Have any of you met a 3.PF grognard?

and so they mistakenly think that is's better than nothing... it's not.

It's basically so you can get away with a minimal amount of shaving and still look half-decent.

Well, maybe quarter decent.

There's some trolls who enjoy shitposting about 3.PF at every available opportunity. They're eternally triggered bitch anons, because they're going to be triggered to bitch for as long as people want to discuss 3.PF.

It's this weird game they're playing on this board, and 3.PF is just the target they've chosen to loudly shitpost about. I think their endgame is just to discourage any and all discussion of 3.PF by making it always devolve into back and forth shitposting.

It's just best to ignore the whole thing.

Except one of them had a totally normal beard, then shaved everything off the face. Leaving only beard below the chin area.

I can't understand it. It hurts my mind.

Right on cue.

Though I'm not sure if it's samefag or if he's recruited more trolls recently.

I know a guy who had one like that for a while because he couldn't be arsed to shave. He's grown out of that now. Hopefully no-one ever considers it a proper beard.

Semi-hides their double chins.

More times than I can count.

>people that thought that d20 roleplaying was superior to all other forms of roleplaying while simultaneously bitching about how everything not-core was broken, because apparently noticing the contradiction between those two is difficult or something
>the typical REEEEEEEEE 4E IS MMO WOW BULLSHIT WHY DO CLASSES HAVE ROLES????? DURR CLANG! autist who, as usual, hasn't touched a single edition of D&D outside of 3.5
>fatbeard who threw an autistic fit when we suggested using any non-d20 system
>this guy because clearly 3.5's flaws have never fucked up a game for anyone before

I don't know. The only real life neckbeard I have seen was a big Dave Matthew's Band fan who thought it made him look more bohemian or something.

New things are hard to learn, and scary. If you don't learn them quickly you might feel dumb.

The most frustrating are the ones who don't want to play D&D (muh low magic, muh realism, muh deep immersive roleplaying) yet insist on a game that demands all of these and system mastery to boot.

TFW this triggers me more then all the other things that guy said:
>"the proficiency system is dumb, why do I have deception AND a disguise kit proficiency"

"Because they do different things, ya dongo. The first one's used if you lie and try to keep a straight face, the other one to physically disguise yourself as another person."

OP, please punch that grognard for me, not even 3.PFags read the damn rules when it's not a supplement for their next cheese.

One of my players was bitching about the existence of electrum as currency.

I once had a guy who complained because of the bounded accuracy.

It's like, yeah, I'm sorry you can't inflate your numbers into the 30's anymore by level three but at least now character creation only takes like 10 minutes and I don't need to cross reference a library of supplements just to make sure your character is legit.

My 5e GM didn't use electrum in the game her ran, which sorta bummed me out.

Electrum's cool man.

The PHB lists it as a defunct currency anyway, so it'd be more like something you use as ancient treasure. Unless there's something about electrum I'm not getting.

5e is cool but I really like cool concept building, npc management, and magic so Pathfinder tends to do better for me between the two.

I agree with this

I would be a lot less pissed about bounded accuracy if bounded accuracy's lack of progression didn't force the developers to bloat HP like a motherfucker to have some form of monster progression.

Eh, I dunno, I personally liked how 5e did magic.

I mean, you can spend a spell slot of higher level to buff a spell, magic items are rare and more powerful thanks to how bounded accuracy works, there's that one thing in the DMG that allows you to come up with a history for any magic items you find.

Hell, one time in a 5e campaign, our paladin got a +1 longsword that he used to sway a skeleton army into joining our side because they turned out to be an ancient army guarding some tomb and the sword belonged to their captain.

If this was 3.PF, the +1 longsword would've just been something that shot 1d6 burst fire damage and would've gotten traded out once we reached level 7-9 and the party's WBL warranted a +2 weapon each.

HP bloat will always be a thing unless they sit down and come up with some way of fixing it for 6e.

HD+CON just ramps up too fast for the damage to scale properly, unless you're a paladin or a rogue or a sorcerer who have access to abilities that deal decent burst damage in a pinch.

That last part is about tying story to items, not about magic items themselves.

And the spell slot thing reminds me of 4e reuses effects for multiple tiers.

>That last part is about tying story to items, not about magic items themselves.

I disagree.

Because of the way the system works, a +1 bonus towards your attack/damage actually holds significant water now since bonuses/penalties have been replaced by the (dis)advantage system.

So not only does the sword hold sway because of its history, it's also a fairly powerful item as well since magic items are rare and the system is built around smaller and more manageable numbers.

Granted, this is only my own 2 cents on the matter.

>HD+CON just ramps up too fast for the damage to scale properly
Which is why PCs were capped at 10 HD in 2E, to say nothing of how CON bonuses were much rarer.

It's also why 4E added CON score to HP once as opposed to adding the bonus to HP every level.

