Why Veeky Forums hates this game?

> Improves upon 3.5 design, while avoiding mistakes of 4e
> Massively buffs mundane classes such as fighter and monk
> Diverse race and class list, content is added at a very fast pace. 5e got two splatbooks. Not this year, period.

Is hating on Pathfinder just a bad meme?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/tg/search/subject/Pathfinder General/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

> Improves upon 3.5 design, while avoiding mistakes of 4e

Applies a thin coat of paint while not making many real or significant improvements, lacks a strong and coherent design philosophy in the way 4e did

> Massively buffs mundane classes such as fighter and monk

They both still fucking suck

> Diverse race and class list, content is added at a very fast pace. 5e got two splatbooks. Not this year, period.

Has the same problem 3.5 did, the majority of the content is garbage.

Is Pathfinder a unilaterally awful game? No. A good GM, with a decent amount of work and sensible content restrictions (tier 3/4 classes etc) can make it work damn well.

But any less skill on the GMs part, or if people don't know which content to restrict, and you'll be fighting the system to make things work significantly more than it'll be adding to your experience of the game.

This isn't about hating on it. This is about being aware of the flaws systems have and being able to clearly highlight and explain them in ways that are useful to new players or people who might be struggling with those same issues. If anything, the meme is people refusing to acknowledge that systems are flawed, or trying to claim that those flaws are meaningless because 'The GM can work around them'.

Some people don't enjoy "3rd Party: The Game."

Some people hate the diverse race list because they're "muh gygax"es and "muh tolkien"s, and despise the idea of a beast race that isn't a mindless alligator man or a gnoll.

Some people hate the sheer amount of shit they have to keep up with, considering how much gets released for it.

Personally I find it pretty fun, but shit if it isn't a clusterfuck that you have to keep to a minimum-- especially when the newer classes are involved, as they tend to be weird technically.

A good GM can make just about any rule system not suck. But a good system requires less work for the GM.

Pathfinder is DND 3.6. Some improvements but not enough to make it not have the same flaws 3.5 did..

And now Paizo has pigeonholed themselves into this system. Especially with Starfinder coming out.

Partially because it's a bloated system with balance issues, partially because of contrarianism.

>Improves upon 3.5's design
Except 3.5 was shit, which means Pathfinder is just shit with sprinkles. Shit with sprinkles is still shit.

>Massively buffs mundane classes such as fighter and monk.
Yeah... but it also buffed casters too, by alot more than anyone else, you know, because wizards wern't overpowered enough already.

>Diverse race and class list, content is added at a very fast pace. 5e got two splatbooks. Not this year, period.
More isn't better, especially when the content is mediocre thrid-party crap that adds stuff like Kitsune and Magical Girls to the game and turns the community that plays the game into a bunch of obnoxious weeaboos and furfags. Ever been to a /pfg/ thread?

Too many options is actually a bad thing. It's fucking bloated.

Being fair, at least one version of the Magical Girl class that I saw looked better balanced and more interesting than any of Paizo's core casters.

>Magical Girl class

becasue "Stop liking what I don't like!" is Veeky Forums's motto in life

>Is hating on Pathfinder just a bad meme?

Yes. Most people are indifferent to it, and only the saddest trolls go so far as to hate it.

>Why Veeky Forums hates this game?
Don't judge Veeky Forums by its worst posters. Just ignore the edition war trolls, and they lose everything.

...

>jojofag thinks his opinion is worth anything

You sunk your post by revealing your faggotry.

This. Especially when 9 out of 10 of Pathfinder's options on any given thing are trap options that are almost literally penalizing you for taking them unless you know how to exploit the system in way to achieve a broken synergy or rules loophole.

Man, fuck "system-mastery" and "ivory tower" game design.

Oh boy, here come the Pathfinder drones to defend the object of their fetishistic obsessions against all criticisms.

THIS is why people don't like Pathfinder, it has the worst community on Veeky Forums.

