What is the best bersion of D&D and why is it AD&D 2E?
>>47741940
I like the charts.
>>47741940
tie between that and 5e probably.
>>47741940
Really detailed Monster Manual.
Great boxed sets.
Planescape, Spelljammer, Darksun, etc.
Only good thing about 2E is its campaign settings and practically nothing in them can't be used in the far superior 1E.
>>47742394
Truth, and it consolidated the THAC tables into THAC0 but thats about it
>>47741940
I think you misspelled Rules Cyclopedia there.
>>47741940
Kits a best.
I disagree.
>>47741940
I enjoy playing it, but finding out when a +1 is either a bonus or a penalty aggravates me.
>>47743402
While I do prefer it,
I did port over multiclass rules, and class kits for my setting.
I'm fairly hard to please though.
2e is a shit game with incredible writing. Take the settings you enjoy and use a better system of your choice.
>>47741940
It has great settings. I lOVE Ravenloft
but fuck Lorraine Willams and 2e's boner for making PCs glorified side characters for NPC mary sues.
more of a Basic kind of guy for retro stuff anyway
>>47741940
Because it set the foundations on which 5e would eventually be built.
Every editionsans 3.PFhas their reasons for why you should play them.
OD&D has amazing settings.
4e has well written tactical combat and balance.
5e streamlines the experience for newcomers and features some of the best aspects of 2-4e.
I mean, there's something for everyone.
>>47741940
That's not red box basic
>>47741975
Yeah, between the two they pretty much cover what people would want out of D&D, unless you just really want 1e or 3.PF's specific formula (which a good number of people do).
>>47744923
>sans 3.PF
Depends--do you fold Fantasy Craft in with that?
I mean, there's something to be said for how characters are composed from a broad array of variables in 3.PF, even if 3.X and Pathfinder suck major league dick and were/are managed with 0 restraint (which just ruins the whole thing). And, at least at this point now that we're past the glut of 'use it for everything, ever', if someone favors 3.PF it's because they really dig that angle.
I feel like Fantasy Craft maintains that variance but manages to cut away the baggage, even if it's not my favorite system.
>>47745208
There are plenty of legitimately good D20 systems. Fantasy Craft, Mutants and Masterminds, 13th Age, all of merits which give them actual worth. I believe that he meant actual 3.5 and PF which doesn't stray far from it's targeted audience (3.5 fans).
>>47745208
I meant 3.PF specifically, not necessarily its derivatives.
>>47743810
Bard kit book blew my flute
>>47745322
Then you'd be wrong and just being salty.
The best version of D&D isPathfinderbecauseI'm a gigantic faggot
>>47741940
>mfw
>>47743964
>>47743964
>>47743964
motherfucking this, though
>>47746821
While I know you're not actually a Pathfinder fan and are merely poking fun at them, Pathfinder is undoubtedly the most faggot-friendly game I've seen. Their setting might as well be painted with rainbows, there's so much pro-LGBT stuff in it.
>>47743964
This
I'll use Dark Sun in damn near any system but a DnD edition.
>>47746768
>u mad
3.PFfags, everyone.
>>47747063
Huh, may I have an example? This is interesting.
>>47746768
Don't get me wrong, d20 is a cancer that brought forth the idea that 3.PF can be used for everything when it can't even sell the basic idea of heroic fantasy without the legwork of its legion of fanboys homebrewing away most of the bugs like a Bethesda drone but at the same time, there are in fact good games that were based around the d20 system, as mentioned by this anon >>47745248
In truth, the reason why most 3.PF players are shit is the same concept that makes TCG players such a pain to be around, the sort of neckbeards who spend their every waking moment looking up deck coming up with builds while squeezing every advantage out of the vague and poorly written rules while taking their cheese build to their LGS just to show off how awesome they are.
It's not wrong but christ alive, having been on both ends of the screen with a power gamer and a rules lawyer in the party, the game turns from a fun romp through a collection of dungeons to a game where either the power gamer is ending encounters in one turn or the ends in a TPK because you put too many roadblocks to the power gamer's bullshit and it ended up spilling out to the rest of the party who aren't nearly as optimized.
And I know people are going to give me shit for it but seriously, it's downright impossible to construct encounters around a guy who can end them in one turn with the right spell and a guy who needs 3-4 turns, at least, just to kill one especially power creature that's around CR5+ while giving both guys shit to do that makes them feel equally powerful.
And no, anti-magic field doesn't work because martials depend on magic items just to remain relevant and anything that has access to AMF will likely just stomp them without much effort since all their bonuses would go bye-bye and the monster is likely stronger than them, even if they had access to their magic items.
3.5e becauseWe are still on the same campaign as million years ago
>>47747127
Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch-anon.
>>47741940
Hackmaster is a better version of AD&D 2e.
If only I could find someone to play it with.
>>47747151
Are you the "arguing in bad faith" guy?
>>47747063
Huh, may I have an example? This seems interesting.
>>47747077
I'd rather play Dark Sun using fucking Lasers & Feelings than any DnD ruleset.
>>47747127
>In truth, the reason why most 3.PF players are shit is the same concept that makes TCG players such a pain to be around, the sort of neckbeards who spend their every waking moment looking up deck coming up with builds while squeezing every advantage out of the vague and poorly written rules while taking their cheese build to their LGS just to show off how awesome they are.
