURPS Lite.
>>47626340
You don't need rules to do any of that, though. Set a price, players buy it, bam they have a boat. Tracking every little minutiae and requiring some sort of sub-system to purchase and maintain a boat is silly.
Unless you require explicit rules to do anything in a system, in which case it's not the system at fault for that--it's you.
>>47626375
Even 2e tried to shoe-horn a bunch of stuff that simply didn't work within the framework of the mechanics. As much as I like Spelljammer, the actual rules for ships were awful.
While d20 can hypothetically do anything, in practice that's not the case unless you're willing to radically alter the mechanics. M&M had to rework the system basically from the ground up in order to do a superhero game, just to present one (rather popular) example.
>>47626405
I see your point. But doing that in a video game is one thing; doing it with a tabletop RPG is quite another.
>>47626510
None of those are solely a 3.5 thing.
>>47626577
Choose a genre.
Read the book about that genre.
that will tell you everythign you need to know about how to run that genre. Ignore the rules at first, just read the rest of the book.
THEN get the core book and start the winnowing process that is deciding how you want the game to go.
Why do people keep defending a system that deliberately includes options designed to catch out new players?
Making experienced players feel smart is not an excuse for actively hostile game design.
>>47626510
Don't bother. They are brain damaged to the point of being unable to accept that 3.PF can be anything other than that game they hate.
>>47623367
So you started a thread with the goal of irritating some unknown person? Suite life anon.
>>47626388
Not neccesarily for the cost, but for naval combat if it ever comes to that. You would of course want a system for using a boat if it came to the point where you were attacked at high seas by pirates or a sea monster of some sort.
>>47626510
This sounds more like advertising than opinion.
>>47626252
Then you are ignoring the system in the first place if you are just making up rules for it. Why not just make a homebrew system at that point?
>>47626312
It's a game that pretends it can do anything, and ends up just doing everything poorly
>>47626644
>They are brain damaged to the point of being unable to accept that 3.PF can be anything other than that game they hate.
Where were you when 3.Pfags started using anti-3.P arguments to support their points?
>>47623446
I wonder what sort of fuckbad system you play to be so anally devastated. Using "furries" as pejorative pretty much excludes Exalted and 4E... I guess "streamlined" points at you being a 5tard.
>>47626636
>None of those are solely a 3.5 thing.
That's kind of like saying "Going fast isn't solely a Venom GT thing" or "Being tall isn't solely an Everest thing".
>>47626697
And you know what I'd do then? I'd just continue playing the game, because its not ad difficult as you're making it.
I ran a 4e game where the party traveled by ship multiple times, attacked each one, including by sea serpents that attacked the boat. I never ran into an issue with not having dedicated naval combat rules.
>>47626730
>It ends up doing everything poorly
Every single GURPS book has more research put into it than WotC could ever bother with. I would like to see how monks in D&D are somehow better to play than GURPS Martial Arts with the different stances and maneuvers. 5e babies are just as delusional as 3.5 fanboys.
>>47623517
>he only thing 3.5ers have in their wheelhouse is "dude I'm having fun so like fuck off".
Also, being the best fantasy system out there except for Pathfinder, which is basically the same shit.
>>47626786
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
>>47626775
>Every single GURPS book has more research put into it than WotC could ever bother with.
>delusional
>>47626806
It has best rules, with the best combination of balance and options, best support, and pretty much best everything. It single-handedly saved the RPG market from falling apart.
>>47626734
4e has furries?
Moreso than Pathfinder?
Or only moreso than 3.5?
>>47626752
>>47626752
No, it's not really like that, because most of the statements given were blatantly wrong anyway.
You can have a crappy ford pickup truck, and say that it works well for you. It might not be as fast as fast other cars, but it can carry a bunch of stuff in the back. Of course, other trucks can do that as well, sometimes better, but hwy, you like your truck.
But then you go to a car show, and start bragging about how your pickup truck is way faster if you dump out all that garbage you're hauling around, or that it'll carry way more than another truck. Then everyone there gives you a strange look and tries to explain how you're wrong, only for you to scoff at them. After all, you love your truck. You invested a lot of time into it. It has to be the best, right? You won't admit that your truck is bad, or that you could find a better one. You insist its the best to feel vindicated in your choice.
>>47626868
>4e has furries?
4E had furries as a core fucking race, which neither 3.5 or PF did.
>>47626860
You can keep saying "best" whatever all you want, it doesn't mean anything.
>It single-handedly saved the RPG market from falling apart.
False.
>>47626874
>this is what people who hate 3.PF really believe
>>47626900
You can deny the facts all you want, it doesn't mean anything.
>>47626860
So, literally just you saying the word best and acting like it isn't a lie?
Well, color me convinced. Surely my own experiences don't prove that blatantly false.
>>47626915
The point is that people don't hate 3.5
They hate you
>>47626874
You are the one who wants to brag about your putrid pickup truck on a car show, but is too afraid of mockery. Therefore you go on 4chan, where your idiotic opinions are safely anonymous.
>>47626915
>implying it's wrong
>>47626917
You haven't presented one single fact to backup your claims, but I'm the one in denial.
Yeah, sure, okay. Let's go with that.
>>47626930
So, literally just you going about your own experiences and acting like they prove anything except you being an idiot?
>>47626860
So why exactly does it have the best anything, then? Please, go into detail as to why.
Also,
>It single-handedly saved the RPG market from falling apart.
Whether or not it saved anything is up for debate, but what isn't is that it nearly killed the market once the 3.x boom busted.
>>47626953
>you're an outcast because you go on 4chan
You're here too dipshit
>>47626967
>You haven't presented one single fact to backup your claims,
I did. At least two of my three statements are solid facts.