Those are two bad memes that are exaggerated and have little to do with Pathfinder. There are no "trap options", simply options with different degrees of strength because the designer had different design goals than simply flat balance. Aside from that, "Ivory Tower" design is something that only really applied to D&D 3.0's player handbook, and didn't extend beyond that because there was plenty of in depth analysis of the various options presented in the DMG, Class and Race books, and the wizard's website. "Ivory Tower" is simply "provide the rules without explaining their best usage", which isn't anything more than a partial guidline that was ultimately rendered a moot point.

Ivory Tower is just a bad meme people use when they don't really understand what they're talking about, usually including thinking that D&D tried to mimic MTG when that's decisively what they tried to avoid doing.

I am sorry you are so reactionary you can't bother to read an answer to your own questions simply because of a parody picture that offends your delicate sensitivities. You must not consume alot of modern media or interact with people very much, huh?

>Defend trap options with ivory tower design logic
>Claim ivory tower design wasn't a part of the game

You're not very good at this

>jojofag gets triggered

Quit trying to be the new bronies. I understand you want to vie for the title of "worst community on Veeky Forums", but do so on other boards.

...

>Ivory Tower is just a bad meme people use when they don't really understand what they're talking about.
So... Paizo then?

>There are no "trap options",
Hahahahaha oh wow. That's almost as dumb as the anti-weeb getting all booty-bothered in this thread.

Those were separate clauses, hence the "aside from that." "Trap options" is just a buzzword people use to decry any designer who chooses an option beyond flat balance, while "Ivory Tower design" is a bit of a myth, which originated as just as a way to keep a core rulebook relatively streamlined, but got conflated by people trying to find any reason to hate a system.

They're catchy names, which is why they're repeated often. They are, however, largely empty criticisms.

There are some valid complaints for Pathfinder. The three biggest ones IMO are:

>1. Their improvements to martials still doesn't catch up to spellcasters.

Part of this is due to how versatile and powerful magic is in the later levels, but even early on there are things a spellcaster can do that a martial can't, or not without a serious degree of min-maxing. Which leads into point two:

>2. A lot of the options presented are actually detrimental, or focus on a very niche thing that may implicit once or twice a campaign.

Some of the feats and skills you get sound useful, but then you rarely use them or find out the trade-off isn't worth it, which leads into you pouring through splat books to make your character concept work both fluff-wise and crunch-wise. Which leads to number three:

>3. So much system bloat and 3rd party support bogs down the GM and players in rules arguments.

There's nothing wrong with having support for your system, or encouraging third party publishers to add stuff to it. But when you've had so many books and manuals come out for broken OP or broken won't work stuff because of poor testing, it leads to even more minmaxing mentality.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a powerful character via RAW, but when you need 7 splat books to make your character do stuff a normal Wizard can do with a spell, there's a problem.

I don't care about the furry stuff either, just as long as your group is fine with you playing with fetish fuel.

Doesn't matter what the justifications are, they're still shit game design and people hating the clusterfuck that Pathfinder has become is proof of it.

There are no trap options. The designers did not include weak options with the foremost intent of punishing players for not understanding the system. They did include options that were not absolutely balanced, often skewed in order to promote certain playstyles, but the result of this being that players were rewarded for learning the system was never a primary goal, and in fact was largely an afterthought in an attempt to understand the widespread popularity and success of the system.

If you want to say Pathfinder has "trap options," any honest definition you present will ultimately end up being used on any game that includes any unbalanced options, ie. every single game.

>There's nothing wrong with having support for your system, or encouraging third party publishers to add stuff to it. But when you've had so many books and manuals come out for broken OP or broken won't work stuff because of poor testing, it leads to even more minmaxing mentality.

So there's nothing wrong with 3rd party support aside from the results of it.

Not trying to pick your arguments apart. I agree with everything else, but just follow through on your convictions and go ahead and say the Nintendo Seal of Approval is the One True Path to balanced design.

