So, why do certain part of Veeky Forums think that Pathfinder is shit? I didn't played it (or 3.5 in general)...

a)It's 3.5 with several truckloads of garbage dumped on top of it, so it takes more effort to fix for the same end result as fixing 3.5 directly.
b)It's a reservation for rabid 3e autists who hated 4e but refused to try anything else.
c)It's same old tired crap we've been playing for a decade now but with ass-tier comic book art and awkward attempts at being hip and cool and socially progressive.

Care to elaborate?

Why is it a bad game? Why is 3e a bad game?

Because this is the mindset of the devs, compounded over years of expansion and errata. If you cut out all of core classes and use Dreamscarred Press stuff instead, it's mostly balanced, but still nothing special.

god dam this still makes me mad.

Oh boy, here we go again.

Cause 3.pfags often thinks that their beloved edition is a cure for all ills and it is retarded.

If you want to run a game for superheroes fighting OP shit in fantasy setting and gain math skills while playing then 3.X is good for you.

If you want something more down to earth, you have to cut over 75% of game so its a shit choice.
Also there are million pages of content if you want to build your character in a best way, if that makes your dick hard. Some like it, I don't have anywhere near that much time.

Sadly many of people on board is behind the monkeys in term of choosing appropriate tool for what they intend to run.

Caster supremacy was already a thing in 3.5, pathfinder didn't make it any better or any worse. Though it should be noted if you just played with the later 3.5 classes (crusader, dread necromancer, binder etc) things were genuinely fun and balanced, it was mostly core 3.5 that was the problem, and most of its issues got passed on to pathfinder.

Do we really need to have this thread every single day?

Is not that bad, in the sense that 3.X is less bad than tg makes it.

Just is kinda pointless, does not fix anything albeit has some good idea. With a group of people that make 3.X work, it will work.

With the kind of sperg you find in Veeky Forums with the worst possible interpretation of rules and spell interaction, that often breaks the game just to show that the game is breakable and he/she was right all along, it will fold easily.

Is just infuriating because is full of ince ideas but horrible implementation and some ruling absolutely amateurish. I like the monsters, though.

I had fun with the system but I had not autistic people in the group and I was the DM.

>at will cantrips
>school specialization is now a viable option
>shits on the fighter at every oportunity
>removes xp costs from the most powerful spells

also yes, some of the devs are retarded. Talk with SKR in the forums was an assault to the mere idea of logic. There is something lovercraftian in that man's thought process.

putting aside how much caster supremacy 3e did or did not have how could you possibly think it was the same level as pathfinder
they got massive buffs

>Veeky Forums has terrible taste.
>Pathfinder is a great game
Well you sure proved your own rule.

Pathfinder is shit because 3.5 had a bunch of problems, Paizo promised to fix them with Pathfinder, and then they just fucking didn't. In fact they made 3.5's problems worse

Yes, this is just the subjective opinion of someone who's really bitter about it.

Why be bitter about it? Just play a different game. Nobody's forcing you to play PF.

Okay, at this point I know you're trolling. There is no way you could be aware that Veeky Forums hates 3.x without reading one of the long and persistent topics dedicated to enumerating its every sin.

I do play other games, but I still have the Pathfinder core rulebook sitting on my bookshelf and I still hate myself for buying it.

Because I was a fucking moron who actually bought into all the hype

>It's not realistic
It's not realistic to start fire with a flick of fingers either, now what? Now the fuck is this argument still around?

>every sin

The only thing people complain about is caster supremacy which, while valid, doesn't mean that whole system is shit.

same poster as above that KIND of praised PF ("is not that bad..") - this is true for the most part. I like it but is wonky.
They said they "fixed" concentration but the math is off - it fucks up low level casters but is pointless against high level. Is the opposite of what people wanted.

Some concept is better from the get-go. A Sword and Board fighter is better in core PF than core 3.X. Same an archer. But the things that will fuck-up an unsupported fighter in 3.X will do the same to an unsupported fighter in PF.

