Daily Pathfinder hate thread
- Home
- Board: /tg/ - Traditional Games
- Reading: Daily Pathfinder hate thread
Every time I see an official artwork, I'm inspired to devise a character just like on that cool picture, only to find it is horrendously impractical.
Valeros, iconic fighter, always depicted using two weapon fighting, slick stuff right there - yet the worst type of melee tactics you could choose mechanic-wise.
Amiri, iconic barbarian, always depicted swinging oversized sword, any rager would love that - sadly, only attainable with a horrible fighter archetype, or with a horrible weapon and a wasted feat.
Any picture with gunslinger - always shooting akimbo with pistols, simply badass - cannot be achieved with anything less than revolvers, which are not present in standard Pathfinder setting.
Heck, even iconic rogue uses quite nifty combination of rapier and throwing daggers, which is bizarre in actual play, double so for delivering sneak attacks
>>47587900
It has been established that the standard heroes in Pathfinder are some of the most poorly built sons of bitches you could ever witness.
Attribute it to a combination of Paizo not knowing 3.5 and Paizo not knowing their own system.
>>47587900
People who complain about Pathfinder are like people dying of thirst in the desert who refuse to drink from an oasis right in front of them because water tastes "different" than the sand they've been eating for the last 3 days.
Seriously, play anything else. Even 5e is better than Pathfinder, and that's fukken DnD.
>>47588381
It's not just iconics, even. There is no iconic antipaladin, for example, yet there is one that always floats up and he is also sword and board.
It's okay, actually, it is not a matter of optimization - I always tend to go for aesthetics mainly. But it upsets me when every cover is basically a scam - you won't be slightly behind if you're trying to recreate those in your builds - you will have a really hard time playing.
I'm currently watching at "Armor Master's Handbook" and there is a TWF samurai on the cover - you probably know how it works on the table.
>>47588443
There is an iconic antipaladin
He's a Dwarf with hammer and board and a Large heavy crossbow which he uses in conjunction with enlarge person
>>47588464
He is ranger, not antipaladin.
Still horrible though.
>>47588480
pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Urgraz
>>47588480
>>47588464
Actually he's a duergar.
>-4 Charsima
>>47588480
>>47587900
Why are all the character's overdesigned and shit?
Most of the detail is unnecessary and their carrying so much bullshit that it makes them look cluttered and busy.
>>47588501
*they're
Stupid phone.
>>47588501
But it was made by a guy who drew for 3.5! How dare you!
>>47587900
Valeros is generally agreed to be the most competently built of all the iconics, which I'm not sure is intentional or some irony considering Fighter is pretty much the worst class.
>>47588501
Carrying so much bullshit is the murderhobo way.
>>47588443
>TWF samurai
If you also use Weapon Master's handbook, it could work. It's still more investment than what it's worth, but it isn't entirely retarded.
>>47588492
>>47588497
Oh my god this even worse.
>>47588561
>Carrying so much bullshit is the murderhobo way.
Hasn't anyone heard of a fucking backpack?
>>47588501
It's Wayne Reynolds. Overdesigned And Shit is his defined style.
>>47588405
People who complain about D&D on /tg/ are like people who go to a Chinese restaurant and then complain about how there's Chinese food on the menu.
>>47587900
>Everything MUST be optimized
You're not a lot of fun to play with are you buddy?
>>47588790
Contrary to what 3.5 players actually believe, traditional games includes wayyyy more than their precious over-bloated system of self-torture. 3.5 is to /tg/ what Nintendo is to videogames, something that's fallen out of relevance because it's been replaced with things that are much better, but refuses to die due to a very small pocket of delusion fanboys who refuse to let go because MUH NOSTALGIA.
>>47588821
I think he means that d&d is like duck soup, war games are wontons or whatever the fuck and card games are your blackbean sauce noodles.
It's all chinese food once you get down to it.
>>47588790
People who play 3.PF are people who'd rather eat Digiorno over homemade pizza because they don't feel like learning how to cook and will shit on homemade pizza because they don't want to feel bad about eating ready-made pizza.
>>47588839
In that case, people who complain about Pathfinder are people who go to a restaurant, try one dish, and then whine that the restaurant doesn't serve anything they like without even bothering to try anything else on the menu.
When you get down to it, the answer to every Pathfinder complaint is to play something that isn't Pathfinder, but god forbid you expect Pathfinder players to listen. It's like telling a smoker the only way to stop coughing up blood is to quit smoking, but they keep doing it anyway.
To be honest though... I sorta understand it. Pathfinder is so painful to learn that once you do, you feel invested. You;re scared other systems will take just as many weeks or months to master, only to be just as dissapointing. It's OK, anons... not all systems are as bad as Pathfinder. Some of them you can actually learn and be competent at in a single sitting. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true, it really is. Some systems out there actually let you roleplay, don;t require "system mastery" and actually reject "ivory tower game design".
>>47588790
Chinese food gives me the shits.
>Valeros, iconic fighter, always depicted using two weapon fighting, slick stuff right there - yet the worst type of melee tactics you could choose mechanic-wise.
Yeah, you clearly don't know shit about PF. TWF has the potential for highest damage - it's not great because of all the feats it requires, but it's certainly better than, say, using a one-handed weapon or sword and board without TWF.
>>47589094
OMG how is there always someone to defend this shit.
Every fighting style below bows is shit in Pathfinder, with THF being OK instead of shit.
>>47589171
That does not make TWF the worst melee tactic - in fact, it's the second best, far above shit like using combat maneuvers.
>>47588839
>>47589194
You're basically taking more feats to deal less damage than the guy who focused on 2H weapons.
To be fair, fighting with two weapons is pretty difficult. There's a reason it didn't happen much in real life.
>>47588907
You're ignoring the people who really do want to play something else, but don't know anyone who will play anything other than Pathfinder and don't want to deal with how god-awful Roll20 and practically any PbP game can be.
It's interesting to see this thread crash and burn because people who actually play PF don't care what any of you think.
Just another case of badwrongfun police making the board a shittier place.
>>47588501
>Most of the detail is unnecessary and their carrying so much bullshit that it makes them look cluttered and busy.
That's the one things that is right- PCs tend to carry shitloads of gear.
>>47592170
In backpacks and satchels and containers, not strapped all over their person by loose straps and leather belts.
I mean, one stray fireball and the Fighter in the OP loses most of his gear.
>>47589467
I'm guessing for similar reasons you can't cast fireball in real life as well?
>>47590244
Except it's not so much badwrongfun because the game is:
1) Objectively broken
2) The most popular game on the market
That is a terrifying combination that deserves discussion.
>>47595168
It's easier to make a fireball using a canister of gasoline and a match than it is to make TWF actually viable.
If you have to hold something in your off-hand, make it a shield or arming sword so you can protect your flank.
>>47595301
Rifts is also objectively broken and is insanely popular, yet receives no discussion.
4e is objectively broken and that receives outright defensive reactions.
Exalted isn't just objectively broken, it's outright stupidly unplabale, yet that recieves no discussion.
Finally, WoD is so broken it makes PF look reasonable balanced.
So, yeah, you're just upset about people having badwrongfun. Get over yourselves and move on.
>>47597456
>Rifts is insanely popular
What?
>4e is objectively broken
I'm sorry, what?
>>47597721
Well, it's broken in the sense that it cannot be fixed.
>>47597721
>I was only pretending to be retarded!
>>47595547
TWF with a shield you say?
That's just crazy enough to work.
Thanks anon.
>>47588497
>>-4 Charsima
never played pf but this revelation was hilarious after reading all the posts building up to it
>>47588907
>>47589868
These two go hand in hand, really.
So many people suffer through learning the ins and outs of 3.PF that even if a few of them want to try something else so many of their friends either don't want to learn something new because they think it's gonna be just as bad or just think that it's not worth their time to learn something new.
>>47597721
4e is objectively broken, not in the same way as PF, but it is.
>>47589467
The reason it didn't happen much in real life is because using a shield was strictly better at keeping you alive, though. I mean, it's fairly difficult, you're right, but only in the sense that you'd have to put in a couple of minutes each day practicing. It's not like it was some kind of ~mysterious advanced technique~ that only masters could use.
>>47587900
>Daily Pathfinder hate thread
You mean /pfg/?
>>47588729
Jesus, man. He makes Tetsuya Nomura's stuff look sleek and elegant.
>>47588907
Nigga. I don't play Pathfinder, or 3.5.
I will never, ever touch either of those systems again.
I complain about them to expose their flaws to people that might not know, to prevent the literal brain damage those fucking shitpiles of system inflict on people. When I was growing up, NOT speaking out against those bloated piles of living cancer lead to their prominence, and retarded idiots that defend caster supermancy so rabidly.
Never fucking again.
>>47589868
>>47589868
>>47588907
>>47601743
I have attempted to run other systems before but at the endd of the day just have to return to 3.pf. its just the way how it is sadly. at least i make the effort to broaden horizons.
>>47588497
Reminder he killed his family with poison and Duergar have native poison immunity by default.
>>47602089
At least you found some people that were willing to try!
I can't tell you how many times I've offered to run something like Dungeon World or Project: Dark or some other far simpler game on;y to be met with responses of "We don't wanna learn a whole new system".
>>47602334
Other responses include "We don't want to play a hack of Bear World, you fuck."
>>47601924
Please, kind noble sir, do don a trip so that your valued service can be noticed and justly rewarded.
>>47588729
You talkin' shit about mad prophet boy?
>>47597456
>Finally, WoD is so broken it makes PF look reasonable balanced.
Chronicles of Darkness is way more balanced.
Mage 2e fixes mages so they're not broken any more.
>>47587900
>I'm inspired by these greasy, homeless, hoarders they show on official art
What's inspiring about that?
>>47588729
At least MtG still has some good art. Everything done by these two, for one. Wings of Orzhova is another great example of their art.
As for Pathfinder, my main problem with the system is that their approach to class imbalance wasn't to reign in the power of spellcasters, but to give every class a boost in some way... including spellcasters. Sure, they got less of a bonus, but do you really need class features every other level AND 9th level spellcasting? Sorcerers didn't need it in 3E and they were Tier 2.
I feel like Pathfinder could have been great, if only it had the balls to make spellcasters on par with mundane fighters and rogues. Make their spell selection way narrower so they can't do a million different things. Change the more powerful utility spells so they're either toned down, more limited in scope, or have serious costs and risks associated with them. Then, when casters start getting the seriously good mojo at mid to high levels, give martial characters abilities that BREAK THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. If a caster can raise the dead and teleport across whole nations, a martial character of the same level should be able to keep fighting at insanely huge massive negative hit points or jump hundreds of feet at a time like the Hulk.
Make low levels gritty realistic fantasy with weak and limited magic, and high levels over-the-top Herculean / Superheroic fantasy with powerful magic. Because, right now, Fighters start gritty and stay that way, and Wizards go from minor tricks to making their own demi-planes and becoming physical gods. High level play should be equally ridiculous and empowering to all classes, not just the dudes in stupid robes.
>>47601924
>defend caster supermancy so rabidly.
rolling my eyes at you fampai
>>47602760
People defend this. You can't even try and say otherwise with a straight face.
>>47602392
Eat shit and die.
>>47601823
You mean in the sense of you have to use specific books where they fixed the monster math and give out a few math-fixing feats for free? Because I'd hardly call that broken.
You might not like 4e, or not think it's true D&D or whatever, but for what it sets out to do, it does.
>>47602880
You realize that's a joke image right? Most of the stuff that is listed for the wizard doesn't work against dragons.
>>47602880
You're clearly acting with pride rather than shame,
so do the world a favor and post with a name.
>>47603015
The class glut is very broken, the fuck you talking about. I just hate D&D m8.
>>47602334
Well to be fair, both of your alternatives there are shit smeared out to look like nuetella so I do not doubt people outright rejecting them.
>>47587900
wtf are you talking about? i've seen nearly all of these things done in pathfinder, and no one's had a problem.
do you have one of those DM's that just wants to shit on everyone's idea?
do your players memorize stats while being waterboarded and beat by their elder role-playing siblings?
i really don't understand this type of mentality?
>>47602880
>sleep
>dragon
>dragon
>humanoid
>save spells/spells in general
>dragon
Anon this is obviously not serious god damn
>>47603056
Wait, so 4e is broken, because it has a bunch of different classes?