Perhaps we want to use people loving the clusterfuck that is Pathfinder as proof of the contrary?

Honestly, I wouldn't want to, but if you want to try and play an appeal to popularity, you're kind of running some shallow numbers there.

Hell, I can agree that Pathfinder has a lot of terrible, god awful design decisions. Still, it's nowhere near bad enough for me to hate it, merely to dislike it and not play it myself. I can, however, appreciate the various good aspects of the system, without turning into a wild animal at the thought of somebody enjoying the game when there are other systems I personally prefer. Perhaps it's time you learned how to do the same?

>but the result of this being that players were rewarded for learning the system was never a primary goal

Except that Paizo has literally stated this as a primary game development philosophy. See pic related and the shit spew where they're basically calling their own players retarded if they don't know how to min-max well.

>go ahead and say the Nintendo Seal of Approval is the One True Path to balanced design
But that would be obviously wrong, since banning all first-party material and only using DSP's is more balanced than even core.

Read that yourself. To start, that's Monte Cook, who's not a part of Paizo.

Secondly, he says that while there are deliberately better choices, he says explicitly that D&D wasn't designed to reward game mastery ("While D&D doesn't exactly do that"), and that the deliberately better choices were in part carry-overs from earlier editions of D&D that were simply not ironed out.

Modern game design stresses game balance much more than it did in the past, but you need to keep in mind that game balance is not the entirety of a system. Though Pathfinder is a dated system at this point, there is still an enormous amount of great material in the system.

And, no, Monte Cook didn't say anywhere in there that they were basically calling their own players retarded if they don't know how to min-max well.

Because we can, because it's not our system, and because we've fallen into such a tribal mentality that we're forced into an Us vs. Them mindset and can't just get along.

Oh, and because all of us perverts who treated Veeky Forums as /d/-lite back when /wst/ was a thing use /pfg/ as our Perverted Fantasy General, piss off all twenty serious Pathfinder players, and then get off zcot free because everyone blames it all on the PF community...

How to get replies on Veeky Forums:
>1. Pick a topic upon which the community has generally settled ideas
>2. State the contrary of those ideas, no defense or explanation of the position is required
>3. Watch people tell you you are wrong
>4. Watch that one idiot agree with you and begin attacking the people from Step 3
>5. Watch as everyone loses their shit proving how full of shit the person from Step 4 is
>6. Realize there is only one person arguing in the thread and it's you, trolling yourself
>7. Cry a lot

>1. Pick a topic upon which the community has generally settled ideas
>2. State the contrary of those ideas, no defense or explanation of the position is required

Go away, troll.

>Massively buffs mundane classes such as fighter and monk
Literally nothing the Fighter got until Mutation Warrior, something that came out 6 fucking years after PF and is literally just the Alchemist's stuff, was anywhere close to as good as Dungeoncrasher or Zhent Fighter, and that's just the Fighter. The Monk STILL isn't as good as a Decisive Strike AoO build unless it's a Zen Archer, which bypasses all of the Monk's problems by giving them A) the ability to tool themselves for multiple situations cheaply thanks to magic arrows, B) the strongest combat style in the game, as opposed to the weakest, C) longbows, a weapon that's easily enhanced and powerful in its own right, as opposed to unarmed being 2 to 3 times more expensive to enhance and being limited to +5, or other Monk weapons which are all shit. and D) limited MAD because they need much less STR than a normal Monk and don't need DEX for anything but skills.

PF only looks like an improvement relative to core 3.5 and core 3.5 is by far the worst part of the game. Like come on man, at least know something about 3.5.

I'm not saying it needs a, "Nintendo Seal of Approval" type thing, but every publisher of materials needs to review their stuff and playtest it to make sure it fits both the thematic elements of your game edition and doesn't replace/invalidate other options/classes in the game without a tradeoff.

It doesn't matter if you're first-party or third-party, all publishers need to playtest their shit before throwing it out to be sold.