>but I'm the one in denial.
You are.
>>47626806
What are you expecting? We're discussing opinions here, and regardless of how much you hope to make "objective" claims, all you really end up doing is deluding yourself into believing that your personal tastes extend beyond your own head.
Facts? It's got one of the most comprehensive spell and monster lists in any fantasy game. It's got a robust combat system with thousands of options for players and hundreds of thousands of options for DMs, with a myriad of ways to modify and adjust characters and enemies with things like prestige classes, templates, and items to make it one of the most impressive collections of fantasy (and more) ideas ever collected together in a single system.
Now, if we want to talk opinions, we can then discuss how good or bad those components are, and you can even try to squirrel around and pretend that offering DMs and Players a wealth of ideas to inspire them is bad, but you can't deny just how amazing the scope of the system is from a fantasy roleplaying game perspective.
>>47626893
I had to look this up
Dragonborn right? It is a furry race, yes. But have you seen 3.5 dragonborn?
>>47626980
Well, me own experiences, plus the 500 other times we've had this thread and more and more flaws with the system get pointed out as 3.pfags continue to ignore them and insist everything is fine.
>>47627003
All of your statements are just '3.5 is the best' which is an opinion, and not a very good one.
>>47627006
I think that the main point is that they are a race in the core rulebook, while other furry races are not so much. PF/3.5 has more furry races by merit of being the older system with more content, so if you are judging by that merit then PF/3.5 is the most furry game by far.
>>47626988
>So why exactly does it have the best anything, then? Please, go into detail as to why.
Go into detail for the sake of either an idiot who refuses to see the obvious or a shitposter? Get better b8 or present actual criticism of 3.X as a sign of arguing on good faith.
>Whether or not it saved anything is up for debate,
It's not.
>but what isn't is that it nearly killed the market once the 3.x boom busted.
Because 3.x was (and pretty much still is) the market.
>>47627032
And yet people are using that glut of options and splats as a point in the system's favor.
>>47626874
I like this metaphor
I think I'll use it to explain why I like 3.5
It's beaten up, it doesn't shift gears right, and smells a bit funny, but damn it, it's mine and I love it
>>47627049
Honest criticism? How about how easily those 'options' can lead to a worthless character or something completely gamebreaking?
>>47627023
>All of your statements are just '3.5 is the best'
Learn2read.
>>47623558
What the fuck the difference between other games and other listed games?
>>47627069
And that's fine. I am 100% okay with that as a reason to like 3.5.
>>47626860
>3.5
>Balance
>>47627049
But 5E sells more than 3.PF and has more players than it too
So stating that 3.x is the market is just wrong
>>47627078
Really, was >>47626860 not you?
>It has best rules, with the best combination of balance and options, best support, and pretty much best everything
>best
>best
>best
>best
These aren't facts
>>47627032
My point was on the nature of dragonborn
4e dragonborn toned down the furry massively compared to 3.5 dragonborn.
I'd say a better measure, considering that 3.5's main strength is content, is a percentile measure of official races, which percent of the official, playable races are furry?
Maybe limit it to only LA1 for 3.5, because 3.5 has way too fucking many races
>>47627089
Other games is a listing option, IE homebrew systems or systems that Roll20 doesn't have as part of their official list
Other listed games are other games that they categorize, but cut off for the short chart. If you want, you can go and look at the full chart on the Roll20 website.
>>47627005
>most comprehensive spell list
Hundreds of spells that fully half the classes can't use, which take up a hideous amount of space, and where maybe 60% of those spells are worth taking.
>monster lists
Same complaints as the spell list, only with the additional point that a great deal of the monsters are wildly imbalanced--either under performing, over performing, or just flat-out boring.
>robust combat system
Which most of the time you're not going to interact with. Either with a spell invalidating the combat in a single round, or where options are not worth doing under any circumstance unless you're hyper-focused towards that one maneuver (trip or disarm, for example).
>thousands of options for DMs
Many of those options, if you follow them to the letter, bog them down and require additional work on their part.
>prestige classes, templates
A lot of these are junk.
>items
A lot of these are also junk, or overpowered. Especially magic items made for casters.
>>47627089
Don't quote me on this, but I think Listed Games are the ones that are actually supported by Roll20, and Other Games are the ones that aren't.
Like, you could play Noumenon on there, but you're not going to find a character sheet or specific macros for it like if you played Savage Worlds or D&D.
>>47627069
>>47626965
Yes. It's flat out wrong, and comes from the perspective of a person triggered by 3.5's popularity and continued popularity.
I can sympathize a little, because I can understand how it must have felt to endure 3rd edition's popularity at its height when you might have personally disliked it. Every day, reminded that so many people love it, and being unable to shake the feeling that there's something fundamentally wrong with yourself, which you then end up projecting onto the millions of people who enjoy something you are too emotionally and mentally crippled to enjoy.
And then, when 4e came out, you thought to yourself "Yes, finally 3rd edition will disappear! I can finally let go of this anger that's been boiling my blood black!"
But, it didn't disappear. And even now, with 5e D&D out alongside thousands of other games since 2000, it still remains popular, more popular than all but 5e itself.
How it must eat at your little soul.
Still, that's hardly an excuse to shitpost as much as you can whenever someone mentions how great the game is.
Makes you look pretty petty.
>>47626775
See while I say that a well researched product is both a blessing and a curse.
A blessing because people know what they are talking about, but also can over complicate things.
Now, this whole argument comessage from just reading the gurps general pic, so I don't know how complicated they make it, per say, it just comes from me as a person talking over people's heads when we talk about American Expansion/Imperialism/Cold War history.