OP here. I am pretty new here, never played Pathfinder or any other DnD for this matter, and genuinely interested in why so much hate.

im not even sure what you are trying to say here.
are you sleep deprived user

>pathfinder didn't make it any better or any worse
Nerfing the shit out of Rogues, one of the most viable martial classes, is making it worse.
Adding yet more spells for casters always makes it worse, and throwing in versatile archetypes for heavily limited classes like Wizard is making it a lot worse. (3.5 Wizard has to grow by finding spells or deciding on select crucial spells every level up, they have basically no class features to speak of)

They buffed martial classes, but nerfed martial feats and martial maneuvers. Resulting in a net loss of power regarding the classes that needed a buff the most

Also, they just completely ignored all the later 3.5 material, you know, the best stuff in the system. Dread Necromancers and Battlemages and Martial Adept classes and Beguilers and all that jazz

>So, why do certain part of Veeky Forums think that Pathfinder is shit?
while it is merely a D&D-variant and therefore gamist by nature, which isn't my cup of tea, a lot of those neckbeards blasting it are just attention whores.

3.5 and PF by extension are flawed because of very philosophy - it's high fantasy with magic everywhere, yet there's a defined split between mundane and magical, and magical is always better than mundane. That leaves classes without spellslots (or any creature/class/archetype that doesn't suck magic's cock) strictly worse than magic-using classes/creatures.

I really hope you aren't trolling, because i'm tired posting this shit over and over again.

>move at mach 2
>can charge at anything without hurting myself
>fall from 20 feet
>take damage
Even if I fell from ten billion of kms It wouldn't even hurt 1% of charging at mach 2, this game is a nonsense.

>If you want something more down to earth, you have to cut over 75% of game so its a shit choice.
congrats you just described D&D

>yet there's a defined split between mundane and magical, and magical is always better than mundane
But why can't martials get their own totally-not-magic buffs? In my games, martial characters are usually much better in combat than mages, because they aren't so squishy and better at killing things. They are also much better at all tasks there dexterity and stamina matters - running, hiking, acrobatics, etc. Isn't D&D have skill checks, based on attributes?

Does anyone have a complaint about 3.PF that isn't related to caster supremacy?

>are you sleep deprived user
I am. What I meant to say was that those who like playing fighter types with 2h/sword&board/archery tend to be massive hypocrites that accept or even enforce the notion that unarmed martials are inferior to armed ones on the grounds of realism, while still demanding balance between a martial and a caster when the other one can stop time and generally fuck physics in the ass, while the other one is just a guy who can swing a sword pretty well.
I'm all for dismantling the caster supremacy, but what I truly hate is the obsession with "fighter types" that most of 3.PF haters have. Veeky Forums doesn't like it when you suggest that something that is weaker than traditional sword&board should be made more viable which is ridiculous and simultaneously cries about caster supremacy which is a legit problem.

>this game is a nonsense.
it's gamist. simulation (aka realism) takes intentionally the backseat

Have you ever been to pathfinder general?

CR is borked... Oh wait, that's because of spells..

...Hmm, you know what? I don't think there is a problem with 3.PF that doesn't relate to caster supremacy, because caster supremacy is such an all-encompassing system-tumor that every problem with the system relates back to it in some way.

>Isn't D&D have skill checks, based on attributes?
Yes, but the magic-using classes get far more skill points than the martial ones.

Stop paying attention to trolls.
Just ignore them.

For my experience, maneuver nerf was superficial, minimum buffs or appropriate weapons still made them work unless the enemy was colossal, flying, etc. Is true that the ruling is often dumb, in 3.5 in the FAQs the developper said that you can trip a flyer if you find a way (say, bolas on wings) in PF you just cannot because S.K.R.

The feat thing is true. They just cannot grasp the concept that feat should scale. They started to get it when it was too late so you have this game in which you have some stuff scaling and some other not.

>aka realism) takes intentionally the backseat
Except when you're a martial
>shoot more than 3 shots per turn? unrealistic therefore we release errata to fuck you up
>jump more than X meters? unrealistic therefore we release errata to fuck you up
>grab a weapon that it's tied to your hand as a free action? unrealistic, I tested it for like 1 hour with my mouse cord and it's impossible for my lard ass, so it's impossible to everyone else therefore release errata to fuck you up
And a long etc

No?

I mean, I know plenty of people who love their sword & board fighters, myself included, but not one of them has ever insisted that monks should be objectively worse than other martial classes or anything like that.

2e added expanded spell offerings, 3.0 added even more. 3.5 was a rules correction to 3.0 nerfing martial characters among other things. Pathfinder tried to correct without heavily nerfing, resulting in no real correction.

