What's the point of 3.5/Pathfinder when 5th edition DnD exists?

>Rules that don't accurately model reality in the slightest

So science fiction games can't exist? Rules aren't meant to be a physics textbook, they're just the rules to a game.

Good of you to put a warning image on your post though.

Wizard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Druid and Cleric >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other caster classes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else. It's the edition for people who were bullied by jocks.

Wanting more rules when they aren't better rules is literally autism. Stay spastic, sperg.

What's the most fun class to complement a wizard that is not another wizard?

>it was boring because it was boring

You want to know how we know you're full of shit? Because you think going back to PF, using presumably classes that are ALSO in 5e if you could switch back, would do anything for the options you seem to view as the difference between a "boring" game and an "interesting" one. The only meaningful difference is that the Fighter would contribute.

So yeah, you're full of shit.

If you like casting Heal, a Cleric. 3.5 is bad and there's no point in playing it. 4e was an improvement, and 5e was a big improvement.

So... really what it comes down to is favoritism. You play 3.5 because you like 3.5, and it's better because of [reasons you thought up to justify your opinion]

Same goes for 5e. Don't believe me? There's studies that show that most humans form opinions then come up with reasons to justify that opinion rather than the other way around.

Humans are wonderfully flawed and brilliantly stupid. That's about the only reason why we have edition arguments. Or just about any other arguments where we're discussing whether one subjective opinion is over the other.

>le nothing is better moderate position maymay that totally excuses you from any and all critical thought

If I play Fighters, and I notice that in 3.5 my role is irrelevant and in 5e my role matters, I can deduce that 5e is better for Fighters, and probably better all-around if nobody else's role is really impacted negatively.

To be honest, I appreciate the effort that 3.PF went through trying to give a mechanic for EVERY FUCKING THING that exists - if I don't want to do the math on how much of an effect something has, and build my world to account for everything the players think of (I had one player who wanted to bling out his hat - how many haberdashers are there in town?), then I can just pull a relevant bit from a rulebook and call it a day.

Or, I can sit down and plan out the economics of a fucking world to decide how the society should be organized, and then figure out how many people of what level should be based on a well-ordered society, how many you need to make a decent army (like, 8 dudes who are over leveled), and what happens in the opposite case, and use that to figure out how the Duchy of Westmorelan is recovering from the incursion of Beholders, and has begun raiding the orcish lands of Kent in an effort to get enough farm land to settle the random overleveled lordlings so there isn't a civil war in half a generation.

It's a question of what kinds of resources I want to have on hand, and what kinds of things I want to roll for.

Oh, if you want my personal opinion, 5e no question. People talk about lack of option, but the homebrew community for 5e is insane. On top of this, it's powerfully simple, encourages role over roll-playing, works in Theater of the mind, and is quickly becoming the most widely played RPG around.

But none of that will stop 3.pguysf from arguing that we're wrong, because how could they be wrong?

"We're us, not them. How could we be wrong? Otherwise why have we been arguing that we're right all the time, it's them that like the bad things."

What is the point of 2nd edition when 4th exists?

It's that the older system still works for some folks and they'd rather use that ruleset than the new one.

Kinda like how people can play things that aren't D&D and still basically be doing the same thing.

You have Autism. That's fine, but don't pretend that 3.PF is an objectively better game because it caters to that.

You're being a cunt.

OP is clearly referencing the fact that you can still walk into a gamestore, pull out 5E and try to get a pickup and have trilby wearing lumps of moldy ham sneer at you for not playing with them and their GURPS level of supplements for PF.

I think the most respected and longest standing 3.5 tier list is the one JaronK came up with on BrilliantGameologists in 2008 and is roughly as follows:
>Tier 1: Does absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often can end encounters with a single mechanical ability and little creativity. Breaks the game without even trying to do so.
>Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite (Spell to Power Variant)

>Tier 2: Has the same raw power as Tier 1 but is less flexible or more limited. They can still casually smash campaigns if played properly but there will be situations that they don't have a silver bullet for whatever problem the party faces.
>Examples: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges), Eurdite (No Spell to Power)

>Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well without being useless in other areas or capable of doing all things well, but not as well as classes that deeply specialize in it. They can pull off some outrageously OP things but it requires intent and narrow-minded purpose to do so.
>Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psychic Warrior

>Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing well, but useless when that one thing isn't needed, or capable of doing many things but not being particularly good at any of them.
>Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Zhentarium Variant)

>Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not all that well. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.
>Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight, CW Samurai (with Imperious Command available)

>Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. Totally worthless without the most extreme powergaming.
>Examples: CW Samurai (without Imperious Command available), Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner

Factional signaling. 3.PF is the edition of weebs, furries, and munchkins, and they stay there. They're served by a huge amount of resources for every fetish they could want. The people who care more about the game itself play 5e, which has what you need done well and little guidelines for varying as needed, which you can also use your brain for. There's a nice divide between the mindsets, and I don't see what good would come of doing away with it.