I could get how you could see that as a bad thing, but they're all fairly balanced with eachother, so that wouldn't be 'broken'.
>>47603079
>i really don't understand this type of mentality?
I guess you don't?
>>47603091
>hurr, it's a picture of a dragon
>that must mean they're talking specifically about dragons instead of encounters in general
>>47603101
No, there are particular classes, abilities, and combinations of abilities that break the game.
> but they're all fairly balanced with eachother
Have you not actually played 4e? It suffers from a majority of the same problems as 3.5, simply in a different shade.
>>47588821
Don't diss nintendo like that
Unlike 3.5, Nintendo was good once upon a time
>>47603126
Such as? The main ones got errata'd. Even Frostcheese got an errata.
>>47587900
I played a pathfinder campaign once when i was an unreliable player. i only showed up half the time due to work and life.
>decided to play a dwarf bard with a crossbow.
>decided to have alzheimers. that explained me wandering off and on throughout the campaign.
>I would show up at the most opportune moment, during a fight where people needed an advantage, and they would get that extra +hit or saving throws.
>became a hero.
>later on in end campaign, getting ready to transition to epic campaign.
>party interacts with contract devil.
>party makes a grievious error.
>fortunately, senile dwarf bard was not present for contract
>becomes major plothook. senile dwarven bard saves the party.
>becomes approached by a god of chaos
>become a demi-god.
>become co-DM when i'm there with an npc character.
>campaign is best campaign we ran since we decided to all play chaotic evil orcs and half-orcs.
can't honestly have anything bad to say about pathfinder.
>>47603079
You are on a board that believes their IQ is 70 points above average and that one anecdote they read a while back or bad example is what is at every table.
When told this is not true, they will scream about how they had a bad time, how you are actually having a bad time and they have this amazing thing that can fix your problem.
These few have had the stick for long enough that it is starting swing the other way. People have time to try their alternatives and found them wanting or just something no one wants to play.
>>47603116
You realize half the things it said also don't actually work. Maze is the most "trap in a pocket dimension spell" and lasts at maximum minute per level.
Wizards are worse at dealing damage than martials. They simply are. It's the one thing a competent martial can do better than a competent caster. (yes I can provide numbers to prove what ever build you have wrong).
Instantly tripping anything humanoid hasn't been a thing since 3.5, and even then it can only be done with a VERY liberal reading of the rules.
Solid fog blocks sight for everyone, doesn't help in a lot of encounters.
Wizards are broken, but that picture is a fucking joke you piece of human garbage.
>>47603126
Name some.
>>47587900
i've had a player do a fighter who had a back-up dagger. it actually became very useful when he was able to conceal it during a weapons checkpoint.
i feel like you're just being picky for no reason and looking to bitch about it.
>>47603126
>Have you not actually played 4e?
Extensively. If you think 4e has the same problems as 3.5, I would sooner assume that you can't read.
>>47587900
>yet the worst type of melee tactics you could choose mechanic-wise.
It's like OP never actually played Pathfinder. This is whats wrong with this archaic site: people make shit up then the circle jerk ensues. Dual-wielding is one of the highest Damage-per-turn choices available to fighters if not the highest if used properly.
OP just give up. you are an embarrassment online as much as you are in real life.
>>47603161
>Maze is the most "trap in a pocket dimension spell" and lasts at maximum minute per level.
That's long enough to remove a big dude from a fight entirely. Going up against 1 dude then 1 dude is a lot easier than 2 dudes at once.
>>47587900
Tfw when i realise I love how retarded and shit 3.pf is.
>>47597456
As a opp guy seen plenty of people acknowledge how broken wod and exalted are. Difference is we now have new editions that work.
>>47603187
Maze only lasts that long if the character is stupid. They can escape with an intelligence check. That being said it is also a level 8 wizard spell. No one is arguing that wizards at 15th level are balanced. It also allows for spell resistance, but that does not matter as much.
The dragon in the image could easily escape the maze.
That being said I am commenting that the image is still fucking wrong. It says "forever", which does not exist except at the conjunction of using several spells in order including a fucking permanency'd demi-plane.
>>47603175
i played 4.e once. didn't really want to play it again. no, it didn't have the same problems. it just had all new ones i didn't care to combat. e5 looks more promising desu. and this is coming from a die-hard pathfinder/2.0 dnd fan.
>>47603101
Hey man, I like 4e, but you are straight wrong
Only in terms of Essentials classes though. Amongst, pre-essentials classes they're mostly balanced, balanced enough that there isn't a massive shift in party viability between taking, say, an assassin against taking a ranger. But post essentials you've got shit like vampires, knights, cavaliers and (the one that I've had the worst personal experience with) bladesingers.
>>47603255
>It says "forever", which does not exist except at the conjunction of using several spells in order including a fucking permanency'd demi-plane.
>It doesn't exist except for this way that it does
So...Wizards can do that then? Not saying it's the most effective option, but it's there.
>>47603145
Every part of that story would have been exactly as possible--if not easier--in any other RPG. But they don't require 4+ densely-packed pages of character sheets that still manage to leave things out, or require a flowchart to explain how to grab someone.
>>47587900
5e is nice in that no matter what weapon configuration you have, the damage evens out more or less. It does make things feel a little more flat, but imo the difference in weapons and fighting style mechanics was never that thrilling in any variant of D&D. So to me, all that should more or less be flavour.
(I'm talking melee weaps here, obv there should be a difference between ranged and melee, and some melee weapons like ones with reach)
>>47603272
Doing so takes casting for ~5 hours and spending ~25k GP, and allows for several saves.
Really, at that point it's not a real issue. Is the enemy waits for 5 hours for you to cast then they deserve it.
>>47603268
Bladesingers are the main offenders, and even then that's only if you try to actually build them as controllers instead of strikers.
Even in the case of Essentials classes though, they only taper off at Paragon tier.
I wouldn't exactly call that 'just as broken as 3.5'. Yeah, those classes aren't as good as the pre-essentials ones, but they can still do decently.
It's certainly not the gulf that 3.5 had between 'almost useless' and 'basically god'
>>47603288
>5e is nice in that no matter what weapon configuration you have, the damage evens out more or less.
Well, Great Weapon kicks the shit out of everything else once feats come into play.
>>47603226
I love everything about 3.PF except actually playing the game
It's just so much fun as an optimization exercise. Building a hulking hurler who can lift the known universe, a barbarian who can deal thousands of points of damage on a single charge, a monk that attacks 18 times per turn (and misses every hit because monks are ass), that's fun as hell. But actually using those characters in game? Way less enjoyable
>>47603309
Yeah, but other weapon types have other benefits. Archery is obvious due to range. Sword and Board has the defensive applications. Two-weapon fighting is probably the worst, but mainly on Fighters who already get 4 attacks.
>>47603278
you are not wrong. but this also doesn't prove that pathfinder is any less of a system, and that no one has had fun playing it. the entire premise of OP's thread is bullshit. pathfinder is fun. "people" make it not fun. just like with any other system.
>waaaaaah my unique half-fairy pike-specced rogue made a few bad rolls!
>>47603332
Yeah but you said 'The damage evens out' rather than 'They all have uses' so I decided to be pedantic.
5e honestly annoys me with it's 6 types of save.
>>47603319
Don't forget the anal spelunker build.
Dnd/pathfinder are popular because they are so big that almost no one else tries to do generic fantasy dungeon crawler. They're bad but in many cases also the only option
>>47603319
how the fuck are you guys playing pathfinder? when would you ever need this level of meta-gaming to succeed?
we had one dude who wanted to meta-game and researched which build would make him most effective. he was literally the most useless dude, in both combat and any interaction, because he was so specialized to fight giant bosses that he could never help out in casual encounters.
what the fuck kind of people do you actually play with?
>>47603345
I've never seen a Pathfinder character built in less than three hours, including with experienced players who'll fight tooth and nail for how great Pathfinder is. The second-longest I've seen it take to make a character is 4e, at about a half-hour. Then you've got two choices:
>go through the trouble of memorizing all your dozens of key statistics
or
>consult your character sheet every time you want to do something or every time something is done to or around you
Neither is conducive to getting on with the actual playing.
Yes, it is possible to have fun with Pathfinder, but it is an active impediment to fun. You have fun in spite of it, not because of it.
>>47603288
It also makes casters even more dominant than in any other edition of D&D, so who the fuck cares?
>>47603423
>built in less than three hours
wtf are you fucking doing with your lives?
how the fucking hell do you build a character in three hours? do you spend 2.5 hours drawing your character?
>>47603423
>>47603458
>STOP LIKING WHAT I LIKE!!!!!!!1
>>47603407
Did you not read my post?
That level of optimization is not for playing, it's for building characters. The game is not the RPG, it's the process of putting a crazy build together. That sort of thing is fun all on it's own.
>>47603458
Not him, but I could easily believe that. Pathfinder has so many random splats and options that you have a lot to look through when building a character, and you have to look through them because if you don't you might accidentally end up making something that can't actually function.
3 hours might be an exaggeration, but Pathfinder is anything but simple. Unless you're going into the game with a character build already memorized, then it's going to take some time setting it up. And if you spent time memorizing it beforehand, is it really only taking you 30 minutes?
>>47603474
did you even understand what i was saying? what kind of crazy build do you need to survive your psychotic DM's campaign?
what, he dropping a balor every turn? a tarrasque?
why can't you have fun making your own character in pathfinder?
>>47603505
Did you even understand what he was saying? He said he only enjoys pathfinder for the thought excercise of making stupidly powerful characters. He doesn't actually play the game with them.
>>47603493
the fact that you build a character that has flaws is the best thing about pathfinder. why the hell would you build a character that could handle every situation?
play world of darkness if you wanted to survive everything. holy fucking shit.
I love how the shit level of this thread is escalating.
>>47603493
Trap options in a game that has rules about retraining your character in the core fucking rulebook is the argument of people who have never actually cracked open the book.
>>47603537
Where did I say 'build a character that can handle every situation'?
I said you needed to look through those books if you wanted a character to function. If I want to play an Indiana Jones style Rogue, I'm going to have to look through all the books for feats dealing with Whips, or dealing with Firearms, or dealing with Archeology, or dealing with fancy hats, or whatever else, because Pathfinder actually has rules for all those things
If I don't take those things, the character will suck because they don't have Improved Whip Expertise and so they won't be able to actually use it effectively.
You see how that leads to character creation taking a long time? If you go into it with any sort of idea that isn't just trying to hammer out a character as fast as possible, it'll take a while.
>>47603458
Skill ranks, feats, spells, weapons, armor, everything in our backpacks, class features, then every type of AC, then the statistics for each weapon you took, and so on. Things that take seconds in other games take ten minutes in Pathfinder, and it adds up quickly.
>>47603505
It's about answering the Questions, "If the opportunity comes up, can I solo Treerazor?"
>>47603309
The gap between great weapon and stuff haphazardly thrown together isn't a huge in 5E.
In Pathfinder you can completely cripple yourself.
5E you can be sub-optimal, but still contribute significantly. That freedom lets you have more fun with builds and roleplaying.
>>47603623
Unless your character is over level 10 it shouldn't take more than an hour unless you agonize over every decision.
>>47603623
>takes 10 minutes to choose a weapon
>takes 10 minutes to choose skills
>takes 10 minutes to choose armor
Unless you're actually brand new and have never used the system it shouldn't take this long. Unless you are actually mentally deficient.
>>47603672
But you have to agonize over every decision, because there are so many trap options. If you're playing a class that's already weak, you can't afford the dip in power because some feat sounded cool while actually being garbage.
Even taking an hour still sounds like an insanely long time. Longest I've had someone take creating a character in 5e was someone playing a Cleric who was playing it for the first time. They had to read every spell on the spell list, and purposefully chose to copy down the full text word for word of each spell they chose onto their character sheet, along with the text of their Domain features.
Even with all that, they still only took 40 minutes.
>>47590244
>crash and burn
>everyone is agreeing and making well thought out points
Back to your concentration camp, 3aboo.
>>47603713
just re-evaluate the spergness displayed in this discussion, then rethink your statement.
>>47603718
>But you have to agonize over every decision, because there are so many trap options. If you're playing a class that's already weak, you can't afford the dip in power because some feat sounded cool while actually being garbage.
