It's all the tumorous content, bloated features, confusing and self-contradicting text...

Why not just play Saga Edition and rule that Jedi either don't exist or are simply not part of the party?

oh, so lazyness meets hating the idea of change

More "These idiots will buy any shit we shovel into a hardcover book".

>Literally modified 3.5 made by people who didn't want to play 4e
Gee, I wonder why that would possibly be part of Pathfinder's design platform.

So its made by people who thought 3.5 was "Literally Perfect" and thus when told about the problems just say "you probably like 4E! So you're wrong!"

This makes me regret that my best games have been in pathfider, maybe its just that we had good GMs

There wasn't any laziness involved. They deliberately made decisions to avoid fixing 3.5's problems, if not actively making them worse.

They made a concentrated effort of fucking up.

Can't say that for sure, but it seems to be the general appeal for Pathfinder. Newcomers nowadays mostly either pick it up or more often D&D 5E.
Besides, a good DM can make anything not completely broken fixable. Most of the issues with 3.PF involve either people exploiting the disaster that is Ivory Tower Design or being spergs. If you play with good people, you're going to have a good time, at least for the lower levels.

that implies that they just want to make people suffer, which is stupid

haven't played past level 12 so far

Only game that we've had a universally better time with was Rogue Trader, and that was because our GM was awesome

You obviously haven't read any of the screencaps featuring Sean K Reynolds responding to very valid complaints.

no I haven't haven't read much besides the books and PFSRD, I find the attitude you're claiming they have too dumb for anyone in a successful business to have, someone with that mentality could not have gotten to that position

Oh you sweet summer child.

They're the kind of RPGers that think anything new is shit and anything old is absolutely perfect.

Case in point, I got a late-50's guy, one who had met Gygax himself, to play 5E. He said he hated anything past AD&D 2e, hated everything that wasn't old-school.

Two games into 5E and he ended up loving it because, as I quote, "it fixed so many problems the old ones have".

Paizo and the Pathfinder fanboybase take the exact opposite mindset. Problems, exploits, and broken features are awesome, fixing them is bad.

The worst part about this system is going to be Starfinder General.

We should not allow a Starfinder General to exist.

If 30 people posted 10 sage posts over the course of ten minutes in the same thread, it would hit bump limit almost immediately. This is how you get rid of terrible posts.

...

>Problems, exploits, and broken features are awesome
What? what leads to that mindset? what makes someone take such a mentality towards unbalanced play that can only lead to one kind of fun for a very narrow set of people?

Pathfinder. It's not an RPG, it's a tactical system. People talk about building characters the same way you would talk about building an optimized competitive MTG deck.

...

thats no longer a character? thats an empty shell to mindlessly kill things with, with a specifically better way to do things then others, meaning that when optimized all you get is a party of fucking clones

...

What led to it was 4E. 4E was, as many regard it, a very bad system of D&D, broken in many ways and in dire need of a fix. Many old fans of D&D saw the series as becoming a hyper-casual tabletop in-person MMO rather than an RPG, and were worried D&D was dead. Paizo came along and fed off their concerns, making Pathfinder, or 3.75, which was a return to older D&D versions, flaws and all.

That was fine and dandy, but then 5E came. 5E fixed nearly every problem of 4E, and the problems it didn't fix it just removed outright or reverted back to old versions. It includes elements of 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, and the few good parts of 4E (the VERY few). 5E isn't perfect, it has its own problems, but many consider it to be the best iteration of D&D to date. Despite being only a little over a year old, it's dominated the market and has blown Pathfinder's playerbase out of the water; not just from old D&D fans, but new ones as well.

Pathfinder's fanbase has so many rabid grognards, fetishistic weirdos, or contrarian hipsters that refuse to admit anything past 3.5 is worth playing. Don't get me wrong, some Pathfinder players are awesome. I've had good games with them. The problem is that much of its community have become raging idiots as of late, and Paizo supports and encourages them. Paizo's own employees are the same, denying that anything post-3.5 is worth playing and that their system is perfect. Fixing the flaws would be "bad".

