ITT: Shit your players say

I'll keep an eye out then. Thx for the advice

>-use the latest Ranger UA Fix instead of the PHB. You're gimping your players otherwise.
Got a link to that?

It's in the 5e Trove in /5EG/

I'll link all the UA here, you really should download all of them, quite a few are very nice

dnd.wizards.com/articles-tags/unearthed-arcana

How is Ame anyway?

When he is about to get his hand chopped off for thievery:
> you cannot because I (rolls dice) have no hands!
that's not how bluff works. that's not how bluff works at all.

I once had a player start writing pornography deacribing a scene I desperately tried to fade to black- in the room chat.

Was it hot though?

No. no it was not

The core design of Pathfinder is what allowed for the problem to exist, and even within the core book, you'll find plenty of pointless minutiae to make your job as a GM needlessly difficult.

Pathfinder isn't as hard to work with as, say, Shadowrun which is all over the place, or Cthulhutech which is a disjointed mess, but once you get past the easy core mechanic (d20+mods=DC for success) it begins to become complicated pretty quickly.

Are you kidding? Shadowrun is much easier to handle than PF.

>What's RAW
Welcome to Veeky Forums, first day?

Don't play 5e, it has no mechanical character options.

>5e sucks, it doesn't have any prestige classes. Those were the best part of 3.5!

>incredibly limited feat selection
>overly specific classes that restrict creativity
>weapon choice is literally just "choose the one that is mechanically better than the others"
>player has almost no say in their character's skills
>attributes are only good for a couple things so there is absolutely no reason to have strength on a magician or intelligence on a fighter
I don't even play 3.5e, although even that is a better system than 5e.

5e's got at least one prestiege class, look up the unearthed arcana.

>feats are no longer necessary to build a good character
>classes with archetypes that replace prestige classes and allow you to play different kinds of characters right from low levels
I can't defend the weapon thing, it's just inexcusable.
>skill points replaced by a background/class selection that allows even low/mid Intelligence characters to be good at many things
>attributes are much more open-ended and improvisation is encouraged, rather than having a table or chart for every little thing

I dunno, I really like 5e and I've been having a lot of fun both running and playing it. If that means I have shit taste, then I guess I'll just have to live with that.

>I don't even play 3.5e,
we could tell by the fact that most of your list also applies to 3.5.

>feats are very limited in that they only grant very minor changes so most people take the +2 attribute instead
Why not have feats that give characters options in and out of combat. Actual interesting feats that are worth taking.
>characters are literally the exact same up until level 3
>skill points being replaced means you have no reason to put points in intelligence if you aren't a caster
>not just giving everyone a reasonable amount of skill points and a more compact and refined list of skills to choose from
>if your class doesn't specifically say you need this one stat there is no reason to have it; it just gives a pitiful bonus to certain skills that are stilll garbage because you don't have proficiency in them

This shit kills me.

Not really, no.
I wouldn't say it's harder like the other guy said, but it's certainly not easier. The problems are not the same, though.

Maybe it was just me, but I had a way easier time with SR than PF, and I did SR first.

i'd say it would be sleight of hand, and a magic trick. Wouldn't fool them, really, but it would be funny to watch.

are we talking core rulebooks? or are we including supplementals like complete scoundrel and all the splat books?

isn't 5E basically in its infancy right now? is it even fair to say half of that before the splat books have even attempted to do anything about those particular issues?

I'm not going to tell you your opinions are wrong, I just disagree with you. 5e has its flaws, yes, but I'm having a lot of fun with it.

It's both, and more. Paizo also hires out, and doesn't do a great job of reviewing the material freelancers write, so you get feats that allow you to instantly kill things, or feats you can't take because their prerequisites don't exist.

Core has holes in the rules that don't make sense. Later editions have holes and conflicting rules that make the game difficult to navigate once you try to use some of the more interesting options. You also have the devs pulling FAQs and errata out of their asses that go against the rules, then changing their minds like, 2 months later. It gets difficult to keep up, honestly.

I think the biggest issue is that the game is quite big. It's nice because you have options for lots of playstyles, but it can also suck because you think things fit a certain way, and here comes this strange rule interaction out of left field to piss all over everybody's parade.

