This picture perfectly describes why 3.5 is an amazing RPG system.
All games have been broken by your definition then.
It's just that they're not so popular as to have as many people care.
>>47836050
>>47836050
You mistyped "late AD&D 2e" there OP.
>>47836050
I don't know whether you're right or not, but that's a very positive way of looking at things, so I support it.
>>47836050
Unusually interesting bait, OP.
The problem is that you're implying that anyone has ever managed to repair 3.5. There have been many, many attempts, but no successes. Except, possibly, for 5e.
>>47836113
I think OP implies that it's only better for being broken.
>>47836050
The problem with that comparison is that in kintsukuroi, the piece is more beautiful after being repaired. 3.5 hasn't been repaired, it's just broken.
The problem with that analogy is that, to be broken and then repaired, 3.5 needed to have been whole at some point, which it never was.
>>47836050
>comparing fucking D&D to fine art
Look, you can like 3.pf all you want, but just admit that's it's a crap system. Stop with this nonsense.
>>47836175
This.
>>47836050
Not really. The broken 3.5 system wasn't repaired with gold, it was repaired with more bowls by several different untrained artisans desperately trying to improve the bowl.
In the end you just have a Frankenstein monster of ceramic bowls, Tupperware and Dixie cups stabled together.
>>47836050
So 3.5 is the broken vase and 5e is the gold lacker that smoothed out the system?
>>47836254
4e was the hammer that broke it.
>>47836254
>>47836310
Nah, you're one off. 2e was the complete vase, 3.5 broke it, 4e fixed it, 5e broke it again after it turned out people preferred it that way.
>>47836113
>>47836132
>>47836175
>>47836188
>>47836196
>butthurt fags who always need to complain
I like the fact is that even a backhanded compliment is enough to force you guys to start shitposting thanks to your mental issues.
>>47836367
I'm not mad that the game is bad. I'm mad that people pretend it isn't.
>>47836384
No, you're a delusional shitposter.
You're mad because you have a different opinion, a minority one, and that makes you feel small and worthless.
So, you act out by shitposting.
You're pathetic, and really are as small and worthless as you feel.
>>47836367
And I like the fact that you get so triggered so damn hard by anyone daring to criticize your system of choice.
>>47836410
He's right though. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a system, but if you like something you should be honest and aware of its faults.
3.PF is busted as fuck. That doesn't stop it being fun, but trying to say otherwise is straight up wrong.
>>47836426
It's not even my system of choice.
I'm just amazed by how you are legitimately compelled to shitpost like a neurological disease.
Seek help.
>>47836430
You seem to be using a lot of strange and contradictory definitions to argue your point, and while I can do you a service and pretend you're not shitposting, I can hardly say that you're helping anyone by defending the insane shitposting that these people are addicted to.
>>47836441
Shitpost about what?
3.5 being a broken system? Like it IS? And has been proven to be MULTIPLE TIMES?
I'm sorry this apparently keeps being brought up and that you just can't STAND IT.
>>47836441
And you seem compelled to shitpost about shitposting.
>>47836477
>proven
Look, you idiot. You're using a definition of broken that doesn't hold up.
If it was a broken system, people would not be able to play it. It certainly would not be playable to the point where it single-handedly revitalized a dying industry.
All you've got is exaggerations, bitching, and a hope that if you complain loudly enough, you can convince people outside of your little circlejerk that the game you hate is not only "broken", but that you can prove it. You're just trying to figure out ways to justify your shitposting, and at the end of the day, there's really no way, no matter how hard you convince yourself that your opinions matter beyond your own empty head.
>>47836522
You're using a definition which has no meaning.
A roleplaying games mechanics should support the experience the game is designed for. Between ludicrous imbalance, a broken CR system and a huge amount of clunk, 3.5's mechanics do not support the experience it was designed for.
It's a broken game. That doesn't mean you can't have fun with it, but that you'll be working harder to do so.
>>47836522
>people would not be able to play it.
You're confusing two different definitions of a word.
A videogame that's "broken" can be considered unplayable or unwinable but even then there are "broken" games that're at least functional.
Tabletop RPG's can literally be held together with metaphorical paperclips and tape. I can successfully "play" 3.5 by having people write down numbers on paper, have them roll a d20 and make shit up if I feel they got over an arbitrary number. Of course 3.5 by this standard is "playable" because unless the dice rolling mechanic is just insanely obtuse (like in FATAL) then it's easy to roll with it.
Furthermore you're again confligating popularity with quality.
>301 replies and 47 images omitted
>>47836537
>Between ludicrous imbalance, a broken CR system and a huge amount of clunk, 3.5's mechanics do not support the experience it was designed for.
Please. Your exaggerations don't hold up.
It's got it's flaws, but it's hardly as broken as you've committed yourself to believing it is.
It's funny, because as much as you like to talk about sunk-cost fallacy, you don't even realize how deep you've dug your own hole in your endless shitposting for no point or purpose other than to complain about a game you dislike that you think was, or still is, too popular for your tastes.
It's amazing, because I bet that when the interest in the system naturally decays, you're probably going to pat yourself on the back, thinking you played a vital role, when all you really did was shitpost to the annoyance of all around you about a game that's far better than you'd ever allow yourself to admit. Your hyperbolic attacks are so far gone and over the top at this point, that they make you look ridiculous to anyone actually familiar with the game and not composed of 76% NaCl.
You're complaining about a few issues of the CR system as if it were the death of the system, a system that still seems to be puttering quite contently after sixteen or so years.
