Players roll up a wizard, a druid, a psion, and a bard

A manual exterminatus, I was looking for something along the lines of "sphere of annihilation" but that'll work.

What's the appeal of 3.PF?

If there has been one the last 5 years I fail to see it.

It's still the most popular system out there. Draw your own conclusions.

Don't listen to trolls like OP.

>He thinks a fighter can have fun in a group like that

Easy to find a group.

I'd like to know why it's still the most popular

It came out early and secured its own brand.

Pathfinder was overtaken by 5e a little while ago.

As someone who doesn't like the system overall, it still has a huge amount of cool content available for it, interesting mechanical systems like the Tome of Battle/Path of War stuff or various interesting third party magic systems, along with lots of magic items and an extreme depth of character customisation.

None of that stops it being a bad game, but it's possible to make it a good game with enough work on the GMs part. Still, that the GM can fix it doesn't absolve the system of blame or criticism, especially when huge chunks of the aforementioned content are also bland, shitty or nigh on non-functional.

>pathfinder
Fiddly numbers, autistic rules, stupid balance.

Another caster v martial thread? Cool! Time to post my homebrew version of DnD, which fixes the balance issues between casters and martials. Please give it a look if you need help with this issue.

OSR barely has that problem to begin with.

>not telling the players what type of game your playing
>no season zero
>not giving them chargen guidlines

Pretty lazy dm

>when you stand still and full attack every round
This is what it truly means to be a fighter. Trolls wouldn't understand.

>season zero
You plan on running an entire campaign before they reach level 1?

Are there still people out there playing such wildly imbalanced games that playing in the same 'tier' is necessary to have an enjoyable experience?

Nigga how are you STILL playing D&D 3.x

5e is the most popular system.

3.PF is still huge

Being fair, 5e doesn't entirely remove the problem. The power gap is mostly gone, but the utility gap out of combat, and the lack of interesting martial choices in combat still kinda sucks.

>not starting your players off as shitty commoners trying to survive in a harsh world and having their first class level be based on the choices they made before session 0

>Not playing Dungeon Crawl Classics

>i only play 3.butthurt edition which stopped being a thing years ago

5e doesn't entirely remove it, but it fixes it to the point of playability. Martuals have more skills, and a Wizard doesnt have the spell slots to solve every problem on his own. In general, theres also fewer gamebreaking things, and its pretty obvious when somebody tries to go for them.

Nice non-answer, faggot.

Good job, you just called the massed fans of the most popular roleplaying game of all time a pile of butthurt idiots, and like they would all play something else if they were as smart as you. Quit being a bitter contrarian and realize no one cares about your shitty hipster games.

>argument from popularity

Fighters and barbs have the same amount of skills as wizards you are right that caster supremacy isn't as. Ad though

Yeah, 5e deserves credit for improving things, but it still bugs me that both in and out of combat martials have less interesting things to do, especially since the playtests showed they had ideas of how to make it better.

Good job, you just called the massed fans of the most popular religion of all time a pile of butthurt idiots, and like they would all believe something else if they were as smart as you. Quit being a bitter contrarian and realize no one cares about your shitty hipster religions.

The people who still play it are, in fact, butthurt idiots, though.

I wouldn't say that about all 3.PF fans. Just the idiots who go around on Veeky Forums calling anyone who criticises their system 'trolls'.

So if it's as shit as you anti-D&D trolls claim, why would it be so popular?

Yeah, but they playtested with a bunch of OD&D Luddites and grognards who complained about martials not being as barebones as they've always been. The Battlemaster's maneuvers were supposed to be universal, for instance, but the playtesters they got shot that down and they relegated it to a single archetype.

Monk even was nerfed, they had better hit die and damage. And now for no reason is the lowest dpr martial, and relegated to be a stun gun and that's it

As well as being nerfed to hell, which fucking sucked. Especially when the broader playtest fanbase surveys said the exact opposite.

I thought that pretty much everyone in the playtest said they loved martial dice?

>Are there still people out there that don't know about tiers?

Yes. There are still people that are either too ignorant, or blatantly ignore 3.Pf problems.