I also like GURPS, not only can it do allot of things, it uses one type of dice, which is a huge plus.
It's just really hard to find people willing to play it.any recommendations of books I would need for an After the Bomb/TMNT style game?
>>47627193
>Projecting so hard you're being rented out at offices for powerpoint presentations
>>47627073
>How about how easily those 'options' can lead to a worthless character or something completely gamebreaking?
They don't. That "easiness" you speak about is the result of 15-years non-stop optimization effort and to be true the second part of your statement should read "how easily those 'options' can to something completely gamebreaking if you trawl through the forums for a netbuild or a way to abuse a seemingly innocent option and your GM is not experienced enough to notice it".
As about the first part, the worthless characters, that is admittedly a bigger concern... in 3.5 specifically. In both 3.0 and PF systematically falling behind the difficulty curve expected by MM and adventures pretty much requires deliberate attempts to suck (or maybe having IQ below room temperature).
>>47627049
>Go into detail for the sake of either an idiot who refuses to see the obvious or a shitposter?
So you don't have any explanation for how it's the best, then? If you're going to make a claim that something is the best you should be willing to back it up, or else you're just forcing your opinion as fact.
>Because 3.x was (and pretty much still is) the market.
No, it isn't.
I could go into any game store carrying RPG books and I guarantee you that the only 3.x-derived books being sold are Pathfinder. The rest will either be old leftover stock that has been sitting on the shelves for years, or tossed in the discount bin in the hopes that someone will come along and pick them up for a couple bucks.
The d20 boom saw a glut of material that stores simply couldn't move quickly enough, and when that boom busted they were left with stock they can't get rid of. Some stores went under because of this, and several game companies went under or were severely hit in the process. Some companies survived, like Mongoose or Green Ronin, but the less robust ones folded practically overnight.
>>47627172
Why did you link to my post?
Your image has nothing in common with it
>>47627230
I'm sorry I hit the nail on the head so hard that it triggered you again. You might want to see if there's some medication you can start taking, like what they give soldiers with PTSD.
Played 3.5 core forever (no extra books, just monster manuals and extra things the DM tosses in) and I've experienced none of the issues so far.
Feels like classic DnD, I mean you can complain that your Fighter doesn't feel like your World of Warcraft character, which is fine there's 4E for a reason, but DnD in my opinion isn't about using some sicknasty omnislash once per day and playing Final Fantasy, you should focus on the creative aspect of combat in other ways.
Look at how Bender plays DnD; he never uses some clever attack action to kill a monster, you have to get creative. My only gripe with the system is that potions of Enlarge Growth cost 250, being a fighter myself. I have plenty of fun playing a fighter too, although Rogue is my favorite class.
>>47627193
Are you alright anon? You typed out a lot of stuff there. Do you want to talk about it?
>>47627233
No, it doesn't require an optimization master. It requires one person picking druid while another picks a crappy martial.
Trust me, it isn't fun when you realize that the Druid's animal is better than your character in almost every way, except it also comes with a Druid that can wreck encounters with a single spell.
>>47627272
I hate the "4e is WoW' bullshit
4e is not WoW, 4e is Disgaea, or FF Tactics. It is a grid based tactical combat simulator, and it does that job excellently. Better than any other Tabletop RPG
>>47626210
There are the slew of 'narrativist' games, for starters.
D&D 4e and 5e aren't perfect, but still better than 3.5.
The Riddle of Steel and derivatives are pretty good (best XP system I've ever played), but are still works in progress.
And if you're up for a total rework, Legend of the Wulin would be great.
>>47627272
>Look at how Bender plays DnD; he never uses some clever attack action to kill a monster, you have to get creative
Sure, lemme roll several skill tests and play "DM-May-I" to do something with marginal effectiveness because the rules don't encourage or allow creative problem-solving for martial characters.
Meanwhile the wizard can just wave his fingers and do the same thing but better, with no roll necessary.
>>47625586
Holy shit this is the Bait of Baits. d20 L5R is regarded by 95% of L5R fans as the shittiest versions of the game. The 5% that disagrees says that L5R 2e was the shittiest and was possibly designed to be shitty to drive people to play d20.
>>47627322
>4e is Disgaea, or FF Tactics
This, so much.
If I ever want to run a Shining Force game, I would fun it 4e.
>>47627172
Thing is, there are two types of complaints that make up the lion's share of problems on /tg/
One of them is a problem with the people and playgroups and the advice here is fucking always "Talk to them like an adult and if that doesn't help kick 'em/leave the group"
The other big type are problems that CAN be solved by playing a different system. And since most people play D&D or a clone of it, most advice ends up being "Have you tried not playing D&D?"
If somebody complains about how the resource system of VtM is borked or how the way cybernetics work in SR make it impossible to have fun, he's going to hear "Have you tried not playing VtM/SR". But most people play D&D and have gripes with the system, so that's how we end up here.
The third category are "Other Complaints" and there are very, very few of those.
>>47627344
Which of those seems more fun?
If anything, it sounds like you're just playing the game for all the wrong reasons.
>>47626860
>>It single-handedly saved the RPG market from falling apart.
Quite the opposite, it nearly killed the RPG market during its height. The OGL was a brilliant piece of predatory marketing. It killed nearly all the in house systems that existed at the same time. Then when the d20 boom ended it killed many that tried to use it.
>>47627344
>with no roll necessary.
A dm worth his salt would still have him roll no mater what.but that opens up to the "no true scotsman" falacy that people throw around too much.
>>47627524
Investing a bunch of stuff and risking a lot to just do something worse than attacking isn't very fun. It reminds you that your character isn't actually a badass, because the rules won't let him be one.
