Why are 3.PF fans so in denial about their system? Why are they such blind fanboys? Why are they shills?

>Letting another player "Babysit" your PC.
That does not fly in my group. If a player is absent, their PC is "temporarily indisposed". They can come up with their own damn excuse as to why: Awful hangover, violent food poisoning, stuck waiting at the DMV (Department of Magical Violence), whatever.

And while i readily admit Pathfinder has large, glaring issues:

>Free online rules
>tons of character options
>lots of prebuilt monsters and npcs
>lots of prewritten adventures, some quite good.
>compatibility with lots of other options and adventures not specifically designed for it.
>it can handle high level caster gameplay fairly well, when that's what i want.

It's in my top 3 systems for sure.

Do i run it without houserules? Not a chance.

Would i rather play 5e? Fuck no.

Honestly, the addition of material over the years, both 1pp and some 3pp, has filled the middle ground between a tier 1 class and a tier 5 class, so there's pretty much no concept that you can't iron out at tier 3 or better.

At which point, if you're playing a shitty fighter, you kind of have to go 50/50 with paizo on being retarded.

I personally would only play Pathfinder again with my extensive homebrew - which includes using the magic rules and spells from 5e.

5e easily has the better rules and classes, but I agree that the customization and impossible volume on content does have its place. Out of the Abyss and Curse of Strahd are also better than any of the Paizo Adventures, even though the Paizo adventures are not bad for the most part.

Neither are in my top 3 games though even if they are the ones I play most.

I'll stop making this thread when people STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!

I wouldn't replace pf magic with 5e magic, but i can see replacing it with something else, if you're going to put a ton of time into it.

5e rules are marginally better, but it's so barebones i just can't get into it. It feels unfinished. It doesn't have a lot of options, and they also didn't take the approach of flexible positions like gurps or m&m.

Some of the 5e adventures looked pretty good, and i may run them at some point, but if i do, it won't be with the 5e rules.

I think it's like... guy who got used to 3.PF being the top dog in DD land (be it legit or troll threads) tries to stir shit just so the content isn't limited to the containment thread... which, as moved very far from its roots.

I don't see why anyone would try to take a shit on it for any other reason. You just don't need to. It's been like, 13 years, everyone already knows how they feel about it.

Or it could be a terminally stupid troll I guess, going for the easy bait?

Well replacement magic systems are pretty hard to come by and 5e isn't such a big lift. It doesn't help that Spheres of Power just isn't very fun.

Limiting slots and streamlining spellcasting multi-classes makes things a lot easier to handle, and make more customization easier to handle.

Why not Psionics?
>It doesn't help that Spheres of Power just isn't very fun.
Spheres is plenty fun.

Eternally triggered bitches are going to be eternally triggered bitches.

Probably woke up, realized PF was still popular, and after shitting himself and rolling around in it in absolute fury, went onto Veeky Forums to shitpost since there's nothing else he can do.

Virgin effect.

I was once a Pathfinder drone, then i looked somewhere else.

Cured my right quick.

Honestly, this.

I used to play Pathfinder and have a hard time thinking of playing anything else.

Now I will never go back to it, because I have a lot of games that I would rather go to.

RuneQuest/Mythras is my fantasy go-to, Only War is typically what I use for military campaigns (though the Halo Mythic system is competing for that), I play Star Wars d6 and really like it for generic pulpy/high-adventure science fiction. Aces & Eights for Westerns. MiniSix for campaigns where I can't think of a better system to use. I played Shadowrun and thought it was fine, too. Might join a game soon that plays Chronicles of Darkness.

Even if you think the systems I use/used are shit, that's fine. That's your opinion. But the point is that I started doing something other than Pathfinder, and that opened me up to more and more stuff to try.

Variety is the spice of life.

>RuneQuest/Mythras is my fantasy go-to
Me too, it even has Classic Fantasy for when I want dungeon crawls.

Psionics requires banning classes.

Spheres is not fun in my opinion, you can't just say "nuh uh" to it.

