Why is Veeky Forums outside of the D&D/Pathfinder generals (and sometimes not even then) so ridiculously ignorant of...

>Is it all just people who've never picked up an RPG book parroting each other?
Yes. Yes it is. Veeky Forums is mainstream now, and with that you get a ton of idiots and people here specifically to shitpost and talk memes without actually having played or even reading any manuals. With outside websites like 1d4chan wiki that can get quick cliff notes understanding of topics, so they can shitpost their hearts out.

Or people who really like the design philosophy of 4e and are super butthurt about how it's being passed over for the worst elements of 3e

Or maybe that's just me

You have several strains of cancer interacting to create even more unhinged bullshit:

1) Hipsters. "Why would you play anything involving actual rules? Roleplaying is about vague, narrativist bullshit and anything else is just pointless neckbeard number crunching."

2) Grognards. "Things were better back in *my* day." (these guys are pretty small though, since they hate everything made after 1990 and thus self-segregate to OSRg)

3) Jealous players of other systems who hate how popular D&D/PF is. "Why would you play anything else when GURPS can literally be anything you want? fucking casuals reeeeeeeeeeee"

None of these groups are inherently bad (GURPS general is one of my favorite generals to read), but the nature of Veeky Forums is to bring out the most bitter, autistic elements of their respective communities.

Also it doesn't help that D&D players of different editions hate each other with a passion.

I love 4e, but I also love 3.x and PF. 4e does really get none of the love it deserves because of the trolls and shitfuckers who wanted (you)s and to spread flame wars for their fragile little egos.

I love 3.5 and PF too

I just hate that what we've gotten from them is 5e. All of the weaknesses of 3.5, none of the strengths

Yep. Agreed. And what the devs have done to the lore is basically inexcusable. At least we got some decent art for kobolds that reflects their actual description.

>"Why would you play anything involving actual rules? Roleplaying is about vague, narrativist bullshit and anything else is just pointless neckbeard number crunching."
This reminds me of small children playing superheroes in a school yard, and constantly making-up new powers as convenient, until it all ends-up in a massive argument, cause they all want to "win"
That is what you get when there are not real rules.

Ahahaha. That fucking thread. I'm dying of laughter. Thanks, I needed that.

>I just hate that what we've gotten from them is 5e. All of the weaknesses of 3.5, none of the strengths
Ahaha. Absolutely excellent. I will probably use it in the future, it's just too good.

Beautiful post. Will probably reuse it in the future too.

Please continue, I need more.

Because MUH 4th edition is super superior and not at all dead guys!

Oh look the cancer has arrived.

I stopped playing D&D derivatives decades ago and switched to shadowrun.
Fuck you, I want dice pools.

No one's attacking Shadowrun here, user. We're just asking why Shadowrun players so frequently mischaracterize D&D/PF when arguing about which game of pretend is best.

Fuck you, gimme dice pools.

How is Magicrun doing nowadays? Devs still shamelessly fellating Mages, I assume?

Yes. Of course they are.
And the editing is terrible as always.

shadowrun dice pools are inferior to L5R dice pools

By which I mean 4th edition L5R, not FFG snowflake dice edition L5R

l5r is for samurai and samurai related roleplaying only, though.

Well yes, but it's very good at that

No no no. Please continue user. That was beautiful. Why are people disliking 3.5 and Pathfinder? What are they? Why are they wrong? How?

Please explain.

Also try to rate that:

Most 3.5 haters are normie pledditors who never actually played RPGs that came into the lobby because of Critical Role, and the rare who aren't are fat autistic fuck jealous of the success of 3.5. They don't understand the simple rules of D&D and in fact probably never opened a D&D book (it's too complex for their birdbrains).

look, samurai are nice, but they need to be carrying a hacker as a backpack while the cut robots apart.

the problem is the assumption that any time you hear someone talk about paladins or bards or elves or succubi or whatever the fuck, you subconsciously project an expectation that they're talking about d&d and therefore know about d&d

but you know, people who don't give a single fuck about d&d still like to talk about paladins and bards and succubi and elves and so on

The most vocal 3.5 haters I tend to meet are people who've been playing for a long time. Normies who've never played 3.5 find Pathfinder interesting for its more crunchy rules since crunch is what a lot of people who get into D&D are actually looking for.

caster edition
powerbuilds
powercreep
HP bloat
no balance
boring fighters
too many books
gateway rpg
only thing people play, never play anything else
fighters vs wizards
magic items as common as candy
etc

Yep, cancer. This, ladies and gentleman, is a prime example of the cancer infecting our community.

maybe I could run a sci-fi l5r game?