A caster gets to have an entire resource system, and choose the right ability for the situation, with good odds of it not only working, but helping in a big way. They get to interact with a bunch of parts of the system that martiald just can't.
Doing things is more fun than not doing things
>>47627512
>The other big type are problems that CAN be solved by playing a different system
Can, but not efficiently or well.
It's less advice, and more of just political posturing.
"Hey guys, what do you think of my alternate alignment idea?"
"IF YOU DON'T LIKE ALIGNMENT AS WRITTEN DON'T PLAY D&D ALIGNMENT IS TERRIBLE YOU SHOULD PLAY GURPS I'M RUNNING A GAME THIS WEEKEND AND IF YOU COME OVER THAT MEANS I WON'T BE BY MYSELF STOP PLAYING D&D PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE"
Most "advice" that is "don't play D&D" just is bitching coming from the idiots who hate D&D that you can find in this very thread.
>>47626868
Definitely not more than Pathfinder. It has two or three Fursona titles in its library. The first of which was the "Supplement of the Month" in their online magazine.
>>47627593
Unless you're rolling concentration checks, you don't need to ever make a roll to cast a spell.
The only one who needs to roll is the target(s) of the spell and they roll a saving throw against the spell's DC.
I can only recall one spell that actually requires the wizard to roll and that's disintegration, which deals enough damage to one-shot most creatures and rolls against a creature's touch AC.
>>47627603
>Most "advice" that is "don't play D&D" just is bitching coming from the idiots who hate D&D that you can find in this very thread.
It's solid advice since most of the shit that pisses people off only really happens in 3.PF.
>>47627603
What you're suggesting there is that alignments are somehow not totally fucked up
The solution to "I'm having trouble with alignments" is "don't use alignments you dumbass"
3.5 works fine without them you know
>>47627524
Playing the game means interacting with the rules, and the rules actively punish you for doing things that isn't 1) attack, 2) cast a spell, or 3) heavily invest feats/skills into doing a basic thing to avoid the various penalties baked into the system.
>>47627593
Many spells require no rolls at all from the caster.
>>47627644
>disintegration, which deals enough damage to one-shot most creatures and rolls against a creature's touch AC
lolno disintegration is bad for blasting
>>47623367
Congrats OP! My group did the same with 5e last night. As long as you and yours are having fun, keep doing what you're doing.
>>47627593
>You can homebrew it, so there's not a real problem.
Please, just stop.
>>47627663
Wow, it's almost like you're not just one of those idiots who hate D&D performing some political posturing.
Oh wait, fuck.
>>47627709
>if you can easily fix an issue, it means you shouldn't and instead just go on to something without that issue but a hundred other ones
>>47627724
Just because I hate 3.PF doesn't mean I hate D&D as a whole.
Though that comes down to every other edition being better written and balanced but still.
>>47627644
My thought about the utility wizards comes unless you want to play a specialized school of magic, like a buff wizard or a summoning wizard it seems to be a waste of slots to be a utility knife wizard.
But again, I don't try to go out of my way to break a game nor is it my intentions to defend it, I just don't see why you waste your slots on something another party member could do for free.I am ready for hate with my comments.Pic unrelated as well. [/spoiler)
>>47627772
>something without that issue but 100 other ones
Except 3.5 IS the system with 100 other ones.
I could play 5e and have a solid system that has some issues with a lack of complexity and options, and I could technically 'solve' those by going to 3.5, but then you get all the other issues instead.
It's like I'm in some bizarro world where everyone is flipp-flopping the arguments for 3.5
>>47627772
>3.5 fan so abused by his system that he thinks every other system has the same crippling flaws
>Can't believe for one second that any other system out there isn't a busted mess
Holy fuck this is some next level delusional shit.
>>47627772
Explain to me why anyone should waste their time coming up with homebrews just to play a game that's inherently flawed and can barely handle the shit it was designed to do?
I mean, you could come up with homebrews to fix 3.PF but at that point, you're not playing 3.PF anymore, you're playing some weird amalgam that's 3.PF in name only.
And believe me, once you understand everything that's wrong with it, you'll need to homebrew away like half the system and maybe even rebalance the core classes to boot.
>>47627849
Or you could do the standard thing and limit the game via tiers
Or play e6, that doesn't work quite as well, but it's still better than standard 3.5
>>47627849
>Explain to me why anyone should waste their time coming up with homebrews just to play a game that's inherently flawed and can barely handle the shit it was designed to do?
Because it's not inherently flawed and can handle the shit it was designed to do.
Where can I collect my prize?
>>47627823
>But again, I don't try to go out of my way to break a game nor is it my intentions to defend it, I just don't see why you waste your slots on something another party member could do for free.
Because usually the spell is more efficient and much more powerful than rolling and potentially failing a roll.
Like, Invisibility gives you an inherent +40 bonus to your stealth if you're standing still and a +20 bonus if you're moving.
Compared to the Rogue whose stealth at level 5 might be a +15 or so and might end with him fucking up the roll and getting himself caught anyways.
>>47627891
>Because it's not inherently flawed and can handle the shit it was designed to do.
>I don't have a problem with it so the problem doesn't exist.
Get back on the bench.
>>47627891
Until someone goes and optimizes by doing something crazy like picking the druid class
Seriously, use tiers, the game is so much better when limited by tiers
It is possible to have fun playing almost any game as long as it's with friends. No one sane has ever said that 3.5 is never fun.
The question is, how much bullshit interrupts the fun.
With 3.5, it's a fucking lot.
>>47627891
>Because it's not inherently flawed
But that's wrong dum dum.
>>47627886
So your solution to the balance issue is to cut out 80% of the character options, which other people were holding up as a major thing the game had going for it?