>why aren't we playing [system]
>we should be playing [system]
>if this were [system] you could do that
>[system] has rules for this situation
>you could build that type of character in [system] if you wanted, it has options for it
>can we drop this game and play [system] instead
>why aren't we playing [system]
With how hard this motherfucker pushes his system of choice, you would think he was being paid to do it.

Plus, Paizo's devs have gigantic egos and they absolutely cannot handle being told they're wrong.

3.5 / pathfinder-people always prefer it over 5e until they spend about 2 weeks actually playing 5th, and realize it is vastly superior.
People have this knee-jerk reaction that "simpler" must mean "less advanced" or "easier for entry-level noobs to get into."
And they will kick and scream and resist the idea that they need anything which has been "dumbed down" or that they can't handle a "more difficult" system.
But in the case of 5e vs. 3.5 it is literally just a better system vs. shittier one.

The cool parts of 3.5 are the amounts of fluff. Fluff is not system-specific.

I prefer both systems

>tfw you have nothing to complain about

That whole clubhouse attitude is fucking endemic in nerdy hobbies. I guess they forgot that these companies are businesses that are trying to sell a product -- making a game easier and more accessible is just good for business because it gets more people playing, and words spreads about how fun and easy it is.

And if there's anything that 3.5 has taught me, its that no amount of fluff fixes a systemically broken class.

Fuck you, truenamer. Fuck you.

Fuck you dude

"Nah I don't like that plan."

- Player with a spotty record for attendance showing up one day and dissolving two weeks worth of group planning and legwork

"Hey guys, you want to play Pathfinder next week?"

- Same player after being told that we were going to go through with our plan and he doesn't get to decide for the group

Bonus quote: "Hey guys, if you like complicated systems, Pathfinder is much more complicated than Shadowrun"

No, fuck you. Fuck off.

I started with 3.5 and it's still my favorite D&D edition cause I have assburgers but don't you dare pretend it's "easy." Proficiency was a fucking blessing from god in the idea, and it was really just the 4e 1/2 level balancing shit except different. Oh, proficiency sucks, sure, but the idea behind it is good. No, but Pathfinder craps out six or seven shitty mechanics like favored class that were basically fluff and a 10% XP tax no one even fucking remembered because all of 3 people used the RAW XP system in 3.5. But no Pathfinder has to shove extra skill points and hit points up your ass, as well as putting a band-aid on the skill system (which is literally the ONLY decent part of Pathfinder, CMB and CMD are shit).

Fuck it, here's what's good about Pathfinder over 3.5:

> skill system / list change
> dodge gives flat +1 AC
> ranger hit die ---> d10

The rest is total fucking wank.

> CMB/D is stupid shit compared to the original combat maneuver system which worked fine if you just followed the fucking steps, it's issues were lack of being useful due to developers nerfing disarm and trip, which Pathfinder didn't fucking fix anyway.
> Combat Expertise gets nerfed for some godawful reason. They probably thought one of the worst feats in the game was OP because it could be used to prevent auto-hitting. Go fuck yourself Pathfinder. Also, crossbows still suck. Go fuck yourself Pathfinder. Game is an abomination that shouldn't exist. It's better than FantasyCrap or 13th Age, but that doesn't say much.

>not just giving everyone a reasonable amount of skill points and a more compact and refined list of skills to choose from
Nigger, that is exactly what they did.
>if your class doesn't specifically say you need this one stat there is no reason to have it; it just gives a pitiful bonus to certain skills that are stilll garbage because you don't have proficiency in them
That also applies to 3.5

>> ranger hit die ---> d10
That's not even a PF invention, AD&D 2e had that too.

>3.5 / pathfinder-people always prefer it over 5e until they spend about 2 weeks actually playing 5th, and realize it is vastly superior.

I've been DMing 5e for almost six months now and I still don't think it is "vastly superior" or even superior.

I do think it is pretty good though.

> People have this knee-jerk reaction that "simpler" must mean "less advanced" or "easier for entry-level noobs to get into."

The problems with 5e are not in the simplicity of the rules or mechanics. No one has ever said that. Stop strawmanning.

> And they will kick and scream and resist the idea that they need anything which has been "dumbed down" or that they can't handle a "more difficult" system.

More strawmanning.

> But in the case of 5e vs. 3.5 it is literally just a better system vs. shittier one.

Your subjective opinion does not equal objective fact.