You really don't. It's not as if a trap option is around every corner and if you don't choose all optimal options you'll be shot out back. Unless you've actually never played before building a character, even a character as high as 10, should take half an hour at most. I can see someone go really far for optimization at higher levels and taking longer.
The only reason you could think otherwise is if your GM forces you to build ultra-competent characters. Even then competent options are well known and easily looked up if you don't know them. Still should not take over an hour.
Are you actually retarded?
>>47603596
>But you can just re do your character if he turns out shit!
Here's an idea, why not just not include trap options in the first place?
>>47587900
Can I get in at least three dot points why people don't like the 3.5/PF system?
>>47603805
Trap Option != Non-optimal option
Actual trap options that do nothing or are actively terrible are few and far between. Most feats simply are just "ok". If every feat you take MUST be the most optimal then something is wrong with your GM or party, not the system.
That being said Pathfinder has it's problems, but taking that long to build a character is far outside the norm.
>>47603805
maybe not enough playtesting? then again people will always find a way to create the statistically optimal build for a class and then calling anything else trash.
>>47603813
Class imbalance
Bloat
Some character options objectively inferior to others
>>47603821
And you're a cry baby, fuck off.
>>47603832
>Actual trap options that do nothing or are actively terrible are few and far between.
Yeah whatever helps you sleep at night dude
>>47603813
>class inbalance
>lack of in-game options for martial characters
>the skill system is inherently broken
>>47603785
I could see it taking half an hour if you just pick the first option in literally every category on your character.
If you actually look over your options? Yeah, it'll be a long process just because of how many damn options there are.
>>47603846
Really, most feats are merely "meh", they do not actively make you worse. If you think otherwise you're the stupid one.
Most character after 1-3 staple feats actually don't even need feats. Hell, a martial can get by with literally only power attack if necessary and go hog wild with their other feats. A caster doesn't need any feats to be functional unless every spell they choose is garbage (which there are resources online to look up for otherwise, and even if they randomize it they would be hard pressed to get all useless spells).
>>47603880
You do not know what "trap options" are
>>47603856
Then you go VERY slow or it is your first time building a character. Hell I can build a character below level 10 in less than 5 minutes competently, but that doesn't matter because I have high system mastery.
The thing is I have ran a game club for a college. You get two kinds of people. People who can build a character in half an hour and people who simply can't build a character no matter how long they take.
>>47603888
Trap options are options that don't measure up to their competitors. That being said even with selecting trap options a character can function as long as they grab their 1-3 required feats. Hell half the trap options have those required feats as prerequisites.
And again I point you to the fact there are EXTENSIVE online resources to draw from.
>>47587900
Pathfinder has issues but characters not being able to do things iconics can is fairly common even in good rpgs
Okay, fa/tg/uys, any good alternatives for D&D/PF? Is Savage Worlds + Fantasy Companion a viable option?
>>47603612
That's exactly what happened. It was a high-level one-shot. I wanted to play an urbanite rogue who preferred outsmarting or outtalking opponents to a straight-up fight and who made up a different story every time someone asked how she lost her arm.
>Bad hand of poker. Could've sworn the guy was bluffing, but what're you gonna do?
>Ahh, I dunno. It's probably one of those things where it's right in front of your nose and you can't see it, y'know?
>A very, very stubborn drain clog.
Which lead to the rules on prosthetics, for firearms (since if you wanna be a rogue that's good with firearms, you gotta use grit, too, which leads to the gunslinger class page), for the stolen military uniform she wore as a joke (I figured "it's parade armor, could I just stat it as such and such armor? but no, turns out parade armor is already a thing), plus rogue talents that fit the flavor of my character while, ideally, still giving me the skills necessary to be useful in a dungeon crawl.As it turns out, the only skill I needed was "not getting in the wizard's way."
So my character actually took closer to six hours, all told. Non-consecutive, of course, because I'm not a masochist. Call me crazy but the process of character creation should not leave you with a sense of "thank God that's finally over."
>>47603934
I personally dislike Savage Worlds, but it really depends on what you want out of the system. What kind of fantasy do YOU want to play?
>>47603918
Right, let me just spend some time looking up the optimal way to build my character online, what 1-3 feats are required for it to function, which spells are actually worthwhile and which ones aren't, what the best weapon option is for my fighting style, and which feats not to take because they're traps.
I'm sure that'll speed things along.
>>47603938
Parade armor isn't a military uniform, it's fancy armor literally worn to look good for the public.
Really unless you were taking jack off breaks between every sentence 6 hours means you have actual problems with your mental faculties.
>>47603938
>(I figured "it's parade armor, could I just stat it as such and such armor? but no, turns out parade armor is already a thing)
This. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Where you have the idea to do something, but you have to look it up because, surprise surprise, it actually has rules.
>>47603934
Gurps does it well as it does anything else
I've had some fun with wod fantasy edition but that's for more gritty stuff like berserk without the magic armour
If you want to go full high fantasy then exalted third is shaping out great
But my personal absolute favorite system for fantasy is without a doubt___F.A.T.A.L.
>>47603963
Buddy, even if you do all that 3 hours if a fucking ridiculous number at anything but level 12+. Even then 3 hours is outside the norm.
The required function feats is something someone would know after their first character.
I will agree actually. If someone who has never played the game before was told to build a level 15 character and tries to fit it into a specific mold then yes, 3 hours is reasonable (especially if they refuse to use guides).
>>47604019
>>47603983
We're basically getting to the point where 'my anecdotal evidence is better than yours'
Can we at least all agree that while it is possible to build a character in under an hour, especially a simple one, building a more detailed one and actually considering options could take more time?
>>47603956
Something more Conan or pulp stuff that is easier to run than Pathfinder. Also plus if the social mechanics are minimal. I feel that skills like Diplomacy and Bluff discourages roleplaying.
I like Pathfinder but I'm getting tired of the community, long combats, and the amount of prep I need to do in order to GM.
>>47604019
Why not just give every character what they need to be functional? Why dress it up like a choice? That's not the mark of a good game, that's the mark of a game that produced enough feats that some of them wound up being good-enough. They got enough monkeys to write Hamlet.
>>47603161
Nah, considering Wizards can do X damage where X is the enemy's HP because hey, save or die spells!
>>47604019
I've built several characters, and I'm not sure which feats you're talking about as the 'required function' feats. Then again, the characters I've built also fell into some trap options, so I suppose that might be why?
It does seem like if those feats were needed for basic competence though, it'd be easier to just make it a class feature, or highlight them as more important, instead of just assuming everyone will figure out that these particular feats are needed while the others are trash.
>>47604071
I'm still not arguing pathfinder is a good or balanced game. I'm arguing taking 3 hours to build a character is the hallmark a retard.
>>47604075
This shows you don't actually play PF. Wizard's ability to cause destructive death actually is not in "oh I did damage". Wizards are horse shit at damage. Save or Dies are even uncommon at level 4 spells and beyond (if not non-existent). Save or suck is far more common.
>>47604106
Martial required feats: Power Attack
If Two Weapon Fighter: Two Weapon Fighting Tree + Weapon Finesse
Casters: None
That's about it for absolute required function.
>>47604065
>Also plus if the social mechanics are minimal. I feel that skills like Diplomacy and Bluff discourages roleplaying.
D&D has some of the most minimal social mechanics in all RPGs. Anything less would be 'none'
>>47604065
I'm always a fan of Warrior, Rogue, & Mage. The skill list is malleable by design so you can take out the ones you don't like and add ones relevant to the setting or campaign. And it's extremely simple to play and run. My only concern is that I'm not sure how well it'd do Conan-type stuff.
>>47604111
Okay, now do rogue talents.
>>47604173
Rogue talents vary wildly in quality, however Unchained Rogues are actually not only functional but competent characters. They're only overshadowed is no one in the world has anti-caster measures (see invisibility is the big one, no idea why GMs don't use it more).
>>47588790
>People who complain about D&D on /tg/ are like people who go to a Chinese restaurant and then complain about how there's Chinese food on the menu.
I'd say it's more like people who complain about having to go to Olive Garden every time they're out with their friends because they absolutely refuse to eat at any other restaurant because they're used to Olive Garden and wouldn't know what food to order elsewhere.
>>47604173
Thanks for the suggestion!
Warrior, Rogue & Mage looks like a fun game. It might be a bit too light-weight for me but it will probably try it out.
>>47603181
It's feat heavy, and you need to be able to full attack to make it work, so no a fighter can not do it well, barbarians can at least get pounce, so they can make more use of two weapon fighting.
>>47604847
Fighters can get pounce
They just need to take an overly long feat chain, multiclass into monk with the master of many styles archetype for one level and use a monk weapon in the process.
Pathfinder is shit; 3.5 was a mess and Pathfinder has done next to nothing to repair the mangled hell of 3.5 before dumping a truckload of additional nightmare trash all over it.
Paizo is full of a lot of clever capitalists who are brilliant managers of community sentiment and opportunists of legendary capability for timing and execution. I respect them, but they are not brilliant game designers and a lot of what they have done is abysmal even if we try to pretend that 3.PF itself isn't the worst to begin with.
HOWEVER
The Gamemastery Guide is a brilliant book and I'd like to shake the hands of the staff involved. It's not like it broke new ground or whatever but it was excellent organized, incredibly packed with value in terms of actual useful content (charts, premades, tables, etc), and beautiful in its production quality.
So I guess if we're going to righteously burn Paizo at the stake in a fire fueled by stacks of their unbalanced trash game, I'd like to say thanks for that book before we put the torch to the lot.
>>47602880
Are you pretending to be retarded or did you actually post that seriously
>>47603278
>I dunno, I enjoy the system and have had fun before
>your fun is wrong reeeeeeeee I'm too retarded to understand game mechanics reeeeEEEEEEE
You could at least comment about actual flaws like other people in this thread rather than just being a whiny piece of shit
>>47603423
>It takes 3 hours to make a character
Are you braindead?
>>47605100
Why bother? Pointing out actual flaws with pathfinder just makes people pop up to defend it without any level of awareness at all.
Look, if you like overcomplicated, unbalanced systems and don't want to learn anything else, that's fine. Just don't try to insist that Pathfinder is somehow okay because you got past all the flaws or the DM houseruled it to hell and back or whatever.
>>47605147
>Look, if you like overcomplicated, unbalanced systems and don't want to learn anything else, that's fine. Just don't try to insist that Pathfinder is somehow okay because you got past all the flaws or the DM houseruled it to hell and back or whatever.
>Look, if you like overly simplistic, vanilla systems and don't want to learn anything else, that's fine. Just don't try to insist that Dungeon World is somehow okay because you got past all the flaws or the DM houseruled it to hell and back or whatever.
Some people just like complex rules, anon. Being crunchy doesn't necessarily make a system bad, it just means that if you prefer to gloss over minutiae, that game isn't for you.
That said, an argument could certainly be made that a lot of PF's complexity is unnecessary and serves no purpose in allowing the game to do what it's ostensibly designed to do, and you'd be right in arguing that. Basically, complexity is fine in concept, it's just PF's execution of it that sucks.
>>47605147
I like structure.
Sue me.
How do I make a bard that doesn't suck in PF? Starting from level 1. 20 pt buy.
>>47605226
>dungeon world and Pathfinder are the only games in existence
You want crunch? Play GURPS, crunchiest system out there, and despite offering a stupidly gigantic number of options is still more balanced than Pathfinder.
Although that says more about Pathfinder than GURPS
>>47605321
I was only using that as an example of the opposite, not suggesting that those are the only two games in existence.
>>47597456
>4e is objectively broken and that receives outright defensive reactions.
What?
>>47605321
>and despite offering a stupidly gigantic number of options is still more balanced than Pathfinder.
How many points does it take for me to make a skill that blows up an area the size of Glasgow?
>>47597456
>4e is objectively broken and that receives outright defensive reactions.
>>47603091
I think the picture is more to show how many options the wizard has in dealing with the dragon, not necessarily to show every viable option.
>>47606546
It's more "The dragon represents an encounter". Anyone who argues otherwise is just trying to deny the problem exists through being a pedantic cunt
>>47603262
>Played it once
>I know all it's issues.
>>47588464
>>47588480
Watsup /tg/?
>>47595301
>objectively broken
Oh god, you're that retard that doesn't understand what "objectively" means.
Just roll over and die already.
>>47603181
You're making twice the attacks to deal half the damage of the dude rocking a 2H sword and chopping niggas in half.
