Before we get into it

>So much of Pathfinder is fucking shit.
>The only good things about Pathfinder are because I like Dex duelist rogues and still shit but it's not absolute shit.
>I want to convert Elder Evils for it soon.
I am not starting shit, just honestly confused.
Are you saying that, despite everything you just said, you intend to keep playing Pathfinder?
Why?
Not judging, just confused.

There is nothing wrong with an optimized martial.

user likes it, even if it's flawed. There's a lot of poorly balanced bullshit but it's what he plays. There's probably things about it he likes that outweigh the bad or at least the bad doesn't outweigh the effort of learning a new system.

fixes 40% of the broken shit in 3.5, "fixes" 30% of it, by removing old problems and adding new ones that are just as bad,or fixing it in such a way that such a thing would still suck dicks, breaks 30% of it with it's own retarded rules, thus fucking up even worse than 3.5 IMO.
I've played 3.5 for 10 years now and I could probably call it out on all of it's flaws, and after playing PF for 2 years and reading the rules extensively I can say that the fixes/additions provided can be done with sourcebooks for 3.5, and the "balancing" of 3.5 is a huge lie, seeing as they buffed the casters to the point where warrior class additions are irrelevant.
My personal salt is also that core rulebook bards have been fucked beyond repair and are basically unplayable.
Combat maneuver is shit and completely unnecessary for anything but grappling IMO, and they should've just called it "grapple" and re-worked the rules.
The art makes me cringe and leaves a bad flavor in my mouth, despite you being able to play without it ever being relevant, I am still reminded by the GM's screen with their ugly, abberant caricatures painted on the surface.
pic related.

The setting is a kitchen sink cesspool to the point that everything feels plastic and caricatured, I like Greyhawk and FR much better if we go by settings.

and despite all of this I can play the system and tolerate it, but I disdain it the most for it's fanbase, that is worse than any other fanbase of RPGs I've ever seen, and vampire the masquerade faggots are just awful here. Their only response to people playing 3.5 or 5e is screeching either how PF is 3.5 but better, and how you are being backwards, how it's "exactly like 3.5 but better and balanced", or how 5e "ruined D&D, it's just a sellout system" etc.
I don't even enjoy 5e, but whenever I play PF I get annoyed at the shit I run into, because it wouldn't happen in 3.5, yet all the glaring flaws of 3.5 remain integrated into the system, why the fuck would I play this over 3.5?

as to why I play pathfinder, I'm a forever GM that dislikes 5e and I'll take anything else I can get to play. I am extremely bitter that around the time 3.5 was popular in my country I was the only GM around, and never had the chance to play anything, nor try the forgotten realms setting.

And even when I started to play PF the GM pussied out because he couldn't handle two players being meta-faggots, like holy shit dude this is GMing 101 you have to deal with this shit cmon.

>user likes it, even if it's flawed.
This is a perfectly valid position.
But his was: "The only good things about it are this one specific thing and this shitty thing that is less shitty than previous shit."
So, can you see why I doubt he likes it?

Why don't you do 3.5 with T1s and T2s banned?

I love the game. Despite some of the rules triggering the fuck out of me.

Because despite casters being broken, especially clerics and druids, they are meant to be in the game and balance is one of the least important bits in a role-playing game. And no matter how much I lambast a system I can still have fun playing it if the game itself is run well. I have played long enough and got a steady group so I've balanced the classes accordingly and the group is used to it and fine with it. It is very similar to the "fixes" of 3.5 classes.

Honestly Pathfinder isn't that bad, probably better than 3.5 was in its current state, especially with excellent 3PP like SoP

>Because despite casters being broken, especially clerics and druids, they are meant to be in the game

You can thematically replace them with other, non-broken classes. Like replace druids with Wildshape Rangers, or blaster-casters with Wilders. The problem is their versatility and ability to work outside of hit-points and the general combat/game mechanics.

Or you just use Spheres of Power and the problem of fullcasters solves itself

I actually like them for their versatility and it is the main reason why I want to keep them as classes. I've tweaked the druids by giving them bard spell progression and by giving the clerics bard spell progression, spontaneous divine casting but they have to buy their spells like sorcerers, however they have healing spells by default when they reach a new tier of spells. I don't want to play a wargame. After their 4th level of spells, wizards have to spend two of their spells learned per level to learn one spell, so more powerful spells are a lot more costly. They still retain their ability to learn spells from scrolls however. I molded the rogue and beguiler into one class, sorcerers are the only one I've yet to balance but nobody plays them anyway. Fighters got a bigger skill progression and once every two levels they can add +1 damage to one type of weapon (greatsword, battleaxe, katana, etc) and it stacks.
Monks get fighter BAB progression, and get an extra attack at LVL 5 instead of LVL 6, but it's at no bonus.