Nah, powergaming has always been a thing. Yeah, 3.pf did amp that up and make it more annoying, but a lot of the hate for 3.pf adherents were the sepcial snowflake attitudes that railed against any and every restriction in the rules even existing (good drow, nonLG pally, racial restrictions, etc.), and the problem wasn't so much even that they didn't want to play with any restrictions, but that they wanted the rules to codify the lack of restrictions -- it was kind of the death of Rule Zero. Kind of tied up in this, you have people start describing characters as interesting or boring based solely on the character's abilities instead of what the character does...eh
tl;dr it was the beginning of a paradigm shift that annoyed a lot of people.
>>47747127
>Don't get me wrong, d20 is a cancer that brought forth the idea that 3.PF can be used for everything when it can't even sell the basic idea of heroic fantasy
See, here's how I know you're stupid.
This isn't something exclusive to 3rd edition.
Do you forget how people took 2e and used it for everything from space travel to post-apocalyptic desert survival to gothic horror? Do you remember the various tournaments held that included modules designed specifically to kill unoptimized players?
Please. You're trying to blame a system for problem players, and there's problem players (or really, just people who play differently than you do) in every single system you can find.
What's worse, is that you are so stupid, so ass-backwards, that you are willing to try and pretend the myth of "You can't use a system for anything outside of what's drawn in the books" has any relevance or meaning to people who actually play games.
I get it, you're a moron who thinks it's hard to work with a system or that it's somehow wrong to work with a system, and that's why you get frustrated when people easily find themselves enjoying as system beyond your limited understanding. That's entirely your fault, and nothing to do with your exaggerations.
Do us all a favor, adopt a trip, and stop pretending your endless shitposting is in anyway justified.
>>47747183
It's just someone buttmad who doesn't have an argument. Might even be a reverse troll trying to make D&D players look bad.
>>47747286
Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch-anon.
>>47747272
>using the possibility of house ruling to defend the core system
That's like using mods to defend a buggy game.
And there's why you are are so stupid, so ass-backwards.
>>47747098
Pathfinder features furries, trannies, a succubus made of shit, and other forms of degeneracy.
It's like the writers started taking their ideas from furaffinity and deviantart, which makes sense considering the atrocious art, the inability to handle criticism, and the fact that most of the new shit is blatantly stolen from other popular tabletop games.
For christ sakes, there are augmentations now, as in ShadowRun augmentations, and they didn't even bother to change most of the names or the prices either.
>>47747272
>See, here's how I know you're stupid.
>This isn't something exclusive to 3rd edition.
Not him, but you do know about how 3rd caused and blew up d20 because of its copyright, right?
>>47747307
Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch-anon.
>>47747307
>>47747328
Oh look, it's a recursive butt-mad duo!
>>47747314
/pol/ pls go
>>47747313
A game with bugs isn't necessarily a bad game.
Would you rather play a great game that needs a few patches, or a mediocre game that runs smoothly right out of the box?
>>47747346
I'd reject your example as even remotely resembling 3.PF.
Bugs-wise, 3.PF is more like Superman 64: just about playable, but fucked.
>>47747380
And that's why I can call you out as being silly and a hyperbolic whiner.
What's next? The old lines about how all the people who played and still play 3.PF are somehow crazy while you are so sane?
What is it that you always say? Stockholm and sunk-cost?
Get over yourself.
>>47747314
Don't forget stuff like this.
>>47747272
>Do you forget how people took 2e and used it for everything from space travel to post-apocalyptic desert survival to gothic horror? Do you remember the various tournaments held that included modules designed specifically to kill unoptimized players?
I remember and rarely do they all take place within the same world.
IIRC, dark sun was a setting where wizards caused the end of the world through magic fuckery, ravenloft took place on a demi-plane where you weren't allowed to leave until you managed to kill Strahd, and the space travel setting, IIRC, was just a random shit crashing in the middle of a deserted mountain and wisking the party away to mars where you can breathe or some shit.
The point is, those settings never really took place within the greater D&D setting and were self-contained stories that didn't really affect the main story to a great extent.
It's not like Pathfinder where it expects you to accept not!Godzilla or Cthulhu being potential creatures to throw at the party without raising an eyebrow at how they all fit in with creatures like the Terrasque or fucking Beholders.
Also, isn't the necessity to use homebrews kinda missing the point of even having a system in the first place?
I mean, I could make up random rules that give context to the arbitrary numbers of our die rolls but at that point, am I really playing the game or am I just finishing what the devs were too incompetent to finish?
It's the same reason why I refuse to play Bethesda games, yeah I can mod it but I'd rather just play a game that's already finished and had most of its bugs removed before it hit retail.
>>47743997
Technically, isn't the NPC mary sue more of a setting problem than a system problem?
Though, I totally agree - many awesome settings that are bogged down with adventure modules and novels that make NPCs the stars. Best Dark Sun campaign I ever played in began with us as other gladiators in the pit in Tyr during the attempt to assassinate Kalak - which fails utterly, the book heroes all die, and we escape in the confusion.
>>47747434
Most people who bring up 3.PF only do so for three reasons.
1) To talk about their builds or some exploit in the rules.
2) To talk about how shitty it and its fanbase is
3) To talk about their homebrews which are mostly unbalanced, poorly written, or both.
If you deny this then you haven't been on the 9th circle of hell that is Paizo's forums.
>>47744923
I started with 2nd Edition. I mean, yeah, I *owned* the Red Box, and read it first, but by the time I was actually running games, I had ADnD, because it was ADVANCED! (I was, like 12.)
It was...okay.