It requires like 4 feats to actually become worth it and by the time you get it, everyone you fight is going to be difficult to land hits on reliably with your off-hand.
That and it only works with weapons that are much much weaker than going 2H or something.
>>47603347
>5e honestly annoys me with it's 6 types of save.
It makes more sense than having three saves but front-loading most spells to target Will.
>>47606587
Also don't forget you cut your dpr to shreds by not being able to full attack, meanwhile a two hander can still do good with a charge or attack action.
>>47597456
AFAIK, Rifts is not popular and DESIGNED with multiple layers of challenge. You don't want your doctor to face the same challenges as your glitterboy.
Same thing for WoD (although I'll claim just as hard how NWOD is shit, because Changeling aside, it is.)
Pathfinder claims it is made for people to play as a team then have a few select classes do all the work by themselves and more efficiently at that.
>>47603918
So tell me.
How is a newbie supposed to know which options are traps and which options are required for their characters to function?
Because having to go online just to learn how to build a Sword-and-Board that doesn't suck, especially if the GM only has one CRB, is something that's going to take a shitload of time to do.
Hell, my first time playing PF, we didn't even get to play until the second session, which only happened one other time when my friend decided to run Deathwatch and we needed like 8 hours to poke through every option for our space marines.
>>47604122
What if you decide to go ranged?
What if you decide to go for a monk?
What if you decide to go for a race with access to natural weapons like fangs, teeth, and poison?
>>47606630
>How is a newbie supposed to know which options are traps and which options are required for their characters to function?
By building your character with your group.
Not every group wants or needs pcs to be fully optimized, you just want to have all the players on the same playing field.
So if player a, b, and c all optimize then player d does not, they should offer to help player d so player d remains relevant.
The problem with most people is they seem to forget it is a cooperative game and they instead design their own pcs without any thought or consideration to the rest of the party.
It kills me when gms don't do a session 0 to get the group together and make pcs together, it helps so much.
>>47603162
Not that guy but...
Swordmage > Gets AC so high that monsters that are a few levels higher than the PC miss on a 19, gets powers that, as interrupts, redirect attacks that do hit on other foes.
Ranger > Through a talent (go see a charop thread for the exact build), can use an at-will power instead of a basic ranged attack. Gain the ability to do a basic ranged attack when he miss with a power. One of their at-will power allows for two attacks. Drop your to-hit ration (Dex 12 and lower) or close your eyes for penalties, shoot two arrows. If at least one miss, get a basic attack for free and use it to fire two arrows. In 6 seconds you fire 50+ arrows and score a few crit unless you're unlucky enough to hit twice.
Those are the two that come to mind... I know there's something with the Lazylord too, but I can't recall.
>>47595168
Old post but I really hate this logic. Suspending your disbelief for things like magic is not the same as wanting things to be realistic where conventional logic can apply.
>>47603181
Please, post build.
>>47604934
So jump through hoops, wait until level 10+, and end up getting completely shat on even when you manage to gain it?
Sounds like martial progression to me.
>>47606668
I'm a rather accomplished optimizer for 4e and I have never seen either of those builds.
Also the second one doesn't work because in 4e you can not get more than one free-action attack from the same feat/ability/power. So if you get that free action ranged basic attack on your first miss, you can not get it on your second miss.
>>47604934
Fighters can't get Pounce, Monks can.
>>47606718
Precisely
And that's why friends don't let friends play pathfinder games featuring PCs more than one tier apart
>>47606727
Well, a fighter can get pounce without being a monk
But the fighter can only pounce with unarmed strikes in that case, so it's even more useless
>>47606603
>because Changeling aside
My nigga.
Changeling kicks ass.
>>47606721
Could you point out the rule please? It's for research purposes.
>>47606668
The issue with that Swordmage build is that the swordmage has issues doing enough damage to make people want to attack him.
That and building for AC isn't so great when many monsters, even non-magical ones can hit Fort or Will (One of those WILL be your weak defense as a Swordmage)
>>47606743
Free Actions
Free actions take almost no time or effort. A creature can usually take as many free actions as it wants during any turn, including other creatures’ turns. Examples: Speaking a few sentences, dropping a held item, letting go of a grabbed creature.
There is an exception to this rule: A creature can take a free action to use an attack power only once per turn. Creatures don’t normally have attack powers that can be used as free actions, but some powers and other effects grant the ability to use an attack power (usually a basic attack) as a free action. For instance, a character might have two different abilities that let him or her make a melee basic attack as a free action when their respective triggers occur. If both abilities are triggered on the same turn, the character can make only one of the melee basic attacks during that turn. This limitation does not apply to free actions that a creature is forced to take by an enemy.
In certain circumstances, the DM might decide to limit the use of free actions further. For instance, if an adventurer has already used free actions during a particular turn to talk, drop things, and use a class feature, the DM might rule that the adventurer can use no more free actions during that turn.
Taken directly from the official rules compendium, page 194.
So I'm sorry, I was wrong, it's actually even more limiting, only one free action attack per turn, full stop
>>47606648
>It kills me when gms don't do a session 0 to get the group together and make pcs together, it helps so much.
Thing is, you still shouldn't necessarily require someone to know how to build an optimized character just to make a character you want to play.
I've only seen it in 3.PF, no other system requires you to know the game to this much of a degree just to create a basic character concept you want to play.
>>47606739
Had an houserule where people that weren't in a scene, wanted to be in, and had no real reason not to be in, could roll Wyrd. A success meant they wandered in.
Like, once, we were in Australia. I was trying to acquire info on a native Australian and was told that the information was only available to natives, but that I could act as a proxy.
My character was already getting on the insane part, having terrorized local troublesome kids into service. So he did what he interpretated as proxy. He came back, disguised as a native american with a feather head dress.
They asked me what I was doing. I told them I was acting as a Native Proxy... Long story short, I avoided the mental hospital and wandered off.
A few scenes later, my friends raided a van to liberate the person that was kidnapped (and that I tried to get info on). I rolled Wyrd, jumped out from a bush along with two of the terrorized kids, disguised as I am and with toy bows, yelled "Fire a Will" against armed gunmen which bought a few seconds of confusion.
I miss playing that game.
>>47606772
I have absolutely no problem with that. I love that it is the case. Was it an errata at some point?
Digging up my 4th Ed Player Handbook
>>47606796
Yes, the rules compendium was pretty much nothing but errata for PHB1 and DMG1 rules
>>47606789
>Had an houserule where people that weren't in a scene, wanted to be in, and had no real reason not to be in, could roll Wyrd. A success meant they wandered in.
I'm going to steal this one when my friend runs changeling again.
>>47606772
Free Action: Free actions take almost no time or effort. You can take as many free actions as you want during your or another combatant's turn. The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn.
I guess nobody dared to step up. I didn't play in a group with that character. It was always used as a form of joke, something one of the guys saw in action once.
>>47606812
Stole it myself from the one guy that DMs (only slightly) better than I do. It's all yours buddy.
>>47606842
Out of curiosity, what's your favorite kith/seeming and contacts?
My favorite are the steep scrambler beasts I enjoyed the stone contracts since I enjoy playing physical power houses who are mobile.
I find the idea of hating a game bizarre. What on Earth is the point? No-one who plays Pathfinder is going to be convinced by some overly-emotional tool calling them brain damaged, and no-one who does not play Pathfinder is going to be warded away from it by free advertising. Either they already dislike it or they haven't played it yet and will only be made curious by how a game that makes /tg/ so angry has such a large fanbase, and try it out.
Pathfinder isn't my favourite game, yet I've played it and enjoyed it. So far, the criticism in this thread amounts to: the iconics are built badly (who cares), I don't like Wayne Reynolds (who cares), there are trap options (well don't pick them then), character building takes too long (only if you want it do), it takes too long to learn the system (learned it in ten minutes), and you can't get PF players to switch to your system (that says more about your system than PF). The rest are just insults towards Pathfinder players, which, unbeknownst to you, makes you look pathetic.
If you don't like a game, consider ignoring it.
>>47603126
>4e suffers a majority of the same problems as 3.5
I legitimately can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.
>>47602392
>Someone's disagreeing with me and saying things I don't like!
>I need to filter them so the only things I see are things I agree with!
Jesus fuck just make a tumblr already, that website is specially designed for making safe spaces/echo chambers.
>>47603268
Those are basically the only four flout-out bad classes in 4e, and even then I'd only call one of them outright garbage.
Vampire functions as a striker, but that's about the best thing I can say about it. 90% of it's powers being pre-selected or from a list of two things kills any optimization it has.
Bladesinger, again, functions as long as you ignore the book calling it a Controller and build it as a Striker.
Knights are dull, but do the job they set out to do well.
Cavaliers are flat out fucking garbage. They're aura mechanic does the same damage as the Paladin's divine challenge, except only directly next to the Cavalier and has none of the feat support the paladin's does, with the range and feat support being the only thing that made the Paladin's good. And large mounts sucked with them because the aura came from you, not the mount, so a large mount reduced how many enemies your aura could affect.
Plus Cavalier made them take mounts away from the Paladin, something I'm still bitter about.
Every other Essentials class was either pretty good, or could be summed up as "a little boring, but there's not much 'bad' about it."
>>47606942
>If you don't like a game, consider ignoring it.
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.
>>47604111
Dude level 4 spells are handed to a level fucking 7 wizard. Level. Fucking. 7. On top of that, a blaster is extremely viable right now in Pathfinder unless Paizo needed spell perfection or something. Dazing blasts and bonus spells are terrific. On top of that, a Druid so comically out damages a fighter it's actively avoided in conversation - and since Druids and clerics are the direct damage casters it's only avoided because it breaks the ridiculous argument 3.pf defenders bring up.
The worst part of Patfinder fans is this mental gymnastics just to prove their opinions based solely on keeping levels extremely low and being a good sport are painfully stupid.
Also it takes about 30-40 minutes to make a class you never made before, 20-30 for something you are familiar with - but after level 3 and magic item selection comes in, the time gets much longer. Building a level 5 character is easily an hour, and level 15 is easily a 3 hour task.
I remember joining a game at level 10 and building a new class before a bunch of guides were made. That skald took forever, and was crazy powerful compared to a party that had mythic levels (except the sorcerer obviously).
>>47607070
The thing is, the system does not require months to master at all. The only place I've even seen such an idea is /tg/. The first time I played Pathfinder, I built a perfectly workable character right away.
Nor do Pathfinder players do only what is written on the sheet. Pretty much every session has a player trying something not 100% covered by the system, adjudicated with a skill or ability check.
As for alignments, it is literally impossible to argue alignments in a game that is not D&D or Pathfinder, because there are none.
In short, pic related. It isn't just that you are a liar, you are a bad one, since what you say is not only untrue but actually impossible to do in a game that is not D&D or PF. And indeed, if there are characters that are practically invincible for their levels in your game, then your game is practically as imbalanced as PF.
>>47607070
And WoD and Rifts don't?
>>47607070
Cancer and bad habits indeed
>Make a base class
>Make it only 5 levels because it's a very narrow gimmick and would synergize well with many other classes
>"HURF DURF IS DIS A PRESTIGM ADJCLASS WER AR THE REKIMUNTS?"
Part of creating anything for d20 is taking the "standards" and holding them face down in raw sewage.
>>47607173
>the system does not require months to master at all.
It does for new players and if you're trying to build a character using options that you're not familiar with.
Knowing which options to choose and which options not to choose requires you to either learn through months of trial and error or going online to look up builds like you're building a deck or something.
>The first time I played Pathfinder, I built a perfectly workable character right away.
Neat.
>Nor do Pathfinder players do only what is written on the sheet.
They do because...
1) Most actions your character could perform is covered somewhere in the rules
2) Most actions your character could perform is hidden behind a feat
Even in cases where the action isn't covered by the rules, the system discourages taking actions like that since most actions that you could perform without a ruling or feat usually carries either a -4 penalty, is useless in comparison to dealing straight damage, or will provoke an attack of opportunity, or a combination of all three of them.
People are taught that the only things your character can do are things that are officially listed in the book, which is shitty since most of the shit you have to invest in feats for are basic shit that anyone, even you and me, could perform as out-of-shape nerds rolling dice all day.
I mean, does it really require four prereqs to, swing your weapon around in a circle like Link?