Literally everything you said was devoid of actual meaning. Good job!

The core difference (though there aren't many honestly) is that the GAME of 5e is in the playing it, while the GAME of 3.PF is in building your character; the playing is really more of a social activity in which you show off your builds. Think of it like the difference between drafting vs constructed in any ccg. They are, however, largely the same game, and that was not an accident.

So I've been interested in Soulknives for a while. Why are they tier five? Because >only really able to attack?

Why do people think wizards are so great in 3.5?
The entire class is nullified by a single item, which often causes them to accidentally kill themselves, and their magic is pretty much useless against high level monsters.
Sure they have lots of utility, but in over a decade of using 3.PF nobody has ever managed to make a wizard that outshines the party or breaks encounters.

Because they can:
>Do absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often can end encounters with a single mechanical ability and little creativity. Breaks the game without even trying to do so.

>The entire class is nullified by a single item, which often causes them to accidentally kill themselves
"Fuck this player in particular" items don't come up in actual play, and if you need to nullify someone's class in order to balance it, it's not fucking balanced.

>their magic is pretty much useless against high level monsters.
I'm not sure how you're playing to arrive at this conclusion. It could be that your DM was rebalancing encounters specificallyto fuck magic over, which is probably wise of him. But your play experience isn't typical.

>Sure they have lots of utility, but in over a decade of using 3.PF nobody has ever managed to make a wizard that outshines the party or breaks encounters.
Either they weren't trying, or they were very dumb. More likely both.

>"Fuck this player in particular" items don't come up in actual play, and if you need to nullify someone's class in order to balance it, it's not fucking balanced.
A ring of spell turning isn't that, and it's not the only example either.

>I'm not sure how you're playing to arrive at this conclusion. It could be that your DM was rebalancing encounters specificallyto fuck magic over, which is probably wise of him. But your play experience isn't typical.
A level 20 wizard will have 9th level spells with a saving throw of about 25.
Most CR 20 monsters can beat that with extremely low rolls.
And many more will be immune to various spells, have spell resistance, and other things.

>Either they weren't trying, or they were very dumb. More likely both.
No, you're the retard who goes along with the groupthink.

Well, the big three are sneks, birbs and cats. Fish are optional. Slimes should probably be in there somewhere, dragons are already a thing. Lizards are just dragon-lite. Wolves and foxes. Plants of some variety.

Everything else is more obscure.

>Tier 7: Not capable of shining in any area of expertise. Class actively works against the character.
>Only known example: Trunamer (After nerfs)

4e was a completely different direction and shouldn't really be called D&D. This is the main reason the 3.X vs 4e grogwars even started, how 3.X took root as a refuge of the neckbearded. They changed the paradigm too much.

3.X should, by all rights, have been made irrelevant by 5e, but since so many people have effectively crucified themselves on it and now refuse to get off that particular cross, all that has really happened is a third side has joined the pointless conflict.

He said core 3.5 not Pathfinder. Druid and Cleric are right there with Wizard.

>spells for every practical scenario
>extremely easy access to spells
>spells to bypass the developer-intended means of resisting magic (MR, natural saves) by not allowing a save at all
>spells for controlling the battlefield
>spells for summoning creatures that are martially powerful or are spellcasters themselves
>spells for buffing someone to insane power levels
>spells for debuffing someone into a cripple
>spells for miscellaneous out of combat purposes (languages, travel)
>save or die spells
>spells that don't allow for any input on the part of the enemy
>magic item creation
>the effectiveness of the class is entirely dependant on only one(!) stat, which is easily buffed by fairly common magic items (which can be made by the wizard)

And it really isn't just a high-level trend, either. The troubles begin with level 1, since it has spells such as Sleep, which, with some luck, can literally end an entire encounter on its own, or at the very least considerably reduce the number of enemies.

Stopped reading at the point where you showed you have almost no familiarity with the system.
Read the rules before posting next time.