That would only be true if magic items were not hard-coded into the 3.pf CR system.

HP bloat is only a thing because there are people that want less HP for one reason or another.

I'm not terribly familiar with 4e, but wasn't damage also generally a lot less extreme that time basically cancelling that out? I only played a few 4e games, but combat dragged out significantly more in those than in 3.5 or 5e

It's also easy to adjust by a few points to match a person's personal taste.

>HP bloat is only a thing because there are people that want less HP for one reason or another.

People want less HP because it means that damage will actually be meaningful in the long run.

The only way damage honestly becomes scary is if you're dealing with shit that's way beyond your paygrade and they can deal at least 50% of your HP in one attack.

Other than that, combat just loses its bite when you know that you'll be able to tank something's attack long enough to gank them.

That's your opinion. I disagree.

It is possible, albeit extraordinary, for a neckbeard to look good. It's like playing the lottery: odds are very good that you're gonna lose, but just enough people win that others foolishly keep trying.

Well okay then.

It was nice talking to you user.

>It's just best to ignore the whole thing

And yet you spam damage control hard at every opportunity.

>The only way damage honestly becomes scary is if you're dealing with shit that's way beyond your paygrade and they can deal at least 50% of your HP in one attack.

You mean a typical battle, where a bad turn means you lose 50% of your HP or more, either through one big enemy landing a big hit or a few smaller ones, or a few lesser enemies getting good strikes.

>50% of your HP or more in one turn is exactly the same thing as losing 50% of your HP in one attack
Retard detected.

We're talking about when damage becomes scary. No need to strawman.

>drag group kicking and screaming
>bitch when they resist
Rrrright.

My guess is that OP and this guy are the same person, and they just made this thread because they're bored and want to bitch and troll.

This is why I'm a fan of 3.PF. Sure, it's a bloated mess with a lot of rules that don't make sense and can interact in weird ways, but I enjoy digging through that bloat to try and come up with cool character ideas. It needs a DM willing to make some minor houserules or balance encounters to get those ideas playable more often than not, but in the end I enjoy the process more than playing a more restricted system, no matter how well balanced it is.

Seconding this post. The only time the PCs in my Ravenloft campaign have been worried is when they tried to face off against the shambling mound in the Death House. Other than that, monsters mostly whiff-ping against them.

Core 4e's monster math was utter shit, monsters had too much HP and too little damage.

It did eventually get fixed with Monster Manual 3, and you can put the fixes for older monsters on a business card, at least.

Yep, the fix is simple.

You know those two or three decent changes they made in 4e?

5e is 3.PF with those changes made and the rest put back to normal. That's the best way to summarize it.

Not that bad, mostly limited to people who didn't move beyond 3e and lost interest in TTRPGs. They weren't fans of 4e, didn't look at other games, and pretty much stuck to what they were familiar with.

I am liking the 'heavy combat rules, lite out-of-combat rules' of 4e and the different approaches of other games more and more, but I can understand the appeal for the 'rules for everything' idea behind 3e and PF. It gives a lot of neat stuff you can mess with. I had fun thinking of characters and trying to stat them out in 3e, even if I would never play them or if they would have been a lodestone.

The only thing I'm a bit sad they didn't keep was more Tome of Battle-style maneuvers.

5e is 3.PF with the good changes from 4e made, plus a handful of new ideas, plus a handful of OSR ideas, and minus a lot of the bloat of 3.PF.

They're actually working on the first big rules expansion now. Based on stuff we know is in the pipeline it'll have more feats and a revised Ranger, which are the two big things I've seen people on Veeky Forums want revisted. Hopefully it'll have more maneuvers and Attack action options, too.

I thought the fix was just double damage and half health?

>More feats

Awesome, can't wait for that.

>"the proficiency system is dumb, why do I have deception AND a disguise kit proficiency"

Yeah, not at all like how 3.PF has BOTH Bluff and Disguise skill.

ITT: shit that never happened

Right, because it's to~tally impossible for more than one person to not like 3.PF.

To be perfectly fair to the OP, I've dealt with plenty of grognards that will selectively forget shit about their pet system to badmouth the offending option.

It's kind of the opposite with my table. My players are always hesitant to play anything more complex than 5e. Which is fine, I love 5e, but I have been having an itch to GM Pathfinder again.

Bad turns can easily be remedied thanks to how effective healing has become in 5e.

If you really wanted you, you could spend a level 9 spell slot on "cure wounds" and restore 9d8+spellcasting ability mod. damage.

If we say that we have the highest stat possible without magic items (20, or a +5), and we roll average on each die (5), you can heal 90 damage.

For reference, a Barbarian with 20 CON who rolls average on his HP rolls on level up (7), would have around 243 HP, so even if we rolled average on our cure wounds roll, that's still a healthy chunk of HP being restored on average, albeit at the cost of a level 9 slot but still.

