Are all Pathfinder players this retarded?

Either the two GM's I had never read that bit, or they hated casters.

The full casters didn't get fuck all item-wise really compared to what he gave the martials.

Which unfortunately made martials impossible to downplay into our retarded creativity-free full casters level.

Martials need items waaay more than full casters. Magic arms and armor are expensive.

Still, balancing the game around the expectation that the fighter has a +X sword at whatever level kinda takes the fun out of magic items.

Paizo have been a bunch of feminist propagandists for years now.

Just like Wizards of the Coast.

It's mainly a character creation rule that helps in making characters at higher levels. If you're level 3 you start with 3k gold ect.

>If you're level 3 you start with 3k gold
>tfw I played AD&D 1E and only got 30 gold and a +1 spear when I started the game at level 5.

3k gold is only barely enough to buy a +1 spear, user.

The official Paizo forums are probably the worst* online community in tabletop role playing and that's definitely saying something.

*rpg.net may beat it

Here's hoping Pathfinder 2.0 is less bad.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

This.

No, most of them are worse. I worry that may have given you an unrealistically high expectation of them.

Depends on what game you critizing that day. Pazio forums rabidly defend 3.Finder

Sol forbid you point out shitty art in Exalted 3e on RPG.net however.

>balancing the game around the expectation that the fighter has a +X sword at whatever level kinda takes the fun out of magic items
That's one of the reasons I disliked 4e. As much as it solves some problems, it demystifies everything, which 4e already has a problem with elsewhere.

Probably my biggest single gripe with D&D, pretty much every edition since 3rd. IF everyone is expected to have a +1 sword, that's basically the same as no-one having a +1 sword. Nothing is special or exciting, and the players get a bizarre sense of entitlement towards magic items, and even base builds around the expectation that they will get specific items at specific times.

I like the comparison between a wizard and a quarterback. I get what he's saying; all party members have their roles and martials shouldn't feel mad the casters are more glamorous.

But that analogy is kind of moot when the wizard is also the linebacker, receiving end, kicker, coach, referee, and towel boy

The mod who deleted my response to you is a faggot who can't handle someone not hating something the way they do.

Just so you know, I was agreeing on the paizo bit, because they're worse than rpg.net. You can occasionally get sane roleplayers over there, as ridiculous as some of their sjw shit is.

If such uncontentious opinions is worth a ban, then the mods can go suck my dick and then kill himself.

It's more like the wizard is a Quarterback on a on a team of amputees that aren't allowed to touch the ball against another team of amputees.

They can assist the quaterback, but the quaterback could still do his job just as well with or without them and the only opponent that could even cause trouble for him would be another quaterback.

Agree or disagree:

Magic arms and armor are over priced in 3e, and the stat increase items are under costed. This in turn means that martials are less gold efficient then casters cross the board.

I think that it is a very large part of the power gap in between martials and casters that most people just miss when discussing the subject.

Truth is that just by taking the unchained era design ideas, redoing the core spells list, and removing these lines " When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, he can repeat the preparation process as often as he likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. ".

It would still have issues, but it would be notably less bad.

Last time I played 3.5 or whatever I remember someone making a caster who was taking skills and feats so that they could produce magic items for the group.

That was kind of neat.

That's really one of the biggest reasons I switched to 5e as soon as I could

Guessing this is a screencap from the Pathfinder Society website. Been a while since I've been there, but it honestly seems to be dead on the money. Attended a PFS game once, by far the most awkward and uncomfortable gaming experience I've had since someone at my FLGS hissed at me and called me "Outsider" for walking near his game table.

Yes. Also the devs.

Even in 5e I've seen people abusing those items that set your strength to a certain amount, basing builds around them etc.
The mindset of expecting that your DM will just make whatever you like show up I just find so bizarre.

Inherent bonuses yo. 4e solved this shit.

>Even in 5e I've seen people abusing those items that set your strength to a certain amount, basing builds around them etc.
That's ridiculous. 5E does not have a magic item curve. The DM is not instructed to give the players any amount of magic items at any level. The closest possible thing is the completely optional item drop charts, and actually useful items on those are far between.

The closest things to guaranteed magic items in 5e are class features that make mundane ones count as magic weapons. There are monsters that are resistant/immune to non-magic weapons, but that's been a thing long before 3.0

Any game that has flaws also has fans who grasp at straws to deny those flaws.

Frankly I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "We know it isn't balanced and we like it anyway", I wish they were always that honest.