Yeah, I'm sure a massive band-aid solution makes the system way better.
>>47627772
Homebrewing is one thing. Having to fix glaring issues that the designers intentionally left in the game is another.
I SHOULD be allowed to change the game as i see fit. I should NOT have to do the designer's work for them.
>>47627823
A utility wizard basically has full narrative control. They can bypass combats and puzzles with ease, forego expensive or problematic issues, and basically have a spell for virtually any conceivable issue that they and/or the party comes across. Sometimes they don't even need to use their own spell slots if they have a magic item or scroll on them (which most do).
Their power basically comes from being able to say "no, THIS is what happens." A DM can certainly say no, but then you're going to run into issues from the wizard player and possibly the rest of the people at the table being told that their spells, which are a powerful tool that D&D runs on, isn't going to work for often arbitrary reasons.
Once you give players the power to shape reality, it's going to be difficult to wrest it from their hands or work around it in a fair and reasonable manner.
>>47627891
>can handle the shit it was designed to do.
What exactly would you say that is, because I haven't seen 3.5 really handle anything well
>>47627901
I feel like a lot of the spell list reads like a list of class features they had considered for other classes, but turned into spells just for casters instead
Like invisibility, totally could have been a rogue ability. Or enlarge person, if limited to use solely on yourself it makes a lot of sense as a barbarian ability. I wish monks could throw out searing hands, like they do in fighting games, and wouldn't it be cool if fighters could augment themselves with true strike?
>>47627901
And if someone invisible fails their stealth, they're still invisible when they get caught, meaning a nice advantage in the ensuing battle.
Rogues are probably the easiest tings to replace, especially if you get a handful if wands for the more common effects.
>>47627886
>Or you could do the standard thing and limit the game via tiers
The problem with tiers is that you're going to end up either upsetting someone when either they can't play their favorite casters or they can't play their favorite martials.
That and it really cuts out most of the character options you could choose to do
>e6
Could work but unfortunately, it cuts out the bulk of the character progression, which might also upset some people who enjoy playing to level 10 or something.
>>47627945
Yeah
Of course, which 80% you cut out is decided by the players, so it's less limiting than it seems, and really helps with party unity.
>>47627916
>>47627921
>>47627928
Cool opinions, fags. Still doesn't make the game inherently flawed, especially considering how many people don't immediately burst into flames while playing this game like you'd like other people to believe.
Now, where can I collect my prize for telling you that you're a weenie?
>>47627891
>character development
No
>combat
Not really
>capturing the feeling of a fantasy setting
Not very well
3.5 is something you have fun despite, not because of.
>>47627950
>Once you give players the power to shape reality
See this right here? This is the entire problem of D&D, and all it takes is not giving them access to every single spell ever. Only in 3.5 has this become a problem, and it's a simple as the goods disallowing spells not appropriate for his priests and enforcing research and study and access to spells for wizards and sorcerers.
But that's too hard for people to understand.
>>47627966
4e operated on roughly a similar premise.
>>47628005
I don't think you're even trying to understand the point, not that you could anyway.
>>47628005
You get no prize because ignoring a problem doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.
>>47627999
I tried running a tier limited E6 game. Lots of houserulinf to fix various problems and whatnot.
I will fully admit that it ended up being okay. Not the best game I've ever played, but it wasn't as awful as my other 3.5 experiences.
Still, it took a lot of effort to get it to that point, and spending that much time to make something just okay doesn't feel worth it to me.
>>47628007
Can't stop sorcerers from getting them
They choose their spells, it's in the rulebook, and their magic is inherent, not learned, so you can't just limit them by limiting access to tomes or scrolls or whatnot
Unless you houserule all of that away, of course
>>47628018
What point? That you've got a dumb opinion I don't share?
Sorry, but I'm not going to pretend it's not a great game just because you didn't have fun with it. Why ignore my experience just to transplant it with your bitter and retarded one built on exaggeration and misinformation?
Peace.
>>47627901
>>47627950
I should clarify I stopped playing 3.pf a while back, mostly because I moved away from my college group, and the community where I moved to is pretty toxic.
The only caster I played as well was the Bard in Pathfinder, had super fun. I did come to the conclusion that if casters are what you need to play and enjoy the game, it's not really fun for me who plays barbarians, fighters, and rouges.
I will say my group never had that problem with caster munchkins, but that is just anecdotal evidence and doesn't really have a bering on the system being good or not.
>>47628007
>This is the entire problem of D&D, and all it takes is not giving them access to every single spell ever.
Except that Wizards automatically gain two spells of their choice every time they level up, up to the spell level that they can reasonably cast.
It's not really as simple as stopping them from finding scrolls, because they can just gain access to certain spells just through progressing through the game normally.
>>47628051
You failed to get it.
>>47628007
> all it takes is not giving them access to every single spell ever
Basically unless all they have is like 3-4 spells at level 10 they'll still be more useful over a wide margin of fields than basically any martial class.
Which really fucks over thier feel of progression cause now you're level 10 and the GM has JUST decided to throw you a bone and give you the ability to fly and you still don't know any 5th level spells despite the fact you can cast them.
This also puts an insane amount of undue pressure on the DM who already has to balance fights with a CR system that doesn't work, hand out treasure with no guidelines to what's fair (and assume that you give said treasure to the casters as well otherwise you're a SUPERDICK) and assumedly manage a freaking plot behind it all.
It's still a complete clusterfuck that'll make a GM run from a game rather than continue it.
>>47628051
And we're not going to pretend it's good or well-designed just because you had fun with it.
>>47628051
>Why ignore my experience just to transplant it with your bitter and retarded one built on exaggeration and misinformation?