>TFW the only D&D I've ever played is 5e, and I see the players of older editions tearing into each other

...

Don't worry, you'll get your turn eventually when WotC releases 6E. Then you can join us in the pit.

I do not know if you post this out of ignorance in an attempt to attack 4e, or as a joke aimed at those who do that

I ran both the fuckers for years. I usually can't be arsed to look the specific info up, but knock gives you +10 to open locks on a caster level check, minimum +13 at 3rd level. That's the same as a rogue with max ranks in the skill, +4 dex bonus and skill focus: disable. Invisibility gives the wizard a +20 to stealth, no longer factoring in moving silently. Sure, the rogue could bump his numbers up better with a trait or some weird theorycraft class-mixing I don't give a fuck about cause that's a problem of its own.

It was a pain in the ass looking that crap up; I don't play the fucking game anymore, so it's not at the top of my head. It's been a problem in my games with wizards stealing the rogue's thunder, but instead of addressing the point, fans come back with, "Retard! If you just take two levels of this class for this class ability, that puts your rogue on track for this feat chain! Have you, the Lord of all Faggots, ever even played the game!?"

Meanwhile, there's plenty of other games that lets a rogue-type just be good at picking locks and other rogueish feats right out of the gate. And a wizard in that game needs to optimize to do things better than that rogue.

Spell slots are a limited resource if your GM doesn't just do 1 or 2 encounters a day.

Don’t forget invisibility is +20 when moving and +40 when still in 3.pf too, which causes the exact same problem of outclassing the rogue at traditional rogue things. All those skill check spells give ridiculous bonuses.

At least 5e did away with that stuff. Knock opens a door, but only a single lock and with an extremely loud sound. Invisibility is still just as easy to perceive because the noise involved. Pass without a trace wraps you in a shadowy illusion type thing so you still need cover. The spells are not just better than specializing in something.

Knock doesn't work against something tied shut. That massive invisibility bonus applies when you DO NOTHING. You cannot move and gain that bonus - that cuts it in half - and this is strictly just moving. If you do anything aside from move, no bonus for you. So what is a wizard who is invisible going to do? Cast knock? Stand there and be useless?

>they're skill checks that the rogue is literally better at.
By what, +3, the difference in Dex, and maybe the effect of trapfinding or a rogue talent if the rogue wanted to gimp themselves further? This isn't 3.5, cross-class skills are barely worse than a classed skill, there's nothing barring a Wizard from picking up Stealth or Disable Device or trapfinding and there is literally a spell to grant them the latter, and the Wizard gets something like 13 skill points per level by 20 with a modest starting INT of 16.

And this is how these conversations break down. Someone says “knock makes you roll a skill check that a rogue is better at” which obviously isn’t true and they get called on it, and then someone takes the response and says on of the many other tried and true goofy statements that get made.

3.pf is better by just admitting what you like isn’t the game so much as the character building. The game itself is surpassed by many others but when it comes down to it the fans will default (eventually) on “lack of choice” in other systems because they can’t see the forest for the trees.

You know, except for all those 6+INT 6th level casters with skill monkey features, the Wizard and Witch getting utility spells and a surplus of skill points thanks to their INT primary, and skill monkey eidolons.

>implying I play games
Veeky Forums is best board, so I come for laugh. That's also the reason I dislike generals.

>13 skill points per level
>base 2+int
>oh no level 20 builds
>doesn't mention wizard gimping himself by picking up all those unnecessary skills
>doesn't mention trade-offs, or how Knock is loud

You should be comparing with empiricist investigators and beastmorph/vivisectionist alchemists, not rogues.

Do you really think your contrarian shitposting reflects anything except a small minority of Veeky Forums?

Most people don't care about the system either way, but the rest respect that even though the game has flaws, it's a fun system that easily falls into the top 10 RPGs, and it's continued popularity isn't some accident or mental deficiency.

Just because you are obsessed with hating it and there are a handful of cunts like yourself who like to waste their time complaining about a game they don't even play just because it's popular doesn't mean you get a liscense to act like a little shit.