Uh, no, that's backwards. You can buy higher bonuses with weapons or armor than you can by increasing your stats. Also both fighters and wizards have the option of boosting there stats but only fighters have magic weapons and armor, spellcasters have no equivalent to that.

This issue is really overlooked in the opposite way from what you're describing. People don't realize how item-reliant the martial characters are, and when you reduce access to magic items you end up boosting spellcasters even more by coimparison.

I haven't followed Paizo in a few years, do they still produce good adventures and awesome fluff-books to go with their bad mechanics?

Or is it just awkward, ugly rules bloat all the time now?

Their adventures are not that good. A few are, and other have good parts, but they have produced exactly 1 game that wasn't just a series of pre-defined events along a set story.

To be fair to them, they're going with what the market wants.

PF players want games with encounters they can reliably defeat, wrapped in a story so it feels like the game's going somewhere.
PF DMs don't want to have to go to the effort of homebrewing long statblocks, and if the enemy is powerful enough that the players whinge there's comfort in being able to say "it's not my fault, it's the book!"

If you're a good enough DM to run a non-linear or sandbox game, you're a good enough DM to not require official modules.

Not all...
But enough.

They just have more megaphones, and more modules that use them.
WotC at least gives you some breathing time between the waterboardings.

God forbid you go to rpg.net
If I wanted to be flamed by irate assholes then banned, there a dive bars for that.

Gotta exlude to be inclusive, right?

The whole "set strength to X" method seems nonsensical to me, it cheapens the stat investment of most anyone who gains to benefit from it. At the very least it could give a small strength bonus if your actual score is significantly high.

Pathfinder, more so than even 3.5e, is the game I know of where people will be advised not to make martial characters and to roll at least a half-caster.

What do people who bring up the martial/caster disparity meme want martials to be able to do that they cannot do already within the game ? I think that's a good question that was left unanswered here.

I don't mean in comparison either , I get that casters are powerful , I just mean for the martial classes themselves irrespective of what casters can do.

Mostly I want spellcasters nerfed so magic isn't the go-to solution for everything. "You didn't play a wizard so your class is boring" is poo design.

That doesn't answer the question, it's actually specifically what I said not to respond with.

What do people want martials to be able to do that they cannot do already?

Solve a problem in any way other than 'hit it harder'. The issue is that martials have exactly one native solution to any obstacle, whereas casters can have several reliable, varied methods for different results. The skill system is not enough, since everyone has access to it, and spells can obviate it entirely.

Or you can just play one of the good WotC adventures for 5e. They are way better than the Paizo ones.

Move and then attack :^)

Again you are answering the question by comparing martials to casters which is irrelevant to my question.

Petend there are no caster classes in the game , what do you want martials to be able to do that they cannot already do within the game ?

It's called the charge action?

4e had the Martial Practices idea which was a good approach to the matter. Came in a bit late and wasn't too well developed, however, but the idea was sound.

No sure what you could do that isn't along those lines. Limiting the power and scope of magic users really is the biggest issue here.

This, I've seen five entire discussion on how eternal life and immortality are ruled on those boards because of the druid's timeless body worked. Piazo answers with "it works exactly how the name makes it sound." And people still got confused.

>charge action

>Petend there are no caster classes in the game , what do you want martials to be able to do that they cannot already do within the game ?

Say that things happen and then those things just happen. Obviously they'd be limited to a very few things that they can say, but I'd like martial characters to have some way to influence what happens in the game that isn't entirely up to the whim of a single incredibly swingy die.

Path of War by DSP for Pathfinder, much like Tome of Battle for 3.5e, solved the martial/caster disparity by creating effective martials that use maneuvers and stances to be extremely effective in combat.

How about be able to use a combat maneuver system that doesn't suck?

>reductio ad Hitlerum
>you're part of a team even if you're the waterboy you're wining when they win
I hate 3aboos and paizofags so much

A Song of Ice and Fire RPG also assumes the players are nobles and retainers for a certain house.

Weird Wars 2 assumes the players are all part of the allies or the resistance

Shadowrun assumes the players are professional criminals.

Its not necessary to follow an assumption given by the creator, fuck I probably unknowingly spit at Paizo's face whenever I run my Taldor game about Stavian III creating his own crown musketeers.

What's the confusion? I just looked up the PF timeless body and it seems clear. Is there an interaction that's in question?