>>47836598
I'm making short, concise posts making actual points and giving reasonable arguments. You're tying out litanies of good faith in defense of your idol of true RPGs. I think I know which one of us has a problem.
>>47836410
>No, you're a delusional shitposter.
W-well that's j-j-just like... your opinion m-m-man!
I know this is bait but on the off chance some anon reads this and misunderstands that something being an opinion doesn't make it equal to other opinions and the quantity of people who have a particular opinion doesn't grant that opinion any level of dignity.
People are allowed to like 3.P. They can even have fun with it. The discerning opinion by people who have cited so many facts (actual facts) in so many topics and which will surely be reproduced below by people with far more time and fucks than I have is that the d20 system is a broken confused mess desperately trying to fix all the perceived wrongs of 2e, succeeding at little of it, and making most of the game a fair bit worse. By chance it happened along as everyone was getting on the internet though and introduced the vast majority of current D&D players to the game. A number of factors contributed to its cultural dominance and created what we all know and understand as "The Brain Cancer" which makes people invent reasons and justify why one of the worst RPGs ever made must in fact be one of the best simply because it is popular and it's often the only one they have seriously played.
>>47836050
>why 3.5 is an amazing RPG system
3.5 was shitty to begin with, and you attemps to "fix" it do not make it better.
>>47836050
>implying 3.5 ever worked in the first place
>implying it's ever been fixed
>implying
>>47836621
You're making worthless, exaggerated grievances and claiming they're "actual points", and relying on hyperbole to try and prove the unprovable while calling that insane goal "reasonable."
It's a better system than you'll ever allow yourself to see, and that's your personal, mental issue. Your hate is your own fault, not the system's.
>>47836621
It's a medically proven fact that playing 3/PF in the longterm induces degenerative brain cancer.
It's not his fault. Don't hate him for it.
But we should still put those sorts of people in isolation, so the cancer can die out peacefully.
>>47836050
This picture perfectly describes why 3.5 is an amazing system.
>>47836384
> This system is broken, and that's why I like it.
> I'm mad that people pretend it's not broken.
>>47836598
You're shitting out walls of text without ever once actually talking about what he says.
Monk, Wizard, Druid, Cleric.
That's your party. I'm sure you'll screech and whine, but the monk player is literally worthless in this scenero.
>>47836642
The only fact is that you NEED to shitpost, like it's your little personal crusade.
Why not constantly shitpost about the other equally or more broken systems like Exalted, GURPS, or the various ST?
Is it because you only know how to parrot what people say about 3.5?
>>47836677
That's nice, dear. Now go with the nice men in white coats.
Also, you braindead retard, everyone knows those are broken ALSO. The difference being, they don't have this mind-mashed defense force that try to pretend otherwise.
>>47836665
That's an interesting idea.
But, your petty complaint doesn't actually hold up, and there's plenty of ways to build a great monk.
I'm sorry, but you're asking to engage with trolls, as if they had points worth making, rather than admonishing them.
Nothing can be said to them that they won't complain about. They're that mentally fucked, like yourself.
>>47836713
>there's plenty of ways to build a great monk.
Hahahahahahaha
Oh my fuck that is such perfect comedy gold. A good monk in 3.5. Christ, you're an idiot.
>>47836713
Monk 1/Cleric 19 doesn't count.
>>47836697
What mind-mashed defence? I don't pretend that a game is unplayable or even bad when it isn't, and I have enough sense not to focus entirely on the complaints of a few asshats who can't look beyond their hatred.
There are people, in this very thread, who think their opinions qualify as objective proof. They're so mentally fucked, that they've had to force themselves to believe that their minority opinion is somehow more valid than that of those of people who play and enjoy the game and aren't so fixated on obsessing over its few flaws.
>>47836050
Because it was broken and got fixed by people with much better ideas than the people who made it?
>>47836713
Show us, nigga.
>>47836754
Nigger, you just said a monk is an acceptable class, and you call OTHER PEOPLE fucked mentally?
>>47836441
>I don't even like the system
>I just open threads about it and argue with the people in them
I think out of everyone here you're the one who need to get some help.
>>47836735
I've seen people build strong monks and have fun with them.
You're so delusional, that you find that ridiculous, like you've spent your entire life reading through CharOps boards quantifying various builds and comparing them in order to evaluate the mathematical distinctions based on hypothetical scenarios.
That's nice, but some people actually played the game.
>>47836792
I prefer playing other systems. That doesn't mean I'm blind to either the faults or strengths of 3.5.
Just because I like a different game best doesn't mean I have to violently hate all the rest.
>>47836598
>It's got it's flaws, but it's hardly as broken as you've committed yourself to believing it is.
spot the 4 major problems with this 3.5 DC example list.
>>47836800
SHOW US THE FUCKING BUILD, YOU LYING MOTHERFUCKER
Show us, or this proves, not that we needed more proof, that you have literally no argument other then wild shitposting and enraged screeching about your waifu system.
>>47836800
Hey, I've played a Monk and had fun with it. I was in a pretty long running campaign playing Monk into the Drunken Master prestige class.
Which is why I know exactly why they are completely fucking useless. The GM had to bend over backwards to make me relevant and come up with interesting custom feats and rules. We figured out a custom system for improvised weapons which actually gave me some utility and damage, and ended up being pretty fun to play.
But all of that fun came from the group I was with and the efforts of the GM to make a busted system and a worthless class actually enjoyable, and I'm self aware enough to acknowledge the distinction.