When I talk about 5E, one of the positive things I say about it its 'this feels like what I thought I was doing with 2E'. Don't get me wrong, 3 and 4 are both fine, and they're both still DnD, but my experiences with them were very different, while 5th feels a lot closer to 2nd. To me, at least.
>>47747346
I'd rather have a game where I don't have to download a dozen or so mods just to get an enjoyable experience out of it.
I mean, can you really call something "great" when its so poorly optimized that the fun comes to a screeching halt anytime you accidentally trigger an event where your character gets launched into the air just for touching a boulder?
Especially if you boot up the game and find out that it deleted your save file after 100 hours of gameplay.
Oops.
Anyways, I'll take a smooth running mediocre game than a poorly optimized game that might be great later.
>>47747439
>or a single horse
Friend lost half a tit to a horse bite. Breastfeeding adult horse sounds like particularly bad idea.
>>47747563
That's like, your opinion, man.
An opinion not shared by most people.
When will you comprehend that your tastes are not objective truth?
>>47747698
People have shit taste, news at 11.
>>47747717
Behold, the Hypocrite, in his full splendor and regalia.
Hail ye, hail ye.
>>47747698
>>47747736
What does its apparent popularity have to do with anything I said in my post?
I mean, CoD's popularity doesn't make its fanbase any less shitty or its gameplay any less mediocre with each subsequent title.
And apparently people are starting to get wise to 3.PF's bullshit considering how 5e seems to have more than twice the number of games as Pathfinder and four times the number of 3.5 while also boasting the most players by far.
>>47747778
What you seem to think is that the game is inexcusably broken and terrible and that only idiots would play it.
That puts you on a plane where we can't even talk about the game anymore. You don't see it for what it is, or understand what made it popular, or why people played it, continued to play it, or returned to it.
It's "apparent popularity" is to remind you that it's nowhere near as bad as you have convinced yourself it is. If you're willing to say that the 2nd largest fanbase is entirely composed of idiots all because you don't agree with their tastes, then you're simply so set in your opinion that you honestly believe your subjectivity borders or encompasses objectivity.
You don't like it. That's nice. But, you don't want to actually discuss the game, all you want to do is complain about it, and that makes you a hyperbolic baby not fit to be conversed with.
>>47747855
What merits does 3.PF feature that makes it a good game, in your opinion?
Because popularity is not enough to call a game good, especially in an age where "Twilight" and "50 shades of Gray" is mentioned in the same breath as Harry Potter as one of the best books of all time.
>>47747979
It is good because it is good because fun things are fun. If you disagree you are contrarian hipster trash that is not fit to be conversed with.
>>47748038
Why is it good and fun?
What qualities make it enjoyable to you?
>>47747979
I found it to be an excellent successor to 2e, with a firmer foundation for its mechanics and a wealth of material that could be readily adapted to an incredible diversity of games.
While I can agree that it's dated and that there's other games I prefer playing now, that doesn't stop me from recognizing that it was a mechanical step up from a great game and laid the foundation for other games to develop from it.
>>47748073
I feel that it was a step backwards from 2e but I think that has more to do with WoTC not being as experienced as they are now.
I still consider 5e to be the best in terms of the modern D&D editions and that's mainly because WoTC had years to sit back, consider their options, and take the best aspects from 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition to create a system that's streamlined while simultaneously featuring content that pays homage to D&D's history.
>>47748237
It updated an increduble amount of archaic mechanics, helped establish many of the conventions we now take for granted, and while it also included some neccesary (and unneccessary) complexity and strictness that's not quite everyone's taste, it formed the bulk of the rules that 5e was carved out of.
>>47747346
If you need to add mods to make the game enjoyable, then it's no better than the mediocre game.
Besides that, patches are not mods. Patches are more akin to errata while mods are more akin to homebrew.
If your homebrew has to fix the flaws in the game (a fan-made bugfix, for example) rather than add stuff that you think would be fun or suiting it to fit your tastes (a hunger sub-system, for example), you're playing a bad system.
>>47748469
Such as?
>>47748469
3.5, at best, had some good ideas (d20 + modifiers vs AC instead of d20 +/- enemy AC + modifiers vs THAC0), but the design of monsters, character creation options, and combat were all very poor (especially combat maneuvers). It was on the right track and with more playtesting and work put into it (say, if 3.0 came out in 2002 instead of 2000), it probably would've been a lot better.
I think part of the reason why 3.5 is still shit is because it had to keep a modicum of compatibility with 3.0, otherwise it would've become 4e and everyone would've flipped their shit.
>>47747563
Every Pathfinder game I've encountered has been the biggest fuckfest you can imagine. In the last game, three players were vying for the glory of TPKing the entire party and Henderson'ing the game at the same time. The guy who succeeded got the turniphead DM to allow him to play as a medusa with an illusionary disguise and anxiety problems. As soon as the party opened the door of the inn, the player had his character have a panic attack, dropping the disguise and forcing everyone to save or be turned to stone. Some of the party made their difficult saves, but it didn't matter because the DM's important plot device critically failed the save, fell over, and shattered into a million pieces. And the DM thought this was the best, and told us to make sure to roll up well thought out characters to join the party with robust backstories so we could get turned into this guy's statue fuck fetish.
>>47748525
Classes leveled up in a uniform fashion and were expanded, saves became more sensible and more natural, monsters were dramatically improved and combat in general was given more mechanical support with a lot of old wargame holdovers removed, dice notation, spells were updated and given more rulings to prevent certain exploits, less reliance on charts, and the obligatory nod towards THACO, for starters.