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

Is this par for the course for /pfg/ threads?

I don't care much about this topic otherwise but let's not pretend Pathfinder Fighter and Monk are any good. Unchained Monk, maaaybe, and not even without serious effort.

Every 3.X/PF thread there is a functional illiterate that misinterprets that statement. This time is this retard.
I blame Brilliant Gameologist, GitP, and RPG.net.
ENworlders are retarded but generally good willed.

A trip+bull rush fighter or a TH power attack+shooting fighters, or even a mounted one + something else can be devastating as much as the Dungeoncrasher in PF.

They, indeed, suffer from the same problem - classed don't get enough from one feat, lackluster class features, scaling of power, and so on.

But from your post I have to guess you cannot build martials in PF.

Not really. Being able to do damage is not the same thing as throwing enemies around while doing massive damage at the same time.

>Yes. Most people are indifferent to it, and only the saddest trolls go so far as to hate it.
I hate it largely because I got stuck with the worst, most pustulent, SJW fuckwit asslicker of a GM in the entire world.

I can at least put aside my hatred of That Guy to admit the system is merely not to my preference. There's nothing inherently irredeemable about it.

>There are no trap options.
Monkey Lunge

You can do it with good shield builds.
But we are discussing details. I was happy to see a good Sword and Shield (better Flail and Shield, actually) build in PF core, and I enjoyed PF quite a bit, but the scaling problems remain.
My playstyle does not care, but is true that PF is often amateurish, even in ultimately harmless things like the Falcata. I think the weapon is a good example. It can be ok or even a life saver in some situation, but the way has been conceived shows lack of professionalism.

You need to full attack and fight against the shitty CMB/D system to pull off combat maneuvers in PF, though. Not quite the same thing as bull rushing as a standard action and watching someone fly into a wall to take a pile of d6 in damage from it, or if you're into that sort of thing, flying pouncing bullrush into the ground to instagib them.

fpbp

What is there to improve on 3.5?

It's the best D&D edition. 4th and 5th are redundant light editions.

Don't tell me you follow the rules by the book?

>it improved aura of holy freeze by making it 6 feet wider

Holy shit lmao

Pathfinder is crap.

D&D in general is crap.

You have bad taste.

All the weapon focus, attack bonus, feats, class features and situational bonuses that add to the attack add to the CMB.
The CMB/CMD fails when the size different makes the maneuver unfeasible by rule, and not by number. Monk can work around that but have a lesser BAB.
The designers, though, went full retard in barring specific maneuvers. In 3.X you could trip a flyer using bolas (if it flies with mechanical means) IIRC, in PF you cannot.

> Improves upon 3.5 design, while avoiding mistakes of 4e
Not really, very minor mechanic changes, half of which were brutal mistakes (EG all fliers fully immune to being tripped)
> Massively buffs mundane classes such as fighter and monk
Nope, Core Monk still shit, some archetypes and UMonk go Tier 4, Fighter and archetypes still T4, but it required two dedicated books to give them plenty of good stuff
> Diverse race and class list, content is added at a very fast pace. 5e got two splatbooks. Not this year, period.
Except that 90% of the noncore races are so underdeveloped and rare that almost no one uses them, classes are mostly fine tho in thematic variation.
Content at a fast pace? Nah, you wrong here. For most books, you end up having to surf through 20-23 pages of pure useless stuff, for just a few couple pages of useful things. Weapon Master's Handbook is the exception and not the rule.

The only decent thing about PF is that by slapping enough quality 3rd party content into it you can get a somewhat-balanced mish mash of unique mechanics classes and archetypes, but at this point you're keeping around 7 or so classes that paizo has made, and basically removing 7th-9th level spells from ever seeing play.

don't mind me watching this fantasy mess go down...i'll just sit here with muh shadowrun and 40k Rogue Trader

Then gtfo.