>>47836824
I'm going to guess hearing a guard being more difficult than climbing a rope, opening an average lock being more difficult than swimming in stormy water, heroic being 5 higher than formidable, and opening an average lock even being near a heroic act
>Guaranteed replies
Oh you're going to get a lot of of this one
>>47836905
Oh, we all know it's bait. But can't risk the newbies. Idiots like this have to be utterly ground into the dirt. This system dies with the grogs that play it now. Never again.
>>47836598
>Your exaggerations don't hold up.
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a
>Monstrous Crab
>>47836050
I really dislike how this picture is getting moved around tumblr as some sort of "people who are depressed/mentally fucked are more beautiful than normal"
The actual point of is to take something that was broken and turn it into an art piece. A more proper metaphor for tumblr types would be taking someone who's mentally fucked up, ice picking their brain to make them a vegetable, and then dressing them up in fine clothing and putting them on display so everyone can gather around them and say 美しいね。。。
>>47836348
So 5e is modern art?
>>47836946
not that guy, but whats the problem with monstrous crabs?
>>47836837
What you fail to appreciate is that complaining about one class hardly invalidates the system as a whole.
It has a lot of great things about it. Class imbalance is an issue, but that's the natural failing that comes from having so much class diversity and trying to make the classes feel mechanically distinct.
There are plenty of glitches and compatibility issues, which is why the DM's guide and supplements offers tons of advice on how to keep things moving smoothly even if the mechanics need to be adjusted for the tone or style of the game. For example, the 3.5 Oriental Adventures campaign book has everything on a lower tier of power, but it outright bans certain PH classes and replaces them with ones that trade mechanical power for in-setting strength and influence.
I won't argue that it doesn't have flaws. No one could argue that. But, for a system that does what it does, with all its broad reach and styles of play that made it the go-to system for the better part of a decade, it performed admirably and should be respected.
It's a game so good, that it still manages to compel its haters to lash out at it at every opportunity, as if they fear that it won't ever stop commanding the respect that this titan of a system has earned over its still-enduring lifespan.
>>47836989
Look at its stats, its strategy, and then its CR. The damn thing is a TPK machine that's almost impossible to fight without Glitterdust.
>>47836999
>Class imbalance is an issue, but that's the natural failing that comes from having so much class diversity and trying to make the classes feel mechanically distinct.
No, it's not, it's completely unrelated to this beyond the developers and playtesters being utter shit at playtesting the game. Fuck off.
>>47836999
>It was popular so it m-m-must be good!
>>47836288
That's a neat cover.
>>47837045
Compared to other games made around its time and long after? It's practically a masterpiece.
It didn't sweep up all those industry awards by accident, after all.
>>47837077
Address the point or fuck off. Nobody wants to hear you jack off about 3.5 while repeatedly dancing around every point someone makes.
>>47836999
Oh yeah, I forgot Grognards got 'Dancing Goalposts' as a SLA.
>>47836999
>Extreme power imbalance between classes
>"make the classes feel mechanically distinct"
>Admits "There are plenty of glitches and compatibility issues"
>It's okay though because the DM can just fix it
>"for a system that does what it does"
What? Dungeon crawling hack n slash? Because it doesn't do that very well.
>"with all its broad reach and styles of play"
Oh, more things it doesn't do well.
>It's a game so good, that it still manages to compel its haters to lash out at it at every opportunity, as if they fear that it won't ever stop commanding the respect that this titan of a system has earned over its still-enduring lifespan.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: the Brain Cancer.
>>47837067
We're not talking about ordinary popular. We're talking about an immediate best seller that remained at the top of the charts for years, then saw a revitalization under a different publisher that once again propelled it to the top of the sales charts.
We're talking about the game that was the most played, most popular game ever. It had literally the largest player base, with the highest percentage of players, in roleplaying game history.
This isn't your Justin Bieber or Twilight. This is the level of popularity that puts it on the tier of the Beetles or the Bible.
You're right, in that popularity doesn't mean something is good, but their is a correlation between the two, and even if 3.5 is only half as good as its popularity might suggest, it would still be the best game of all time.
I'm willing to concede that it's probably only about a quarter as good as its popularity would herald it to be, but even at a 10th it would still considered a great game.
>>47837176
No, this is exactly like Twilight, you just pathetically continue to try and dodge the subject.
>>47837176
And yet it was still less popular than AD&D/BD&D in their heyday despite a fucking moral panic aimed directly at it and not having the rules on the internet for free.
What does that tell you?
>>47837176
>This isn't your Justin Bieber or Twilight. This is the level of popularity that puts it on the tier of the Beetles or the Bible.
>>47837176
>This is the level of popularity that puts it on the tier of the Beetles or the Bible.
/tg/ is over. We're just... Done. This is the ultimate expression of what we've come to be as a board. Jesus fuck.
>>47837176
>It had literally the largest player base, with the highest percentage of players,
No, again, that's AD&D.
>>47836441
Anon, none of the posts were really shitposts.
They just disagreed with your unbacked statement with their own unbacked statements.
Unless you claim you are shitposting RIGHT NOW.
>>47836954
So desu ne?
>>47837193
That's your opinion, friend.
A minority opinion built up on opinions built up on opinions, that you have the audacity to believe are anything more than opinions, just so you can try and fuel your hatred past the insurmountable wall that is overwhelming popular and critical consensus.
3.5 was great. It might not have aged fantastically and there's other games people might enjoy more, but to compare it to Twilight is just your hyperbole getting the better of you and making you look ridiculous.
>>47836860
The first major problem is the idea of a rank 0 DC, like the scale should start at 2 (so that it's possible for a person with zero bonus points to a roll to be able roll under it and fail) or it should start at negative-(whatever the maximum number of penalties a roll can experience).