As Pathfinder becomes hyperbloated and its playerbase dwindles, and as Paizo itself veers more and more toward financial chaos - supposedly they're dropping all Pathfinder support September 2017 - the fanbase has become more rabid and voracious than ever, attacking anything and anyone that gives even the slightest praise to post-3.5 or the slightest criticism of Pathfinder itself.

I ran a 15 year long Spelljammers campaign.

Why would i be displeased by this? OP is a whiny crybaby.

...

>a Pathfinder-style firearm
I have a thing against shooting myself in a foot.

3.pf can, despite the constant forced dichotomy of rollplay and roleplay, work as a roleplaying system.

It's just sorta kinda absolute fucking trash if you don't have somebody keeping everybody on a level playing field and making sure nobody is dicked over or dicking people over with Ivory Dildo Design.

No, because the game breaks on multiple levels, so everyone chooses different exploits. It's called variety, and it's built into the system.

>and the few good parts of 4E (the VERY few)
List the bad points.

Note how he has been booten not only from Paizo but from WotC as well.

I just find it kinda shocking that after the repeated evidence from the OGL that the D&D framework does not work well with literally anything outside its heroic fantasy niche that they're making the same stupid mistakes again.

Good for you.
d20 systems aren't as bad as they're reputed (otherwise I wouldn't be running 5E despite my contentions with some of the design choices), but they're not always well-designed and very often suffer from having some choices being obviously superior to others to the point where there is virtually no reason not to pick such a choice.
Divine Metamagic is one of the best feats in 3.5, for example, and though I haven't had a perfect experience to exploit it (partially because I didn't want to ruin the game for others) the ability to spend 4 Turn Undeads to get a Quickened, say, Hold Person means that I can do the following if I have 12 or higher CHA, both Divine Metamagic and Quickened Spell and at least one 2nd-level slot:
>Cast Quickened Hold Person
>Subject is now Helpless
>As a full round action (which is compatible with a free action), you may coup de grace your target.
>As per the rules of coup de grace, not only do you score a critical hit, but the target must also make a DC 10+Damage (which might I remind you is the damage on a critical hit) or die.
So by spending a 2nd-level slot and 4 Turn Undeads, you can force someone vulnerable to Hold Person to make 2 saves or die.
You can accomplish this feat at third level.

Combat was slow as hell, despite being tactically oriented.

Precisely why some people still love Pathfinder. It's an excellent system if you're a munchkin or min-maxer, because you can make some truly and absurdly broken characters that are overpowered to ungodly levels. I recall a boss fight we played at my LGS where I was in a Pathfinder game, before 5E came along. We were fighting a CR13 gigantic creature at level 7 or 8 each. Our level 8 had an animal companion that was basically a holy lion. It could use smite evil and attack some 8 times in a charge. This fucking level 8 lion charged in and dealt around 140 damage in one round to the giant boss. Next round it could't hit the lion and moved away, and the lion dealt 70 in an AoO. The following round it killed the boss with another 130+ damage attack.

At level e i g h t

>hyper-casual tabletop in-person MMO rather than an RPG

Way to torpedo any semblance of a point you might have been trying to make. Don't spew literal lies next time, the rest of the content of your post was quite decent.

Power Cards

Overemphasis on miniatures and tactical placement leading to sessions dedicated entirely to a single combat

Classes were too "jack-of-all-trades"'d and felt too similar

4e wasn't too bad, but it certainly did try to casualize it. It focused less on RP, building a character and interacting with a world and more on combat. Heavy combat is a casual thing, which is why you see the players who hate talking or RPing always picking the most combat-heavy options available

That's Dunning-Kruger ignorance, and it's endemic to the hobby.

Yes, even you. The smart people got out and do board/card/vidya.

This one is legitimate, although it was fixed

So, formatting, something D&D 3.5 had done anyway, and an actual lie based on standard layout and formatting rather than looking at the actual mechanics.

I have never seen anyone present me an argument as to why 4e was worse for RP than 3.5 which doesn't boil down to 'The wizard can't use magic to fix everything'.