> it is literally impossible to argue alignments in a game that is not D&D or Pathfinder
As you said, it's because most games are smart enough to realize that alignments are fucking horrible and should be left in the background at all times.
Doesn't mean that you won't find someone who refers to their character in terms of alignment or perform stupid actions under the misconception brought on by alignments.
Hell, one time a dude decided to stick his ass out a window because he viewed his character as CN and randumb was the way to go apparently.
>>47607202
WoD is terrible as whole (save for Changeling) but there's some neat lore going into it and the fanbase for it is generally small and doesn't really branch out nearly as much as 3.PF faggots do.
Rifts is imbalanced and clunky but it also doesn't hide the fact that it's imbalanced and clunky and people who play Rifts understand and accept that their system, while fun for a while, is poorly made.
That and how many WoD/Rifts players do you honestly meet on a daily basis in comparison to people who have admitted to exclusively playing 3.PF?
>>47607070
>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.
Because you are an insane tool filled with bullshit, who tries to blame everything on a system he hates when really all the problems in his life come from his father never loving him?
And please, the /pfg/ is one of the more popular generals, and 3.5 remains as one of the most played and most popular games.
There's a reason people love this game and continue to play it, and it's not because they are insane, but because it's a good game.
Your insanity is what makes you overlook all its good points, obsess about its few fixable flaws, and to project your opinionated hatred as if it were objectified fact.
Start using a trip, so people can filter your whining, insane, retarded ass.
>>47607357
Seriously, just stop posting on a D&D board if D&D upsets you so much.
>Wah, people like game I don't like, I must hate them because they like talking about it! WAHHHHHH! I need to make wild assumptions based on my ignorance and misconceptions WAAAAAAAHHHHHH.
Fuck off to some subreddit.
>>47607375
In order.
Calling me names and simply saying I'm wrong without offering any points to support your claim is childish.
Popularity does not equate to actual quality, especially when it's easy to fool morons into buying anything through advertisement.
Most people only play it because in most areas, that's all people are running or they don't know any better.
Any good points that 3.PF has can be found in most other systems that don't require you waste your time and effort on learning its obtuse rules.
You're incredibly defensive and likely one of those brain-damaged 3.PFags that people talk about.
Looking forward to your reply chief.
>>47607375
Not him, but Stockholm Syndrome and Sunk Cost Fallacy.
>>47607395
/tg/ is not a D&D board, it's a board for tabletop games as a whole.
Maybe, if you want a place where you can discuss 3.PF without having to face the reality of your system being flawed, you should leave and join /r/pathfinder or something.
>>47607375
The reason people continue to play it is simple
It is adequate and has momentum
Perhaps you are unaware of the wonders momentum can do to the popularity of a product? It is quite obvious, World of Warcraft is utter garbage now and yet still has 5 million subscribers, even if it is bleeding subs constantly, there are still hundreds of full Valve servers for TF2 despite everything that's happened to it, and our best example, people still know about and even play the board game Monopoly, despite it being awful on release way back in 1935 and awful now
>>47607491
WoW is a good example, 3.5 is currently bleeding players bad enough for Paizo to announce a "new" game in a different genre to try and bring people back now that 5e is here.
Still a lot of players, but they've lost a lot of players to other systems.
>>47607462
That's bullshit and you know it.
The system was basically a refined 2e that did away with and fixed many mechanics that had become outdated, and that's all it really needs to be a great game, considering that 2e D&D was the best game on the market.
3.5 is a great game that stands up even to this day, even if there are other great games on the market, and trying to say people like it only because of fallacies is basically just showing you don't understand people and what makes games good.
Even though 5e is here, there's nothing wrong with enjoying 3.5 or Pathfinder, and all your endless whining does is make it clear that you've got an irrational vendetta against a game you blame for why the games you play are unpopular.
>>47607515
It broke more of 2e than it fixed
>>47607515
>The system was basically a refined 2e that did away with and fixed many mechanics that had become outdated
Such as?
>>47607554
>>47607515
>THAC0 arguing is about to start
AD&D 2E > *
suck my fucking nuts
>>47607491
>It is adequate
That's hardly fair, especially because it remains one of the most influential games of all time. Game designers see a lot of good things from the system, and while they also learned from its mistakes, they've adapted many of its strengths as well.
And, for every example of "popular despite being bad", there's plenty more examples of "popular because it's good". The latter happens to be the more common trend, and when it comes to something like dominating an entire market, it's very hard to do that without being one of the best, if not the best, titles on the market.
WoW may be garbage from a video game standpoint, but it was one of the best MMORPGs. Even though I hated WoW, it doesn't make sense for me to pretend that it didn't do a lot of great things, and that it's framework and many of its ideas would later serve better games in the future.
To deny that 3.5 is great is to deny an immutable aspect of tabletop history. It might be a little dated now, but considering it's the system that saved the industry, expanded the player base so that it was no longer a tiny niche hobby, and still retains its popularity after 16 years as the 2nd most played game, it's not fair to try and say that all the players in the 2nd largest player base only play it because its adequate, or even worse, that it's bad and that they're the ones who are crazy.
>>47588821
Ok, first I just want to say I am not outright disagreeing with you but that is not the reason Nintendo 'refuses' to die.
Nintendo makes almost all of its sales because of parents buying either the handheld or console system for their 12- children and that one workout game they have and they make tons of money because of this fact. Their two systems are hands down the ones best tailored to children and casual players and their sales reflect this. There is certainly some name-recognition sales in there but that is not the primary reason that the console sells to those two demographics.
This does not exclude your statement but only modifies it once expanded to ALL of DnD: 3.5 is like the N64 (although I actually kind of still like the latter because of my rose-tinted glasses) and DnD as a whole is really just the underage's introduction to RPGs.
>>47607538
>>47607554
2e is now a rather outdated system, with mechanics that are built without all the accumulated knowledge we have now. They functioned, but under stress they broke apart, and everything from the damage math to the silly saves system to the horrible weapons rules needed an overhaul.
3rd edition was that necessary overhaul, and while it did introduce new problems (mostly involving how much more complex the rules wound up being), it was ultimately a good step forward, because it eventually lead to 4e and then 5e simplifying the rules down, resulting in a system that's streamlined rather than merely simple and vague.
>>47607633
The "good things" about it are what it takes from 2e, and many of those came from AD&D and 1st edition.
The thing about 3.5 is that if you look at it's release, it was nigh impossible for it not to succeed, it was basically walking into a void, no one could compete with it because no company had WotC's money for advertising or the D&D name behind them, which was already a big deal, on top of that they advertised it quite a bit and had controversy helping them along, driving more interest in the game. The only way it could have failed is if it was F.A.T.A.L. levels of unplayable.
Also, WoW, unlike 3.5, was not garbage on release, it is garbage now due to everything fun and good about the game being stripped away over the expansions.
I am not denying that it saved the industry, it did, I just wish it could have been a better game, so the "game that saved the industry" could be looked back upon with pride, rather than embarrassment
>>47607706
I stand by my statement that it broke more than it fixed
I would rather play 2e than 3.5
>>47607633
>That's hardly fair, especially because it remains one of the most influential games of all time.
Only as a cautionary tale of what not to do, as evidenced by how quickly WotC moved away from it with the advent of 4e and 5e.
>for every example of "popular despite being bad", there's plenty more examples of "popular because it's good".
Such as?
>Even though I hated WoW, it doesn't make sense for me to pretend that it didn't do a lot of great things, and that it's framework and many of its ideas would later serve better games in the future.
Again, as a cautionary tale of what not to do.
F.A.T.A.L. can be argued as being influential under this criteria but nobody is going to pay lip service to it for teaching game designers why anal circumference isn't a stat worth noting on a character sheet.
>It might be a little dated now, but considering it's the system that saved the industry, expanded the player base so that it was no longer a tiny niche hobby, and still retains its popularity after 16 years as the 2nd most played game, it's not fair to try and say that all the players in the 2nd largest player base only play it because its adequate, or even worse, that it's bad and that they're the ones who are crazy.
As with video games, tabletop was better when it was a niche thing that only hardcore nerds and fanatics could get behind.
Expanding the player base is only good if you're looking at it from a business perspective. From a consumer's perspective, it does nothing but ruin the community since people, as a whole, are terrible.
If you don't believe me, compare WoW's community before and after it became big.
Compare TF2 before and after it became F2P.
Compare LoL before and after it began to cater to the meta.
If you can name a community that made it big yet hasn't gone to shit, I'll call you a liar or explain why you're wrong.
>>47607706
>2e is now a rather outdated system, with mechanics that are built without all the accumulated knowledge we have now. They functioned, but under stress they broke apart, and everything from the damage math to the silly saves system to the horrible weapons rules needed an overhaul.
Examples?
>>47607763
WoW's community was fine up until they got a new writer who shat all over the lore and actively tried to split the fanbase between horde and alliance even more than it already was
>>47607706
All 3e fixed was streamlining the math to "Higher is better"
>>47607640
Actually, Nintendo persists because it makes good games. Its systems are simple and underpowered, but that doesn't matter because it makes good games.
You can pick up any Mario game and expect a good time, especially if it's a flagship title. The Zelda games, the Pokemon games, the Smash games, they're all stellar series, and Nintendo's dedication to ensure the quality of these games remains high, even if it means long delays, is what makes their games retain their value even years down the road.
While Final Fantasies and Sonic games now end up in the bargain bin alongside the shooter/racer/sports game of the week, Nintendo still manages to produce great new titles like Splatoon.
>>47606671
You must be an aspiring paizo developer.
>>47607777
An attack against a sleeping foe will always kill them.
This makes sense for the most part, but a RAW reading means you could cause a LOT of problems in Discworld by stabbing the star turtle.
>>47607817
I never said they didnt but having very recently worked retail in an electronics department as well having a couple friends who work in similar positions I can tell you, for a fact in those settings, that the reason Nintendo sells systems and games is because it is young and casual friendly. The fact that the games are good and remain good is not the selling point. There are gamers who have bought the systems because of this but it is not the reason they sell in such great numbers.
>>47607763
>how quickly WotC moved away from it with the advent of 4e and 5e.
So, you're crazy.
>Such as?
Are you asking earnestly, or are you really just a contrarian.
>Again, as a cautionary tale of what not to do
Alongside a long list of great ideas that haters are quick to forget, ignore, or don't even recognize.
>As with video games, tabletop was better when it was a niche thing that only hardcore nerds and fanatics could get behind.
The video games now are better than they were in the past. The tabletop games now are better than they were in the past.
I'm sorry, but it sounds like I'm just talking to some weird hipster, a hipster who insists on playing popular titles just so he can complain when they become "too popular".
>>47607869
>An attack against a sleeping foe will always kill them.
3.PF has rules for coup de grace.
>>47607884
In order.
No other edition of D&D plays like 3.PF.
I'll take that as you pulling shit outta your ass.
Example?
>The video games now are better than they were in the past.
No they aren't.
No seriously, 8th gen as a whole is so disappointing, they found a way to ruin older games with "HD rereleases."
And you sound like someone who has issues with constructive criticism and only argue based on emotion rather than facts.
>>47607890
...which made it so that a defenseless enemy you should by all rights have killed with a carefully prepared strike just shrugs it off because it has too many HP.
>>47607879
You worked in the Wii/Wii-U era.
Essentially, the Wii era was "Business as normal+WHOOOOOAAAAAA CASUAL MONEY." The Wii-U era is a bit more of a struggle, especially because they lost a fair amount of the casual market, but the core of business remains making great games and knowing how to make them.
>>47607890
Which does critical damage and allows a save based on the damage dealt, so using it on the likes of A'Tuin would be nothing more than a mosquito bite. The 2e version is straight-up instant death, no saving throw, even if you do only 1 point of damage.
>>47588821
>that wont die because its what new people are usually introduced to first despite more fun alternatives existing and remains well known by everyone with everyone almost certainly having some experience with it
FTFY
>>47607940
>No other edition of D&D plays like 3.PF.
What. What are you trying to even say? Yes, it's different, but you can play any edition "like 3.PF." It's not like it abandoned the basic d20 rules.
>No they aren't.
I had a feeling this was the kind of person behind all the obsessively retarded 3rd edition hate.
Please, just start using a tripcode so people can filter your crazy ass.
>>47607983
>more fun
Welcome to opinion land.