Why are you encouraing rolls to see if people can climb a knotted rope? Where's the random element of chance that the d20 is representing coming into things there? And does the check carry up all the way to the top of the rope or do you need to make a DC5 roll every so many feet up the rope? Or is it per knot of the rope? And if that sounds like a retarded quesiton, bear in mind that the possibility of your SEASONED ADVENTURER™ with BACKSTORY™ without DEX BAB or ranks in climb to fall off the knotted rope, possibly to their death, is 1 in 4, so a knotted rope hanging over an immense abyss is now a 1d4 save or die event for a PC. Which is insanity for a skill check for what should be a minor detail of someone going through a dungeon.
Then realise that this is for a KNOTTED rope, presumably an UNKNOTTED rope is harder to climb, like maybe a coin flip of a chance to fall off the rope and die? And this is the "easy" DC, because the scale started at 0 and ranges to 40.
Why is the "average" DC not anywhere near the middle of the range, what sort of fucked up math has the average of a range between 0 and 40 be 10?
Not only is opening something itself described as "average" given a Formidable DC, but the probability of opening that lock are thus:
With 18 DEX and thus 5 BAB, a thief needs 10 ranks in Open Lock to have a 50/50 chance of opening a lock. 18 DEX, 10 ranks, half of all average locks a thief tries to open he still fails at.
>>47837234
At least with twilight, the landwhales that clung to it were ladies.
3.5 is a sausagefest of grognards that is mostly remembered for its failings.
>>47837234
Then why is literally everyone else laughing openly at your retardation?
According to you, that makes it the objectively correct opinion.
>>47837176
>This is the level of popularity that puts it on the tier of the Beetles or the Bible.
This is the future we chose. The bait has gone too far.
>>47837199
>>47837203
In regards to roleplaying games, of course.
When you look at the top of the list, that's really where it sits.
>tg falls for the bait
Every single time
>>47836050
What in the fuck even is this thread.
I guess everyone was just looking for a fight today.
>>47837266
The salt of a few circlejerkers is just that.
You come here to /tg/ to lick each other's wounds and to feel like you're not a minority, when all you end up doing is gathering together in the dark of these shitposting threads, complaining to each other, while the rest of the community goes on and ignores you while enjoying themselves playing whatever games they like, including 3.PF.
>>47837071
And it's a good system, or as good as you can polish 3.5. Full of modular rules, a single spellcasting class in the core, more options for things besides fighting. Unfortunately this also makes the system too heavy.
>>47837335
Anon, why do you keep shitposting like that?
>>47837246
>18 dex, and thus 5 bab.
What the fuck are you talking about?
>>47837247
>mostly remembered for its failings.
That's just you and your salty friends, really.
Most people actually see it as the backbone of the current most popular roleplaying system, 5e.
>>47837365
Anon, why do you keep shitposting about how salty you are?
Everyone laughing at you seems to be in good spirits.
>>47837301
Except yet again, that's AD&D. You can try to dance around it and refuse to address the point all you want, but the fact of the matter is that D&D in the 80s was far more popular than D&D in the 2000s ever was and sales data will consistently back this up. Basic D&D used to sell over a million copies a year. Nothing related to 3.5 ever came anywhere close to that.
>>47837375
I like how you need to feel like you've made some point worth making.
It's this that helps other people realize that the people who still complain about 3.5 really are insecure and needy.
You're a really desperate crew, but I guess that's just how shitposters roll.
>>47837246
I want to let you know what your post is pile of bullshit but emphasized
>KNOTTED
made me actually check it instead of just scrolling over it because TL;DR
>>47837398
Yeah, D&D 3.5 actually significantly hurt the popularity of the D&D franchise.
>>47837335
>Popularity equals good for my thing!
>Wait, everyone's saying I'm wrong?
>Popular opinion is WRONG!
Suck my shit, fagatron.
>>47837405
Anon, why do you keep shitposting about how angry you are?
Are you upset that upset that people do not agree with you?
By our 3aboo's standards The Phantom Menace is the best Star Wars movie.
>>47837410
>>47837398
man, imagine how much more popular tabletop would be these days if 3.5 never happened.
>>47837405
Nigger, if you really are this deluded, you actual-factual need some fucking brain help.
You've avoided and danced around every point made about the problems with the system, and you seriously think that it helps people think YOU are not full of shit?
I mean, I joke about 3/PF causing brain cancer, but I'm starting to worry it's not a joke.
>>47837410
More like TSR did. Adventure module sales flatlined in the 90s because of a huge drop in quality, no thanks to the shittiest business strategy ever.
>>47837453
Sheeit, imagine if they didn't waste resources on new systems, and instead tried to continue supporting their most popular one into the future.
tabletop would be so much more popular if they just kept the AD&D train running.
>>47837193
Twilight at least made some people a lot of money.
It must hurt knowing that Twilight is bigger and more Remembered in the cultural mindset then Dungeons & Dragons will ever be...
>>47837477
People have shit taste, what's new?
I don't even like D&D that much, so...no. It doesn't bug me all that much. I'm not the retard who's soul would shatter if he was forced to admit 3/PF wasn't all that and a bag of chips.
>>47837493
D&D is the shit taste of TTRPGs tho
>>47837435
I know we'd have a much more diverse ecosystem of games. The d20 glut was an extinction level event for games.
>>47837503
Yes, yes, that's nice.
>>47837508
I am glad that D6s are coming back.
>>47837473
It was really more of a problem with their business strategy meaning that they A) spammed low quality goods onto the market, and B) competed with themselves more than any actual competitor like White Wolf or FASA. Lorraine Williams becoming CEO while being out to get D&D certainly didn't help.