4e has no less support for roleplaying than 3.5, and that assertion has no basis in fact.

I was referring to what FANS said. Personally, I'm neutral on 4E but unfavorable to some aspects. The "hyper-casualization" line wasn't my opinion or what I was trying to say, it's how a lot of D&D players at the time viewed it: I've been playing D&D for a long time, and trust me, that's not overstating the reaction that a lot of people I knew had to 4E.

He didn't claim 4ed was worse at RP, he claimed it focused less on it. Please disprove his claim, which I know you can do instead of attacking a strawman.

Counter?

A single spell or an expensive magic ring makes the whole effort useless. As does undead types, dragon types, plant types, and anythign mindless like oozes.

>4E was...a very bad system of D&D, broken in many ways
Seriously, nigger?

>was
>as many regard it

way to literally take something out of context and construe it into a strawman attack, faggot

>As Pathfinder becomes hyperbloated and its playerbase dwindles, and as Paizo itself veers more and more toward financial chaos - supposedly they're dropping all Pathfinder support September 2017 - the fanbase has become more rabid and voracious than ever, attacking anything and anyone that gives even the slightest praise to post-3.5 or the slightest criticism of Pathfinder itself.
>baseless and made up assertions to prove a point
You sound like a 4e fanboy.

Way to literally take something out of context and construe it into a strawman attack, faggot

Wow, the post you cap'd uses so many words to say absolutely fucking nothing.

>It focused less on RP

His statement, not mine, and as far as I'm aware a factually incorrect one. Evidence to the contrary would be greatly appreciated.

So you've doubled down on ignoring any argument that conflicts with your worldview? Or you surround yourself with idiots.

4e made the build/min-max sperg culture worse with constant errata, a focus on pure number crunching because PC math fell further behind monster math as you went up in level, the absolute necessity of following incremental magic item bonuses, the wide disparity between class styles and powers, the requirement of two stats to work most classes (except, shock and horror, Wizards), pigeonholing players into specific race/class combinations, and the general anti synergy between classes, roles and even melee vs ranged.

Add to that the ad campaign that told their base to go fuck themselves, cutting content to start, the continued failure of the Skill Challenge system and the odious Item Rarity system and there are a lot of reasons even people who played 4e were upset with 4e.

4e is far from a perfect system. But literally nothing you've said substantiates the claim that 4e is less focused on RP then 3.5. Talking about what it did do is not evidence of what it didn't do.

Here's the thing. Even given that example isn't perfect, what does the Fighter do at third level? Get a feat that lets him hit things harder?
An expensive magic ring (Etherealness) might as well make you invulnerable to non-magical attacks (and most magical attacks that aren't Magic Missile).
Even then, there are enemies that simply can't be harmed by non-magical weapons. Supposing Hold Person is useless in this situation, Divine Metamagic lets you apply Quickened to any spell you have prepared. That's incredibly useful.
There are just so many more options that a cleric has in the vast majority of situations compared to a Fighter.

Bitch I am telling YOU to actually attack HIS point. Don't just make up some shit and put it in his mouth to attack, take his actual point and demonstrate why he's full of shit.

Directly quoting an assertion he made and stating that it is false isn't attacking his point?

it says "is, as many regard it" this can be easily read as "it is bad, and many people also think it is bad"

My apologies, I missed that part. However, I believe that any system has the same basic ability for roleplaying, since roleplaying doesn't require a system. When someone says "X is better at RP than Y" that either means the system has strong prompts/incentives to roleplay or the system's rules are baroque or just broke enough that RP is the faster or easier way to do things. For examples of the first: 5e has the Background bond system, VtM has Nature and Demeanor and Fate has Fate Points.

4e didn't really have mechanical incentives to RP, nor did 3.X. There was Alignment, but fuck Alignment. So under my completely unscientific hypothesis, both games are equal in RP ability.

In July 2008, Paizo hired Reynolds as a developer on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Jason Bulmahn has described him as a "critical part of the design team". In March 2014, Sean left Paizo to move to Indiana with his wife and in May 2014 he announced that he and his wife were divorcing, and that he was returning to Seattle and Wizards of the Coast for a contract position managing their third-party licensing.