Everything I've heard about Shadowrun's tabletop system seems to make it bad. It's a great setting. I love the books.

Also, not being able to get hard copies of the current rule set is a big turn off for me.

Threads derailed into argument a little bit, so I'm gonna stay on topic and give my opinion.

What it does right
Pathfinder does a fair amount right, it's nailed down character customisation to the point where you can make pretty much whatever character you want for whatever campaign you want. Variation and new things are important for any game that wants to last a long time.

Low level play is complex and has depth compared to other systems. All classes, martials included, have many more options at level 1 than other D&D systems. This makes low level fun an exciting, compared to the drag other editions can be.

However...
Pathfinder also does a lot wrong
Its at the point now for newer players, jumping into the Olympic swimming pool of extra material can be pretty daunting. 5e only has 2 books of additional content, and for a new player that sounds a lot more inviting. Pathfinder is also very rules based, with specific rolls you may need to make for tasks that other systems just gloss over.

Low level play is complex, so complex that you can pull shit like punpun off. Others have also said it but the difference between martial and magic characters widens exponentially every level up, to the point where there's not point even playing one.

Lastly, I hate the image the game has. Pfg always has some dumb shit as the thread image, a lot of worse shit gets posted. When I think of pathfinder I don't think "epic adventures with incredibly diverse casts and settongs", I think "oh yeah, the general always has some shit taste waifu as the image"

Whoops, just realised punpun is actually a 3.5 mess. Point still stands however.

You said a lot of valid things, but 3.5 or PF are not "bad" or "defective" because of pun-pun. Pun-pun is a theoretical exercise that no sane group or dm would pull.
Shit like the rest of what you said, or like this can be a problem for many. Le pun-pun boogeyman is not an argument.

It is a valid argument, it doesn't have to reach the point of punpun but you can still become much more powerful than you're supposed to be by abusing the system.

If is an hyperbole, I accept it.

Because Pathfinder is popular and Veeky Forums has always been stupidly contrarian for the sake of being stupidly contrarian.

>Oh, and because all of us perverts who treated Veeky Forums as /d/-lite back when /wst/ was a thing use /pfg/ as our Perverted Fantasy General, piss off all twenty serious Pathfinder players, and then get off zcot free because everyone blames it all on the PF community...

This is why I post there

it is the same thing as D&D

D&D is shit

> Improves upon 3.5 design
3.5 design is shit. Improvement on shit is better shit, but still shit.

>while avoiding mistakes of 4e
It should have learned a thing or two from 4e, but it learned nor avoided anything from 4e's mistake. HP bloat, attrition-based combat and bad level up math is worse in Pathfinder than in 4e.

And speaking of bad memes, before you go HURR DURR 4E EVERYONE CASTER MAGIC FIGHTAN ALL CHARACTERS ARE THE SAME, literally the only way to not make all characters play like one-trick ponies in 3.PF and still be effective is to make them full casters. I'd argue that "caster edition" is a worse problem than "I can't read and never played the game but I will spout uninformed opinions on the internet and demand to be listened to", simply because in the latter case the problem is (You), not the system.

> Massively buffs mundane classes such as fighter and monk
Blatantly false.

> Diverse race and class list, content is added at a very fast pace.
Because SRD and third party content, official PF content didn't come out as fast, and mostly sucks unless you buy into railroad adventure paths with clunky date simulation mechanics and """narrative""" mechanics that are clunkier than just making shit up on the fly with your DM without even thinking of balance.

>5e got two splatbooks. Not this year, period.
A sad thing, but WotC giving up on D&D doesn't make Pathfinder a good system.

>Pfg always has some dumb shit as the thread image, a lot of worse shit gets posted. When I think of pathfinder I don't think "epic adventures with incredibly diverse casts and settongs", I think "oh yeah, the general always has some shit taste waifu as the image"
To be fair this is the result of a troll/group of trolls that the mods just won't fucking get rid off.