Because anecdotal evidence is not admissible as evidence to prove your case.
>>47628005
So, caster supremacy doesn't exist? Because that's a big inherent flaw if I've ever seen one. What about Clerics and Druids being straight up better than most other classes? What about all the conflicting rules in different books for the same situation? What about classes that, by RAW, do not work?
Are we just ignoring all these problems? Because if we are, then here's your prize!
>>47628108
Welcome to why you will always be bitter, and why the game will remain popular regardless of how much you hate it.
>>47628007
I do agree with this, and I think "wizards have the keys to everything" is something that's infected fantasy RPGs to the point of almost ruining it. Perhaps it already has, I don't know, but I'm quite sick of it being A Thing in that particular genre.
>>47628005
Only weenies declare they've won something without putting any effort into it.
>>47628052
That's cool. For the record I wasn't throwing shade your way, I was just explaining why the utility wizard is so powerful and why it's such a huge problem in 3.5.
>>47628051
see
>>47627927
No one is saying you can't have fun with a shit game dumbass. They're saying you have fun because you're playing with friends and able to have fun despite the flaws of the system, but it would far far better to simply use a half decent system that actually facilitates fun.
>>47628133
Gold stars are for people who tried anon. I didn't see any effort on his part other than just saying 'no, 3.5 a best'
>>47628142
It's a
>The thing I like is popular and therefor is is good
>I like it and therefor it is good
>systems can't have objective qualities
>bitter
episode.
They should cancel this show already.
>>47628142
>Popularity =/= quality
cinematic masterpiece here
>>47628142
Right. I'm the bitter one. Not you, the one endlessly defending his shit game because he hates the idea that people know how bad it is.
>>47628183
And this was one of the greatest movie sagas ever put to film.
>>47628154
He's put an awful lot of effort into being a stubborn ignorant jackass.
>>47628148
I didn't feel like you were throwing shade at me at all, anon. I just was confused about it, seeing how I just liked to play martial characters.
Again, anecdotal evidence, when I did play martial I also had allot of fun before I played the bard, as well, we were just good role players and stuff, but that doesn't fix the problem this system has.it may sounds like I'm being indecisive about this, but this is just how I'm thinking about it.
The only problem now is finding people.
>>47628270
I was just covering my ass in the off-chance that you thought I was being antagonistic or something.
As for finding people: if you don't mind playing online, there's always Roll20, or trawling RPG forums for anyone looking for new players. Both can be a crapshoot at times, but you might luck out and find a decent-to-good group.
>>47628369
Seeing how it seems roll 20 only has a problem with anything relating with 3.pf, I think that might be a good idea.
I also have friends who are willing to learn a new system plus putting up adverts at the game store was something I was going to do, just haven't gotten around to it.
If I can say one thing else about wizards ,someone mentioned that wizards automatically gained spells after reaching a new level, I find that a horrible idea because it ruins the scribe scroll skill they have and takes the adventure out of learning it, but again, home brewing itdoesn't fix the problem.which is sorta why I like Shadow of the Demon Lord, if only for the fact that learning the Magical Realms spells is not automatic and you have to go out of your way to learn it and doing so will hurt you in the long run
>>47623446
>fun
>objective
wew lad
>>47628645
Not him, but there are things you can objectively say that 3.5 does poorly.
For example. Poor system math. Monster CR is all over the place. Characters can be built incorrectly to the point of incompetence very easily.
Other stuff might be more subjective and a matter of taste, but 3.5 is not very well thought out from a strictly mathematical perspective.
At this point, anti 3.5/pf fags deserve what they get.
You come into threads that have nothing to do with 3.5 or where it is quarantined and stir shit. Every bit of bitching from its fan base is entirely justified and I hope it continues.
>>47628712
>from a strictly mathematical perspective.
I don't think you actually play games. I think you just shitpost on the internet, because you have a poor understanding of just how fluid and variable-influenced a roleplaying game is.
You can easily argue that from a "strictly mathematical perspective" that 3.5 has fantastic system math in comparison to most games. In fact, the reason any of the minor issues seem so pronounced to you, to the point where you need to complain about them incessantly at every available opportunity, is because the majority of the system works quite well and is actually rather impressive in what it manages to achieve, with its core system unifying hundreds of diverse subsystems. 3.5 is less of a single system and more of a collection of systems that can interact and even combine together, and it's fairly impressive that it works as well as it does with its scope and range, even when looking at its flaws.
But, ultimately, we're still talking subjective vs. objective, and regardless of how much you bitch, and moan, and whine, and cry, your subjective opinion will never become objective fact, regardless of how much you invest yourself in deluding yourself.
>>47629718
No. You're wrong. The numbers they give you for CR and monsters and all that don't work.
While in your experience you night not have had much issue with it, it's a defined underlying problem that you can see if you look at the numbers.
You can't argue that objectively the math is good when objectively it isn't. You can say that subjectively it doesn't matter to you or isn't a big deal, but stop pretending like the flaws of your game don't exist when they clearly do.
>>47629718
>You can easily argue that from a "strictly mathematical perspective" that 3.5 has fantastic system math in comparison to most games.
Yeah, maybe to something like TORG or Wraithu or F.A.T.A.L, all of which have horrible systems that no one really defends.
But from a strictly mathematical perspective, 3.5 is a poor system that doesn't do its job very well. Many people have written about this. It's been broken down and torn apart over the years and has been found wanting.
You can enjoy the game all you like, and I won't fault you on that, but don't pretend that the system is the best, or even that good at anything.
>your subjective opinion will never become objective fact
Neither will yours.
>>47623558
>bandwagoning
Widely used doesn't mean it's good.