Dude's had it pretty rough, but still deserves to be anally violated by cacti.

I'd honestly agree with that, and I do wish the non-combat side of the system had been expanded further. 4e did have some good ideas, with things like character Themes and skill powers, but they kept making the dumb decision of making you choose between flavourful out of combat stuff and in combat mechanical competence.

In some systems it's fine, but in a system like D&D where fighting monsters is part of the point, I always feel like you should never be forced to choose between combat and non-combat, instead getting different resource pools and progression for both.

Then again, this issue was far, far worse in 3.PF, and doubtless we'll see its return in fucking Starfinder.

>the dumb decision of making you choose between flavourful out of combat stuff and in combat mechanical competence.

That's Pathfinder's biggest problem in a nutshell. While fans tout how customizeable everything is and how expansive characters are, I've never (in my two years of playing) seen any character (out of dozens from dozens of different players) be mechanically and flavorfully competent. You're either cool flavorfully and nicely roleplayed, or you're mechanically powerful. One cause of this is "feat eating". There are so many useless feats, and some of these useless feats have to be taken just to get basic shit or advance to a better one. You have to spend a whole feat just to be able to Trip enemies without taking an attack. Flavorful, but not at all efficient (trip itself is horribly inefficient, as is anything related to CMD/CMB). In 5E or similar systems, you can declare an attempt to trip someone flavorfully as part of your attack. You don't have to take fifteen feats and then roll a specific CMB check against creatures who at later levels regularly have CMDs in the 30s just to knock someone off their feet.

>Starfinder General

I can imagine the Fenoxo level cancer now

It couldn't become Fenoxo tier. Could it?

Aside from being pathfinder in sphess, what's bad about Starfinder for the unenlightened?

>it wouldn't become Fenoxo

You underestimate the weaponized autism of Pathfinder fetish fans.

I'm basically thinking it will essentially be TiTS: The Tabletop Game: The General

It will be more cancerous than you can possibly imagine.

>BUT IT'S IN SPACE!!!!!!

But why are they in space? There's no reason for them to be in space.

Will there be fucked up adventure paths?

God damn that hot looks like a hot mess like they just wanted to add metal bits to people and called it a day

But 3.5 with full casters banned is a pretty good game with a gonzo sort of charm

On the contrary, my dear Fatson! There's EVERY reason for them to be in space.

3.PF at tier 3/4 is still kind of a clunky mess, but it does avoid the worst of it.

I think it becomes endearing

I kind of wonder why pathfinder has been the go-to choice and/or scapegoat for ERP games. If I were to run a creepy fetish game d20 anything would be the last game I'd run for it.

Everyone knows of it/knows the rules
All the rules and splats are free online in searchable format
It has all the fucking races so you can be a half-angel-devil-catgirl-with-dragonblood sorcerer or whatever the bullshit you want
It has all the monsters for more esoteric lewds
It has all the magic for impractical lewds

Any other questions?

I guess "It's popular" and "It has a lot of options" works, but considering how dense Pathfinder's rules are I feel it's a bit too much effort for something like that.
Never underestimate the depths people will go to get off I suppose.

Familiarity

Most people have played PF or at least a D&D variant, so mechanically everyone gets on the same page quickly

Less positively, you get the deranged crazies who have latched onto their one fetish and their one gaming system and moving outside of that zone of familiarity triggers spastic freakouts

now not all ERPlayers are like that, but I feel like more of them are like that than 'defualt' players

It's the OGL effect. See the dozens of fucking awful games made by people trying to cram settings and themes which don't belong in D&D in D&D. It's not about kink stuff, it's that they try to shove literally everything into 3.PF.

In all fairness, I do the same thing with the OpenD6 system.

You have to keep in mind that, A, these are people who are willing to get off through lewd RP with someone else, and B, that they aren't exactly rolling dice while typefucking each other's brains out.

>the few good parts of 4E (the VERY few)

Shut your whore mouth