> The cool parts of 3.5 are the amounts of fluff. Fluff is not system-specific.

Both of those statements are incorrect.

So now people are complaining that 5e *lacks* MAD all day erryday?

How is anyone supposed to know you work on Saturdays and don't work on Thursdays?

Did you kick him out?

Nah he stopped showing up. We used to call him and he always had some excuse and eventually we stopped calling. Apparently to him the system we played at the table was more important than hanging out with friends.

Oh, I have one of these in my group, and he's the one friend I know IRL in this game:

>Me: "Well, yesterday, I don't think multitasking playing FF15 and the Mutants and Masterminds game at the same time was working out so well."

>Flaker: "Okay?"

>Me: "What I mean is that it's very hard for me to run a game when someone's attention is split between two things that require significant amounts of focus. It also kind of made me feel that my Mutants and Masterminds game was put on a backburner. I would kindly ask that when we do play the game next session, that you'll be less split with your focus. If your Roll20 is freezing up for a moment, or if you end up being called to do something real quick, I won't get mad."

>Flaker: "It's Final Fantasy. And I had just gotten it the day before."

>Me: "Game is startign at 5:30 today"

>Flaker: Oh man I hope I don't get knocked out for 90 percent of the game and get bitched at for playing a game during the time I can't do anything

Note that this guy had the option of rolling a Hero Point and had forced me to make his Fortitude save for him due to his unresponsiveness. We had talked 3 hours before the game, but it doesn't come to him to tell me of this RIGHT at the time the game started:

>Flaker: "Sorry me and my friend are doing stuff to do a project for his class"

His friend apparently didn't even know I was running a game today and apologized for taking him. I REALLY don't want kick him out, because that'd start a drama explosion I do not need. Best thing I can do is hope that it end up like and he just leaves due to not giving a fuck despite showing so much enthusiasm before.

Just say nothing to him.

>isn't 5E basically in its infancy right now?
It's been out since 2014

how often is this guy incapacitated in game, just as a metric?

frankly, i'm too new to tabletop to know if thats actually a long time for a game system or not.

that was the first time he was ever incapacitated, and that was only because he rolled a 1 on his fort sav and would have failed the maximum amount even without critfail considered. And I still would have let him reroll if he actually was active in the game.

5e has no splats, that's its thing.

there's no such thing as a system without a supplement.

because nothing works as it was first intended. It may not have any splats or anything, but to say it won't get some revision or something at some point would likely be false.

Pathfinder fags love virgin GMs since they get to indulge their powergaming.

Don't let them bully you into being a slut, OP.

In other words, he was being a flake simply because he didn't care about anything but what he himself needed to do, and even then he couldn't properly hold his attention to the game.

At that point, he literally doesn't care and you need to do something about it. Stop griping at him about it. Keep a list of every time he's flaked when his character was up to bat, and when you confront him about it, make sure to emphasize that that is when he was supposed to do something, not "When his character wasn't important".

i dunno how well that'd work, overall, but its better than just letting him interfere with the game for no reason other than his lack of attention span.

>incredibly limited feat selection
This trips up a lot of players of 3e and 4e who are used to amassing a large pile of individually weak feats. 5e feats are optional and always have to be good enough to replace two points of your main ability score. The incredibly situational feats from previous editions would be pointless.
>overly specific classes that restrict creativity
No more so than in previous editions. If anything, each class having built-in space for a kit rather than each kit having to hack away at different parts of its base class makes it a lot easier.
>weapon choice is literally just "choose the one that is mechanically better than the others"
This is true a lot of the time, but it's actually less bad than in previous editions because there are more functionally identical weapons than before.
>player has almost no say in their character's skills
Where did you ever get this idea? The DM doesn't decide your background for you, you know. You pick it, therefore you pick all of your skills.
>attributes are only good for a couple things so there is absolutely no reason to have strength on a magician or intelligence on a fighter
Granted, Int is the go-to dump stat for non-wizards in 5e because it no longer determines how many skills you get, but even back in the day you didn't exactly see a lot of wizards who lifted. The number of times the players in my 5e campaign failed an Int-related check because all four of them have it as a dump stat makes me think they're undervaluing it.

4th was better than both ever will be, 3rd, 3.5, 5th and pathfinder babies are cancer on the RPG community.
And I don't even like 4th that much.

>Nya

Kill me.