He'll make a new thread the MOMENT we hit bump limit just to make sure he gets to post whatever dumbshit kitsune+troll question he wants and we've all just gotten sick of trying to fight with him.

Is the entire /pfg/ compromised by trolls too? Because all you seem to do is discussing and craeting ERP games for yourselves.

>HP bloat
Are you fucking kidding? There are x4 crit weapons.

>Is the entire /pfg/ compromised by trolls too?
Probably
> Because all you seem to do is discussing and creating ERP games for yourselves.
Not really considering there's only like one lewd game being discussed, which is closer to saying "R-rated" than full blown ERP.

The worst of it was a few months ago, things have calmed down significantly and even then it was pretty much the same cadre of people that didn't want to take their shit to other channels.

I don't know about most people on Veeky Forums, but I know I personally hate Pathfinder because from my experience the entire system feels like a giant middle finger

I was promised 3.5 but with all the weird kinks ironed out and better balance, I got 3.5 but with different weird kinks and the exact same balance issues. Also without ToB classes or anything resembling ToB maneuvers.

So maybe the system isn't so bad, maybe it doesn't deserve my ire, but I went in expecting so much and I received so little that I will never like the system no matter what it does

>There are x4 crit weapons
Which count for shit. It's like saying "vorpal weapons exist so HP bloat is never a problem".

The true answer is "HP bloat is not a problem because full casters bypass it", but that's just a bigger problem than HP bloat. The real issue with HP bloat is that Pathfinder keeps in line with 3.X's philosophy of giving monsters """"realistic"""" stats, so big furry threats would have huge CON modifiers and a bucketload of HD. Especially true for Undead and Constructs whose HD sucked, so if you wanted to make a fighty undead you had to stack twice as many HD as the average party level because they had Wizard BAB for some fucking reason.

That and the fact that if you don't know how to build your martial right, you'll fall hook, line and sinker for the game's traps and think that sword and board is viable, and that investing in bastard swords with a feat is a good upgrade because you go from 1d8+4 damage to 1d10+4 damage.

Arguably, PF is worse. At least in 3.X you could do the lion totem barbarian dip and then go power attack, shock trooper, jump attack and easily pass 200 DPR. Pathfinder's ""boost"" of martials nerfed that and split the combat feats into even more feats with more speedbumps than ever.

Oh sure, that one time you will actually score a x4 crit with a two-handed weapon with your 36 STR score and power attack and do a fuckload of damage. But you're better off just taking a fucking vorpal weapon and hope everything you fight has a head and isn't a construct or undead.

Protip: The guy who argues about "HP bloat" is this weird troll with a mental block that prevents him from understanding HP in general. It's best to ignore him, because all he does is enjoy to argue.

Dude, 3.X/PF has loads of problem but HPs go away easily. Perhaps the only thing is Evocation spells dealing not enough damage. But melee characters will fuck you shit up, and quickly.
The problem is they will not do much else.

This was basically what I came here to say but you said it better.

thanks, I wrote this but I will stop now.

ToB has fancy names and different (in case of Warblades, perfectly executed) mechanics for melee. But A Warblade is 2, a Fighter is 1, a monk is 0.5, and a Wizard is 30. ToB does not fix 3.5.
And you can pull a lot of weird shit with a 3.5 fighter, too (dungeoncrasher + zentharim/goad + charger feats + weapon feats) if you have the stats, the advantage of ToB is cool names and all in the same place.

IF they know how to optimize properly. Which will inevitably lead them into one-trick-pony builds which befuddle me as to how anyone could argue that 4e is all "samey".

If you don't have CharOPpers in your group and they play martials, monsters HP will always be way too high. If you do, I agree HP bloat is not a problem, but that's because caster edition is so much of a bigger problem there's no comparison.

It's just that after 15+ years of 3.X autism the people that still play it at the exclusion of anything else often forget that not everyone knows every splatbook and build like the back of their hand.