>>47748679
>Henderson'ing
The fact that you use that as a phrase makes it clear that you are easily the worst player in that group, and it's no surprise you can't find better players because you're just a sack of shit wondering why he gets flies.
>>47741940
Absolutely beautiful yet simplistic splatbooks. I used to have one of the supplemental spell books in hardcopy, and I fondly recall how it just looked "right". Gorgeous cover, interior dedicated to rules and shit.
Can't find an image of it, for some raisin.
>>47748698
>Classes leveled up in a uniform fashion and were expanded
Yet it caused a problem due to the fact that a level 20 wizard leveled up at the same rate as a level 20 Fighter even though they are much more powerful and have much more options available to them.
>saves became more sensible and more natural
Yet most saves attached to the most devastating effects required Will saves, assuming the effect even allowed you to make a saving throw at all.
>monsters were dramatically improved
Not really, the CR system was garbage and the monster scaling far outstripped the attack bonus of most PCs.
There's a reason why straight damage is considered the worst way to deal with an encounter.
>combat in general was given more mechanical support with a lot of old wargame holdovers removed
Quantifying every single aspect of what your character could do is part of the reason why martials ended up losing their niche.
In OD&D, a Fighter was expected to fight a hoard of enemies on a rooftop in the middle of a rainstorm and reasonably hold their own because they were heroes and heroes can perform admirably well even in the most trying of circumstances.
Nowadays, the fighter would be taking penalties for fighting in the dark, the rooftop would be considered difficult terrain, and he'd only be able to make one hit if he moved more than 5 ft. beforehand while his opponents can just gank him thanks to flanking and the way the action economy works now.
Meanwhile, wizard man can cast a spell and suddenly the enemy is either losing the battle or just outright dead.
>spells were updated and given more rulings to prevent certain exploits
Yet at the same time were also buffed due to most of the bullshit that plagued OD&D casters like anti-magic and losing spells due to damage were either removed or nerfed so that they were a minor inconvenience that could be sidestepped with a simple feat or two.
>less reliance on charts
Charts>Flowcharts
Anyways, that's my refutation.
I'd rather play this
>>47745043
And bolt on bits from Advanced as needed.
Though 2e was certainly a high water mark for art and fluff, and always triggers a huge nostalgiaboner. I only realized about 20 years later that I'd been hacking rules off 2e to make something like B/X.
>>47748820
Yeah, the emergence of digital layout made a lot of game books into ugly horrors for a few years.
And 2e's campaign settings were usually written to spark your imagination rather than act as a vast encyclopedia.
>>47748679
I hate PF but your story has nothing to do with the game system.
>>47748743
>The fact that you use that as a phrase makes it clear that you are easily the worst player in that group
I think the morons intigating TPK's and derailing the campaign on purpose are infinitely worse than the guy who referenced an old meme from back when /tg/ didn't get butthurt over every little greentext story being "unrealistic."
I mean, who hasn't heard of fucking Old Man Henderson at this point?
>>47748860
That's not refutation, that's you offering your opinions. Do you not yet understand the difference?
You can literally shitpost about ANYTHING. Your entire post is basically just nitpicking, exaggeration, and off-handed complaining, like someone offering you a Ferrari and you need to comment about how it only sits two people.
Most of your complaints are really just the same old oft-repeated myths that rarely inconvenience people who actually played the game, applied tangentially because you are so firmly set on proving that you can complain about anything.
That's why it's pointless to discuss things with you, and tedious as well.
>>47748951
>These objective facts are myths!
>STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT MY WAIFU SYSTEM!
>>47748679
One time I was playing PF with friends, I got accused of meta-gaming because my character wanted to perform research on a megalodon that almost sank our ship.
Like excuse the fuck outta me for wanting to learn more about the monster that almost killed us and shit.
>>47748884
Not every THAT GUY is necessarily linked to 3.PF but a disturbing percentage of them do exclusively play 3.PF.
>>47748951
What parts did you consider "myths"?
>>47748951
He gave a you a couple objective facts about what had changed to tell you why it's actually not better than 2e. Chill the fuck out.
>>47748969
>Not every THAT GUY is necessarily linked to 3.PF but a disturbing percentage of them do exclusively play 3.PF.
The problem is, PF as a system promotes too many bad habits that end up breeding power gamers, rules-lawyers, and other forms of THAT GUY because of the way the game is designed.
If it was simply a matter of taste then there wouldn't be that much of a problem, there are equally bad systems that one could play that don't have any basis on me or my group's enjoyment.
it's just that so much cancer has been spawned from 3.PF as a whole, from the idea that only casters can be relevant, to the idea that each system requires months of study to "master," to the idea that you can only do what's written on your sheet and only perform it as it's written, to the idea that alignments are something that's not only objective but something that governs every aspect of how your character interacts with the world around them.
I've run games with hardcore 3.PF faggots and been in games with hardcore 3.PF faggots and the result are the same, no matter what system they're invited to play.
They build outrageous characters that are practically invincible for the level they're at, incite squabbles because of a combination of "invincibility" and alignment, force the GM to choose between challenging him and challenging the rest of the party, and if they're ever put in a difficult spot, they bitch and moan and cry because you had the nerve to actually find a hole in their flawless character build.
There's a reason why people don't bother going to /pfg/ anymore, and there's a reason why people have developed a hatred to players who only exclusively play 3.PF.