>base 2+int
So 5 to 9 skill points per level at level 1. 18 starting INT achieves parity with INT-is-a-trap-option Rogues at level 8, level 10 if it's a human Rogue instead.
>doesn't mention wizard gimping himself by picking up all those unnecessary skills
Oh no, the Wizard is gimping himself by taking three skills, two of which are something everyone takes, how will he ever survive?

Are you for fucking real right now?

>You should be comparing with empiricist investigators and beastmorph/vivisectionist alchemists, not rogues.

Those are spellcasters. I don't know if you were paying attention, but the entire point of this """argument""" (read: retard thinking he knows anything about 3.PF) was "but but but spellcasters can't into rogue!"

Go to /pfg/ and you'll see that basically nobody plays anything without subsystem access, like spells or psionics or initiation or akasha or whatever.

Unlike that guy, /pfg/ comprehends how the system works. They'd also tell people not to play Rogue because it sucks cock.

>They'd also tell people not to play Rogue because it sucks cock.

Unless you're doing Path of War and you want to try rogue (hidden blade), because your GM shut alchemist (polymath/vivisectionist) right the fuck down.

I play rogue because I game with a group of casuals and if I played anything else, I'd be completely overpowered and dominate the campaign.

I still dominate the campaign and everyone hates me for it ._.

Because after playing systems for a while, people tend to overlook or add a lot of things for their group's enjoyment and this happens more to D&D and PF simply because they're more popular. Everyone forgets that doesn't apply to online strangers.

Caster supremacy doesn't exist in certain groups not because they're weaker, but because the players and GM behind those characters just never tried or thought about breaking it. Many rules like carrying capacity, monks not being profecient with unarmed, stat and xp loss, xp cost for items and so on are reworded or ignored because it suits their group better. That's all fine, but what makes every argument on Veeky Forums happen is that people discuss games based on their own experiences instead of using RAW or RAI, because you barely can find people playing any RPG RAW or RAI unless it's bordering on freeform. So the people you're talking to are technically wrong, but they never had to fix it because it works fine with their group.

I love Shadowrun but the books are an atrocious fucking mess.

One is invigorating, one is rattling, and one targets reflex. So yes, those are three different diverse powers.

Right, I want to play a game where my player wants to play some kind of rogueish type character and I tell him, "Wrong answer. You want to play an alchemist."

Does the player want to be sneaky, clever, and deadly or is he in love with the name Rogue?

You say that like I don't blame Paizo for making shitty classes on purpose.

The bonus when not moving is 40. 20 is for when you're moving. That's still better than the rogue.

>For instance, a lot of PF complaints say that casters can be better at rogue than rogues, except they can't because PF spells that try and replace rogue aren't instant win, they're skill checks that the rogue is literally better at.

Are you retarded?

One of PF's great innovations is getting rid of most of the impact of cross class skills. Due to their int mod wizards work almost as well as rogues... plus they have spells.

I wouldn't say they're better rogues, I'd just say rogues are irrelevant.

Usually those "better designed" RPGs have unimaginably worse caster superiority than 3e, and not even a consolation prize for not being a caster. Look at Mage, Ars Magica, Runequest, etc.

How is the wizard gimping himself by picking up universally useful cross class skills like perception, stealth and use magic device? Add invisibility and blasts of glitterdust and they win the visibility war way easier than rogues.

Christ, you've really never played anything else have you?

Ah yes, the typical spineless "lel every other RPG does it better" guy who can't actually list any RPG who does it better.

>look at all these RPGs built around being a caster specifically
lmao

Tavern Tales, Microlite, Reign. Do you need more? You've never stepped out of your comfort zone at all.

Have you ever considered that for say WoD mages and guys from Ars Magica superiority of wizards is kind of the main point? Unlike in D&D and PF.

Hell, those games are called Ars Magica and Mage the Awakening. They are specifically about the guys that get elbow deep into the guts of the universe and rip their answers from there.

For example of a game where magic still could be powerful but wizards are less of a pain in the ass (due to being very much mortal) you could check WEG d6 games. Low powererd GURPS is too pretty ok. GURPS also manages to deal with magic in less number of pages than D&D/PF and could very well run it from the Basic Set as Powers.

>Tavern Tales
>Narrative, Story-Based Gameplay

You are a walking stereotype.