The difference is how it forces the DM to build encounters. Without special consideration of their powers a tier 1 class will dominate a game by trivializing almost every encounter with a mechanical ability or two, not even creatively. Combat encounters end with all the relevant enemies totally unable to participate. Social encounters end with charms and dominations. Various quest and campaign problems that would take lesser characters days, weeks, or even months of questing are simply bypassed with a couple choice spells.

A well played Tier 1 character is an immense challenge for a DM just to keep them awake. Situations have to be specially designed to void most or all of the character's powers specifically and even then they may have other powers that let them bypass even tailor-made obstacles.

Tier 2 characters are just as powerful, but more predictable, particularly because the powers they have access to can generally be written down on a sheet of paper and not just summarized as "everything in this stack of books as tall as me".

Tier 3 characters have some cool things they can do but don't generally reach the earth-shattering levels of Tier 1 and 2. These are just what you might call "really good D&D classes" instead of "super heroes in a fantasy game". Sometimes they'll pull a clever trick which circumvents the general way the game is played but for the most part they play the game as intended and resolve problems in a predictable fashion.

Tier 4 characters start to present the opposite problem to the DM. He has to be careful not to make encounters where these characters can't contribute, period.

Tier 5 characters are almost as difficult for DMs to keep happy as Tier 1 characters. He has to specially build encounters that play directly to these character's strengths for them to have a good time.

Tier 6 characters are considered unplayable. They don't do what the game expects them to be able to do.

Tier 7 doesn't work at all.

Why play 5e when B/X already exist?

What part of the rules did he ignore?

You're being too obvious like that. You should have gone for the "limited spells per day" meme first, then used that.

But good effort, have your consolation (you).

I'm not going to give the person I replied to that knowledge, because it will enable him to shitpost more effectively in the future.

>saving throw of about 25.

Dude, I had a saving throw of 25 at level 10.

Point buy. Max INT to 20. Advance character to old age. +2INT. ABI+1 every 4 levels. Headband of Intellect +6 ASAP. Standing on INT of 30 currently. +2DC for greater spell focus.
DC27 for a 5th level spell. DC25 x2 for a 3rd level spell with persistent spell metamagic added to it.

Always be able to target all three saves, and include many spells with no save at all, or has effects even on a successful save. Also carry lots of means to reduce enemy saves, like intimidation=>shaken== -2Will, or tanglefoot bag severely reduces reflex.

Finally, most of my magic revolved around scrying and teleportation for tactical insertion. Once used minor creation to duplicate a black lotus regeant (plant matter) and then rolled crafting checks with the rogue to make 50 gallons of DCyoujustfuckingdieson poison which we teleported into the enemy water supply AND air dropped with teleportation and flight and a bag of holding.

There was a save for the poison, but a ring of spell turning wouldn't save you against any of it.

And that's just the beginning of how we broke our DM.

So you're saying that you have nothing to back up your statement?

>make longwinded post showing you clearly have no familiarity with the system
>then say that i'm the one trolling

That's pretty rich.

Back up my statement to whom?
I already know that he has no idea what he's talking about, and I wanted him to know that I know.
What, am I supposed to prove that to him or something?
I don't care to, nor am I making an argument.

>(statement)
>>You're wrong!
>Why?
>>I'm too smart so not telling you :^)
>So you don't know and are making shit up?
>>Nope. I'm just right and I'm just informing you that you're wrong.

>Dude, I had a saving throw of 25 at level 10.
>Point buy. Max INT to 20.

Stopped reading here.
If you're not going to follow the actual rules of the game, there's no point arguing about the rules.

This sums it up.

>implying you have some kind of right to know how I know you're talking out your ass
lol
There's nothing you can say or do to get me to tell you.

>Point buy to put 18 in INT
>Use racial modifiers to boost to 20.

This is some next level bait. Here's a nigger rooster.

>3.pfeaboos don't even try to defend themselves anymore
They've finally run out of excuses for why their system is shit.

Too late to save yourself.
You fucked up, and tipped your hand.
Still not going to bother reading the rest of your post, even though there were probably plenty more errors.
Don't bitch about the rules when you're not playing by the rules.

>3.pf
>playing anything that isn't human
Have fun being shit compared to the humies!

Is this true?

Stop baiting.

Stop filtering generals for a bit and you'll find out.
Yes.