The problem can be managed by allowing martial extra attacks at the full base attack bonus (BaB) and by banning some overpowered spells. The rage arises because if you do this, you can no longer play the "rules as written", so the players move from "house rule" game to "house rule" game without any stability and you never know what you'll get. If your DM is wise, you'll have fun.

i dont think there is much of a caster supremacy but the fighters dont actually get to have many points in there athetic skills because the designers did not think the skill system through.

the class skill system helps keep wizards from becoming great atheletes but fighters do get left behind in skill points it is by far the systems biggest flaw.

and then pathfinder comes along and makes it far far worse by changing the class skill system from taking a skill thats not on your class list costs twice as many points to having a skill on the class list for any of your classes gives you a +4 to it.

this is why pathfinder is shit it does not fix anything it breaks what works and makes what does not work even worse

Why the fuck should they? They have been studying magic, and magic-related skills should be better, that's basic logic, but why the wizards should be better at intimidating people than big burly fighter?

>Yes, but the magic-using classes get far more skill points than the martial ones.
I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about here.
Cleric's skill growth
>2 + Int modifier
Druid's skill growth
>4 + Int modifier
Sorcerer's skill growth
>2 + Int modifier
Wizard's skill growth
>2 + Int modifier (admittedly Wizards are the only class expected to have a notable Int modifier)
Meanwhile, Bard (partial caster)
>6 + Int modifier
Ranger (1/3rd caster)
>6 + Int modifier
Barbarian (the core class most focused on attack)
>4 + Int modifier
Monk (worst class)
>4 + Int modifier
And fucking Rogue
>8 + Int modifier (highest of all)

In short, the only full caster with greater than 2+int is Druid. Druid is the strongest class in the game, no doubt, but that is not because it gets 2 skill points over Cleric.

The only odd men out at all are Paladin and Fighter (sitting at paltry 2+int) and Wizard (by merit of being the only non-psionic Int-based class).

skill system

it was bad in 3e and even worse in pathfinder

...

Oh boy, I get to repost these!

Behold! Devs who refuse to acknowledge or fix an obviously flawed product!

martials should get this kind of buffs, yes.
3.PF is not inherently flawed but after 14-16th level, all martials should get way to dispel, "parry" or "block" spells, bonus to saves or stuff like Iron Heat Surge, super-jumps and other things because is the only way to resist in such magical environment.

And I say this as a 3.X fan. There is SOMETHING if you mix 3.X and PF manuals, but is too little, is hard to get, it needs resource investment and so on. Developer just fix this adding magic items. In some game can work but is not for everybody. My players had just a wizard that was a crafter as a character concept and had 5-6 casters buffing them, but not everybody is so lucky.

Here's the math on how crafting is absolutely useless.

Honestly I think that particular change to the skill system, in a vacuum, is completely fine

The problem with it is that the amount of skill points per level the classes get is just stupid and horribly designed, the skill lists for the classes got reworked (badly), and the fly skill is just insulting

>>grab a weapon that it's tied to your hand as a free action? unrealistic, I tested it for like 1 hour with my mouse cord and it's impossible for my lard ass, so it's impossible to everyone else therefore release errata to fuck you up
god im still mad
the fighter has trained for years to be able to do shit like that your not gonna be able to do it in an hour.

Hmm, Right, subjective opinions based on personal experience, sorry for my broad statement that assumed others had similar experiences to myself

you are correct
i love 3e and have talked to plenty of people that do but we have all agreed they fucked up skill point allocation

...

>Honestly I think that particular change to the skill system, in a vacuum, is completely fine
i suppose so

the only reason the change was a problem was because the old skill system was the only thing holding skills together
take away that bandaid and it all goes to shit

>But why can't martials get their own totally-not-magic buffs?
Because that's weeaboo and we don't want weeaboo. We want only hardcore realism* when it comes to non-magical classes.
>In my games, martial characters are usually much better in combat than mages, because they aren't so squishy and better at killing things.
Maybe better than blaster casters. A single save or fuck you spell can end the combat faster than a whole fighter party. Also at higher levels many monsters are outright immune to non-magical damage and other stuff fighter was supposed to be good at or have so much HP that fighters will hack at it for (in-game) days. Mind, strength of magic was supposed to be balanced by how often can you use spells... while in 3e/PF you have so much spell slots you won't have to ever worry about them by level 6-7.

Okay, that's combat. What's outside the combat? Outside magic gives you way more ways to interact with the world, from batman wizardry to the fact that at some point dungeons will contain magical defenses (and thus defenses simply better than mundane ones).