Underrated question and answer

>First time playing 3.PF (never played D&D before)
>What should I roll, GM?
>Whatever you want, user
>This monk class look cool
>Yeah, dude, play that
>Literally useless from the 1st level
>Outclassed by the animal companion of the druid and by the cleric (later by the druid too)
>GM, I'm not having fun, I mean, I'm not doing anything, I'm not relevant, literally could sit down and do the others do all the work and they won't miss me, what I'm doing wrong?
>You played a martial, specifically a monk
>Are they bad?
>Yeah, a lot
>Why did you let me play something that's bad?
>Because you wanted to
>Why didn't you improve it with some homerules?
>Because that's not what the game is about, also the important stuff her is magic, and you lack magic
Never more

The only D&D I played after that is 5e

>Q: Why is Pathfinder so imbalanced?

>A: Muh magical realm!!
>A: Herp derp, other games did it too, so two wrongs make a right!
>A: Balance is for losers, man.

Is this a fair synopsis of OP's screenshot?

>things that never happened

>implying it bothers me if you don't believe me
It's a free world, user. It's good to be skeptical though

Thanks for dragging your political boogeyman into a discussion that had absolutely nothing to do with it from the start. Here's your (You)

Yeah.

So you want to play dungeon world?

You already can say what you do and it happens. Your characters skills and abilities ,outside factors and probability determines if that is successful.

It's both a rule for adjudicating higher player character level starting wealth, and a guide for how much wealth and magic items a PC should have at a given level.

The CRs for monsters are "balanced" around that number, and the generally against the Fighter with that kind of wealth. If there's one good thing Savage Species did, it revealed the designers ideas about how the monster/PC interaction worked.

I want o take a moment to explain that: In Savage Species, they told the DM to balance monster level adjustment against the Fighter. If you'd rather play the monster than a Fighter of the same level, the monster was too strong.

I want you to let that sink in for minute.

The Fighter. Arguably the weakest class in the whole 3.x extended ruleset, was the one against which they "balanced" the entire game. It's one of the reasons a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Druid by themselves is enough to overcome most anything by level 8, and if you give them more wealth than they're supposed to have, it completely fucks everything.

The game isn't intended to challenge the highest powered classes. It's meant to be a cakewalk.

A 13 encounter per level shitcake, but a cakewalk nonetheless.

>The official Paizo forums are probably the worst* online community in tabletop role playing

You forgot Dragonsfoot. There's such a pervasive good-'ol-boy mentality to go around there. Those with the most seniority seem to think they have administrative power, and will push around anyone who disagrees with their opinions until they've effectively driven them off the site.

Really, conventional forum models just suck. When you start attaching names to every post, then people start to manufacture a reputation / sense of notoriety to go along with that. "Oh, it's THAT guy again. He posted an unapproved opinion that triggered me last week. Let's gang up on him!"

Yep.

Doesn't seem to matter that CoDzilla makes every other class redundant, because "Muh core". The only time I ever saw a Pathfinder game actually maintain any sort of balance whatsoever, the GM had entirely overhauled the spellcasters so that core casters ran off the Bard spell progression list instead of their own.

>Dragonsfoot
That's a new one, never heard of these faggots before.

>PF DMs don't want to have to go to the effort of homebrewing long statblocks
I find this kind of weird, because the 3.x chassis (and the way Paizo produce things, i.e. full of option after option after option) is basically for the people who like to mix and match and homebrew things.

So if you played an all martial party in a game with no casters ,you'd be happy?

>Limiting the power and scope of magic users really is the biggest issue here.
Well, it takes a lot less to design spells to fill page space than it does to create additional martial stuff, unless you're also creating Bo9S-esque maneuvers as well.

Different guy but we once divided our group in two, one played only martials, and the other played only casters, then the GMs used precon games and GMd them the same way.

Guess which group was way more effective and almost never had PC deaths?

I've never had this be an issue in any of my games.

Maybe Im some kind of lucky anomaly that just never played with power gamers?

Closest it came was when one player rolled up a summoner (which is hardly core) but as soon as I worked out ways around his invisibility and just targeted him it became apparent he was pretty vulnerable without party support. Granted I still think that class is a bit silly but core has always been fine in practice for me although I can see there's an issue in theory.

Ironically the onky complaint I've had from a player was that his Rogue couldn't deal as much damage as the party Barbarian.

I've seen some limited success with wizards by removing their access to anything besides a single school of spells, forcing them to specialise, and also deleting several spells (Conjuration took the biggest hit).