Absolutely. The PF playerbase has had years to stew into degeneracy and fetishism.

played 5e.came to the conclusion that (while playable) its the inferior alternative to pf.

i play pf for high powered fantasy. for low and mid powered fantasy i go for gurps.

im going to assume 5e is being touted as an alternative dor pf here, not as an alternative for gurps and 1e.

so here goes. 5e shortcomings:
>character framework gives too few active class features (interesting things you can choose to do on your turn) for everybody, not just a some neglected classes (martials).
>skill math is way too swingy. theres not enough difference between skilled and unskilled, and the odds of failure on tasks as your skill increases are too high for fairly simple tasks.
>no potential for "degrees of skill". just trained or no.
>not enough feat slots, again insufficient customization.
>no granularity of bonuses at all. advantage or not, thats it (+3.8 on average, iirc).
>monster math is on such a different scale than player math, with monstwra having not only tons more hp but also lower damage, such that when pvp breaks out its very rocket tag on all counts.
>the game has very few character options outside dms guild, and dms guild has no reviews or quality control and isnt physical books you can skim so you never have any idea if youre buying garbage.
>no d20pfsrd equivalent means if they ever do put out more options, theyll be scattered like during 3.5. a huge pita to build with.
>only 1 bestiary. you have to build/adapt most creatures from scratch. no large library of prebuilt enemies.
>small number of adventures.
>terrible vague guidelines for magic items for new characters when someone builds a higher level character.

those are the reasons i prefer pf to 5e.pf has issues, but i currently prefer its issues to 5es issues.

Quote from Pathfinder General:

>I was going to apply with a shota kitsune vigilante shapeshifting/genderbending into a titty monster girl. The girl would be his masked persona. After all, disguising as different gender is something like -2 penalty and kitsune have Realistic Likeness which allows for actual gender cahnge.

This is the Pathfinder community in a nutshell.

yes. even when you cut out the dregs and build to a small tier range, pf still has more flexibility than 5e, due in large part to the number of archetypes and classes.

It's because there's one faggots who keeps making OPs for pfg, and everyone hates him but can't do anything because he keeps making them early.

There was a short time recently when he want around, and they actually had reasonable OPs without anime art. However it seems the user making good OPs vanished, probably to go to school

Also, you occasionally have a month of Dueling Generals for a while, where weeb OP makes his general, then another user tells him to duck off and makes a nonweeb one as well

3.5 has myriad of splats, you can include even the most obscure shit without the need to homebrew.

Besides - the best magical realms come from impromptu freeform RP.

in 3.5 druid and cleric are better than wizard.
what. no spidergirls?

Don't forget a Minotaur/Holstaur race!
Gotta touch that cow.

Because some people like it when picking a specific class in a system gives you a clear cut advantage over absolutely everything.

...

archive.4plebs.org/tg/search/subject/Pathfinder/

Are you sure about that?

only the weird Veeky Forums pathfinder community.

if you want something more standard look at the gitp pathfinder community or the enworld one.

i think im the user you mean who made regular ops.

im not on tg regularly these days. work and life stuff getting in the way.

Considering a good 30% of just that first page wasnt kitsune fetish trash, and I know for a fact I made sone nonanime OPs a few times (usually with the rename of "TRUE Pathfinder General", yeah Im pretty sure.

>The entire class is nullified by a single item, which often causes them to accidentally kill themselves

What?

Dude you are honestly just contrariant as shit. You thread sucks.

>I minmaxed a character, sacrificed 9 points of physical attributes for +2 Int, somehow had a major wondrous item worth almost my entire max net worth according to the DMG, despite the fact that I mainly relied on a spell that costs 1,000 gold to use every time, then literally cheated by using a spell to make tons of an extremely expensive poison in a way that the rules don't allow for. (minor creation does not allow you to manufacture poison)

>therefore, casters are OP

Alright, thanks for sharing.

>waaaaah I don't know how point buy works

>sacrificed 9 points of physical attributes for +2 Int

Well, yes, that is how wizards work. That is the STEREOTYPICAL wizard: a wizened old man with a mastery of all kinds of weird lore (max Int), but who would get blown over by a strong gust of wind (low physical stats) and who is absentminded (low Wis). It's not "minmaxing", it's just playing to type.

Max attribute allowed with point buy is 18, and no core races give bonus Int.
What am I missing here?

Right, he was just minmaxing for "roleplaying" purposes.
lol

I hate 3.5/PF because of all the splat and bullshit 3pp everyone insists on forcing in their games.

I haven't played an actual pathfinder game in years and since it seems it'll never happen unless I gm myself I may as well resign to 5th edition.

>and no core races give bonus Int.
>Elf doesnt exist
3/10 baiting, see me after class

>In addition, 5es lore is very often fuckign terrible, destroying or neutering tons of lore from past editions.
Could you elaborate? Looking through the rulebook, it seems to support taking on elements from practically all the older settings. How does that destroy lore?