>>47607948
>>47607962
The problem with the coup de grace rules in 3.PF is that it basically renders assassination builds moot.
That and it's honestly too involved for something that's supposed to only work on downed opponents.
>>47607987
>It's not like it abandoned the basic d20 rules.
They did abandon the ivory tower design philosophy, dropped the bulk feat taxes, reigned in magic so it wasn't the optimal strategy for every situation, and lessened alignments so that they were purely fluff that had no real mechanical effect on your character.
Also, the basic d20 rules that you're describing are rules that have been around for decades.
>I had a feeling this was the kind of person behind all the obsessively retarded 3rd edition hate.
I had a feeling that you were the type of person who wouldn't accept anything I said anyways.
>>47587900
You should quit D&D and Pathfinder entirelly and embrace Dungeon World, op. It's AWESOME. You can be a famous fighter, a zealous ranger, or even a dwarf wizard!
AWESOME! Dual wield is only narrative, grid is useless, and the GM controls everything just like your simulation of board game. Isn't that just AWESOME!?
>>47587900
Why don't you stop acting like a little bitch and play something else? Fuckin 3.5/PF kiddies always crying about playing something they don't like. As if Pazio has a gun to your head.
>>47603181
Pretty much, if you can't make twf work in PF you have a shitty GM. M-muh rocket tag fags need to fuck off and play something else.
>>47608103
And they made 5e it so limiting that you can only play 20 levels, you cant actually do anything outside rules-as-written, and their arbitrary CR for monsters is so arbitrary it makes the CR system from 3.5 (which is worse than PF!) seem reasonable.
4e was a single step up from the DungeonQuest boardgame. You still can't use skill challenges without using the fanmade fix for it (gee, isn't that something you say PF players aren't allowed to do?) There are literally useless classes and pointless kinds of powers. For deities sake, it spawned a meme based on the idea that lawful evil is a contradiction in terms because apparently law=good, chaotic=bad.
>>47607462
That you even use these as arguments demonstrates pure confirmation bias.
>>47608228
>you can't do anything outside rules-as-written
That is one of the biggest flaws of 3.5 though. In fact 5e handles it better because it directly states less, which means each character is directly capable of more
>>47608228
>And they made 5e it so limiting that you can only play 20 levels, you cant actually do anything outside rules-as-written, and their arbitrary CR for monsters is so arbitrary it makes the CR system from 3.5 (which is worse than PF!) seem reasonable.
In order.
Nobody takes the game past level 10, let alone level 20. Even if they do, there are rules for multi-classing if you honestly want to gain more levels.
The game's actually much more open-ended since you're actually encouraged to roll using your stats.
The CR system is actually balanced around a criteria that makes a fair degree of sense. That and certain powerful monsters actually have ways to counter power-gaming with lair and legendary actions that go out of turn order.
>4e was a single step up from the DungeonQuest boardgame.
Opinion...worthless
>You still can't use skill challenges without using the fanmade fix for it (gee, isn't that something you say PF players aren't allowed to do?)
Fixing wonky math with a relatively simple patch vs. houseruling away the bulk of the system so that it doesn't suck.
I wonder which one is more acceptable.
>There are literally useless classes and pointless kinds of powers.
A handful of classes/powers that are only weak due to low amounts of support vs. four tiers of classes that are easily rendered obsolete by T1/T2 that are shitty by RAW.
Again, I wonder which one is more acceptable.
>For deities sake, it spawned a meme based on the idea that lawful evil is a contradiction in terms because apparently law=good, chaotic=bad.
Two things.
LE basically became Evil.
3.PF has spawned many more retarded alignment memes, such as the smite-happy paladins, catch 22's meant to make the paladin fall, the idea that chaotic=lolsorandumb, and the existence of stupid-good/evil/neutral and lawful/chaotic-stupid in general.
If it helps in the future.
>LG, NG, LN = LG
>CG = G
>LE = E
>CN, CE, NE = CE
>TN = U/A
>>47608418
The other option for 4e alignment is to either ignore it, or just use good, neutral and evil
Because there are only 13 things in the game influenced by alignment. On top of that, there are only three things in the game that differentiate between good and lawful good or evil and chaotic evil, and they only differentiate in terms of being restricted to good or evil, to the exclusion of lawful good or chaotic evil
>>47608228
>4e was a single step up from the DungeonQuest boardgame.
3.PF is filled to the brim with rules that only make sense if you look at within the context of a game.
You can't, according to RAW
>Bull rush someone into a hostile square
>Move your speed and attack more than once per turn.
>Get sneak attack damage off of a ranged throw.
And more.
Hell, most of the descriptions don't even contain fluff, just straight mechanics with no context to bridge the gap between the rules and world they govern.
Even fucking monopoly gives more context than 3.PF does.
>>47608543
>Bull rush someone into a hostile square
You can by RAW. And, even if you couldn't, wouldn't it make sense that the person in the hostile space would help bolster the person in front of them, like what's done with a shield wall?
>Move your speed and attack more than once per turn.
Are you ignoring bounding assault and opportunity attacks?
>Get sneak attack damage off of a ranged throw.
What? You totally can.
>Hell, most of the descriptions don't even contain fluff, just straight mechanics with no context to bridge the gap between the rules and world they govern.
Typically because almost all of them are rather intuitive and self explanatory.
>>47609058
>You can by RAW. And, even if you couldn't, wouldn't it make sense that the person in the hostile space would help bolster the person in front of them, like what's done with a shield wall?
Not what I meant.
It refers more to, say, bullrushing someone off a cliff or into a trap or something along those lines.
>Are you ignoring bounding assault and opportunity attacks?
No, I'm saying that according to RAW, a guy with a BAB of +6/+1 cannot make that second attack unless they were able to spend a full round action.
Even then, you can only make one AoO unless you invest in a feat that allows you to make as many AoOs as you want, up to you DEX mod.
>What? You totally can.
As long as you're within 30 ft. and even then, it requires you take a feat and/or a rogue talent beforehand, even though you'd expect a ranged attack to be more effective at sniping the further you are from them.
>Typically because almost all of them are rather intuitive and self explanatory.
Not necessarily.
Stuff like "1d8" or "X/day" have no meaning within the context of the game, it's about on par with a character breaking the fourth wall to comment on how there's only 5 minutes left in an episode.
Even 4e provides a sentence of fluff to explain how each power works within the context of the game's world, yet somehow 3.PF can't describe anything without referring to it in a purely mechanical sense.
>>47609188
Hold up mate
I was willing to wait for you to explain yourself, but on most of those points you're wrong
The full attack action exists to make use of your multiple attacks, that's why it's there, they got rid of it when turning 3.5 into 5e because it was stupid and encouraged everyone to only ever take a 5-foot-step at the most for movement, and even then, you can move and get extra attacks, you just need to be able to full attack on a charge, which is damn near impossible to get access to because fuck martials, but hey, it's there.
A thrown weapon attack would not grow in effectiveness the further away you are even if you are trying to attach logic to D&D of all things, because you can not throw something as far or fast as a crossbow or bow can launch something, so beyond a certain range you have to lob it upwards to get the distance, which makes the weapon fly slower towards the target and be more visible, and thus worse for sniping.
And finally, 3.5s problem is that it tries to use explain everything in universe, not the opposite, and your examples are rather ridiculous. 1d8 is just a measure of the damage something can do, it's basically a statistic, it doesn't exist in universe because instead its "about how much a longsword will set you back". As for x/per day, that totally exists in universe for spells, and is an abstraction for things like barbarian rages, just a way of limiting them for balance sake. Or as close to "balance" as you can get in 3.5.
>>47609188
>It refers more to, say, bullrushing someone off a cliff or into a trap or something along those lines.
Which you can do? What's the issue?
>No, I'm saying that according to RAW, a guy with a BAB of +6/+1 cannot make that second attack unless they were able to spend a full round action.
Outside of optional features that allow you to do that, you mean. But, what's hard to understand about it anyway? The "full attack" is a more dedicated assault that allows extra attacks. It's all pretty straight-forward and hardly illogical.
>As long as you're within 30 ft. and even then, it requires you take a feat and/or a rogue talent beforehand, even though you'd expect a ranged attack to be more effective at sniping the further you are from them.
In what world do things get easier to hit the further away they are?
The rogue sneak attack is a special ability that combines knowledge, intuition, and accuracy to strike particular vital points, so you'd sort of expect a degree of precision to be important.
>Stuff like "1d8" or "X/day" have no meaning within the context of the game,
1d8 doesn't, because, hey, that's a die, but X/day does. It's the maximum amount of times a character can do something , either because of hard limits like memorizing spells (you might want to read the first part of the Dying Earth to get a better understanding of vancian magic) or because it's a particular action that puts too much strain on a person if done repetitively.
All of this is explained right in the books, if you ever cared to actually read them.
>>47597456
>rifts
>insanely popular
lol what
i don't remember the last time i saw rifts even get mentioned anywhere
>>47609288
>A thrown weapon attack would not grow in effectiveness the further away you are even if you are trying to attach logic to D&D of all things, because you can not throw something as far or fast as a crossbow or bow can launch something, so beyond a certain range you have to lob it upwards to get the distance, which makes the weapon fly slower towards the target and be more visible, and thus worse for sniping.
...but even WITH a crossbow you can't sneak attack outside 30ft.
>>47609288
>I was willing to wait for you to explain yourself, but on most of those points you're wrong
Well, you're more open-minded than the other guy.
I appreciate it.
>you can move and get extra attacks, you just need to be able to full attack on a charge, which is damn near impossible to get access to because fuck martials, but hey, it's there.
It's there sure but the point I'm trying to make is, there's no reason why a trained Martial can't move 30 ft. (on average) and swing a weapon more than once, when I could take a piece of rhubarb, run 30 ft. and swing it at least twice in less than six second as an untrained, out of shape, nerd.
It just feels weird and it cripples martials since one of the things that made Fighters good was the fact that they can attack more than once in one turn.
>2
Okay, I'll admit, I poorly explained myself and I sorta combined thrown weapons with bows and crossbows.
That was completely my mistake and I'll just rescind this point since there's no way I can argue this point without backpedaling or moving the goalposts.
>3
I mean like how whenever it refers to class/racial abilities, it only really talks about it from a mechanical effect.
For example,
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm
In every single class feature, it only talks about how it from the context of a mechanical standpoint.
I, as a player, know why sneak attacks work in a mechanical sense but what a sneak attack actually means within the context of the story is different depending on who you ask.
Like, sneak attack could refer to you aiming for a specific body part, it could refer to you just getting a very deep wound on someone, or any other explanation to justify that extra damage die.
However, the book itself doesn't really explain it and honestly, is part of the reason why so many elements end up triggering arguments, because my version of a thing might be different from yours and there isn't really a decent answer to satisfy both camps.
>>47609392
You can if you are trained.
A sneak attack isn't a casual phrase in reference to any attack made as a surprise. It's a specific skill which requires extraordinary precision, and if you want to make sneak attacks outside of 30ft, you can but it requires further specialist training. The Deepwoods Sniper prestige class can do it, I think.
If you're just talking about surprising someone, it's called hitting them when they're flat-footed, which means they're denied their dexterity bonus.
>>47609337
>It's all pretty straight-forward and hardly illogical.
It's straight-forward and hardly illogical for a trained Fighter to rush 30 ft. and swing their sword more than once in one turn?
>>47609442
> there's no reason why a trained Martial can't move 30 ft. (on average) and swing a weapon more than once,
Because an "attack" isn't just swinging your weapon once. Please, read the books before you make arguments based on your assumptions.
>however, the book itself doesn't really explain it
>If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
>>47609442
I think most of those issues fall under a single category of "fuck martials"
Why can't you move 30 feet and swing a weapon twice? Because fuck you for swinging a weapon instead of casting glitterdust or fireball or whatever. Why can't a rogue sneak attack from more than 30 feet away even when specialised to be a sniper? Because rogues are a filthy martial class, fuck you for playing one. Why are class features listed so mechanically? Because they aren't, what the fuck man you can see it right there " a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility", "a rogue gains an intuitive sense that alerts her to danger from traps", " a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so". Descriptions like that continue down attached to every ability the rogue gets, and they're all pointless fluffy bits attached to the actual important crunchiness
>>47609485
>Because an "attack" isn't just swinging your weapon once. Please, read the books before you make arguments based on your assumptions.