And Pathfinder didn't fix that

I can remember Paizo promising to fix 3.5, and yet the biggest flaw the system ever had, class imbalance, remained as glaring as ever.

The reason why I bring up ToB is because all ToB classes sat in the sweet-spot of class balance and were also super fun to play. And then Paizo totally ignored everything about the book. Completely avoiding all the lessons te 3.5 writers had learned in favor of repeating all the mistakes they made early on

bullshit. pure, unadulterated bullshit.
following this is my last answer, and is for the lurkers - any melee in 3.5, and more in PF, can kill monsters easily. problems in 3.X/PF, for melee, lie elsewhere.
If you are not a troll, you are just too retarded for RPGs because TH weapon and Power Attack are often enough.

The book was not OGL, I guess they did not want to go in that direction. Also, the average Paizizil does not want ToB.
(I used, in a campaign, but in a previous one a Fighter 40 worked because the guy using it knows what to do, and the party knows how to equip and buff him).

Protip: HP bloat is a pretty commonly used phrase.

So basically what you're saying is that sword & board is not a viable build, then.

This is why I would never touch Pathfinder.

The people who've stuck around playing it think that the only way to enjoy it is to "win" the game through a comprehensive knowledge of every trick and combo allowed by its bloated splat options.

Pathfinder is Munchkin: The Munchkinning, and it's only fit for turbo-autismos.

That said; I'm glad it exists, because it not only lures away players with those proclivities from games people want to enjoy for other reasons than "muh super-build", but it also provides good employment to the semi-talents who churn out all that 2nd rate gaming material.

tl;dr It's a honey-pot for shitlords, and that's a good thing.

In PF S and B is viable.
You can play it without being a little shit. I would argue, in fact, that people more scared of the freedom of 3.X/PF are the ones unable to control it.

Not really. It seems to be only used by people who only want to present a facade of understanding the system while doing anything but.

The subsequent posts confirmed this. I hope you're not just that troll hoping to perform damage control.

ive never played it but everyone i know who does is a massive weeb faggot

>I would argue, in fact, that people more scared of the freedom of 3.X/PF are the ones unable to control it.
I would argue that the only times in 15 years of experience with 3.PF bullshit where the "freedom" worked was when we played below 6th level and everyone, DM included, was too retarded to notice the glaring problems with the game and because they were playing it patently wrong (wizard blasters, cleric healbots, sword and board fighters, TWF rogue. The classic traps of how to play the game wrong and get cucked by the Cook).

Anytime else, the game died either because there were CharOPpers in a group of non-CharOPpers (or the DM based the game around CharOPpers and the non-CharOPpers couldn't keep up) or the DM was pants-on-head retarded and killed it with its own stupid houserules and inability to understand the game paired with dogmatic, religious faith in the CR system. We're talking about "monks are banned because they're OP" levels of retarded.

Besides, want freedom? GURPS has freedom, Mutants and Masterminds has freedom, HERO system has freedom. Fuck, even Dungeon World has more freedom than this. What you call "freedom" is just "option bloat" with no sense of balance or even something keeping it together because it comes from different sources, different authors and people with varying (but usually very low) levels of understanding of the game.

Oh, and good luck with your "freedom" if the game doesn't support it. Just look at how PF has constantly failed at providing an option for an effective mundane skillmonkey that doesn't lose to unoptimized full casters at every turn. All this talk and yet I don't have the "freedom" to play a rogue and not suck wizard cock when a real problem comes my way.

I know a lot of people who play it for the absurd character customization, which kind of confuses me. If you wanted a totally custom character, wouldn't systems like Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS, Tri-Stat, and other effects-based systems work better? I feel like you'd be able to get better results with less effort that way.