>>47626254
This is the actual problem with the system.
>>47629517
>Wah, someone said mean things on the internet, help me tumblr :'(
>>47630679
>Can you believe someone hates me shitting in the lake?
>Fuck you buddy, I will shit twice as much now
>>47630679
>i have nothing of value to say so ima call you tumblr
Good going Jack, sure showing how well your side is doing.
>>47630264
>>47630280
You don't understand what objectively means, which is why you get so frustrated. Objectively means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased."
The facts alone have the CR system shown to be quite exceptional for what it's trying to do, and while different party compositions, different schedules, even simply different playstyles or number of players can drastically alter the difficulty of an encounter, the CR does give a quick glance assessment of a monster's capabilities. Because it really can't be an exact science, thanks to the deep variety of both players and monsters, the books include information about what DMs need to look out for when setting up an encounter.
It's hardly as bad as you're pretending it is.
>>47630280
>Many people have written about this. It's been broken down and torn apart over the years and has been found wanting.
So? Countless people have written about the flaws that can be found in anything and everything, including every major roleplaying game, including whatever happens to be your favorite. 3.5 being popular enough to draw attention hardly makes the flaws that people love to exaggerate about somehow more crippling than the flaws that can be found in other games. And, beyond people writing about it's flaws, countless more have written in praise of the system, including its fair share of awards and accolades.
I understand you've got blind hatred built on bias, but what you don't seem to understand is how obvious it is. If you did, you'd hardly be willing to parade around like you do, pretending that your subjective interpretations of a complex system that's clearly outside of your limited understanding are somehow objective.
>>47631133
>Because it really can't be an exact science, thanks to the deep variety of both players and monsters,
Except it can be more exact, since 4e and 5e both have much more consistent monster math and design. 3.5 has creatures that are wildly off for their CR, and trying to say that it's the best they could do given player options just highlights how many balance issues there are between player options.
The math in 3.5 objectively does not work. Everything you just are subjective reasons why it might not come up for a particular group.
>>47631549
Objectively it does work, otherwise it would literally be unplayable
It just does not work well
>>47631721
Alright, so:
objectively it doesn't work how it's supposed to (meaning well)
That sit well with you?
>>47631777
yes, that satisfies my pedantry. Thank you
>>47631549
>4e
>more consistent math
WOW. It's almost like you don't have to apply enormous patches to the whole system in order to fix bloat problems.
Anyway, beyond that, what you really need to understand is that 3.5 monster math was an incredible evolution from 2e's stat blocks.
It shouldn't be a surprise that later editions have better math (which is why 4e's problems come as a bit of a shock), but even now, more than a decade after its initial release, it still performs well and much better than most non-D&D's for fantasy combat.
>The math in 3.5 objectively does not work
Then why does it work. You still don't seem to understand that objectively does not mean "my personal experience", because, you might be surprised to find, that millions of people have no major issues with the math to the point where they continue to play the game you think is "objectively" unplayable.
Seriously, you're just unable to look beyond yourself to understand why the game became so popular and retains its popularity, to the point where you need to belittle the larger proportion of the gaming community in order to try and rationalize your backwards and fallacious misinterpretations of the game.
It's objectively sound math. It might have a few glitches that were patched in later editions, but a few flaws hardly outweighs all of its strengths.
>>47631777
>it doesn't work how it's supposed to (meaning well)
That's a subjective statement.
>>47632079
>enormous patches
Giving players an extra +1 per tier for free and cutting monster health aren't enormous, and the latter was fixed by MM3. Even without it, the math is still more consistent, since it was like that across the board. There weren't monsters that were super strong or super weak for their level.
>>47632079
People have spent YEARS digging into the mechanics of 3.P to show how broken they are.
Ignoring all that and insisting it's good just makes you look retarded.
>>47632343
And, people have spent years praising it as well.
Maybe you should stop ignoring all its good points and insisting it's bad? Might help you stop looking retarded, especially considering you consist of the minority who hate a system that most either like or feel indifferent to.
>>47632253
>There weren't monsters that were super strong or super weak for their level.
It's likely there were, it's just that no one played enough 4e to actually care to find them.
>>47631046
>>47630715
Wow, are you really that fucking new here?
I'm mocking how you're trying to turn 4chan into a safe space to voice your shitty opinions.
>>47632420
I'm insisting g its bad because it is bad. The math shows its bad. The balance shows its bad. My experiences back those up. The only defenses I ever hear are 'it has lots of options' 'I have fun with it' and 'just house rule it'
Houseruling it to fix the flaws leads to cutting out a fuckton of the largely poorly balanced options, leaving you with a gutted system that still only sort of works.
Why on earth would anyone do that unless they either didn't know better or hand a serious case of sunk costs? All that time spent fixing the game could be used making an already solid game more fun, or working on campaign stuff.
3.5 is why we have shitty alignment arguments, and threads with vague questions that assume a D&D setting. It's encouraged murderhobo mindsets and bad player habits throughout the community.
If it works for you and your group after you/be houseruled it to hell and back and ignored half the rules? Fine, have fun. Just stop insisting that having fun with it makes the game good.
I have played every edition of D&D, and 3.5 has still been my worst experience
>>47632420
>And, people have spent years praising it as well.
People will praise anything based purely on nostalgia and personal preference.
The difference is that people can prove how poorly made 3.PF is by design while the most you can do is say "IT'S POPULAR SO IT HAS TO GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!"
>>47632588
There really aren't, monsters were statted very simply in 4e, which meant that accurate measures of the power of a monster is easy
>>47632588
>It's likely there were, it's just that no one played enough 4e to actually care to find them.