My first character was a wizard. He was murdered by the DMPC for cannibalism.

anyways, if I wanted to run something balanced I'd run GURPS, which I'm actually switching to after this D&D game.

This, basically.

We dumped d20 a long time ago and it was the best decision me and my gaming group have ever made.

>I love the game.
Okay then.
I just couldn't reconcile someone saying theres almost nothing good about something they love.

Not him, but I hate Pathfinder with a burning passion. My group also hates it.

We still play it because my group refuses to play anything else. They always bitch and moan about how awful Pathfinder is, but the instant I suggest a new system to try, they all get skittish and non-commital about trying it before deciding to just go back to Pathfinder without so much as looking at the rules.

Feels bad.

It's probably because your group thinks that if Pathfinder is that bad, other systems will be just as overcomplicated and hard to learn. You're going to need to sit them down with pregenerated characters for a system you'd like to try and GM a one-shot, no effort on their part required. It sucks, but getting people out of the rut of 3.PF is a difficult one.

My first character was a dorf 3pp-classed rage priest (a mix of cleric and barbarian). DM suggested the class.

One of the group's resident munchkins got posessed and killed the whole party. I ran away. Then I continued playing this shit for two fucking years and became another resident munchin.

The game is fucking horrible and I hate it with the strength of a thousand suns. Although I'm considering trying it once more (fucking stocholm syndrome), except with the following:
- E6
- The only allowed books are Path of War, Psionics and core class archetypes with mechanics from the above; all the T1s, T2s and some other horrible options are banned
- 5e's movement mechanic, move actions do not exist anymore. if something requires a move action, you spend all your speed instead; if something requires a full round action, you spend all your speed and a standard action. Yes, that makes Spring Attack and similar options irrelevant.
- Priority of setting rules and common sense over game rules (not """"realism""""; more like "no dinosaurs or tigers for pets in not!vikingland unless I said so" and so on)
- Mandatory character audit. I spent too much time on this piece of crap of a system, so I know it pretty well.

There's almost nothing good about Pathfinder that 3.5 doesn't also have.

Deadly Agility honestly fixes Dex characters in my opinion. However Combat Expertise being nerfed pissed me off to no end because full-Expertising was one of the few ways I could play a duelist.

That said, getting to play a Str 10 Dex 22 elf fighter that wrecks ass just like a barbarian, is awesome. I don't even mind the feat tax, I love beating a system that is skewed toward Str-based martials and heavy armor and making something that is at least suboptimal.

I mean, casters still win at everything but I consider that a separate game entirely.

Just let them all play Tier 1 classes but ban Teleport and some of the other broke-ass spells. Teleport should really be a ritual anyway.

I agree, but it was the very first adventure I would ever run and he chose some obscure race and a class from a splatbook that would super souped up and optimized alongside regular new players and a new DM.

Not fucking cool, if someone was running their very first game I wouldnt pull out all the fucking stops and making a monster, its just bad form.

I don't recall them explicitly saying that, but I do recall them shutting down a lot of comments by saying they only want comments that stem from gameplay.

It's similar, but they're at least smart enough to not actually declare "fuck math, don't tell us 2+2 does not equal 5."

I've played with a DM who gave every full BAB class every improved combat maneuver feat, along with combat expertise, for free at level 1.

That's more feats for free at level 1 than most characters will get at level 20, and it's barely a blip in terms of the general power level of those classes.

Tier 1 is fucking boring. A spell for this, a spell for that, a spell for picking my nose, a spell for sucking my own dick. Literally everything can be solved by a single spell.

Also, E6 means they won't get to teleports anyway.

What's E6?

Pathfinder is a mop. Its there to soak up grognards. Venecian casting is a grind.

Improved combat maneuvers don't mean shit. So are Greater combat maneuvers if it's not grapple.

Shortly, you are capped at level 6 and don't progress further. Every so much xp after that, you get a feat. Look up 3.5 Epic-6 for more info.

That seems needlessly restrictive even if it would fix balance issues. I mean shit thats what like 70% of the game no one is ever going to see?