That's pretty much the plan.

If he wants to play still, I won't stop him. If he doesn't, I'm not stopping for him. Today's session we will see what he chooses. And if he jumps in, only to try and not pay attention, he doesn't have the right to complain when he gets too far behind.

Splatbooks aren't supplements.

There's a rules errata PDF that's free to download and they release plenty of free UA PDFs with character options.

That said, there's also the Sword Coast Adventure Guide that has a limited number of character options. Volo's Guide to Monsters also has some character options in the form of new races. I wouldn't put them anywhere near the level of splatbooks from 3.PF stuff, though. The UA's are the closest thing to that.

I have dealt with so many people who think that "Complicated" and "Deep" are the same thing

Pardon, I meant to say that splatbooks aren't the only form of supplements.

>user, we've talked it over, and we want to say that we don't feel safe having a transperson at the table. If we offend her, she might doxx us or start a witch hunt.
I really don't know how to deal with this.

"Oh, that sounds interesting. Yeah, I'm down. When's the first session?" x3

Half a month of setup, 3 attempted sessions and the month and a half of delay from the latter, a core group of 2 and the DM make it each time and can't play because we have no party. The other members consistently had stuff come up last minute or dropped out and waited until the day of to say anything.

Nah, it's fine, I've been waiting 7 years to play in this system again rather than run it for once. Just plan other shit and then wait to mention it until the day of. If I wasn't playing a pacifist I'd be tempted to just murder their characters if they ever do arrive. I want to make sure sessions happen but don't want to set up residence up their asses to make them show up.

If nWoD didn't draw so many edgelords and general faggots I'd suggest open enrollment from a FLGS

Be careful not to fall for it.

"Good shit as always"

feels appreciated man

Actually, somebody in my group now likes both, though he favors PF simply for the options. He's fairly new to PF, so he hasn't run into a lot of the pitfalls, though he's playing with a group of more experienced players, so we're doing a decent job of showing him pitfalls and directing him away from them. There's something to be said about both systems, though as 5e gets more supplemental material, I suspect it's going to begin pulling ahead more dramatically.

If you feel that is a ridiculous thing, don't game with them. If you feel you want to continue gaming with the group, kick the transperson. They aren't going to enjoy playing with her, so it's up to you if you want to continue playing with them.

What? What is innately wrong with being trans? Are they an insufferable cunt when they're around you?
>inb4 /pol/

>Circle of the Moon Druid is pretty powerful for the first 5 levels. Your druid is pretty much a one man powerhouse able to tank as an animal, Utility Cast, and AoE cast. I don't allow it until the party reaches at least 6th level.

Moon druids have atrociously low-AC and arent much more broken as a totem Barbarian who takes Half-damage from everything during Rage with a much higher AC and dmg output. They also cannot concentrate on spells in animal form for quiete some time. Im in no way saying Moon druids arent super powerful in early levels but just denying a player to even pick it is stupid, just design the two encounters you expect a wild changeon based on the CR of the transformed Monster not the druid

>Simulacrum allows you to create a copy of yourself... that can cast Simulacrum and use 9th level spells. Infinite Wish Combo at 17th level level right there. Just disallow Simulacrums to be able to create more of themselves and you're good.

dude, simulacrum is most of the time used to replicate yourself so you can go on a suicide-tier mission similar to astral projection. if you really cant get your players to not abuse the spell just disable the Copy to cast simlacrum/wish for simulacrum.

>Playing a videogame during a session
>Being a passive aggressive cunt and acting like you're the asshole because he threw up his arms, laied down and shat his pants after rolling badly once.
>Start trying to find more things to do knowing full well that you had a session scheduled and put everything in higher priority than showing up for the game.
Yeah. Nah. Boot him. No excuses.
If you're willing to deal with disrespect like this, then frankly you deserve it and I don't feel sorry for you.

Their logic is that if even a tiny percentage of transpeople are the lunatic assholes on tumblr, then it's not worth the risk. Especially since tabletop games tend to attract those types.

I really can't refute that, nor can I blame them.

I would...if not for the fact, as I just explained, it would create a drama bomb that would cause even more shit to hit the fan and cause a fallout between other friends.

It's an option that I am considering in case whatever he's doing when he is there disrupts the game.