Not every THAT GUY started with it but damn if a large majority can be traced back to it.
>>47749039
I'm happy that my copypasta is making rounds.
>>47749039
>>47749089
It's all just retarded whining though, relying on a variety of myths perpetuated by people who really are nothing but shitposters who earnestly think there's something wrong with playing 3.5.
These are the same people who would have complained about 2e when it was past its height, and these will be the same kind of people who will complain about 5e once its past its height, if they're not already complaining about it now despite the tide being currently against them.
It's all just the mindless whining of the loser dogs in the kennel, licking each other's wounds.
>>47749089
It's good, solid, and unlike a lot of copypasta's, not just trolling nonsense. It's actually true, and sums up a lot of the issues quickly and succinctly.
>>47749176
Ok, then, enjoy playing the Monk in a party of a Wizard, Druid and Cleric.
>>47748986
Do you understand what "objective" means?
Objective does not mean "based on opinion", which is largely all that he offered.
You can go down the list and say either "no, that's not an issue" or "that's just your opinion" or even just "what did you go off on a tangent instead of addressing the actual point that was brought up?"
>>47749195
You act like that's difficult.
Have you honestly never actually played the game, and simply decided to live your life regurgitating the same shit the other haters have been spewing back and forth between each other?
>>47749181
It's just a myth you shitposters try to cling to justify your shitposting.
If you're really so noble, do us a favor and wear a tripcode to show how proud you are. Let us shower you with the praise you deserve.
>>47749176
>>47749206
>>47749227
>>47749247
Calling something you disagree with an opinion doesn't work when it can easily be proven true or false based on the rules of the system being discussed.
For example,
>http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/13/optimizing-a-dd-3-5-monk
Until you adopt a trip yourself, I'm just going to call you "argues in bad faith" since all you're doing now is calling things you don't like "trolling" like a teenager on deviantart.
>>47749247
Nah. I'm going to keep posting like this, so you, my brain damaged little retard, can't lock yourself in your 3.PF hugbox.
>>47749307
> can easily be proven true or false based on the rules of the system being discussed.
Really? You think you can prove those opinions?
What's that? A link to a character optimization forum? What does that prove?
Really. Go on. Tell me something. Tell me about your opinion, and how you think your opinion is somehow fact.
Please, you retarded shitposter. Explain to me what you're trying to prove objectively, how you plan to prove it, and how it has any relevance to what we're talking about.
I might as well help you out now, and explain that whatever you're going to offer, I'm just going to explain why it's an opinion and not a fact, and watch as the air leaks out of your tires, because we are deep, deep in the realm of subjectivity, a place you are apparently unfamiliar with despite having been drowning in it.
>>47749324
You know, your father still will never love you, no matter how much you shitpost.
>>47749443
And no matter how much you defend it, 3.PF will never marry you.
>>47749428
>I'm so fucking stupid, I legitimately think the monk is a good class
>>47749428
Okay "argues in bad faith," I'll bite.
The character optimization forum has several reasons for why Monk is a poorly designed class.
In a nutshell, nothing about the monk class synergizes with itself.
It has a speed boost that it can't use because FoB can only be used if you're already standing still.
It has improved unarmed damage but it improves too slowly to really be useful.
Most of the monk weapons are either poor or are outclassed by better martial weapons.
Its unarmed AC doesn't scale well due to the fact that it's much easier and affordable to just buy armor than to buy an item that increases your DEX and/or WIS.
And that's really the tip of the iceberg.
Keep in mind, Monks used to be one of the best classes in the game but now?
Literally the worst class you could hope to play, even Rogues get more action, and this can be proven objectively due to the rules itself stating what a Rogue can and cannot do.
>>47749606
Are you telling me that I can't have fun playing a monk?
Go on. Do it. Tell me I can't have fun playing a monk.
Tell me that, objectively, I need to care about anything you wrote. Go on. Tell me I need to care about your little grievances as if they're gameshattering.
>>47749686
"Argues in bad faith," here's the thing, they are game-shattering if you are someone who to play an unarmed character modeled after Jackie Chan or Goku.
I'm not going to say that you can't have fun playing a monk but I will say that the monk has a shitload of mechanical issues that prevents him from contributing equally to the party in comparison to the casters or even other martials.
I also love how you downplay objective flaws as "opinions" while trying to throw your own opinion into the argument as if that has any basis on what's happening.
>>47749686
God, what a fucking faggot you are.
How do you have fun when you are objectively worth less then a class feature? When there's nothing you can do to actually matter?
>>47749754
>I also love how you downplay objective flaws as "opinions" while trying to throw your own opinion into the argument as if that has any basis on what's happening.
You really are just a stupid shitposter, so here's a final lesson for you. You're not going to understand it now, but maybe ten years down the line, you'll find yourself in a moment of absolute despair, and I hope that's when these words will finally reach you.
Those "flaws" are not objective. They can all even be treated as features, depending on the player, the DM, the rest of the party, and even the setting. While this is hyperbolic to some degree, it's here to help illustrate what you fail to appreciate: The distinction between objectivity and subjectivity.
It's bizarre, because you're hoping to decry this game because of optimization concerns, and then you also hope to say that it's the game's fault for making people obsess about optimization. You genuinely are obsessing about minute distinctions of combat mechanics as if they were chiseled in stone and the entire game depended on people perceiving them as you do. You are subjectively placing emphasis there, when other people are free to be far less concerned.