My Rules for Pathfinder

Core Book Only
Everyone starts at 1st Level
If you want to use a Splat during gameplay ask permission during the player character's downtime. (i.e. not during play)

That's just you fags being lazy and not wanting anything else. You claim you do, loudly in fact, but it's to hide the fact you don't know shit else.

Pathfinder is the perfect system for you, seeing as it was made on people crying loudly about 3.X without understanding it and actively shutting down attempts to fix the underlying math.

But also, a few houserules

>1st level HP starts at max
>New Levels: you can roll HP or take the average.

Mostly them. Once the bitching and moaning about how shit Pathfinder is dies down, I suggest "Hey, let's try x system next session instead then" and just get met with blank stares before they decide to just go back to Pathfinder.

I'm probably dropping the group after our current campaign is over. Great guys, but I'm going to lose it if I have to sit through another campaign of Pathfinder.

And for god sakes, bring some pre-gens!

Exactly my point. They're shit feats that aren't worth taking, they make the game explicitly worse by existing, instead of having their effects being baseline

The rules for pathfinder work because the rules from 3.5 work. The problem is there are just too many of them.

What the hell do you replace clerics with? It's always been one of my problems with 3.5. I liked the system other than the tier 1 and 2 classes... The only way I'd play 3.5 again is through Epic 6, but I moved on to 5E.

One thing I liked in PF was the first point in a class skill bumps it up +3 in addition. But I know that doesn't really help the low int classes that also have certain skills they definitely want. That bonus gets nullified as you level due to the way DC mechanics work...

Nice quad 4s.

Gaining those feats don't matter for shit because they they were breaking up things that weren't powerful in the first place so people could feel like they got more feats.

What that DM should've done was make combat maneuvers standard (or special full round, in Overrun/Bull Rush's case) actions that target a save. DC is 10 + 1/2 character level + relevant stat, with a bonus to DCs from magic weapons and the Greater Combat Maneuver feat.

Also, the main problem with Pathfinder is that there is so very much stuff and nobody actually understands how it all works. So when a player underperforms because they take "cool" shit or overperforms because they have some weird trick that allows them to circumvent parts of the game, niggas get real mad. Not just because PF was built on a lie, not just because casters are even better like is shitting themselves over, but because there are a milliom questions asked in running and playing that are very easy to answer wrong.

Playing PF is like taking the BAR exam every fucking session. It is even worse about requiring system mastery than 3.X, which is why PFS bans the shit out of everything.

That's Splat book bloat for you. Even 3.5 suffers from that.

No. The problem with the full casters is that nobody else can come close to their versatility, not that full casters have versatility. If everyone had UMD as a class skill, anyone could cover heals and low level status removal. Once you hit the midway point of the game, you would still need someone for Break Enchantment and rezing. You would still need extra planar travel and adaptation. You would still need the logistics boost to farmland and wilderness cultivation to come from somewhere.

That only becomes an untenable problem at around level 13, which is solved by not playing to level 13. Stop at 12 or 10 or 8 or 6.

D&D 3.X doesn't work to 20th. Neither does 5e, really, but that's outside the scope of this thread.

Liked it. Still like it. As the forever DM, never had a character, and first session was simply me switching over my multiple year 3.5 game, that had been switched from a multi-year 3.0 game. Yes, I ran the same game for over a decade.

Plenty of house rules, but then I had them for 3.5 and 3.0 as well. You have them for any game where you actually make a decent setting. Rules have to fit the setting, and if you are not playing in a premade setting, you will need to change the rules up. So no problems.

It's a good middle ground system. Not quite as difficult and involved as Rolemaster and the like, but easier to get people into. Really great when you have players that play to the setting. You know, roleplayers.

Ok, honest question to the thread.

Everytime PF comes up, I see people bitch and moan about it, and everyone shits on it, including the people who play it regularly (ESPECIALLY the people who play it regularly).

What do people like about it then? I love GURPS, which gets a similar amount of shit thrown at it, but Fans of GURPS will defend it by explaining what they like about it. Fans of Pathfinder shit on the system even harder than normal.

I'm just trying to figure out why, if the system is so shit, it's popular enough to have a really active general. Why do people play it? And why don't the people who play it seem to like it?

If your game is 100% mechanics and numbers and levels, I've got bad news for you. This shit allows the GM to actually work on his world and adventure more, instead of trying to think how to build combat encounters so it's neither a face-mop nor a TPK for his players. Not that it's bad per se, it's different.