Why would you feel the need to preserve the lore of a game where the entire point is to create your own stories and worlds?

>doesn't know that gnomes exist
>and are in the core book

Elf in 3.5 is +2 dex -2 con

Ding ding ding, Stormwind Fallacy strikes again!

Gnomes are +2 Constitution, -2 Strength.

Oh, I thought we were talking 5e.

In 3.5e's case, grey elves have +2 Int. They're in MM rather than PHB, but are are LA +0 and I think it's reasonable to call them 'core'.

There's also the Sun Elves in Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book, Lesser Tiefling from Player's Guide to Faerun, Fire Elves from Unearthed Arcana, Silvanesti and Tinker Gnomes from Dragonlance.

Don't humans get +2 to any one stat?

granted, i could make 5e into a better d&d than pathfinder using houserules , but it would take some real doing.

>>pvp support
>scale monster damage up to be on par with pc damage.
>scale up pc hp based on the difference that makes.

>>character framework
>give additional feat slots which cannot be exchanged for asis.
>add an additional active abilities universal subsystem of some kind that people get in order to diversify the amount of character distinction possible. alternately rewrite every class with this goal in mind.

>>skill math
>heavily rework skill scaling and all skill dcs.

>>degrees of skill
>either bring back some kind of skillpoints or have 3-5 levels of skill proficiency which still scale by level

>>no granularity of bonuses.
>replace or rewrite advantage mechanics for at least 3-5 degrees of advantage and disadvantage.

>>dms guild mystery meat
>basically unsolvable unless people start reviewing it en mass.

>>only 1 bestiary, small number of adventures
>see dms guild.

in the meantime? I'd rather play Pathfinder, but will play 5e if my friends really really want to.

Pretty much, a class intended on creating their own weapons and doesn't even have full BAB.

Psychic Warriors could pretty much fulfill their niche but they actually have powers to make up for thier average BAB. Soulbolts are slightly better but still suffer from the same problems in general.

Not in 3.5.

this user clearly didnt keep multiple spellbooks and had his only copy taken away from him.

They rely on theoretical arguments that assume half the bullshit Wizards can pull off in theory would even be allowed by a DM.

Like making your own plane so you can speed up time and effectively always have spells prepared or whatever.

Psychic Warrior makes a better soulknife than soulknife once you add the soulbound weapon alternate class feature:

archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070214a

What about pathfinder?

Core involves Monster Manual which lets you roll a Gray Elf who has +2 Int.

Even if you roll 3d6 or 4d6 or do some retardedly low point buy, a Wizard only needs a single stat to do anything - Intelligence.

It just has to be 11-12 for all he cares if you're starting at level 1. He'll somehow get there, to the top, maybe.

You also get guaranteed spells every so often, and as such, even at level 1, you can pull your weight ridiculously.

A group of Level 1 characters might have trouble against a Level 3 enemy archer Fighter that is positioned atop a hill and is hard to reach. A Wizard is capable of snuffing him out with a Sleep spell. That same level 1 spell is capable of taking down CR6 encounters like a pair of Ogres.

As the game goes on, the Wizard receives more and more utility and is capable of surpassing everyone else in their roles. The sheer amount of scrolls and wands you can carry to supplement your spellslots is ginormous.

You only depend on a single attribute when other classes require good rolls. A Paladin or Monk need all 6 stats, virtually, and have to make amends. A Fighter needs at least 2-3 strong stats. A Wizard can just easily put his highest stat into Intelligence and they are set.

Even at level 1, you are likely to possess an "I win" button for 2 to 3 encounters. And when that runs out, you can still use a Crossbow.

Even shit like "stealing the Wizard's spellbook" can be easily circumferenced by simple spells like Alarm or Rope Trick.

Whichever playstyle you choose, you are, with time, capable into turning into, or summoning yourself a Fighter or dealing with locks and traps just like a Rogue would - Knock, Summon Monster (I) and let the critters facecheck traps, whatever.

If you try to play Core D&D 3.5 only, it doesn't work much either. Latter books introduce a whole lot of classes that are just much better than most of core.

Unarmed Swordsages are much better than Monks, Warblades are the best core martial melee class, Totemist Barbarians are much better than core, etc. The numerous feats and variants like Dungeoncrasher Fighter can somehow elevate shit classes and give them more options and niches,

the line of conversation youre following is about 3.5