I don't even disagree with all your points. But what I disagree with is your idea that everyone needs to play like you do, or that everyone needs to play like I do.
While the monk has what I'd call flaws, I'm not insane enough to believe that the monk's flaws somehow dismantle the game as a whole, especially if those flaws are easily fixed and the rest of the system still performs as well as it does.
You can cry as much as you want about how you don't think the system performs well, but what you need to recognize is all that is is subjective whining. Bitching. Crying about flaws you think are gamebreaking while millions of people continue to play without caring about your personal concerns or grievances.
That's the sad truth. You and your petty complaints don't matter.
>>47749954
>>47749954
I hope you're enjoying yourself, anon, because if you're actually hoping to break through the defenses of a powergaming retard like you've been trying to do, well...
Just don't be dissapoint when it don't work.
>>47747228
Just slap a vaguely psionic name in there and it's martial opposite and you have every Lasers and Feelings "hack" ever.
Mind and Matter
Psion and Obsidian
>>47747521
God the Dark Sun NPCs were obnoxious. In my campaign they did kill Kalak (and only him, I wasn't using the inane Pyreen backstory), and set up a corrupt republic that the PCs ran afoul of.
>>47747979
>Harry Potter the literary equivalent to Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey
Sounds about right
>>47747439
What the fuck am I reading.
How would you play a Planescape Druid?
This entire thread is so /v/ it hurts.
>>47749954
"Argues in bad faith," I can show you flaws in the game that are there by design and whose presence makes the game less enjoyable for some people.
Whether or not you, as in YOU, personally enjoy it is irrelevant when the argument is not about opinion but what elements in the game's design makes it flawed.
You gave merits for why 3.PF was good in your opinion, I disagreed, and can show you prove to back up my argument.
You getting this upset over "an opinion" is basically the same exact shit that you accused me of doing while at the same time ignoring everything I've said just because it upset your fragile faculties.
How about instead of crying about how facts are opinions, you offer prove that disproves my points?
>>47750699
You misunderstand anon, I don't even like powergaming, it's one of the reasons I eventually stopped playing MtG and YGO.
With that being said, when you're fighting monsters like these around level 10-12,
>http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/dragons/dragon/dragon-cave-kp/dragon-adult-cave-kp
>http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/elemental/elemental-earth/elder-earth-elemental
>http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/vermin/jellyfish/jellyfish-sapphire
You kinda have to be optimized just to have a vague hope of surviving as a martial character.
>>47753934
>when the argument is not about opinion
Roll over. You're dead anon, and you need to stop stinking up the place.
>>47754165
You'd fit right in on /v/.
>>47754187
Cute, but seriously, you're an amazing kind of idiot.
>>47754196
You're the reason why "fun" is considered a buzzword "argues in bad faith."
Just because me and my friends had a laugh playing Sonic '06 doesn't mean that the game isn't incredibly flawed and deserving of the shit it got.
It should also be noted that Sonic '06 is considered a platinum seller in the xbox 360 library too.
>>47754354
You really are just a stupid shitposter, so here's a final lesson for you. You're not going to understand it now, but maybe ten years down the line, you'll find yourself in a moment of absolute despair, and I hope that's when these words will finally reach you.
Those "flaws" are not objective. They can all even be treated as features, depending on the player, the DM, the rest of the party, and even the setting. While this is hyperbolic to some degree, it's here to help illustrate what you fail to appreciate: The distinction between objectivity and subjectivity.
It's bizarre, because you're hoping to decry this game because of optimization concerns, and then you also hope to say that it's the game's fault for making people obsess about optimization. You genuinely are obsessing about minute distinctions of combat mechanics as if they were chiseled in stone and the entire game depended on people perceiving them as you do. You are subjectively placing emphasis there, when other people are free to be far less concerned.
I don't even disagree with all your points. But what I disagree with is your idea that everyone needs to play like you do, or that everyone needs to play like I do.
While the monk has what I'd call flaws, I'm not insane enough to believe that the monk's flaws somehow dismantle the game as a whole, especially if those flaws are easily fixed and the rest of the system still performs as well as it does.
You can cry as much as you want about how you don't think the system performs well, but what you need to recognize is all that is is subjective whining. Bitching. Crying about flaws you think are gamebreaking while millions of people continue to play without caring about your personal concerns or grievances.
That's the sad truth. You and your petty complaints don't matter.
>>47753997
That's why AD&D/2e is better,
A fighter can still win those battles regularly.
>>47754363
So does that mean that Sonic '06 is a good game just because me and my friends had fun shitting on it?
>>47754363
complaint not mattering =/= complaint not right
Just because nobody cares that someone on an anonymous image board cals out Bieber/Twilight/whatever is shit but popular currently for being shit, doesn't mean that it actually isn't, only that people don't care about it being shit.
In fact, your argument is kinda ironic in the sense that you decided that the flaws anon lists aren't objective... because there's a large group of people who subjectively enjoy the game.
The two have nothing to do with each other. A game can be objectively flawed, but everyone can still decide how much those flaws are worth for them subjectively.
This doesn't mean they don't exist, however. They may not matter (to you and many others) but they do keep existing.
>>47754354
>>47754384
No, it means you and your friends are furry autists. Sonic is a shit series for retards.
>>47754437
Give it up. All you're doing is showing that you really are mentally crippled and can't separate what's subjective and objective.
You really are just a stupid shitposter, so here's a final lesson for you. You're not going to understand it now, but maybe ten years down the line, you'll find yourself in a moment of absolute despair, and I hope that's when these words will finally reach you.