Because the effort is what makes it fun

Pathfinder is effectively an in-depth puzzle game, where you're given a whole lot of pieces, most of them useless, and the game is to try and build a powerful character out of it. Just with a mediocre RPG tied on to the end to prove that your character works

> Improves upon 3.5 design, while avoiding mistakes of 4e
It didn't "improve" anything, it just turned al 3.5's defining characteristics up to eleven. As 3.5 already had more flaws than strong points, enhancing them results in net loss and not gain
> Massively buffs mundane classes such as fighter and monk
Not enough for it to matter. Also the right answer to martial/caster imbalance is much less about buffing the martials than nerfing the ridiculous shit out of casters. 5E developers managed to see that somehow, Paizo did not.
>Diverse race and class list, content is added at a very fast pace. 5e got two splatbooks. Not this year, period.
Which is a bad thing cause most of them are pointless stupid shit and either just a fetish bait or feed for powerbuilder/theorycrafter scum


Also
>shit art
>shit community
>shit dev mentality

>I move and attack
or
>I attack
Wow, great game, 3.pfags.

Pretty much. The OP is always posted by a guy obsessed with Kitsune. I'm really not sure if he's a serious Pathfinder player, or one of the greatest trolls on the board... but either way he does his duty to the board. He still has Shit Taste in Waifu

You forgot anyone in shadowrun not a mage or hacker, ffg star wars, and all wh40k and wh fantasy characters not a mage/psyker.

I dont care if they can aim before attacking or talents, they are just that systems feats.

He doesn't seem triggered, you do.

But he's right, pf is shit.

Dunno, once managed to get a literal Saber clone with a literal Shirou clone as cohort into a game, the DM didn't know anything at all about anime.

You're right. It's very barebones.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I've been to jojo thread on /a/ once and I don't wanto to go to /a/ anymore
Bizarre adventure is still one of, if not the best, thing to come out of japan

>ffg star wars

FFG Star Wars still gives you decisions about how to spend Advantage and Triumph and sometimes extra Successes.

Try again pathfag.

tg hates everything

magical girls doing magical things bruh

joke's on you man, I played 3 campaigns
One up to level 40
One gestalt up to 16
One PF up to 16
Plus many one shots.
The customization and character concepts were many. They all felt different. One was epic, another based one exploration and craft.
I would fix 100% of the game, not defending it, but only socially or mathematically retarded people cannot make it work.

I'm not going to lie, I had fun with this system. emphasis on the word had. Hating on pathfinder is indeed a bad fucking meme, but on the flipside pathfinder has some serious fucking flaws. Ignoring "lol look at /pfg/ weeb and kitsunefags everywhere" because that is a shitty argument on one of the most weeb site there is and the fact when kitsunefag isn't the one making shitty OPs, discussions on it is a lot better, the community of pathfinder is indeed a fucking cesspool of stupid. I quit pathfinder for the same reason I quit magic:the gathering, its not about having fun anymore, its about powergaming, stacking power upon more power that it becomes absurd. Whenever I want to talk to other people about the game, all they want to talk about is how their rogue can do 60d6 each round and shit, or how their wizard can throw 200 fire damage on their mythic campaign. I got so angry I had to make a fucking monk druid that can dish out 96d8 amount of damage each round just to shut those fuckers up. If you are playing with friends its not bad, but the developers are either trying to help fix the system but fail immensely or disregard suggestions completely, the community itself is a clusterfuck of autismos, and don't even get me started on Pathfinder society.


5e is a fresh new start and view on the system of dnd and I have just purchased the books. I enjoyed playing the rules light campaign and a fairly balanced play. While pathfinder has a shit tonne of races to choose from, only about 10 of them are even viable due to stats and bonuses, while 5e, I can play literally what ever the fuck I want and not be punished for it, such as a dwarf bard as I dont suffer a -2 to charisma despite the fact that a dwarf bard sounds completely viable and a character. I had more to say but I passed the character limit.

>Optimising and powergaming in 3.PF
>Damage actually mattering

You what?

Because the majority of Veeky Forums doesn't actually play the game and just theorycraft things that 'might' happen.

But muh Druid bear better than samurai!