>They are also much better at all tasks there dexterity and stamina matters - running, hiking, acrobatics, etc. Isn't D&D have skill checks, based on attributes?
Yes, about that. First, flight, telekinesis, the stuff. Now, obvious things out of the way, wizards simply have much more skill points to go around so they can play fantasy renaissance man while fighter has to save up for a couple more skills that are relevant to his background (and god forbid you have "roleplaying" skills, silly fighters need no roleplay).

So fighters are relegated to the singular archetype of dumb non-magical muscle in a system that actively punishes non-magical things.
Here. Have this angry rant on why PF is flawed by the concept, take your (you) and go away. I'm done here.

*hardcore realism in this case means "What SKR can do IRL. Which, him not being athletic by any stretch, is not much."

yes, this is what I mean talking about SKR. Mind it, some other designer is not as bad.

But SKR... is.. kind of alien. I would feel comfortable in a room with him only after a "blood test" like the one in "The Thing".

Here it's explained how even though crossbows have dedicated feats they still end up worse than bows by default.

I like how it took WoW introducing monk as a class for SKR to finally think that monks maaay have gotten the short end of the stick in 3.5 and PF

Becauses jesus that's stupid

>subjective opinions based on personal experience
Gee, who could have known?

Haha, yeah he's a dick, but it seems he was just really bad because he was the forum attack dog for the devs. He does calm down later.

The worst part is how contemptuous he was. Then, when he clearly lost an argument, thread locked. Is unbelievably childish.

This is supposed to be "the best" of game design people. Is like the GW designer and their childish AoS free PDF rules. Then one is surprised why these rulesets are a complete shitfest.

yeah it did become obvious after a while he was a scrapegoat.

It's not really all that bad but DMs have some freakish allergy against giving quality magic items to players and the design philosophy is that the martial classes should have excellent gear

this

i dont like pathfinder but this is where most of the 3e caster superiority stuff comes from

pick up a fucking magical sword you faggots

>"the best" of game design people
Yeah, the fact that these guys made so many horrible design decisions is baffling. This is the one that makes me the most angry. Where the lead designer straight up says that he refuses to remove "sacred cows" despite obvious balance issues.

Not to say that you are wrong, I generally agree, but pull out the right save-or-suck spell at the right moment can be trickier than expected against non humanoids targets, buffed targets, "templated" targets, or any combination.

At Epic play, my players just buffed the melee and controlled the battlefield because they did not want to bother with immunities and they knew that a somehow restrained target in melee range with e melee fighter was dead.

Bullshit. It doesn't matter how many bonuses I have to armour or weapons when the party wizard is able to trivialize encounters with a couple spells. Both in and out of combat martials become useless at higher levels.

No, I'm pretty sure caster supremacy comes from spells being always better than any other approach.

But there's a problem here too

Martials need more magical items than casters to be effective, which means that if everyone's getting an equal share of magic items, casters still come out on top.

You could, as a DM, just give MORE magical items to the martial characters, but since magical items can be constructed by anyone with sufficient creation skills, money and the right spells, you can't really maintain total control over the flow of magic items to the players.

But hey, maybe the casters and martials play along, and the casters make items for the martials rather than making things that make them better, well, then you're faced with the simple fact that martials need a band-aid to be able to compete at all, a band-aid that can only be supplied to them by the good-will of casters. Which still isn't a pleasant idea for a game to have.

>A single save or fuck you spell
Well, thankfully I have the system there those are curbed. Besides, magic resistance is a thing, you know? There is no reasons to have save or dies in the system unless you WANT martials to suck. By DnD paradigm, I think that martials should get progressively better save throws ESPECIALLY against magic. Or just get magic resistance outright.

>First, flight, telekinesis, the stuff.
They negate some things, yes. But there is no reason to let spells, which make some skill completely useless. For example, spell which opens all locks are just making thief useless. So why let it exist? It should give a bonus for Lockpicking skill, allowing wizard to open simple locks by himself, but absolute version of this spell just suck.

your not meant to use swords with high numbers you are meant to use swords with versitility

to be clear i am talking about 3e nothing can save the fighter in pathfinder

the martials and casters may have the same amount of magic items but the magic items are much more useful to the martials.

and you can just buy magic items in any large city

>For example, spell which opens all locks are just making thief useless. So why let it exist
because the wizard has a limited number of spells per day. The rogue can pick locks all day.