Those "flaws" are not objective. They can all even be treated as features, depending on the player, the DM, the rest of the party, and even the setting. While this is hyperbolic to some degree, it's here to help illustrate what you fail to appreciate: The distinction between objectivity and subjectivity.
It's bizarre, because you're hoping to decry this game because of optimization concerns, and then you also hope to say that it's the game's fault for making people obsess about optimization. You genuinely are obsessing about minute distinctions of combat mechanics as if they were chiseled in stone and the entire game depended on people perceiving them as you do. You are subjectively placing emphasis there, when other people are free to be far less concerned.
I don't even disagree with all your points. But what I disagree with is your idea that everyone needs to play like you do, or that everyone needs to play like I do.
While the monk has what I'd call flaws, I'm not insane enough to believe that the monk's flaws somehow dismantle the game as a whole, especially if those flaws are easily fixed and the rest of the system still performs as well as it does.
You can cry as much as you want about how you don't think the system performs well, but what you need to recognize is all that is is subjective whining. Bitching. Crying about flaws you think are gamebreaking while millions of people continue to play without caring about your personal concerns or grievances.
That's the sad truth. You and your petty complaints don't matter.
>>47754372
Same with 4e. D&D editions divisible by 2 confirmed for best D&D.
>>47754458
That's some intense mental gymnastics right there.
>>47754522
I can assure you, there are no gymnastics required.
>>47754465
How is a level 10-12 Monk supposed to handle the creatures mentioned in this post >>47753997
Because as it stands, it's almost impossible, short of the Monk rolling straight crits and the creatures rolling straight fumbles.
>>47754543
It's bizarre, because you're hoping to decry this game because of optimization concerns, and then you also hope to say that it's the game's fault for making people obsess about optimization. You genuinely are obsessing about minute distinctions of combat mechanics as if they were chiseled in stone and the entire game depended on people perceiving them as you do. You are subjectively placing emphasis there, when other people are free to be far less concerned.
I don't even disagree with all your points. But what I disagree with is your idea that everyone needs to play like you do, or that everyone needs to play like I do.
While the monk has what I'd call flaws, I'm not insane enough to believe that the monk's flaws somehow dismantle the game as a whole, especially if those flaws are easily fixed and the rest of the system still performs as well as it does.
You can cry as much as you want about how you don't think the system performs well, but what you need to recognize is all that is is subjective whining. Bitching. Crying about flaws you think are gamebreaking while millions of people continue to play without caring about your personal concerns or grievances.
That's the sad truth. You and your petty complaints don't matter.
>>47754542
And if I pulled up some autismal shit from the paizo forums or /pfg/, you'd throw a shitfit because "that doesn't represent the fanbase at all, SHITPOSTER!"
>>47754552
Answer the question.
>>47754565
Are you saying that pathfinder fans are as bad as sonic ones? I hate pathfinder, but that's sort of pushing it
>>47754565
No I won't. Go ahead.
I fucking *dare* you to find a Paizo autist that's even one fucking iota as powerful as a living retard legend as Chris Chan.
It's not possible.
>>47754648
Sean K. Reynolds
>>47754570
Make me care first.
Convince me that the quality of the game hinges on that question.
>>47754674
He can't.
You already adequately proved that for you, the quality of a game is a subjective matter, and hence you can ignore any flaws as "yeah, well, I don't care, so it obviously doesn't matter".
Check mate, atheists!
>>47754669
Not even close. Unless he made a medallion out of his posts and wears it around his neck while drawing terrible porn of himself having sex with other Paizo members.
Even then, he'd only be a hundredth of the way there. He'd still need to burn his house down, hit a man with his car, mace a Gamestop employee, "transition" into being a female lesbian and then try to become a stripper.
Chris Chan is a god damn LEGEND.
>>47754674
Just because me and my friends are laughing at Sonic stopping halfway through a loop-the-loop doesn't change the fact that the event occurred due to bad programming.
By that same token, a good GM putting together a good campaign in spite of the system's flaws doesn't magically make the flaws disappear, it just shows that the GM is skilled enough to make an enjoyable campaign out of any system in spite of everything about the game's design making it more difficult than necessary.
>>47754709
Chris-Chan is some autist shitting himself on the internet and isn't really that well known outside of it.
By contrast, SKR is responsible for one of the most popular tabletop games to date, while flounting his own misconceptions on what an "ordinary" person can and cannot do based on his own lack of athleticism and knowledge on weaponry and martial arts.
Also, keep in mind, he added furry races, stolen several ideas from other games, made a succubus made of literal shit a monster you can encounter, and even added rules for lactation.
He may not be wearing a medallion or burning his house down but he's still a weird fucker who probably would make porn of his own characters if he wasn't busy keeping Pathfinder alive on life support.
>>47754669
Not part of this Chris Chan conversation, but holy SHIT. Mr Reynolds there sounds like he should be a community manager for Battleborn or something. All those posts are as professional as they are constructive.
I think when you start playing DnD (or PF or wahtever), you're just walking into dangerous territory with enough splat, and the harder you try to nail it down, the weirder it gets. Which is why I liked Vanilla PF so much: very contained to the core rulebook and not a shitton to worry about. It's a shame the business model means more than the game.
>>47754745
Sorry, but you failed to prove how your point was important, let alone pivotal. I can easily dismiss it as neglible, because it is.