Pathfinder in general requires banning classes. The game does not run well if you allow all classes.

I've been stuck between the two, because the only other game my group plays is Shadowrun right now and the only person who can run that is a bit flakey as a GM.

I do like the cusomization of Pathfinder (I will say the system is infinitely better if you chuck Vancian casting out on its ass and use that third-party Spheres system instead so there's at least some similarity between how learning magic and learning fighting styles work and magic can't do everything) but in general my 5e vs PF experience can be summed up thusly.

youtu.be/Q84nfWkLsYU

>RQ
>Even if you think the systems I use/used are shit, that's fine.

I'm glad you've decided to protect your ego, because you really need to if you like such a set of awful systems.

Runequest is like a retarded cousin. It kind of resembles a roleplaying game, until you try to interact with it and realize it's half-a-brain short of something worth playing.

It's Veeky Forums, m8. The land of "there's always someone here who, no matter who you are or what you argue, thinks you're wrong all the time just for existing and thinking something."

I suppose that following that statement, now I can ask what your fantasy go-to is?

I find it a fun system for creative character creation. I've played better systems, I don't care and I don't see why I have to be denial to say so.

Wait, so what is wrong with Runequest exactly? I've been looking to play it and it seems solid from what I've read. This is the first time I've seen someone rag on it.

It doesn't do anything that any other system doesn't already do better, and the combat in particular is a laborous mess that might seem fresh and different for the first few battles, but after no time at all each turn just becomes a tedious chore after everyone settles into their routines.

So other than combat being bad, it really isn't anything subpar? Sounds better than Pathfinder already.

Rq6 is decent, but it has a few issues.

Players all need to be the same race if you want them to be able to contribute anywhere close to equally. Unless your races have nothing to them but free skill points.

Magic is still king, but the setting assumes everyone has it.

Id consider it, but there are other BRP systems I would look to grab stuff from, or perhaps use as my base system and crib stuff from rq.

Perhaps openquest as a base instead, for instance.

If running rq, basically, either you give everyone magic, or nobody.

>It doesn't do anything that any other system doesn't already do better
Which systems do it better?
I've been recommended systems with really simplistic combat systems that don't actually allow for much mechanical variety, and it seems that what one person considers a flaw is what another actually prefers. When you say "better" what do you mean?

A lot of it stems from "if it doesn't happen in my games it isn't an issue" syndrome. If you only play the APs and stuff balanced to about that level, and the casters don't play in a way that makes them overpowered (idk, maybe they play blasters and healbots), martials are completely feasible.

Also, I was on their forums long enough to recognize that specific guy as being one of the worst offenders for Paizo brownnosing. Most of the people there are somewhat less blind to PF's faults (somewhat).

The combat runs quick and fun for my group. We enjoy it, and the various special effects are very fun and add a degree of depth that Pathfinder simply didn't have.

...

This is pretty much opposite my experience, and you won't be able to defend it - especially in a Pathfinder thread since Pathfinder is the prime example of what you just said.

Oh, so you had a bad GM once and made a lot of bad assumptions. Good going.

That's funny, because it sounds like you're one of those guys who mistakes the illusion of choice for actual decisions, which is a symptom of RQ6 as well as other mechanically shallow games.

It's a good game if you're twelve, but even just a rudimentary understanding of the system leaves it a rather hollow shell.

Can you give any examples? I have played Runequest before and I thought that it was fine.

You are saying a lot of things with no actual explanation, examples, or even what a better system would be.

Following the comments you are literally trying to say *Pathfinder* is an example of meaningful mechanical choices while RQ6 has bloated and slow combat with little variation.

Not that user, but all you're doing is insulting him and calling his claims incorrect. Neither of you is providing any evidence or examples of anything.

As someone always looking for interesting new systems to try, I'd like to know what are some upsides and downsides that it has? What does it do well? What sorts of games does it seem designed around?