>last week
>playing a Sorcerer
>Rest of the party is a Cleric, a Druid, and a Monk.
>fighting pirates on their ship
>Cleric is doing great, Druid and I are casting a custom spell the DM gave us.
>Basically a Create Wave spell
>The three of us dispatch most of the pirates easily
>Monk has been Flurrying for 5 rounds
>Most miss and he's been taking heavy damage
>Out of 12 pirates, he kills one, casters either disabled or killed the rest
>Monk:"Great work, everyone."
>Cleric (That Guy): "Yeah, great work spending all that time killing ONE pirate. Why'd you play a Monk, anyway?"
>Monk:"What do you mean, Monks are the best class in the !"
>[Insert 30 minute argument as to why casters are inherently better than Monks]
>Monk player refuses to believe this
>storms out in a huff.

They apologized to each other a few days ago, but the Monk player is still playing the Monk, refusing to play anything else or even recognize that he's sub-optimal in this party.

Excellent marketing from a dominant market position, defining what RPGs were for a generation and making a lot of people who play it very loathe to depart it, partially due to the significant amount of time and investment it takes to actually get good at the system.

It's funny how pretty much everything wrong with 5e is everything about it that makes it more like 3.5

Except the vocal minority, and wotc heard them

To be fair, being a dedicated stun gun is pretty powerful on its own. I just wish they could do fucking anything else. Although I did try the Kensei and it seemed to play alright in terms of DPS.

If you follow the rules it doesnt deal more damage. I bet you think you can punch and hold your kensai weapon at the same time, am I wrong? well, you can't

Way of the world user. People who get a product/service and enjoy it generally don't bother speaking up to praise the business. Why bother, they're doing everything right already.
But if someone receives poor service/quality, they speak up more often.
In any given sample of feedback on a product or service, the values are already skewed simply by the human nature to only speak when you feel you have been wronged.

They fixed it with a second revision so that its a monk weapon.

Yep, but now you can't use weapons that allow GWM, now longsword, woo, so powerful

Meh. The class is just generally under powered, but most certainly not to a point where you'll be dragging your party down at all unless you fall for the Way of the 4 Elements meme.

Why are you playing a monk in 5e?

You're better off just playing a two-weapon fighter, then fluffing it as a monk, since it's blatantly obvious that the devs hate monks and want to crush them into the ground

I mean, how much must you hate something to see it already be the weakest option in your entire game, and then, in your first errata, nerf it?

Oh please, Pathfinder only came about because people's reaction to 4e was "ABLOOBLOOBLOOOOO WERE ARE THE RULES FOR ROLEPLAYING I CUNT DO ANYTHING ABLOOBLOOOBLOOOOOOO" like the fucking casual scum they are.

Make an intelligence roll before responding to me, because you might not be smart enough to refute this point.

My fav is still sun soul

>combat is the fun part of roleplaying games

>He thinks fighter can have fun outside of combat

As someone who likes 4e and dislikes PF, I don't think that was the entirety of the appeal. As much as I like 4e it is a system which makes a few different fundamental assumptions that some people don't enjoy, creating a different game experience. I'm not quite sure how D&D was actually providing that game experience, but that's neither here nor there.

So Pathfinder catered to those people in addition to the screaming retards, giving them a system that was just as inappropriate for what they wanted, but inappropriate in a familiar way that they knew how to work with and tune to do what they liked, which lead to them mistakenly calling the system good when they were all playing their own custom version of it.

If you've got a combat system, it damn well should be fun. And if you're dedicating a significant chunk of your system to combat rules, then implicitly you're assuming that combat will be a large part of the game.

Also, as notes, it's no better out of combat.

They did, except Mearls who was probably still assravaged that the fanbase made him buff the fighters and make them fun.

It is sort of embarrassing that the class called "fighter" has the least amount of choices to make when actually fighting out of all the basic classes in 3.5 and PF

How many ways can you honestly swing a sword that's as in depth as spellcasting though?

Be a god walking the earth by level 5.

Except for Battlemaster, which is easily one of the strongest classes in the game. Fighters are only shitty when you play Champions, which are a meme and, to a lesser extent, EKs which are dedicated tanks and are meh.

Special attack modes and weapon damage types just to be more impactful in combat. Out of combat, just let them pick a social ability, and give them access to knowledge history and suddenly they have some value outside of combat as well.

As many as the designer can imagine. Which, if they're not a fucking hack, should be way, way more than D&D (outside of 4e) manages.