The same thing happened with the OGL, which is the real reason we got 3.5.
>>47837398
> is that D&D in the 80s was far more popular than D&D in the 2000s ever was and sales data will consistently back this up
Not really. In fact, I'd love to see where you're getting your numbers from.
More importantly, the number of players in the 80's was around 3 million. It doubled to 6 million before 4e's release, with the overwhelming majority playing 3rd edition.
>>47837556
And you got those numbers froooom? Your asshole?
meanwhile, in shadowrun, it's well known that the people in charge were embezzling during the newer editions, and several writers actually ran shadowruns against the company to steal all the computers for repayment.
>>47837417
The cries of a few idiots hardly equals popular opinion, no matter how tightly you pack yourselves together.
>>47837592
Anon, why did you start shitposting again?
>>47837517
No it's not nice because it's the largest and has the largest appeal which dictates a lot of the direction in which these games and their culture is going.
But now they have reached a point where everything is cyclical. It is the equivalent of Hollywood doing remakes. 4e was the last time they tried putting out anything new and interesting with their mechanics, and 3.5e was the last time they tried to make anything interesting with a setting via Eberron. And both pale in comparison to the amount of material turned out between AD&D and 2e during TSR's run, for good or ill.
Pathfinder and 5e should be disdained for the stagnation they've caused. This is the death of the writer. This is like playing tribute songs to yourself or your childhood.
>>47837556
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1pjs7d/we_are_bruce_cordell_monte_cook_and_shanna/cd34nwc
Straight from the horse's mouth from someone who'd have access to sales data and even has a reason to puff up 3E compared to AD&D.
>>47837600
5e's fine, fuckface. Don't put it in the same category as Shitfinder.
>>47837689
I wish I could be as ignorant and deluded as you.
>>47837607
It's weird though, because while 1982 and 1989 were pretty big years for AD&D, 2001 and the following years, while not reaching those exact peaks, were more consistent.
Also, Cook does have a vested interest in Numenara, while 3.PF remains the 2nd most played and popular game and is in essence a competitor.
>>47837697
Bitch bitch, whine whine.
>>47837600
Pathfinder, yes. But I wonder if you've actually played 5e. It's a bit regressive compared to 4e, but it's innovative enough on the basic core idea of D&D. It's definitely more innovative than the myriad apocalypse engine or FATE spinoffs.
>>47837689
You don't understand. Once you start hating, you can't stop hating.
>>47837689
>>47837697
5e really is fine, and I say that as someone who has no interest in the system. It doesn't appeal to me because it completely lacks any real novelty or innovation, but 4e proved that those things aren't what D&D fans want. In terms of game design, 5e is doing a great job of being exactly what its core audience wanted it to be, and that's worth acknowledging.
Wait, wait, someone here actually thinks pathfinder is a solid system?
Holy fucking shit, I mean I play in games using it but everyone acknowledges it's bad, that's why the gm houserule stage fuck out of it.
I needed a good laugh, thanks autismanon.
>>47837717
I played it during its playtests and watched it go to utter shit when it actually came out, played that to make sure which confirmed that it was shit compared to the playtests. I was not impressed at all.
>>47837734
Thank you for being an example of a rational human being. So many people seem to believe that if they like something it has to be perfect and completely free from flaws, to the point of defending it from criticism no matter what. Being able to enjoy something despite its flaws is much more emotionally healthy and sane.
>>47837724
I clearly can.
I utterly detest 3/PF and what it did to a generation.
I can enjoy a game of 4e and 5e, on their own merits, but even if someone's life was on the line, I'll never, EVER touch 3/PF again.
>>47837716
Thank you for summarizing this entire thread.
>>47837750
Want me to go and tell you everything wrong with 4e and 5e?
Or do you have another system that you want hated on?
>>47837716
Do you do this every time someone complains about a game?
>>47837760
No, the thread is:
>Objective facts as to why 3/PF is a terrible system that induces bad habits
>STOP SHITTALKING MY WAIFU
>>47837746
Me too, nigger. A lot of the big ideas of the early playtests were cut, but it's not worse than the average game on the market today and it still has a lot of good ideas and progress compared to previous editions. The release version isn't the playtest, and you might not appreciate some of the changes but at this point the playtest is dead. You should compare 5e in its release state to previous editions rather than being blinded by the playtest process.
>>47837775
Do you ever do anything other than bitch and whine?
>>47837788
>>47837746
It's still a shame that the playtest got so comprehensively fucked over. There were so many awesome ideas at play, like the goddamn Dragon Sorceror.
>>47837788
>You should compare 5e in its release state to previous editions
It comes up short there, too. I'd rather just play AD&D or 4E or even 3.5/PF with specific ground rules.
>>47837791
Not even the same person you were whining at, fuck off.
>>47837783
>objective
Oh my god.
You're literally insane.
You are the person who is so set in their opinion, that nothing can breach the defenses you've erected in order to protect your fragile ego.
You're hopeless, and I pity you.
>>47837717
It's 3.PF with less options, a much worse situational modifier system and save system, with minor cleanup that amounts to basically 3.PF with house rules and quality of life improvements.
And then there is the bestiary, the intense amount if 3.PF-esque rocket tag that plagues it, etc etc. I do however like Lair actions but I was already doing similar ideas for big solo boss fights during 3.5e and 4e.
My personal experiences are; I have DMed the entirety of tyranny of dragons and princes of the Apocalypse, run one homebrew game from 1st to 12th level, and participated in one entire princes of the Apocalypse campaign as a player.