Its the main point, but in the case of WoD anyway, it being the focus of the RPG doesn't actually ameliorate how painful it is to run for a group of people who can do anything, and more importantly, as much as they want.

What I think of the most when people rail against D&D magic is something in the vein of either 1) truly subhuman narrative faggotry that is never worth consideration under any circumstances () or basically people who hate set spell effects & who hate the spells/day limit of D&D.

The genius of D&D's magic system is precisely that it doesn't do everything you want, and that there are limits on how much you can do it. I would say that older editions get it closer to being right, particularly in terms of how each spell level has a sort of "feel." If anything, the problem isn't magic being too strong, but rather magic being too easily used for things big and small alike. 5e is my least favorite edition but I still find the emphasis on Concentration to be a nice, flavorful compromise; you can have one major battle turning spell in effect at a time.

I've played and ran SWd6. Not too bad if you're okay with the bias. How overpowered jedi are largely depends on how much personal scale combat it is about (usually: almost all of it), and how much melee range is involved (usually: almost all of it). But to me, Star Wars is as much about starfighter pilots as it is about jedi; and although the protagonists of Star Wars are mostly starfighter piloting jedi, there is virtually no synergy between the two in SWd6, giving muggles dedicated to such a chance to shine. So for me, jedi come off as schticky enough that their unlimited power use of rather strong abilities doesn't cause troubles, because of how gimmicky they are. But in many people's experience they tend to dominate.

GURPS is basically the big time RPG I want to try to penetrate at some point, it got me at picks using "swing impale" as a mechanically differentiated damage type.

Or it could be that it has most of the game dedicated to it, is overpowered half the time, and has clear-cut, coded effects while the entire rest of the system exists in fuzzy abstraction land.

d6 also has a Fantasy and general Space supplements (they are also free) that has much less emphasis on superpowers. They also have a proper power crafting rules so you can make your own spells/psychic powers/strikes.

I also tried a variant with no rolls for success of the "spells" themselves (unless a player specifically desires to do so) and it worked pretty good. Though I also allowed warriors to make special moves like cutting people in half a circle around them or making a pincushion out of enemy by more or less the same rules.

>I would say that older editions get it closer to being right, particularly in terms of how each spell level has a sort of "feel." If anything, the problem isn't magic being too strong, but rather magic being too easily used for things big and small alike.

Yeah that's one of the main problems. Before 3rd edition spells had different quirks and sometimes even side effects. Plus longer casting times and ability to actually interrupt spells with sword to the face.

Exactly. Like in 1e, aside from low levels, if you really pay attention to the initiative system (per ADDICT), initiative rolls matter the most as far as the clash of sword versus sorcery whereas 84ish% of the time I find initiative rolls and speed factors not mattering at all.

This is why you have multiple spellcasters in a party, if not an all-spellcaster party

The accepted the "Play anythingbut D&D" meme into their hearts and repeat it and others having never played D&D like good little boys.

What did you expect? It's the same for any topic that gets memed on.

I dunno, a lot of the disgust I see for D&D is mostly coming from people who used to play it, but do not any more.
The absolute shitshow that was the entire magic system really left scars.

No, those are people preteding to have played it, but are just regurgitating the same lame, tired memes they've gathered in their daily shitposting threads. That's what those threads are for, so that they can self-infect each other with misinformation and exaggeration, and to look up rules for a game they've no interest in playing just so they can be upset about it.

Not really.
I for one, feel pretty strongly that "have you tried not playing D&D" is a solution to many, many of the problems asked of Veeky Forums, and I used to play D&D exclusively.

I hate that big d20, and how much more important it is than anything else.

I'm sure there's at least a small subset of people who have actually played D&D but remain salty about it. The 3e/4e edition wars seeded a lot of butthurt, and a shadow of it came back for 4e/5e. Lot of people who have experienced but wish to demonize their less-favored system.

They're outnumbered by the memers and the autists who base everything on theorycrafting that actual players (including most of the ones who come up it) KNOW would never really fly at a table. Because someone thinks it's fun to find an interaction that requires an answer to the question "Is damage discrete or continuous?" and someone else takes it as a real flaw with a system that they should try to address.