>Killing an absents player's PC
Ultimate dickery

>That avatar pic
Like a fucking glove

Also 5e is a completely different genre

Mythras (formally RuneQuest 6) is a generic system based on the RuneQuest games published by Mongoose and Legend (also produced by Mongoose I think). It's d100 roll under, using the BRP framework like Call of Cthulhu or Dark Heresy - in fact, Basic Roleplay is based on RuneQuest 2nd edition from the late 70s. RuneQuest was a setting specific system designed basically around hating OD&D.

And that's where the differences begin - it uses the D&D stats along with an additional Size stat. From these stats, a series of attributes are derived (such as HP, bonus experience, luck rolls, initiative, healing rate, bonus damage, etc.) these attributes are permanent. From there you build the character's background and skills.

You choose a generic society the character comes from (barbarous, civilized, nomadic, or primitive) and then you add professional skills and increase skills based on culture. You then choose a career and add professional skills and increase skills. Then you can choose 1 more skill and assign more points to skills. You also have a series of tables to flesh out your family, background events, etc that is optional. There's also a system of passions that can be improved like skills that are a numeric value for how loyal you are to an order or how deeply you love someone. They can augment skills and things.

Boom. Your character is done and you are a fully fleshed out character with a general realm of proficiency and the option to improve on that. And, to me, that's an important strength is quickly generating a person to use as a character.

Isn't /pfg/ also on the frontlines of autistic bisexual pedo weeaboo furfag degeneracy?

You say that like it's a bad thing

(cont)
As for mechanics the game is d100 roll under, 95-100 is a failure even with skills over 100%, 98-100 is a fumble (which are roughly defined to prevent fumble memes with that GM), and 1/10 the skill value is a crit. There is a series of steps up and down for difficulty that are multipliers to give the game much less linear math since there are a lot of time you are making easy or hard rolls. There are also rules for group, opposed, and differential contests that use the value differently (opposed is d100 vs d100 for example, while differential is measured in degrees of success). Since there is really just a series of skills, it's easy to add or remove skills to match the setting.

The gameplay has a wide variety of considerations focusing on heroic or sword and sorcery fantasy stories with a foot in reality despite nothing about the game being less than pulpy fun. HP is assigned to very generic locations (arm, leg, chest, head, etc), and is kept around 5 for a character. Armor is damage reduction and by location with flexible fluff and customization options, weapons deal set damage plus the bonus damage attributes. There are optional features and cults (organizations a character joins) that can give other benefits as well. It's much more like what a Conan book is, but I played a very high magic setting and it was easy to integrate impossible levels of magic without making the party feel useless or making that level unattainable. You can also cut magic out entirely easily, or only let people recover magic points by sacrificing animals in an altar. It's in general a very flexible and common sense based game to GM.

There is a lot of text dedicated to combat. Combat is a series of combat styles that give a special benefit with certain weapons, so an expert swordsman or archer might know 2-3 styles with similar weapons that give different benefits. All combat styles have log and short range options..

How did /pfg/ turn so autistic bisexual pedo weeaboo furfag degenerate in the first place?

Why are 5E players so defensive? Whenever I see a criticism about it, it's always responded to with "you're not being creative enough" or "you're not meant to play it that way.", or as seen in this thread "3.5 and pathfinder are shit anyways!"

Do they just feel scared to admit that they're not smart enough to play more advanced games, which is why they're playing such simplified dribble?

Would you mind telling me what's wrong with 5e? I'm new (to pen and paper RP, not Veeky Forums) and the campaign i'm in is 5e. I'm noticing some issues with there just being not enough interactivity but i'm not sure if thats not just my GM.

Colette

It's because their system is devoid of character options, and they are realizing that being only +6 to hit at level 20 is not as cool after all.

That said I think 5e is pretty good. It just needs more Pathfinder. The good parts.

I'm also new to pen and paper RP, and I thought it was general opinion that Pathfinder is good stuff. Is it just people who play martial classes made they're never going to be as good as wizards?

Help some newcomers out, Veeky Forums.