I'm intimately aware of its failings. It is a poor shadow of the past two editions and fails to live up to them, 2e or Basic, and Pathfinder still offers more material better third-party support and much more accessible resources to use for both players and game Masters.
>>47837818
>I'd rather just play AD&D or 4E
This is a reasonable proposition if you're looking for exactly what those games provide, but it doesn't actually make them better.'
>or even 3.5/PF
You're a fool.
>>47837833
Tell, me, do. You. Do. Anything other than bitch and complain?
It doesn't seem like it.
>>47837837
>the intense amount if 3.PF-esque rocket tag that plagues it,
You mean one-sided rocket tag because players sure as fuck can't do that back to monsters without the entire party focus firing a single target and sometimes even that doesn't work.
>>47837749
If anything, using pathfinder has been beneficial, for our gm at least, it gave him experience working with shit rules and working around them, along with working with players and experimenting with said rule set to work with his setting to let all of us be useful.
>>47837841
T3-only 3.5 or PF is a much better game than 5E ever will be.
>>47837849
Yes, that.
I don't trust their monster design I did not find their dungeon master guide very useful at all, and again at least Pathfinder has a quantifiable system if you need to do everything by the book with custom design. 4e was also very supportive of dungeon masters once they put out MM3 math and the power templates made it a joy to work with from my end of the screen.
I just don't see what 5e is offering me that I can't find elsewhere with better or easier to access material.
>>47837600
But what's interesting is that everytime TTRPGs should get big, when there's a perfect combination of social zietgiest and games, the games that should cause a major breakout of TTRPGs always experience weird problems when they should be doing better than usual, like how White Wolf fell apart just as Emos became really mainstream , nerd culture starts to get really big, pathfinder comes out to ruin any chance D&D might have of becoming popular.
It's almost like there's some mysterious force, deliberately working behind the scenes to forever keep TTRPGs to a small niche audience.
>>47837846
I spend most of my time on /tg/ helping people who have questions about 3.5 or PF so they never have to deal with the bullshit I have, so yes, I do.
>>47837872
A bunch of T3 or PoW classes with a token sorcerer around to handle certain annoyances (hello at-will teleporting outsiders...) is pretty great.
>>47837855
though if he'd learned that playing Rifts you'd all have had far more fun in the process.
>>47837892
I get the feeling that your advice does more harm than good.
Can I ask what horse you're backing/what game you personally play?
>>47837889
No, White Wolf ruined themselves with their own models and mismanagement if properties plus a bad merger with a parent company that has no idea what they're doing with the people who have no idea what they're doing.
But you are right the culture did change and that caused its own issues because all the old writers have no idea how to interact with that generation that they're writing for and the older ones already have all of the ships and they don't want to spend any money.
At least not until Kickstarter became a thing....
>>47837934
Not that anon, but I was backing 4e. Then they did Essentials and... yeah.
13th Age and other rules llite clones aren't very good or satisfying on my experience. What I really wanted to see you was a cleaned up version of what they had, maybe prune a few branches and pay better concessions to skill challenges and social interaction. The combat end of it was extremely tight though and complex enough to keep me engaged unlike a lot of board games that try to emulate that feel while being too simple.
>>47837834
Yes, objective. Objectively, the Wizard is a better class then the monk, but the book fucking lies to you and says both are as good as the other.
>>47837885
The only times I've ever had a worse experience with D&D combat were 3.0 because "no bro sword and board Fighters are way better now" in a party with a Druid and release 4E, all of which had the exact same fucking problem.
>>47837834
>hahaha hehehe ur patetik
You are either upset or mentally ill. Or a troll.
>>47837917
My gm acknowledges it's better, just he wanted something we were all familiar with, not the best idea but it's working.
>>47837941
>No, White Wolf ruined themselves with their own models and mismanagement
or maybe that's just what the anti/tg/ forces WANT you to believe.
>>47837934
Well good for you, you'd be wrong.
Anything my group wants to play that is not on my blacklist, which consists of White Wolf games, Shadowrun, 3.PF, 5E, and obviously shitty games like SenZar/FATAL. Usually we play homebrew games instead and I take my time to pick them apart so they can be fixed.
>>47837971
Release 4e was bad, yes, I could say the same of just about every tabletop role-playing game. There is not nearly enough play testing done on these games, which is laughable because there are plenty of shoestring budget third party games out there with much better play testing going on and an identity they shoot for from day one.
4e became really good post-MM3 adjustments. I could say the same of 3 5e and the Complete series and ToB, or later Paizo classes like Alchemist, Vigilante, etc. Games of all and people look back on those mechanics and how to improve on them, usually. It's a shame you can't patch in beneficial changes across the board when you sell everything in a book format. At least not without massive Edition changes that require people to buy more material....
>>47837971
Release 4e had the problem in reverse
A party of all martial characters was godlike, and wizards felt pretty useless compared to the stupidly-high damage output of rangers and the control capabilities of fighters.
Paladins were still ass though, forced to go strength/charisma in order to do anything, thus losing about half of their ability riders due to lacking wisdom
>>47838026
>no shadowrun
aw
awwwww
>>47838030
>There is not nearly enough play testing done on these games
This is absolutely true and it's one of the reasons I absolutely fucking hate the "LOL WHO CARES ABOUT GAME MECHANICS???" crowd. This shit would not fly in any other industry.
>>47837997
The old WW guys behind Onyx Path have admitted as much themselves. You could go on their blog or Twitter and ask them about it if you want and they will confirm it, if they have not already.
>>47838026
>blacklisting WW
Probably for the best to be honest.