So the Fighter is just swinging their weapon haphazardly and only hitting once?
That raises two questions.
1) Why can't we actually roll these haphazard attacks in case we hit more than once?
2) Shouldn't that mean that the one attack we're rolling for should be the one attack that gets through?
It doesn't make sense to say "the attack you roll is just the one attack that gets through but you can still miss anyways because fuck you."
>>47609484
An attack is not simply swinging their sword once. It's an abstraction that consists of a series of feints, parries, beats, evasions, and the full spectrum of swordplay that you can ordinarily expect to take place, including multiple swings that may or may not contribute to the damage they receive from the attack.
It's not a game where someone runs up to you, swings, and then waits for you to swing at them. It uses abstractions for the sake of the game, but they're hardly as bizarre as you are trying to make them seem, because the books explains how they work if you actually bother to read it rather than reading a single word and running away with your personal interpretation of it when they define exactly what they mean shortly afterwards.
>>47609534
>So the Fighter is just swinging their weapon haphazardly and only hitting once?
No.
>>47609448
>You can if you are trained.
So a level 20 rogue, a demi-god of sneak attacking...can't sneak attack someone less than ten meters away?
Funnier thing: A rogue literally can't sneak attack people in a shadowy room as ANY concealment prevents sneak attack.
>>47609558
>It uses abstractions for the sake of the game
The issue though is that these abstractions just don't work.
If the attacks that you're rolling for are supposed to represent an opening in an opponent's guard, why doesn't the game actually make more of an effort to quantify this rather than trying to say "this one attack is all your character can do because you decided to move 30 ft. beforehand."
If it's supposed to represent feints and parries and evasions and things along those lines, why not include something like, I dunno, making defense more active or doing something like increasing the number of attacks you can perform in one turn.
Not to mention, how do you explain this shit for creatures that don't use fancy swordplay or combat maneuvers in their defense?
A bandit isn't going to be trained in swordsplay, a goblin isn't going to be trained in swordsplay, a fucking terrasque isn't going to give a fig about parrying or dodging your piddly toothpick yet apparently, he's still somehow dodging and dipping and diving out of the way of your fighter's attacks to the point where the Fighter still only gets that one hit through.
>>47609609
He trained himself in a specific way. You might as well be asking why can't a painter can't paint at the same level of quality when they're trying to fling paint at a canvas ten meters away.
>>47609558
>m-muh abstractions
>>47609647
You're struggling to make a problem out of something that isn't a problem, and I think you might actually be not-meme autistic.
It doesn't matter if it's literally a sword or literally swordplay, the simple idea is that an attack is an abstraction that isn't the same thing as a single swing with a weapon. It might very well be a single swing, but the key is that it's not necessarily just "one attack=one weapon swing".
The abstractions work very well once you wrap your head around the idea that the battle is dynamic, and that the turn order is also an abstraction.
And, yes, there are a number of ways to make defense more active (fighting defensively, expertise, etc.) or increasing the number of attacks you can perform in one turn.
Please, for fucks sake, you're not even on page one in this discussion. Your entire argument is based around your personal misconceptions, and it's getting tiresome having to tell you to just read the book.
>>47609657
Except in that analogy, the painter would still be able to paint. He wouldn't lose all his ability. The rogue gets zero sneak attack against a guy 1/10th of a football field away.
>>47609657
How exactly are you training yourself to be a god of sniping yet are unable to accurately hit a target outside of 10 meters?
To put into perspective how shitty this is, a baseball players can throw a fast ball at over 90 mph and the average distance between the pitcher's mound and home plate is roughly 50-60 ft.
Let me repeat, a rogue training himself to be a god at sneak attacking has a shittier range than the average major league baseball player.
>>47609763
>you're just autistic xD
Okay, I guess I shouldn't have expected any better from 3.PFags.
Also, why does one game require so many abstractions to function?
>>47609647
>d20 combat doesn't take long enough
>>47609766
Are you implying that a painter would be able to paint a portrait ten meters away (without special, specific training)?
He might land some paint on the canvas, but even a rogue gets to deal ordinary damage beyond 30ft.
>>47609763
Or you fluff it however you want because it doesn't matter
I've been in a pathfinder game that was set in a world where the world literally ran on six second "rounds" and all in game abstractions were immutable laws of the universe
>>47609448
Actually, the deepwood sniper gets no bonus sneak attack range.
So someone who has literally taken the 'Be a sniper' prestige class can't sneak attack a guy 10m away.
>>47609817
If he could paint perfectly fine at 9m? Yes, he could likely paint perfectly at 10m. Unlike the rogue who goes from 'Fine' to 'Can't do shit' with 1m of distance.
>>47609829
You mean erfworld?
>>47609811
Anon's easy guide to giving extra attack while speeding up combat.
Multiply the number of attacks you receive by 2.
You can sacrifice three attacks to make one successful attack against your opponent without having to roll.
There, simple.
>>47609769
Ever thrown a knife anon?
There's more to it than just aiming and hurling something. A ball doesn't care which side you hit the target with. You can grip a ball in just about any number of ways. The speed at which you throw a ball doesn't even matter.
Despite what the movies tell you, it really matters a hell of a lot how, where, and at what speed you throw a knife. Too fast, the wrong part hits. Too slow, you don't get any penetration. How you can hold it matters - the rotations of the knife matter. That's why a kawanga exists, and you STILL have a chance of incorrectly throwing it to strike the target effectively.
Weaspons are not baseballs. even a spear or a chackram has to take into account things that a baseball isn't even designed for, like balance, weight, resilience, frangiability, etc.
>>47609856
>The speed at which you throw a ball doesn't even matter.
>>47609805
If anything, the common complaint is that 3.5 doesn't use ENOUGH abstractions. You are literally trying to argue that 3.5 needs even more rules to eliminate any and all abstractions that might exist, and that's the point where I suspect you have a deep, ulterior motive behind why you dislike the game unrelated to its actual content (content which you are apparently not all that familiar with, or content that you have purposely distorted in your own mind).
I called you autistic because you seem to have a deep attachment to everything being literal, and you are unable to understand that there exists ideas outside of the ones being strictly discussed. When someone mentions swordplay as an example, you really need to allow your mind to expand enough that you are able to recognize that the important part of the example wasn't the weapon, but the nature of there being a variety of minute maneuvers involved. You can apply those to just about any form of fighting, whether it is boxing, goblins with daggers, or the tarrasque. Even the tarrasque has a degree of complexity to how it fights, hence the necessity of abstraction when trying to translate that into simple game terms.
>>47609856
>The speed at which you throw a ball doesn't even matter.
Getting hit by anything traveling at 90 mph that the possibility to cause injury or death.
There's a reason why baseball players wear helmets and gloves when catching those things.
>>47609905
>special education
>>47609856
>The speed at which you throw a ball doesn't even matter.
These Pathfinder fags are bizarre and desperate.
Obligatory
>>47609838
Not quite, but yes, very similar
>>47609914
Care to show statistics for deaths caused by baseballs., anon?
>>47609905
Actually, the common complaint against 3.PF is that the rules are obtuse, there's too many trap options, casters are just outright better at doing everything, and martials are basically glorified NPC classes that can't even do shit that's within their niche.
>>47609932
>>47609891
>I'll take this one thing out of context and prove him wrong!
It really doesn't matter - the surface is the same over the entire ball.
>>47609856
>Ever thrown a knife anon?
i hate this logic, it's the exact same type of logic paizo uses
their devs are sitting there fumbling with a fucking mouse on its cord and go 'yeah i can't do anything with this so clearly a sword lanyard is completely pointless'
why does any of this matter to the level 20 character who's supposed to be at a nearly divine levels of skill in their craft
or any of the characters at any level above 3 who're supposed to already be well above average anyway
why are they unable to throw anything with any level of precision after taking a few steps away from their target
do you know what other systems use to represent this?
range penalties.
>>47609836
>If he could paint perfectly fine at 9m? Yes, he could likely paint perfectly at 10m. Unlike the rogue who goes from 'Fine' to 'Can't do shit' with 1m of distance.
It's not "perfectly fine". It's "at the absolute limits of his ability".
Take for example the high jump. You can jump between 1 feet to 6 feet without any real difficulty if you're a modest athlete, but once you train and discover your limit, say 7 feet perhaps, only years of dedicated effort will allow you to get to that 7'1" point.
But really, we're talking about a very niche and minor point right now, the sort of thing that makes it actually impressive that the game holds up to this level of scrutiny, while others are forced to rely on much broader abstractions.
>>47609992
.. being completely unable to properly snipe a target beyond 10 meters is 'holding up to scrutiny'?
how fucking deluded are you
>>47609992
>comparing level 20 characters to real world athletes
>>47609992
Niche? Shooting a crossbow at a guy 10m away is niche?
I'm pretty sure that most paintball games occur at longer ranges than a D&D rogue can function.
>>47609962
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baseball_players_who_died_during_their_careers
>http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=515922
>>47587900
I mean...I guess? Pathfinder has problems but i don't think iconics not making sense when compared to actual rules is among the most heinous.
>>47609976
You're still being struck with an object traveling at over 90mph.
There are people who have died getting into a collision while driving at 40-60mph yet somehow a baseball is harmless even when traveling faster than most speed limits?
>>47609957
That sounds really fun. Any stories?
>>47609763
Against an even opponent? That makes sense sure.
For a high-level fighter wading across a room full of goblins? I would totally expect him to be able to run across while casually cutting them down.
But you can't. The fighter could awing 4 times and kill 4 goblins without any real effort, but only while standing still. He's evidentally wasting time parrying their rusty knives.
>>47606942
Pathfinder is to /tg/ what CoD or minecraft are to /v/.
They're not terribly well built, but they're also absolutely insanely popular for some reason, making 'just ignore it' incredibly difficult.
Really though its a problem all over the internet. People are more likely to respond to something that makes them mad then anything else.
>>47609992
So an athlete that trains their entire life to jump high is somehow more effective than a level 20 martial that's supposed to be going toe to toe with dieties?
Seems about right for a 3.PF martial.
>>47610007
>>47610014
You're talking about a specific ability of a class performing a particular action with a particular weapon under particular circumstances chosen to try and exaggerate how it may seem ridiculous, and you still really haven't gotten to the point where you've explained why he SHOULD be able to sneak attack beyond 30ft without specialist training when the ability itself is already an extremely special skill.
It's not just a surprise attack. Anyone can make a surprise attack. Even beyond 30ft a rogue can make a surprise attack and get the full benefits of denying their opponent their dexterity. But, sneak attack is something rather special, and involves specialist training and specialist knowledge, which means that it's not too much to expect it to falter at certain extremes.
Trying to be surgically precise when dealing with a target more than 30ft away? Please ask your surgeon to perform their next operation on you with a crossbow and see how well they fair.
Before you go insane, I can agree that a houserule here might not be unwarranted and may even be welcome, but even so, as it is there's really nothing inherently wrong with it.
>>47610088
Are you genuinely autistic? Do you not understand how analogies work?
>>47610092
>Trying to be surgically precise when dealing with a target more than 30ft away? Please ask your surgeon to perform their next operation on you with a crossbow and see how well they fair.
That's a hell of a non-comparison. You are completely changing the situation rather than going 'But can he do it further than he can spit when he's supposedly supposed to be able to do it already with crossbows?'
>>47610092
>why he SHOULD be able to sneak attack beyond 30ft without specialist training
>literally why should the martial be good?
Wow, and I thought they were exaggerating about D&D fags.
>>47610015
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baseball_players_who_died_during_their_careers
Two people killed by a pitch, and one injured.
That's impressive.
>>47610092
Because the entire idea of sneak attack is catching them off guard to hit them in a vital area. That's it.
But you can't headshot someone with a crossbow from any meaningful distance. A crossbow bolt will fly relatively straight for a fair bit longer than that. Take Prone Shooter (because evidentially you need a feat to shot a crossbow while prone without penalty) and camp out on a hill. Pay gold for a telescope and attatch it to the crossbow for a makeshift sniper rifle, and you'll do normal ass damage, because you can't possibly aim for a vital spot from more than 30 yards.
>>47610092
>certain extremes.
It's 10 damn meters.
Even worse, it fails in dim light. A Rogue literally can't sneak attack someone in a dark alleyway.
>>47610092
It was a pretty shitty analogy that doesn't explain why a rogue should be limited to sneak attacks against foes within 10 meters of them.