It's a kind of OSR community that attracts triggered autists and Internet tough guys.

I like OSR, but too many of the people drawn to that scene are insufferable.

>Maybe Im some kind of lucky anomaly that just never played with power gamers?
This has to be bait.
Yeah, you were lucky.
No, this has literally nothing to do with powergamers, more often than not this balance problems happen when people pick something that looks cool and it isn't or that looks cool and it's. Clear example druid who saw bear and think it's cool, boom, literally killed half the martials. This happens even more with new players or inexperienced players.

Funny, Druid is more broken than Summoner.

Feats take up the same space and it would be so easy to have a "Preparation" system in place to trade feats out and also clean up feats so they are not hilariously shitty.

You've never once, in all of your games, had a single player cast Color Spray?

Maybe it's not power gamers, maybe your players are just retarded. They do play Pathfinder after all.

I think Paizo actually did take a tentative half-step in the vague direction of that with the Brawler class, which can switch out combat feats daily?

The problem is that most feats are shit.

So not only did the "only time" you run into party imbalance was with a class weaker than what seems like 1/3 the classes in the game, but you specifically targeted him for it and all he was capable of coming up with was invisibility?

Your players might be the worst players I have ever heard of managing to play 3.pf. Next you will be saying they only play swashbucklers, rogues, monks, and fighters.

I do love that even with all this, your party still managed to question why the rogue is kinda shitty.

I don't see the problem with spells like colour spray ?

It requires a saving throw, has restrictions on how much it can hit CR wise and unless you box all your monsters into a 10 foot cube they're not all going to be in the aoe effect.

. Yes a caster can get lucky and lane a well timed spell that ends an encounter but that's the design. Casters offer limited amounts of burst powers while martials can fight all day. The caster can only use a spell like that a certain amount of times each day so has to preserve them.

The Brawler's feat swapping is really shit but was such a difference making step in the right direction that players got on their knees for it when it came out.

But yes, feats are comically shitty and the game is organized so you can not stray from being good at exactly one thing.

BINGO!

Tbh all of your players/dm's just sound like whiny assholes
Just play the fucking game.

m-m-muh martials

Y'all need some friends who value RP

And dm's: godamn play your enenies to their intelligence, provided the enemy isnt an animal they can probably recognize the squishy caster as the biggest threat. Also things immune to magic/with SR exist, sprinkle then in.

I was running a module as straight as I could and realised nothing in the module could deal with invisibility that well until I realised how good creatures with scent which the module was full of are good against invisibility.

And it was more the Rogue player who wanted the Rogue to be like a DPS dealing Rogue in wow where Rogues in D&D have always been more of a scout class whose main strength is disabling traps , opening locked areas and alerting the party of danger that lurks ahead.

I think you've hit the circular nail on the head though.

>Push system to breaking point creating overpowered character builds.
>Complain that this makes the game unplayable.
>Complain that anybody who doesn't play to break the game in this way and manages to actually enjoy themselves is shit.
>????

>Just play the fucking game
You can play a game while being critical of its design failures

>m-m-muh martials
Do you know what's not fun? Have your character become useless.

>Ya'll need some friends who value RP
If the mechanics don't matter, stop playing pathfinder all together. Just freeform. Freeform is RP in its absolute purest form.
But so long as we're discussing actual roleplaying games, the game portion of the RPG is on the table for discussion and criticism.

>Also things immune to magic/with SR exist, sprinkle then in.
Here we run into a problem in design.
Putting in a monster specifically to make someone warm the bench is bad design. If your solution to the wizard problem is "make them warm the bench every couple of encounters so the other players get to feel like they're contributing" something is probably wrong.

and sleep and grease and, you know the deal

When it stops being useful you just can change it for another spell, when a feat stops being useful you're fucked, welcome to martials

3.PF mechanics punish improvisation

Rogues in Pathfinder are supposed to be a DPR class but are not, and there's the rub. They also suck at scouting and basically everything else but sinking a lot of skill points into skills.

You can retrain feats by RAW let alone GM fiat/house rules.

And by the time you get far enough down the feat tree to get something useful, the wizard is already flying and shooting deathbeams out of his eyes.

>Immune to magic/SR
SR is literally useless unless you throw a way above their CR level thread, in any other case is easily avoidable either by raw spell penetration or by using one of the many spells that ignore SR

Immune to magic actually fucks up casters, but so it does martials beacause the fuckers who have immune to magic are martial eating monsters too