>>47838036
>Release 4e had the problem in reverse
Spellcaster supremacy is not my main problem. "Why am I tickling enemies for 5 rounds until they keel over?" is.
>>47838045
Shadowrun isn't on there because the game sucks, it's on there because even in the lighter editions it takes far too much effort to start a game up and keep playing.
>>47838057
I think part of the problem is the guys doing the mechanics are often times also writing story segments and setting ideas. Do you get a lot of people with no prior experience with game design or any philosophy behind it, trying to write mechanics they have no business writing.
It's like being a part of a game development team and you're letting the story or idea guy dictate your gameplay and how it's going to be programmed. An actual studio would lose their fucking mind if you allow that to fly.
Exalted is a wonderful example of this across every single edition it has had.
>>47838026
GURPS is covered by "obviously shitty games" clause?
>>47838121
No, nobody is interested in playing GURPS.
>>47838080
Yeah, that is why I keep repeating MM3 math. It fixed those issues.
To be fair though you had the exact same problem in Pathfinder and 3.5e if your characters are not optimized in the least. HP and DR totals later will shit on you, and the game rapidly discourages Full Attacks if your DM plays encounters even remotely intelligent with the kind of crowd control and other spell effects enemies can produce with SLAs alone.
That is of course assuming you are killing your enemies just by doing hit point damage....
>>47837970
You've still got miles and miles and miles to go before you "objectively" prove anything.
But, let me see if you can follow along for a little bit.
Let's say we have Class A and Class B.
Class A is "objectively" better. That means, under no circumstance, in all aspects, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to choose Class B, right? In every play style, every setting, every flavor and motif comparison, every possible scenario, every single potential argument that could ever be made so as to dismiss any and all subjectivity, it's "objectively" better, right? Then, in that regard, all we really have is a superfluous option no one wants and no one will pick, and that's hardly a big mark against the system if Class A runs fine and no one is inclined to select Class B.
Ironically, your attempt at claiming objectivity works against you, because you effectively throw yourself into the realm of the absurd. You act under a fallacy, without anyone having to reduce you to it, since you did it yourself.
>>47836367
>OP shitpost
>Shitpost in response
>"You fucking pathetic scum of the earth!"
kek
>>47836410
Read >>47836623 because I don't care enough to say anything elaborate and I would just be repeating this anyway if I did.
>>47838093
But it does suck, anon
>>47838156
No. We're talking about mechanics. You utter moron.
>>47836472
Man, you are really upset people don't like the only system you have ever played.
>>47838080
You see, that's something that I understand slipping through playtesting far easier than heavy class imbalance
The weirdest thing about release 4e in my eyes is the fact that they clearly had no idea what "control" actually meant. Fighters and Paladins were better controllers than wizards, wizards were just shitty strikers that maybe you took if you needed rituals and didn't have a cleric, which was also a bad class
>>47838026
I thought as much.
Please, do the world a favor, and keep your ingrown opinions to yourself.
>>47838093
I understand you completely, but also
awwwwww
>>47838196
No.
>>47838192
>Fighters and Paladins were better controllers than wizards
Pretty sure the permasleep Orbizard combo disagrees there.
>>47838058
clearly someone got to them first.
>>47838182
No, we're talking about roleplaying games, and if you hadn't noticed, the mechanics of a system are not as clear, cut, and dry as you would "objectively" hope them to be.
You're hoping to justify your shitposting by claiming objectivity. That's what makes you ridiculous.
Welcome to roleplaying game discussions, where subjectivity rules, and in order to have any sort of meaningful discussion we need to recognize just how much subjectivity exists, lest we fall prey to internalizing our opinions as convictions.
You've already done that, so there's no hope for you, other than to tell you that your persistent shitposting is annoying, because you're not hoping to discuss the game and listen to other people's opinions, you're here to complain about something you hate and hope that other people will hate it with you.
>>47838156
Yes. Exactly. There's literally not a single fucking reason to pick the fucking class.
That's how goddamn bad it is.
>>47838299
Subjectivity doesn't rule in the actual words of rules written on the fucking paper, holy goddamn shit you mental reject.
>>47837176
>This isn't your Justin Bieber or Twilight. This is the level of popularity that puts it on the tier of the Beetles or the Bible.
>>47838299
>Welcome to roleplaying game discussions, where subjectivity rules,
No, that's not how that works, this is how you get "but it works this way in MY game!" arguments from some retard who pretends that his houserules are core.
>>47838252
Hmm, true, but wizards relied on save-ends dailies for their control, paladins and fighters got their control through encounter powers.
Paladins especially, they may have been forced to go for a terrible str/cha split build, but they got certain justice at level 11, the best single target lockdown power in the game
>>47838309
Then what's the issue?
You don't need to use every class, and if it's that bad (remember how bad we're talking about), then no one would want to use it. It might take up a bit of page space, but that's really it.
>>47838373
Having cool fluff attached to an utter shit class that doesn't even do what the game says it's supposed to is an extremely bad thing and I really shouldn't have to explain why.
>>47838373
Because the book FUCKING LIES, dipshit.
>>47838338
And how that must infuriate you, because you feel like you finally cornered someone, and they just honestly tell you that your big concern isn't really that big of a deal to them.
Really, that's all it is. You're less interested in discussing about how to have a good time, and more interested in some bizarre political posturing about which roleplaying system is or should be more popular.
>>47836113
>5e
trash
>>47837176
>This isn't your Justin Bieber or Twilight. This is the level of popularity that puts it on the tier of the Beetles or the Bible.
>>47838412
Project more.