>>47754804
You can dismiss it all you want but it doesn't make the game flawless, it just makes you look ignorant and stubborn to view the game in a way beyond your personal feelings.
>>47754862
No one said it was flawless.
Your current task isn't to prove that it has flaws (which all games do), but that these flaws are "objectively" gamebreaking. You need to do that in order to make me take you seriously.
Let me give you a quick hint. You can't, hence your posturing is all just a grand joke built around you nitpicking and demanding that people respect your shitposting.
Guess it depends on personal taste but 2e is my favorite because it's just so unforgiving and brutal.
>>47754896
I can't magically make you understand the issues if you're too stubborn to acknowledge them as gamebreaking flaws.
I can't make you understand why locking basic combat maneuvers behind feats with expensive feat taxes while adding shitloads of roadblocks to make these maneuvers useless in late game is bad game design.
I can't make you understand why having spells that render entire classes obsolete at no cost to the caster, beyond the spell slot being spent, is beyond retarded.
And I can't make you understand how difficult it is to build an encounter around classes that can end encounters in one turn and classes that need optimization just to overcome the same encounter in 3-5 turns is just poor balancing.
I can show proof that backs up my claim that these game-breaking aspects exists in the hopes that you'll understand but at this point, it's like trying to convince a Catholic about birth control.
I'm arguing with facts, you're arguing with emotion, and the insidious part is, as long as you FEEL correct, nothing I do will convince you otherwise because you already believe that you're right and I'm just "nitpicking" and a "troll."
>>47755003
I can't acknowledge them as game-breaking flaws, because of the simple evidence of the game being run by millions of people for over a decade. That alone punctures your "objectively" unplayable stance.
Your "facts" are largely just you hoping to subjectively exaggerate how important your complaints are. It's entirely emotion-based, which you fail to understand and have convinced yourself that your nitpicking is anything except that.
What you fail, and continue to fail to do, is fail to understand that I know the flaws of system far better than you do. My personal list of grievances is considerably larger than you can imagine, and include such minute complaints as certain spells having failed to retain certain properties from 2e.
The difference between you and me is that I can simultaneously acknowledge the flaws while also appreciating its strengths, while you are such a shitposter that you would be willing to nitpick at any list of strengths just to prove that, yes, you can complain about anything.
Congrats. You are quite the shitposter. But, your problem is that you want people to respect your shitposting.
>>47741940
Ew.
The PHB is a hot mess.
A lot of the books that followed used huge margin art to allow fewer words to fill larger books.
The Ranger changed to become all about one character: Drizzt.
Forgotten Realms became the pop choke a moose kitchen sink setting.
AD&D2 was the reason so many gamers went elsewhere that the migration back to 3e was seismic.
>>47755117
>I can't acknowledge them as game-breaking flaws, because of the simple evidence of the game being run by millions of people for over a decade. That alone punctures your "objectively" unplayable stance.
You can't use subjective stances as evidence against objective evidence.
"I feel as though he's the killer" is not the same as "I have photographic proof that he murdered the victim."
>Your "facts" are largely just you hoping to subjectively exaggerate how important your complaints are. It's entirely emotion-based, which you fail to understand and have convinced yourself that your nitpicking is anything except that.
Except that I can prove my stance using the game's own rules as evidence.
It takes three feats to become adequate at grappling someone who is the same size as you or smaller, which becomes less and less common as you gain levels.
By contrast, "black tentacles" is an AoE grapple check using tentacles that are much stronger than a martial of equal level and lasts long enough to turn an entire area into difficult terrain, even if they somehow avoid it.
And keep in mind, this is only one example.
>What you fail, and continue to fail to do, is fail to understand that I know the flaws of system far better than you do. My personal list of grievances is considerably larger than you can imagine, and include such minute complaints as certain spells having failed to retain certain properties from 2e.
That doesn't really hold any water considering spellcasting as a whole got buffed from 2e though.
In OD&D, wizards had shit health, shit THAC0, shit AC, could lose a spell if someone coughed on them hard enough, and had to deal with monsters with anti-magic, which was a percentile chance of the spell just not working.
In 3.PF however, there's nothing stopping a wizard from having good attack, AC, and health and concentration /SR can easily be pumped using feats, keeping in mind that some spells don't even allow a saving throw or SR.
1/2
>>47755117
cont. from >>47755193
>The difference between you and me is that I can simultaneously acknowledge the flaws while also appreciating its strengths, while you are such a shitposter that you would be willing to nitpick at any list of strengths just to prove that, yes, you can complain about anything.
Can you really call those supposed strengths "strengths" when they only work if you outright ignore most the rules?
>Congrats. You are quite the shitposter. But, your problem is that you want people to respect your shitposting.
I'm just listing my disagreements with your position, you're the one screaming and throwing your shit around because I had the audacity to say "I disagree."
>>47755193
You're still trying to "prove" what can't be proven. What part of "I know the flaws, and don't value them as highly as you do" can't you understand?
Who are you trying to impress?
>>47755259
>"I know the flaws, and don't value them as highly as you do"
So basically, "I know the game is shitty but I don't care."
>>47755279
I know the game has flaws, but its strengths outweigh them.
You can subjectively disagree, but that's really all you can do.
>>47755303
"I know the game is the shittiest thing ever made, but it's popular so I don't care."
>>47755314
Really? This is the level your shitposting has been reduced to?
>>47755334
Is it really shitposting when it's what you've been saying this whole time?
>>47749954
Haha, oh fucking wow.
Can you guys just kiss and get over it, please