Pathinder has a serious problem of lying to your fucking face:
1. Unbalance between martials and casters even though they advertise them as "equally powerful" when in reality magic>all.
2. Some classes are fucking shit, like they aren't even able to do what they're supposed to do, CRB monk for example, kineticist is another example.
3. CRs, or monster's level, are also a fucking mess.
4. I swear to god it's untested as fuck.

I kinda like it though, but it really need a group and a GM who know what the fuck they're doing.

This sounds awful.

Ah, and I forgot, CM fucking D (combat maneuver defense) this is the defense that escalate the fastest in monsters to the point trying to do maneuvers becomes stupid, so anything beyond full attack on martials becomes pointless.

>Oh, this monster had 73 CMD? well, let me minmax the shit out of my char...nice, not even with nat20.

Interesting, thanks for the explanation.

It sounds like it's worth looking at the book itself.

Okay, that makes sense, thank you user.

Another question. As evidence by this thread, a lot of 5E players seem to REALLY dislike 3.5 and PF. I've hear that 5E is more like the original editions of D&D, so is some of the dislike coming from older players, kind of like 3.5 players hated 4E?

A lot of it's coming from people that played 3.PF, and the hate stems from that.

Imo 5e is a watered down 3.5, it's more balanced, thought still casters are ahead, it's simpler and faster, but lacks the amount of options and character building you could pull of in 3.PF. Its powerlevels also were tuned down a lot, you won't see barbarians lifting houses or monks moving at the speed of sound.

Not enough people admit this.

Edition wars is a tradition for tabletop players. Since D&D is usually the same basic content (adventurers delving into dungeons to fight old fantasy pulp monsters) but with different rules, people feel like the rules they enjoy best must be objectively superior instead of really a different game. 3.5 had a whole lot of problems that 5th Edition fixed, but without going so far as to become totally unrecognizable like 4e did, so a lot of older players like it.

Seriously though, they're all mostly fine games. Even 4th. Edition wars are stupid as all hell when each of the games play fairly well at their own type of different experience.

5e is streamlined and doesn't burden itself with unnecessary rules.

3.x/PF has a fuckton of "mechanically supported character options" that are actually restrictions. It's a game that aggressively encourages min/maxing and pure number crunching and penalizes you for not having a license for a thing that could be ruled on the spot as needed instead.

I started playing with 3.5 and migrated to PF. Never again.

I play B/X retroclones for my D&D needs now.

>but lacks the amount of options and character building you could pull of in 3.PF
I don't know why people keep saying this like it's a bad thing. 99% of the "options" in 3.PF are worthless garbage trap options. If anything 3.PF and 5e have just as many VIABLE, actually useful, options as one another.

I remember when I used to hang on a forum for RPGs in general where no one really played D&D and it was a good time. Everyone was talking about the systems they played, funny stories about weird rules that had come up, and so on. And then one day some D&D fag found his way on there and he felt the need to shit up every thread with how 'D&D is superior' and that everybody knows so because it's the system that sells the most despite never having any sales figures to back it up with and no one agreeing with him.

I've been traumatized ever since.

If you want to play DnD, play 4e, it's balanced and good. 5e is just 3.5e with some houserules, and barely has any content out (there's a new Monster Manual coming out soon I guess)

If you want to play a tabletop RPG in general, there's a lot of options. Star Wars RPG by FFG is pretty solid for Star Wars, for example, and there's probably a decent book for anything (from wrestling to superheroes to Cthuhlu)

Eh, no.
Smaller curve in proficiency bonus means that the target numbers stay reasonable and "level-inappropriate" can be run out-of-the-box, spellcasting is considerably more streamlined, no fucking feat tax and related trap options, skill system isn't a trainwreck, it doesn't assume that everyone just has to have x gold worth of magic items at certain levels...

Basically it has none of the awful shit 3.x is full of.

>5e is streamlined and doesn't burden itself with unnecessary rules.
And by the same token it has nothing even a fraction as interesting as classes like the Beguiler, Totemist, Psychic Warrior, Swordsage, or Magus.