This isn't about strong, it's about boring. Battlemasters are still very limited in choice due to the retarded post-playtest nerfs to their resource pool.

Ohhh so many ways, as long as you build the game to handle it instead of, well, how 3.5 works

I said 3.5 and PF, not 5e, the 5e fighter is a different kettle of fish

>Giving them choices at all when the setting supports the practice of males following in their fathers footsteps and females wed off for dowry and any conscription into combat forces would be decided by their king/duke/lord

Oh yeah, you get to be fun for one turn and then have to take a short rest while defaulting to mashing the A button to swing.

this is broken on my end right?

Oh sorry, misread

Ask Song of Swords.

The key for me about 5e is that spells are no longer the sole deciding factor in power. A Rogue or Paladin is much more useful to have than a Ranger or Sorcerer, for example.

Maybe not to the same depth as spellcasting, which is almost limitless, but there's a fuckload more there than what little the D&D guys know.

You can swing or thrust, for the absolute basics. These would do different amounts and types of damage, which have their own qualities. Next is adding in hit locations. You can swing or thrust for different locations, each with their own reasons to be targeted. Third is differentiating between weapon types. It's harder to defend against a flail than a sword, and a hooked spear allows for grappling at a distance, that sort of thing. Then you can get down into gritty details for how a weapon is held, techniques, and stances.

Paladin is a much of caster as a Ranger, so explain me that point again

You can also get plenty of ground through accepting a reasonable level of abstraction, considering it as part of the flow of the fight rather than just the attack. Moving an opponent around or hindering their movement, imposing a temporary attack or defence penalty, forcing them to keep their focus on you or turning them away from an ally... Those are all things that could be built into the core combat system as default options people have access to, conceptually, and in some non-D&D systems functionally.

The fact that they have equal amounts of casting, but one is trash while the other is great?

It's not like the core of 3.of where you can neatly track a classes power level based upon their spell progression.

I get where you're coming from, but spell are still a huge deciding factor. The paladin is good because it is strong with the potential to cast spell and the best Roguish archetype is the one that gets spellcasting. In 5e spells aren't everything, but they are a lot.

The 5e bard is objectively superior to the rogue.

And the weakest monk archetype is the one with the most spellcasting, and the Ranger is bad because it's weak and the ability to cast spells doesnt make up for that.

Spells are no longer a garuntee of power, and that's what counts.

The power of arcane trickster compared to the other rogue archetypes is mostly due to the retarded idea that 5e runs on where you're expected to do 8 or 9 combats per day, more than twice as much as what happens in the vast, vast majority of games

Except when it comes to damage, unlesd you do one of those handful of broken effects I mentioned that, again, are easy to see coming a mile away

>playing games with character classes

Bards can gain a second attack if they go with the college of War (I think that's what it's called) path when they gain their third level.

I agree that the bard is superior, but the rogue still has some ups against it. The rogue uses less resources to deal damage and has better survivability without resources. Its burst damage is also generally better and can compete with the other martial if it abuses attack outside of its turn.

Class based design is not implicitly superior or inferior to non-class based design, it just has different traits, strengths and weaknesses.

Woah two attacks? Crazy.

Still trash damage compared to a Rogue, especially once you get to higher levels. 2 attacks without any of the sort of bonuses other martial classes get isnt that useful.

The only way to have a Bard that does damage well is to abuse the fact that you can take Swift Quiver. Which again, is very is to spot and account w

Bard can use GWM, rogue not really

>DM allows the casters to use a custom spell.

>DM isn't giving the monk custom abilities to make him more relevant to the group.

This is why caster wank needs to be culled.

A Bard needs to invest a lot into strength for that to be helpful, and it still doesn't put his damage on par with martials.

Rogues can utilize sharpshooter and crossbow expert, though. That and the get an extra ASI so they can use both and not sacrifice in terms of stats as much.

The worst thing about 3.5 is that it spread the mindset of "martials must be realistic, casters can break all the rules"

It's not the origin of that stupid double standard, but it can certainly be blamed for proliferating it.

The only outsiders WotC brought in were Grognards to begin with (RPGPundit and Zak S). It's pretty clear that whoever had the most political power at WotC at the time wanted 5e to be grog edition, some foolhardy editors tried to fight the power and lost.

Considering Mearls was lead developer, I have zero problems believing this is what happened.