>>47838412
It upsets me that you are this much of a dribbling retard, true, but that's more because it's my tax dollars that go to keeping your brain damaged ass on life support.
>>47838390
What cool fluff? We're talking about an objectively terrible class that no one would ever want to play, in every single facet, so as to dismiss the possibility of someone saying "Well, class B has this and that which would make me want to play them."
Even strictly mechanically speaking, you need to construct a class that no one would ever prefer the mechanics of Class B over Class A in order to assume objectivity.
>>47838431
>>47838456
Really, that's all? I guess that's it then.
The basic truth, in all its glory.
You're pissed off because you hate that your subjective opinion can be discarded as subjective opinion, so you try to posture it as objective fact.
And, when you're reminded of that by people enjoying the games you've forced yourself to believe can not be enjoyed, you try to pretend that people whom you don't know and never have met must all be dumber than you are for not agreeing with your "objective" universe.
That's why you're a shitposter.
We really need to assemble a full list of pros and cons of 3.pf and let people decide for themselves if they like it or not.
>>47838373
Because it's presented as if it's a viable option when it isn't. So people who are new to the system will pick it and be unhappy. It also speaks to a fundamental problem in game design - if you're presenting two things as viable options, and one just isn't, then that is a serious sign that your designers don't understand their own mechanics.
>>47838505
None of that made any sense whatsoever.
There's not really any reason to play 3.5 when Fantasy Craft and 5e exist. Other than number of players, I guess.
>>47838558
FantasyCraft yes, 5E no.
>>47838525
You can't because every pro will be dissected and every con will be "but if you just-" until they're meaningless.
>>47838571
I had to put 5e in so it wouldn't look like I was just fellating my favourite system. And 5e does appeal to a lot of people, those with shit taste.
>>47838505
M8
Are you ok?
It's alright you know, no one is going to look down on you for liking 3.5. People still like that game, people still play it, it's goofy and broken, but it's still fun. How broken it is even makes it more fun at times.
Are you having trouble finding a group or something? Look around on roll20, I'm sure you can find something
>>47838505
The funny thing is that you're too much of a coward to pull this shit in an actual thread about 3.5 or Pathfinder instead of a shitposting thread because you KNOW you'd get blown right the fuck out by everyone who posts in them.
>>47838590
Says the Fantasy Craft fan.
OP here. This thread has turned out more beautiful and terrible than I could have ever dreamed. Bravo /tg/
>>47838665
That's right.
>>47838694
Well baited, bro
>>47836837
>drunken master PrC
AKA the viable monk build.
Like no one ever mentions the other conceptually cool monk PrCs from the Book of Monks, like that True Neutral twisty/flexible monk.
Should have called that book "drunken master, and other shittier PrCs"
>>47838840
I got my Drunken Master PRC from Complete Warriors, and it sucked ass.
>>47838840
or you could be an unarmed swordsage
Why is monk even a class? It seems needlessly restrictive to force anyone who wants to play an unarmed character into such an esoteric class.
>Ok I'm gonna make my guy a luchador!
>Sure thing here's your ki points enjoy your slow fall
Why not make it Martial Artist or something and make Ki a feat tree/archetype.
>>47838947
Because it was a class in AD&D.
Wow, I guess we haven't had a good shitposting thread in a while. Bravo, /tg/.
>>47838505
God damn that some Diamond dogs level of douchebagery
>>47838598
>it's goofy and broken, but it's still fun
That's a solid 10% of all games.
The remaining 90% are goofy and broken, but not fun.
>>47838992
That was some grade a entertaining shitposting. You don't usually see that kind of dilution anymore.
>>47838947
Because parroting AD&D, and there were options for making a mundande luchador type later on. Unarmed Swordsages and City Brawler Barbarians.
3.5 CAN be fun if you know the right mix of classes to ban and include, the issue is "muh generic fantasy" retards can't look past the box of druids, monks, and wizards.
>>47839042
That and GMs being allergic to 3rd party material being a huge issue.
>>47839042
The thing is, you need a gorillion books or a database to find what you want. Classes should have been more general from the start. You aren't wrong, but it's a lot of work to fix everything.
>>47839068
More like being allergic to anything beyond core. The quality of content goes up the later you get into 3.5's lifespan and there's a reason for that.
>>47839075
This is how we got the 3E Fighter.
>>47839085
Good point.
In the interest of refining and advancing the science of bait and shitposting on /tg/, are there any alternative captions you'd pair with the OP image to work more effectively?
>>47839613
"Is 3.5 a better system being as broken as it is?"
>>47839719
>>47839719
No, it's got to be a declaration. An assertion of fact.
"3.5 is the best because it's so broken."
>>47840010
"Did KSR actually help Pathfinder by making it so broken that it became the best system?"
>>47836946
Christ, how horrifying.
>>47836113
Isn't it up to the GM and players to rebuild it?
Isn't it rebuilt in some fashion every game?
Or at least that's the way things should be.
>>47836623
Saving this for future use
>>47840870
Oberoni Fallacy, look it up.
>>47840870
No. Jesus fucking christ what is WRONG WITH YOU?
No one should need to fucking rebuild it, you massive faggot. They shouldn't sell a brokenass system. That's the dev's job, that's why we give them money.
>>47840925
Kill yourself.
That's the Rule Zero fallacy. Not named after some faggot who tried to claim ownership over the concept years after the fact.
It seems ever since the release of 5E /tg/ has really turned against 3.PF, but every thread about 5E most posters seem apathetic toward it.
When do you think we'll see the majority of RPG players in general turn against D20 System games like Pathfinder?