>no fucking feat tax
>implying
There are several feats that are massively better than taking the +2 or another feat to the point where if they fit into your combat style you are gimping yourself for not having them.

Feats are optional. As in "the DM decides if they are used at all"

That means literally nothing and you know it.

"gimping yourself" is playing a monk in 3.5, not skipping PAM/GWM/Sentinel in 5e

>none of the awful shit 3.x
Yeah 5e isn't JUST 3.5e, I was exaggerating a bit because of how similar they are, but it still has hilarious imbalance, some feats are plain useless while others are much better, a couple of classes straight out the book can fuck the game up (Necromancer, Diviner, Moon Druid at level 2), some classes do nothing except "Ok I attack", and non-magical weapon immunities are still around.

And basic classes like the fighter and monk fucking WORK, rather then not being worth toilet paper.

Numbers on a sheet are not interesting, characters are.

Fighter/magic-user/thief/cleric/race-as-class is plenty enough, since I'm not a schmuck spoiled by Pathfindery rules bloat who needs validation from gimmicky mechanics.

They're both awful choices. Losing out on the massive amount of DPR feats like Polearm Master and GWM give you is stupid as fuck when damage is how you end fights.

It's a good thing both 3.5 and Pathfinder have replacement classes for them which are yet again more interesting than their 5E equivalent or that might be a problem.

Thething about PF is that there's SO MANY options that by disallowing the stronger ones, you can set "viable" pretty much wherever you want

This doesn't make the game good by any means, but it does mean that the sheer quantity of options available is a definitive strength of the system

>some feats are plain useless while others are much better

To be fair, 4e also has this problem, made even worse by it's prominent feat taxes

>it does mean that the sheer quantity of options available is a definitive strength of the system
People actually believe this.

Well if you don't find the character building fun I guess it's a weakness, but honestly, character building is the single most fun thing in 3.PF, so I don't know why anyone would play at all if they don't enjoy it

EXACTLY OUR POINT

Lack of local alternatives that fit into your schedule or your group really wants to play 3.PF in particular.

THEN WHY ARE WE ARGUING?

If you don't enjoy character building then play an action video game. They're made so you don't have to think, hope this helps :)

Definitely, although if you hand out the feat taxes you are more or less done.

>some feats are plain useless while others are much better
Very few are useless, most confer a major benefit or otherwise increase an ability score by 1.
>a couple of classes straight out the book can fuck the game up (Necromancer, Diviner, Moon Druid at level 2)
Pretty much just necromancer because spam attacks result in madness. Moon Druid isn't that much stronger than anyone using dual wield.
>some classes do nothing except "Ok I attack"
And Champion Fighter, who embodies that best, is the absolute king of attacking.
>and non-magical weapon immunities are still around
This just means "you're expected to have a magical weapon by level 8". It doesn't even need to be a +1 weapon. A magic +0 weapon is fine.

There's a reason 3E was called Diablo edition.

That's why I said action video games and not roleplaying games, user. Bait doesn't work if you don't read it right, silly.

>Diablo
>roleplaying

>Moon Druid isn't that much stronger than anyone using dual wield.

What? Dual wield is strong?

>And Champion Fighter, who embodies that best, is the absolute king of attacking.

Only by like 5%.

I mean it's more roleplaying than Halo or something. You play your combat role, I guess? Okay listen I might not have thought this shitpost though, I'll admit.

>What? Dual wield is strong?
Before level 5, it's doubling your attacks per turn, so...
>Only by like 5%.
Regardless, they are simple and effective, and for the players who don't want to manage a list of spells or decide what they are willing to spend turn by turn. Some people want to sword at the dragon. There is room in the game design for these players.

Or I can play an RPG I actually fucking enjoy. Like Mutants and Masterminds 3e, which lacks a book that actively lies to me, or Godbound,

Why do we have to have this thread every day?

IS there a game that actually lets you have a decent amount of character customization without having a bunch of options that gimp you?

>inb4 some other edition of D&D