every prepared knock spell is a spell slot that was not used on some other spell

I actually don't have a problem with the caster supremacy, because I don't think it's as big an issue as tg makes it out to be unless you have someone intentionally trying to fuck your game up, but there's a lot about the system that kinda sucks and that I houserule out. Feat taxes on some chains are retarded (rogues burning literally all their early feats on two weapon fighting), skill point distribution is kind of fucked and there's no reason for fighters to only get 2 per level or for that int casting Inquisitor archetype to get 6, the skill system makes it impossible to adequately represent your character's background on classes that get few skill points because you have no room for profession when there are 3-4 skills you have to have to not be useless. There are a lot of errata that are the consequences of designers just not thinking things through at all, the one that's come up most recently for me is that the new occult spellcasters RAW have spells that are 100% completely undetectable, since somatic, verbal, and material components are all converted to mental things instead, so where before a wizard would have to be talking or gesturing a mesmerist now can just be talking to you while casting and you'd be none the wiser. Looking into the errata page reveals that all spells cast have some unspecified visible effect when cast, regardless of components involved or effects of the spell, and this is never mentioned anywhere else except in that one errata. There are a lot of little ones like that, that's just the one I've seen most recently.

Class balance is also kind of fucked. With unchained paizo sort of half backed out on their commitment to never edit their released products, but they didn't go far enough or actually fix shitty classes. Barbs are one of the better core martials and got fucked hard, rogues got really good bonuses and are arguably the only class that really got helped.

Tldr designers are retarded houserule extensively

>magic items are much more necessary to the martials
Fixed that for you, mate.
>the wizard has a limited number of spells per day
Wands/scrolls make your entire argument a moot point. You are assuming the player is stupid enough to use spell slots for highly situational spells, and not leaving them to scrolls and wands that can be used when needed and never go away.

Is there a single RPG system that has rules for the damage you take from moving too fast?

>Whispering
Wands or scrolls

>the new occult spellcasters RAW have spells that are 100% completely undetectable, since somatic, verbal, and material components are all converted to mental things instead
what the fuck thats retarded.

>magic items are much more necessary to the martials
yes but that is not a bad thing it is just the design philosiphy of the game it does not mean martials are underpowered
>Wands/scrolls make your entire argument a moot point. You are assuming the player is stupid enough to use spell slots for highly situational spells, and not leaving them to scrolls and wands that can be used when needed and never go away.
why waste money on making those wands and scrolls when you can have a rogue pick a lock instead

...

I'm reasonably sure GURPS handles it by having collision rules deal damage based on closing speed.

I know Anima has them, surely there're more
They also have rules for speed, you start with penalities, but the faster you go the less penalties you have to a point in where you actually have bonuses (to hit and defense)

Pathfinder is great.

Because it costs more money overall to have an extra body in the group, needing his/her own magic items, than to keep stocked up on scrolls and wands

no 3e was great pathfinder is just the dirt scrapped off 3es shoe

If by Pathfinder you mean 3pp only, then yes.

They're more useful, in the sense that 10+10 is a more noticible increase than 50+10.

All that money spent on buying weapons, armor, and utility items for martials is a waste when they can just play a caster, have spells to eliminate the need for much of that, and buy wands, scrolls, and other equipment to remove the need for martials even more.

Why would you ever play a Fighter or Rogue when Summoner is a class option? You can become a literal combat monster or have a literal skill monkey, and also be able to buff yourself or allies and summon a horde of monsters.

The fighter getting a +2 to hit and damage doesn't matter in comparison.

wait are we talking about pathfinder instead of 3e again

alright yeah fighter is useless

as for why you would play a fighter because the wizard would get slaughteded without a fighter
bear in mind with scrolls you have to get them out of wherever you are storing them then cast them so its not as quite as it seems

>it does not mean martials are underpowered
But that is exactly what it means, in the course of actually playing the game. The game expects supernatural ability after a certain point, and if a martial does not have it, they literally can not function. Caster characters are not limited in such a way.
It's why taking the players' gear is viewed as a mortal DM sin.
>why waste money on making those wands and scrolls
>implying that wands and scrolls are a waste of money
user, you clearly have not played a decent caster. Wands and scrolls are absolutely the smart way to approach day to day spells.
>rogue picking the lock
Until you don't have a rogue for some reason, like death. Or they can't pick the lock because the rogue went face, not trapmonkey. Or literally can not roll high enough.
This.
The argument being made, before you lot scream, is that it is inherently awful design to have a class' point become obsolete by another class almost by accident.

Change Summoner for Druid for 3e and it's the same thing