>You can't play that.
>Why?
>It's far too powerful for the game we're playing.
>You can just make everyone else more powerful to compensate.

Not a word for word reenactment; for one, the other guy's grammar was a lot worse.

By RAW, an impossible lie is only what, -20? Cast Glibness and then tell Elminster Mystra never existed and he's actually a squirrel.

You'd be surprised how common this is. One of my old playgroups refused a new player for being black, because they liked making black jokes and didn't want him "chimping out" on them (that's actually what they called it, too).

>it's feature is having the devs sit back and suck their own shit instead of producing ANY content based on the assumption that any new content will unbalance the game.

You can absolutely blame them. Even if you're in the 'trannies are all mentally ill' camp, it's pretty shitty to kick someone from a group who hasn't proved themselves destructive in any way.

You have to give them at least one session, or at the very least an interview.

Honestly unless they themselves turn out to be insufferable cunts I don't see the problem. At this point you can either nut up and let it slide, find another group or harangue this one into letting the tranny in, which will most likely end in them resenting both of you for it.

Frankly, if the *sole* reason they don't want that person at their table is because she's trans, they're being jerks.
If she's hardcore SJW or something and they actually *know* that then I can see why they'd want to avoid it, but assuming she'll behave a certain way is rude. Have they actually met her or are they just making assumptions?

Sadly, ultimately you're going to have to choose between her and the group more than likely. They'll probably just resent her if you force her on them, and she's probably going to feel weird around them if they're all uncomfortable with her. Maybe you could invite them all to a non-gaming social event of some kind, just to see if they get along?

>what is UA

Be honest, [system] is GURPS, isn't it?

That is quite literally every one of my six players. The only reason they're even civil is because they all think D&D 5th sucks, so they just make cheap shots at the rules that nobody contests and enjoy playing anyways.

>My character should only die in battle because of something I did, not because of bad rolls or the enemy getting lucky

He said this after he got his ass shanked by a serial killer in the city they had moved into, been warned about, and had started to investigate.

I have been here for a while and have no idea what thet means

> it has no MAD
> this is an issue
Que?

>Don't feel safe having a transperson at the table
>She might doxx us or start a witch hunt
>"Nah man we're not transphobic, we just don't feel comfortable around trannies because they're all SJWs"
>They respected her pronouns anyway
Damn nigga, that's some powerful stupid right there.

Having stats all have some degree of use regardless of the class allows for more potential for varied builds. Otherwise it's "That guy has two more points in his main stat than my guy has, therefore his guy is just better."

>He's objectively correct
>Better call it bait

This, having options for characters to use all sorts of attributes in battle is great, because it gives the game much more variety. Wise warrior who uses cunning to give himself an edge in battle? Sure. The magician lays a beatdown with his sword as well as casting? Sure.

I actually go all the way and have the mental stats play different roles in spellcasting - intelligence is what is rolled when you attempt to cast a spell, wisdom affects how many spells you can learn, and charisma affects the saves that your targets have to make to resist your spells. That way, you can have a caster who excels in some areas but lacks in others, and fixes the problem of casters being SAD vs martials being MAD - just make them both MAD.

Furthermore, attributes should have multiple applications, so anyone can benefit from them. I tried making my barbarian have decent intelligence in 5e - the problem was, the extra points in intelligence did near nothing for the character, it only affected a sad handful of skill checks that I didn't even have proficiency in (unless I invested one of my VERY few feats on it).

> what is UA

A load of unbalanced horseshit. Merals bitched about bounded accuracy then put in a literal +1 to hit feat because he couldn't come up with anything better. Then said it was better than a feat that let you actually DO something (stun someone on a crit with a blunt weapon I believe).

Oh no, it was just ANY hit, but instead of fixing it to be "only on a roll of 19 or 20" or something to avoid bogging down combat, he ditched it and went to "oh yeah it's weapon focus but now it's INTERESTING cause I said so"

This describes much of Meral's design philosophy. His minute brain can't take two seconds to think of a different way to make a cool idea work so he drops it and goes back to the same bog standard crap that's been dragging down D&D since 2001.

This game is fucking dead. Sure, people play it more than ever, but from a perspective of ever becoming better, it is dead. And Mearls killed it, honestly.

_________________________________________________yes__________________________________________________________________________

most of the UA stuff is cool/interesting, but yeah, the feats UA was hot garbage in july