Not to mention spells like Heal or Healing Word that even better than that.

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is, losing 50% of your health in one turn isn't all that scary because now, healing's much easier and much more viable than it was in 3.PF.

Losing more than 50% of your total health from one attack? Now shit's getting real.

Weird, in my experience it's th 3.PF grognards who insist on playing 5e, because 5e was custom tailored to the 3.PF grognards.... honestly, if you haven't acclimated to D20SRD from playing nothing else to the point that even the slightest difference seems signifigant, it's hard to tell the difference most of the time between the two. I mean they're different, but not signifigantly different. At best, it's like the differences between 40k 3e and 40k 4e (core rules changes not army book changes) yeah there are some differences, and most of them improvements, but... honestly, it's more of an errata than a new edition.

Right, because it is impossible to have fun and enjoy 3.PF.

To some people, it could be impossible. I know I swore off PF once my group started playing other systems and I imagine others did the same considering for a sizable population of the tabletop community as well considering the mass exodus from 3rd edition to 5th edition that's going on.

I mean, is it really that hard to imagine at least two different people independently stating an aversion to 3.PF in a thread that's mainly about how much people hate 3rd edition grognards?

Seriously?

The way I handle this is if an attack deals your con in damage OR half your HP in onr go, make a Con save (with a DC equal to the damage exceeding the cin value or 15 for the 1/2 HP thing). Fail, take a level of exhaustion. Thinking about making it apply to crits too.

*one
*con

ME TYPE GUD!

>>"advantage/disadvantage is an unnecessary simplification"
Well yeah, you have to dumb shit down for Americans or they will start suing you for hurting their feelings.

Found the grognard.

>why do I have deception AND a disguise kit proficiency
Because if you're just proficient in deception, that does not mean you're also proficient in the use of a disguise kit.

Why do you think they do it? People have sued for "injured feelings" or gotten violent over things they don't understand on multiple occasions.

I don't claim to speak for my countrymen, but the kind if people who adopt a game system like a favored child don't usually have much else going on. The implication is poor social skills and stunted emotional maturity, so...

>Why do you think they do it?

They probably did it because they didn't want a combat turn to resemble someone trying to balance their checkbook everytime they go to take a swing at someone.

I mean, I'd rather roll 2d20 and take the best/worst outcome than figure out what my attack bonus is after stacking 10 different modifiers against one another.

I did it the easy way. Saint-template Warforge with a Medium Fortification enchanted Adamantine body.

I'm immune to everything.

A few things:

-The whole point is moot, as it's much, much more economical to just spend a 1st level slot on healing word to pick the barb up as a bonus action (maybe 2nd level if he's in an aura)
-PF healing was actually stupidly good once you got Heal (the spell).
-I want Healing surges to be a thing again, because the fighter standing up 5 times in the same fight without problem is fucking retarded, and the only way to stop that from happening is outright killing him, which is harsh as fuck.

It would look decent with a moustache, here it's just sad.

Now, you're really, really stretching it.

Bad turns can be remedied. But, they're scary, and even if you do heal an average of 50 (not 90) damage using the most powerful spell in your arsenal, that can be followed by another bad turn, a turn preceded by a character doing nothing but healing.

It's like you're reading from the books, but you've never actually played the game, and you're talking in hypotheticals.

Combat in D&D can get quite tense and even scary. To argue it doesn't is to attempt to deny a common experience, which is a futile effort.

>t. guy who never played 4e

Such a load of horse shit. 5e ignores 4e almost entirely to its own detriment. Inb4 "haha oh wow u actually like 4e what a fagggg" or some equally inane bullshit because god forbid you hop off the 3.pf/5 cancer dick.

>Now, you're really, really stretching it.

No, I'm really, really not.

>Bad turns can be remedied. But, they're scary,

The fact that it's so easy to remedy one bad turn is what inherently makes them so benign in the first place.

>even if you do heal an average of 50 (not 90)

Ah, my mistake, for some stupid reason I thought it was (+ primary casting stat) to each roll rather than (+ primary casting stat) to the final result.

I guess this is why you shouldn't use math in early AM.

>that can be followed by another bad turn, a turn preceded by a character doing nothing but healing.

What necessarily constitutes a bad turn here?

Also, what is the rest of the party doing while you're flubbing about for a few seconds?

Oh wait, they're murdering the shit outta the enemy, so you're most likely not going to be eating as much damage on subsequent rounds due to the enemy's forces dwindling bit by bit.

1/2

>Combat in D&D can get quite tense and even scary.

Maybe if the enemy deals 50% of your HP total in one attack, sure, but 50% spread out from a bunch of weenies, eh, not so much.