Different anon but I think he's saying that there aren't, say, CR10 creatures with stats that should've been reserved for CR12 creatures or CR8 creatures.
Like how a common house cat can decimate an entire village of commoners due to it having three attacks and high AC for its CR.
Also how once you've entered CR10+ creature territory, their AC and CMD becomes so high that even an optimized Fighter will have trouble smacking them with anything lower than a 15+ roll on the die.
>>47631133
>Because it really can't be an exact science
It can if the math isn't fucked beyond belief.
>I understand you've got blind hatred built on bias
I can't hate a system. It's just numbers as part of a formula. It isn't a person or even an especially irritable dog. I don't even especially dislike 3.5 per-se, just find it tiresome. Much in the same way as I do 40k, where it's an obviously bad game that people for some reason still cling to.
>subjective
Your opinion on the system is subjective. My criticism on it can be backed up by several examples laid out by people who know the system in and out, and who can prove that the system the mechanics are based off of are done so on shaky ground.
Your entire defense is summed up as "it's popular, therefor good" and "you just can't comprehend the complexity," the latter of which is pure arrogance.
>>47632079
> 3.5 monster math was an incredible evolution from 2e's stat blocks.
It's a step back, actually. Monsters are built exactly as you would a player character which, on the surface, SEEMS like a good idea but in practice is heaps of busy-work and takes up far more space than it needs to. A room's worth of monsters in 2e could be written on an index card; not so in 3.5.
Additionally, every challenging monster in 3.5 is a spell-caster of some kind. Whether actual caster levels, x/day, or spell-like abilities, they have spells which in turn requires either memorizing all those spells, or writing them down on an already bloated stat block.
This is to say nothing of inflated HP and incredibly high saves that make combat drag, and which AC quickly becomes meaningless on both sides of combat.
What is a dnd for players that like logic in hitpoints/armor class, like an attack to the head doing a lot of damage, i was thinking in playing Pathfinder
>had a game of 3.5 a couple nights ago
>died
>get ready to roll up a new character
>DM: Not so fast, now we see what happens to you in the fugue plane
>this motherfucker actually roleplayed the time from when I died, to the point when my deity came and collected me
>>47633005
>logic in hit points/AC
Probably not D&D, though it depends what you're looking for. If you just want realisim, I'd say 2e where HP pools are smaller and therefore things are more deadly.
>attack to the head dealing a lot of damage
I think this falls under house rules no matter which way you go, since it falls on the DM to decide how deadly headshots are.
>>47633005
Don't do that.
IIRC, savage world has rules for logical HP/AC bullshit.
>talk about a system with very blatant flaws
>people mention flaws
>y-you're triggered!
Look mate I'm enjoying the 3.5 game I'm in too, but a lot of the "fun" comes from the eventual catharsis of all the bloated math I am forced to do to make full round attacks end in high damage numbers. The rest is completely divorced from the system itself (i.e. character interaction)
Also my bow is also the absolute shit and I love playing a lawman ranger.
>>47632640
>The difference is that people can prove how poorly made 3.PF is by design while the most you can do is say "IT'S POPULAR SO IT HAS TO GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!"
No, people who actually play and enjoy it play it and enjoy it and discuss its merits in those kind of discussions. The merits of its design are so numerous and varied, that it would be quite the effort to compose the giant list that could be described as complete.
People like you, who are compelled to shitpost, seem unable to recognize this, and your fixation on its few flaws which you are prone to exaggerate is why the discussion isn't really a discussion. It is you being a little bitch, while the people who are actually knowledgeable about the system recognizing that to engage in actual debate with an idiot is a waste of time.
That is why you are mocked, and why your efforts to try and rewrite history are particularly humorous.
>>47633307
>debating with an idiot is a waste of time
You're right. We should really stop trying to have an actual discussion with someone who defends a system by saying 'it's good I promise'
By the way, honest question: are water balloons still better weapons than crossbows in Pathfinder?
>>47633123
why not?
>>47633307
Okay then, what merits does 3.PF have?
>>47633307
>people who are actually knowledgeable about the system recognizing that to engage in actual debate with an idiot is a waste of time.
Well yeah, we've been engaging with an idiot the entire time, you just haven't figured out that you're the dumb one here.
Either you're intentionally being obtuse, or just trolling for attention. It'd be easier for everyone if you told us which.
>>47633389
Trust me, 3.PF is not worth the trouble.
If you really want to play D&D, just go for 5e or something.
>>47633389
Because HP in D&D tends to result in 'survives re-entry from orbit', or 'tanks 50 arrows to the skull' as you level, while AC is usually armor making things more likely to miss rather than reducing damage.
>>47633563
i am desperate tell me something to play that is not 5e i don't want to comeback please!
>>47632922
>A room's worth of monsters in 2e could be written on an index card; not so in 3.5.
The issue is that 2e had awful, terrible math, and awful, terrible designs. Awful. Archaic even. I'm flipping through the monster manual right now, and in retrospect am amazed how inefficient, arbitrary, and downright nonsensical some of these stats blocks are.
But, you're right, in that 3.5 stat blocks were too large, too dense, too complex. Even so, they were a step in a positive direction, a direction that revealed internal consistency, organic development, and just generally better designs (which shouldn't be a surprise, since they pick and chose the best from 2e and built up from there).
After 4e and now with 5e, the stat designs are streamlined, efficient, and just generally better. But, that's praising the car without remembering the wagon before it.
3rd edition is dated, which you can expect from a system that over fifteen years old, but what's amazing is not only what it contributed to later game designs, but that it still manages to hold up quite well. Despite its faults, it is still a solid system, and its role in the evolution of the most popular roleplaying series should hardly be understated because you're now looking at it from this side of history.