Stockholm syndrome. Fear of change. Autism. Officially supported anime furry characters. Retardedly vast amounts of content, even if it's all shit. Subjective enjoyment. Diffeent perceptions.

Herd syndrome. Have to bitch about it online with the other cows to feel like they belong.

Why? Because you can do most anything with it. Tell any story you like and the base 1d20 mechanic is easy. Rules can be too deep for many,but reward those that research and think about their character. Plus tons of resources like an SRD that allows you to get by without all the books.

And finally, the basic premise of the dungeon crawl is really easy to get beginning players into. Easy and fun starter stories mean that you can get beginners up to speed quickly while still leaving plenty of room for growth that rewards the players with just about any type of character they want to play.

Playing a Lvl.6 Wizard in a homebrew houseruled campaign, and I dont get exactly why casters are all that overpowered.

Sure, they have spells for everything, but are you seriously going to waste a spell to pick your nose? If you start wasting spell slots on mundane shit you could solve with practicity your character ends up considerably weaker for the rest of the day.

My Wizard, for example, has cleaned up a recent dungeon by using mostly Prestidigitation and his gear, only spending two spells to become invisible in a pathway and to rescue another character.

Most of the supposed power of a caster can be reduced by applying restrictions to a caster and by setting obvious countermesures. Restrictions as, the Wizard has to be autistic for 24 hours to learn new spells or to be 8hours/day to craft magic items. Obvious countermesures as making some parts closed to Astral travels, or protected from Scrying spells, and so on. And if the Wizard starts doing weird magic shit to exploit the economic system and winning a lot of money, you cause the economy of the region to devalue its currency and make his 10000000000 gold pieces as valuable as a Zimbabwean dollar.

Also, in the game I am playing my Wizard has some house restrictions. Since we are running a "somewhat good-aligned party", I cant use Necromancy, nor can I summon demons and Evil-aligned creatures.

The only thing I might think I am overpowered is that Intelligence is my main stat, because it means my character can conceivably develop smart solutions when faced with problems such as big mortal traps in a dungeon, and having a large pool of skillpoints, and thats all.

I think that most people that complain about caster classes is because they are not very familiar with their powers and thus dont know that you can build lots of countermeasures to keep them in check for the relevant parts of the game.

Do you specifically mean Pathfinder?

My first PF game I played a human fighter with ambidexterity, monkey grip, and two-weapon fighting so I could duel-wield greatswords at first level, but the GM said no on ambidexterity so I switched it out for exotic weapon proficiency: bastard sword and got the nickname Double Aragorn the Munchkin. I only played a few sessions after that mostly dicking around as a cleric before our group moved apart.

My first game ever was just being a low-leveled wizard. My father was a troll, without a class yet, and my brother was a rogue of some kind.

We ran around and killed things in a dungeon, the troll literally smashed through walls because he had an insane strength, and then we found a chest and decided to rest for some reason I don't remember.

While we all went to sleep, I sent my familiar (A small, fluffy white kitten) to go steal all the stuff in the chest. I assumed it was gold coins or treasure... Turns out it was a greatsword, meant for the troll. So later, when the rogue woke up in the middle of the night to steal everything in the chest, he opened it to see my familiar there. So he killed the poor, poor kitten.

The game self-destructed after that, but that was mostly because the GM (another brother) got bored.

My first Impression of Pathfinder was "Hey cool, the rules are for free!" and it clicked more with my group than D&D 4e did at the time. So we built characters and I GMed a pre-written module on some island with wolves and tribal orcs that was really damn fun.
After that it became a mindless campaign of murderhoboing and no story at all.

The first time I played PF was long after our group went on to different games, but we were on a convention together and decided to go with a system we knew. The GM was a little that guy because he took a little to much joy in killing of PC's. Otherwise it was a dungeon crawl that ended in a TPK due to a bad combination of traps, overbuffed monsters and said GM.
I played a halfling rouge in that game.

>which is why PFS bans the shit out of everything.
PFS bans the wrong stuff though, like Synthesists despite being weaker Summoners, and getting Crane Wing style nerfed because a lot of PFS fights were big one-attack heavy hitters and Crane Wing laughed at that.

It's a really popular system, and while 5e players by nature tend to be open-minded due to having picked up the young system in the first place, a lot of PF players are stuck with it for over a decade counting 3.X. For a lot of them the family is all they've ever known.

I literally have 3 different play groups I get invited to and all of them are PF only. They don't know each other but by chance, when the cards fell in the '09, everyone took a side and stuck with it.