>I for one am a memespamming idiot contrarian who wastes his time getting upset about a game I don't even play

That's nice. I like how you think that telling people "STOP PLAYING D&D" sounds like a an earnest, kindhearted solution to a problem, rather than a tantrum-level shitpost that is about as good advice as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Most "problems" people have with D&D can be easily solved within D&D, and all you end up doing is misinforming people about the flexible and dynamic nature of roleplaying systems. There's a reason multiple options and variant rules exist, and you really need to stop fronting and just go ahead and admit the real reason you shitpost so much.

>I hate that big d20, and how much more important it is than anything else.

See, like that.

God, how pathetic does someone have to be to be so upset about how other people have preferences different from yours, and to waste so much time and energy misleading people in an attempt to steer them away from something you think is too popular? It's almost criminal how you've allowed yourself to turn yourself into such a agenda-oriented individual.

user, you outright ignored what I wrote to spam memes, just like the people you are bitching about.
And you took as much offense as possible to that statement in an entirely alternate meaning to the real one, which is "I hate a randomizer that is way bigger than your stats". It has nothing to do with popularity, it's a big d20. It's much more important than, say, strength.

I can only assume from this that you are fighting some kind of meme war, and are dead to actual conversation.

Why do people assume the most aggrivating possible reading of a thing, then get all upset about it, when there is another more reasonable and likely reading of a thing?
Is it just so they can bitch online?

Do you know how it handles magic? If not you should look in a mirror. Out of 3 games one has a narrative resolution system. Cry me a river. The whole point was telling someone to step out of their comfort zone.

Sorry, it's just that the ideas didn't flow from one paragraph to the next.

>I recommend people to stop playing D&D

>I hate the d20

The d20 is just the die used, and is only a small part of a much larger equation. The ability scores are kept small because there are many other factors that come into play. In fact, with 5e there is a commonly seen curve thanks to the A/D system, making even the capped ability scores have dramatic importance while still keeping the game exciting rather than being stuck behind an RNG that provides excessively consistent results.

To complain about the d20 is largely nonsensical, and comes from bad memeing from people attempting to "objectively" prove the superiority of using alternate dice (such as 3d6), when ultimately the single-most important feature of an RNG in a roleplaying game ends up just being ease of use, with the produced values easily tweaked and adjusted by the surrounding mechanics.

Hell, you don't even hate the d20 so much as you'd simply prefer ability scores to be larger.

But I -hate- it user. I hate the randomizer being more important than base stats.

I much rather working with many dice. Sometimes dozens.

And in the games I -really- like, your stat and skills combine to give you the AMOUNT of dice you have.

Wow you're a mongoloid. Out of three games I mention one with a narrative task resolution system and you shit yourself this hard? You realize Microlite is OSR, right next to it? The point was to give 3 varied answers, all which do magic in better ways while still being mostly generic fantasy games.

There's a big group of retards on here that think anything rules light is automatically the worst and anything involving them in any way is tainted.
This is expected from them.

How about not? As someone who played 3.5 for years, and bought into the hype for PF, then played that for a while, I now hate both systems. I have the experience with both and understand them both, and I hate them.

Your entire argument is "IF YOU HATE MY FAVORITE GAME YOU JUST DIDN'T PLAY IT, B-BAKA", which is retarded. I'm sure you hate my favorite games and have legitimate reasons for that hate. I'd never play 3.pf again if I could possibly help it, because its specific flaws are things I just can't justify putting up with. If you can, bravo, that's your thing. It's just not mine.

But your example picture is closer to Exalted, not L5R.

Look, I have a hard time finding far east sci fi bullshit.

No one's talking about people who play 3.x/PF and hate it. We're talking about autists who don't play 3.x/PF and talk shit about it for being badwrongfun without really understanding it.

Don't be so sensitive.

>when ultimately the single-most important feature of an RNG in a roleplaying game ends up just being ease of use
The fuck it is.

>We're talking about 'autists' who I pretend never played 3.X/PF despite a near decade of it being everywhere because it would be inconvenient to my argument to admit otherwise
Fixed.

>They've played DnD
>NUH UH, MEMES HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO TRUTH BEHIND THEM! They're wrong just because the arguments are popular!!!

They're popular arguments because they're true.

To be fair, I've always been interested in E6 and the massive homebrews /pfg/ makes that make PF more balanced, but I'm not really sure I'd want to try them over the systems I really like. Maybe I should pay a visit to /pfg/ sometime.