>>47610092
Why should being able to hit a dude within 10 meters be a special ability?
This is a problem with all martials in 3.PF, they're less capable than the average person IRL even they're supposed to be paragons of mundane might and ingenuity because it might make the mages look bad.
>>47610155
What if they have darkvision?
>>47610148
>Causes of deaths during a player's career include the aftermath of beanball. Being struck on the head by a ball was the most common cause of death before batting helmets were introduced to prevent this. Over a hundred batters have been killed in this way.[2] Other players died from commotio cordis — heart failure due to a blow on the chest causing the heart to quiver rather than pump correctly. Young players such as Little Leaguers are most susceptible to this and suffer two or three deaths from this cause each year.[3]
I guess it's too much to expect you to fucking read.
>>47610014
Except you have to hit an eye, dead center of the throat, dire3ct shot to a kidney, etc.
That's what "precision damage" means. It doesn't mean "you have to hit", it means you have to hit precisely where it will do that extra damage. Sneak attacks aren't "oh, you just have to hit anywhere, so you should be able to do it at vast ranges". It's "you have to hit and get good penetrations RIGHT THERE or it doesn't work." When you start accuring range penalties, the chances of you hitting are not changed, but the chances of you hitting RIGHT THERE are much worse. As in 10% worse for every range increment. And a variance of 10% is a huge amount on a living body.
>>47610178
>Realism
It's even on the fucking bingo, senpai.
>>47610034
There was a fun fight we had against one of the BBEGs generals who, in an absolute reference to erfworld, came from another world and didn't play by the rules
He was subject to rules we weren't, he couldn't cast a spell and do anything else that round unless the spell lacked verbal or somatic components, in which case he could talk or attack respectively. But he wasn't subject to turn order, which was represented by the DM moving him constantly, so we had to play much faster than usual, because in universe turns can be delayed to talk strategy, but the DM was constantly scooting him around the battlefield, and if we talked for too long he'd even get a free attack. On top of that he would listen in on our conversations OOC and change his plans accordingly
We eventually beat him by having everyone funnel him towards the sorcerer via careful positioning made without conversing, then nailing him with black tentacles. Which he had previously dodged.
It felt like bullshit in the beginning, but as the fight went on it became the best fight I'd ever had in Pathfinder, I only wish I was a better writer so I could get across how amazing it was
>>47610074
This.
Go to any board on 4chan you care to mention and typically you will see more threads and posts about how this one thing is terrible then how this other thing is really good.
>>47610178
Except if sneak attack is hitting them precisely in they eye or throat, I would expect more effect than 'slightly more damage'. A good throat shot with a knife could easily cause suffocation, and two hits to the eyes and they're blind.
But it doesn't work like that. It just hits the vague 'vitals', which could easily be done from a great distance. Maybe not easily by you or me, but we're talking about trained assassins in a fantasy world with superhuman levels of dexterity and skill. Shooting someone in the eye with a crossbow bolt should be a rather simple task for them.
>>47610178
Hitting someone in the stomach is much easier than hitting someone in the eye and it's basically a slow, painful way to die if it's not treated quickly.
In fact, any hit aimed at the torso is going to be pretty bad since there's so many areas that can be hit that would cause death if they take enough damage.
A trained assassin whose entire purpose is sniping can, and should, be able to hit these areas outside of 10 meters, especially if he's trying to do it without giving away his position.
>>47610178
Which could be represented by the range penalties on the actual weapon increasing the odds that you'll miss entirely.
>>47610125
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
The sneak attack is a special ability of striking a vital point for extra damage. That doesn't mean that all hits to vital points are sneak attacks, it means that when the rogue is in specific circumstances they've trained for, they can, with precision, knowledge, and intuition, target certain parts of their opponents and deal extra damage.
A rogue can still snipe someone from afar. They get to deny them their dexterity bonus, and with luck they might even score a critical hit. Even without a critical hit, a crossbow bolt is more than enough to kill an ordinary human.
The "sneak attack" is a separate entity altogether, a specialist form of training that has particular and strict requirements for its use that the more general surprise attack doesn't need to follow, and in exchange has a particular benefit.
At the end of the day, however, whether a rogue hits someone in the eye with a surprise critical hit and deals 8 damage, versus them making a sneak attack and dealing 8 damage, versus them just making an ordinary attack and rolling high and dealing 8 damage, it all ends up with a guy with a bolt in his eye.
>>47610268
>it means that when the rogue is in specific circumstances they've trained for, they can, with precision, knowledge, and intuition, target certain parts of their opponents and deal extra damage
Like when they're sneaking up on someone in a poorly lit alley?
>>47609905
RuneQuest does less abstractions with less rules, and has been around since 78.
>>47610299
Allow me to reiterate.
"Sneak Attack" is not the same thing as "a sneak attack". It's not any attack made as a surprise, just like how "Evasion" isn't every time they avoid an attack.
When you sneak up on somebody, you certainly get an advantage to attacking them (represented by using their flat-footed AC), but a rogue has a very particular skill that takes it to the next level, and that requires a particular level of precision.
>>47610268
>A rogue can still snipe someone from afar.
So a level 20 rogue with a +5 magic crossbow, who can hit his target on a 2...still can't sneak attack a guy if he's 1/10th of a football field away?
>>47610304
It's also a terrible, nonsensical game, even by terrible nonsensical game standards.
>>47610387
Right. And would you say that trying to backstab someone in a dark alley is a situation where you would expect that to apply?
>>47610406
A master painter with a +5 paintbrush who can paint a portrait blindfolded... still can't splash paint accurately 1/10 of a football field away?
The rogue will certainly hit and deal damage, just like the master painter might even get enough paint on the canvas to convey a human form, but we're talking about the limits of their abilities, and you can't really argue what they should be able to do when already we're talking about things outside the realm of reality and human experience.
Who knows? Maybe a master painter with +25 to their paint skill could paint a portrait from 31 feet away? But, there's nothing wrong with saying "No, they shouldn't be able to," if that's what your expectation is and how your setting functions, just like you are also free to say "He should be able to, let me house rule it."
>>47610387
>>47610387
Basically, he's saying that it makes thematic sense for a rogue to gank someone in a dimly lit area, but you can't sneak attack if there's any kind of concealment, such as dim light. This discrepancy invalidates the system.
>>47610547
>let me house rule it.
And then you just do that for everything else in the system that's nonsensical or broken. Then you won't be playing Pathfinder at all.
>>47610547
>A master painter with a +5 paintbrush who can paint a portrait blindfolded... still can't splash paint accurately 1/10 of a football field away?
There are no rules saying he can't. Saying he can't would be pure GM adjudication. The rules do, for some reason, say you can't sneak attack at a minuscule distance.
>>47610572
Its by far the only flaw with the system, but I don't think we have enough thread left to discuss all of them
>>47610407
>BRP is terrible
Pathfags
>>47610572
What's stopping them from ganking them in the dim light?
All the dim light does is stop them from applying their extra Sneak Attack damage because that particular ability require a degree of precision that can't be performed under poorly lit conditions. They still get their ordinary damage, and even have an easier time hitting them because they happen to be flatfooted.
A rogue still gets to make "a sneak attack" even if they don't happen to meet the strict requirements necessary to apply "Sneak Attack" damage.
You might as well be asking why every class doesn't get to add Sneak Attack damage, and that's largely because you still don't understand what Sneak Attack damage is because you're relying on personal misconceptions developed specifically to try and make the system seem absurd when it really isn't, or at least no more absurd than you'd expect from a fantasy roleplaying game.
>>47610668
Alright. So explain why getting a Sneak attack requires perfect lighting conditions. Why can you stab them in the eye in one case and not the other?
>>47610668
>All the dim light does is stop them from applying their extra Sneak Attack damage because that particular ability require a degree of precision that can't be performed under poorly lit conditions
So the rogue, the class based around being a sneaky fucker can't apply Sneak Attack damage in the same situation that they can Sneak (As sneaking requires concealment and sneak attack doesn't work if there is concealment)
>>47610580
Except the rules themselves say to go ahead and do that whenever you feel like it.
If you can find me a group that has always played by absolute RAW, in any roleplaying game, then I will say you have found the group that isn't "playing the game at all."
Really though, I understand your entire argument is basically "this thing I don't understand bothers me", but if you really insist on not bothering to even try to understand it, the solution is really to just apply your own ideas to it, regardless of how poorly you thought them out thanks to your contrarian attitude and bitter nature.
>>47610668
>looks at Pathfinder rogues
>looks at 5e rogues
One of these has no skill benefit compared to other core classes, one of these is slower than other core classes, one of these deals less damage than other core classes, one of these hits less than other core classes, and one of these requires perfect conditions to use their niche class features.
Next you will be saying the swashbuckler still holds its genre conventions.
>>47610732
> but if you really insist on not bothering to even try to understand it
It's less that people don't understand it and more that you are excusing every single thing with 'No, it makes sense that a rogue is objectively worse in a dark alleyway than in the middle of an open field at backstabbing stuff'
>>47610704
Sneak Attack (capitalized so you understand I'm referencing the special ability) requires special precision. Precision requires the ability to see your target clearly. Makes sense?
You can still stab them. Even in the eye, if you land a crit, potentially even doing more damage than if you had gotten to apply your Sneak attack.
All Sneak Attack really is is a way for a rogue to be able to regularly deal crit-and-above level damage under specific circumstances where they are able to perform reliably. If the circumstances are compromised, why would you expect them to perform reliably?
>>47610811
>TWF rogue
>Stabs a nigga in both eyes level 2
Rogues OP
>>47610802
I'm explaining to you the rationale behind it. I can agree it's a little silly, but that's not enough the invalidate it.
I personally house-ruled it in the past, but that was a personal decision based on TASTE. In a more objective sense, there's nothing wrong with it, and it's hardly a point to try and condemn a system around.
>>47609988
... I recognise that.
>>47610858
Its because on one hand you're using 'realism' to explain why Rogues can't snipe people with crossbows, while saying 'that's just how the mechanics are ' to ignore that it isn't very realistic that a Rogue can't do rogueish things in the dark.
And Pathfinder has things like this all over before you even get into complexity or balance issues.
>>47607633
>That's hardly fair, especially because it remains one of the most influential games of all time.
THIS IS WHY I HATE IT AND ITS PLAYERS SO MUCH. Just because it has influence doesn't mean that's anything but goddamn cancer.
>>47611059
No, it's because you are taking a quirk and, rather than trying to understand it, you are hoping to use it as an example of how the system is broken.
Basically, you are the child given a baseball, and rather than playing catch with your friends, you chose to hurl it at each other's noggins in hopes of sustaining brain damage for the express purpose of proving you can sustain brain damage.
I can tell you this. There is no game that doesn't have these little niche examples. None. Every game, every toy even, can be played "wrong" on purpose to make it not fun, and that's what you seem to be intent on doing.
If there is a specific oversight in the rules, or an example you disagree with, that's hardly a unique issue absent from all other games.
This particular grievance you have is pretty straightforward. You disagree with a particular rule because you didn't really understand it, and rather than thinking "hmm, I probably should use a race/item that let's me supersede this disadvantage, or otherwise learn how to deal with it in game" or "Well, I guess it makes sense on the base level because it really is hard to be precise in the dark, but I prefer a more thematic approach and will houserule it", you go forward with "I should pretend this little molehill makes the game unplayable."
Every game has its little flaws and quirks. Every game that also has discernible differences between its options is likewise unbalanced to some degree, and will become further unbalanced under further examination without any corrections.
Hell, I agree that it's not the best rule. But, it's not a game-breaking one that can be used as an example of terrible design. This particular example ultimately comes down to a matter of taste, and while we can both agree that it probably makes better sense to limit the restriction to total rather than simply partial concealment, I really can't agree that it's indicative of any pronounced and inherent flaws with the game itself.
>>47611803
Funny you should talk about brain damage, you nigger. You can't agree with fucking sense because you plug your ears and scream at the top of your lungs how it's not part of a larger, systematic problem.
I hope you die, alone and slowly, and your family line ends. Fuck you, and fuck 3.PF.
>>47611803
Because it isn't this one thing. There are tons of these molehills. If every other rule makes you say 'that doesn't make much sense' or 'that doesn't seem very fair' then saying 'just change rules you don't like' is throwing out half the system.