In your standard 4-6 man party, you're going to have more than enough firepower to deal with any weenies you come across. Even if we assume that YOU had a bad turn and ate that 50 damage (out of 100 HP) from separate enemies, your party members can enemies and lessen the potential damage that you'd be hit with.

However, if you have one dude who deals 50 damage (out of 100 HP) per hit, it means that you're dealing with an enemy that has the potential to one-shot anyone in the party who has less a d10 HD.

And if that's not the case, then it's just watching two sides trading hits until one of them dies, which means that the combat becomes a slog because nothing is happening due to the fact that an enemy at 1 HP is just as capable as an enemy at full health.

2/2

We have a large group of players at my school.

We've all switched to the superior system. One 3.5 grognard is left. Screams and shouts and has a panic attack every time we try to get him to play anything other than 3.5. Dm's for anyone who can stand his stuttering for more than a few minutes.

He is literally autistic. Part of the autism awareness group on campus.

I use him as a baseline of what NOT to do as a DM. Save or dies traps everywhere. No clear objective or reward for completing any proposed task. Yet he somehow manages to railroad like a motherfucker for his hidden goals.

I'm convinced this is what all the diehards who still play 3.5 are comprised of, as I've had no other examples of anyone who hates change so thoroughly.

I'm sort of a 5e grognard. If I try to learn a new system and it's not as well designed as 5e I get annoyed. I guess it just spoiled me.

What is ETBA? No one answered him and now I'm curious.

East Texas Beekeepers Association

Thanks for the source user

Just gonna chime in here.

3.5e is literally the worst version of DnD I have ever played.

Not a single part of it is improved over say AD&D or 5e.

Even combat is covered by 4e.

What does 3.5e do that isn't covered by a less clunky version?

3.PF good for homebrew stuff

Removed normies, who just want to have fun, from tabletop?

It pretty much guaranteed that you'd only be playing with sweaty neckbeards like yourself when you sat down to play.

The system was so convoluted and full of patches that it acted as a sort of filter that only let in the worst of the worst, and kept a small generation of potentials away from D&D.

How is it any more homebrew friendly than 5e?

So it's a bunch of degenerated misanthropes purposely playing with stupid shit?

Pretty much. At least we can easily avoid them now.

I think ETBAnon is Virt ban evading.

Normies these days are too into video games where there are no real or spanning consequences for their actions like Skyrim and GTAV.

One session of:
>I set the inn on fire, hurr hurr
>6 guards? LOL I'm lvl 3 with 32 HP
>See, I won the fight! I'm so badass.
>Whattaya mean the villagers start throwing rocks?
>Cleric, I'm down! You're the party healer! HEAL ME!
>I can't be dead, we only just started!
...is usually enough to convince them to either shape-up or fuck off.

5e is accessible enough for normies, but roleplaying something other than a murderhobo avatar of themselves often isn't.

This is very niche but I like the sheer amount of content and wading through prestige classes and feats, along with spells and magic items, to find one that does what I desire.
Like making a guy who flings a magic zweihander at people for a living. Barbarian/Warblade/Master Thrower (with Throw Anything and a +1 Greatsword of Returning) was a fun campaign.
Sculpting a character to my precise desires is appealing and satisfying. But that's just to my sensibilities, I can easily understand the same experience being overwhelming or wearisome to others.

Can't you do the exact thing without a thousand splatbooks?

You're still trying to argue against common experience, using arguments that border from inaccurate hypotheticals (it's really not so easy to remedy damage, because any significant healing costs resources, including actions) to bizarre judgements.

Enemies being just as capable at 1 HP actually make the battle less of a tedious slog, because with wound systems, battles typically turn against whoever gets hit first, and the subsequent rounds just exponentially increase that disadvantage. With a majority of battles decided by the first hit, all the subsequent hits just end up being clean up, or in other words, a tedious slog.

Of course, there are some systems that try to mitigate and reduce the impact of damage to enable comebacks and otherwise keep the battle from being pre-emptively decided , but those ultimately just end up being effectively similar to both sides retaining their combat efficacy.

Overall, it just seems like you're not very familiar with actually playing the game. When characters are expected to go through multiple encounters, managing limited resources, and enduring potentially hundreds of attacks before having a chance to fully rest, every hit counts. Even if a battle might be nearing it's end, a stray attack may be what ultimately decides whether you live or die in the next encounter.

This shouldn't be news or an amazing revelation to you. This is the experience of anyone who's actually played the game.

More streamlining = less detail. Skills are severely simplified in 5e.

Bounded accuracy makes low level characters/monsters more of a threat at the expense of higher level characters limiting what you can do with a custom made class

So you're saying it's shit we have a general perform skill instead of a thousands different skills like "Perform:Banjo"

I didn't say 5e was shit. I said it didn't do homebrew as well. Also in its favor is the sheer amount of content out for 3.PF vs 5e right now.