If Pathfinder is an army, then what manner of an army is it?

I'm curious now. What part of Pathfinder is the 1% that beats other gane rules?

So when PF2 ends up being 5e, will pathfinder fans pretend like they always thought 5e was a good?

Depends, does a bear shit in the woods?

Special forces.

Path of War/Ultimate Psionics. Everything can be safely removed from the game.

No I've been training them to shit in the desert.

Either they'll say that PF1 was always busted like people started saying after 5e was released or they'll double down and shit on PF2 with the same veracity that they had when 4e, 5e, and Starfinder was released.

I foresee the latter more than the former because Paizo's entire marketing strategy was "hey, we're 3.5 but better, we won't abandon you like WotC did" and I can see a lot of people becoming super grogs in response to Paizo basically saying "hey, 5e had some good ideas, you should try our version of it."

So, the rules that were not actually made by the people who made the game. Gotcha.

Did you take the Bear Training feat? You'll have to roll with a negative modifier unless you have the Bear Training feat. You'll also need the Desert Expert feat if you want to train the bear to only shit in the desert.

I am a Yemenite Bear tamer.

So dunt worry, it's all under control.

Is picture a troll?

>So, the rules that were not actually made by the people who made the game.
Exactly, that's what makes them so good.

Nah. It’s a grognard that posted a few times in the comments beneath the P2 announcements. He’s the epitome of PF stereotypes.

He's the hero we need.

>play before level 7 or 8 isn't much fun
Don't Pathfinder players usually have house rules to limit player level to 15 at most?

No. That's just wishful thinking on the part of idiot players and GMs who don't have the imagination or skills to play at higher levels. I've run successful games past level 20 in Pf with minimal houseruling (scaling bonuses for most fighter feats is about it, words of power for spells after 9th level, using the rules in the core book for post 20th progression, etc).

Paizo adventure paths usually don't go past 15th level, but exceptions exist.

>the only winning move is not to play
yeah that's gurps alright

>GURPS is nukes. Rarely used, feared above all, but devastating when brought to play.
Yeah, GURPS is more like longbowmen. They are famously good and effective, but nobody fields them in this day and age.

A roving band of Gauls. They look fearsome, but lose out to more structured armies/systems.

Weaponized autism

But people have been saying that since not long after Pathfinder started existing.

They have to ignore that because it makes them feel bad that they can't brainwash people into not playing a game they don't like.

The more popular houserule I see floating around is Epic 6, which is where you play a game from Level 1 to Level 6 and it's because it's at a point where the martials are still capable of contributing without engaging in assloads of optimization while the casters are limited to lower leveled spells that don't immediately cause the game to implode on itself from their presence alone.

Anything past that is just asking for trouble honestly, especially if you're in a group with classes from mixed tiers.

>But people have been saying that since not long after Pathfinder started existing.
Saying what?

It can by level 14 if it takes the requisite 5 feat chain.

>Pathfinder's problems are at low-level play because casters don't have enough power then
>the best stories aren't written by just one person
Holy shit, it's the perfect eternal avatar of Wrong made flesh.

If anything I've seen more people threatening to never buy Paizo again if it's like 5e. In response, Paizo keeps saying that it won't be like 5e. Considering that Paizo has confirmed crunch will be a big part of PF2e, Paizo fans should be happy.

...

>if we only use a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the playerbase as examples of how stupid and self hating PF players are, the other thousands won't matter!

Pathfinder: A bloated orcish militia originally founded by disgruntled supporters of an older regime. Constantly tripping up over itself and descending into chaos, but war is a state of chaos anyway so their numbers bear them to victory. Sustained entirely by hate.

AD&D: The veteran crew of a near mothballed battleship. There's few of them left and they don't have the best tools, but they make up for it with versatility and making the best out of the fundamentals.

4e: Hyper tacticool crack commandos. Highly organized, well equipped and deceptively numerous. However, while their tactics are finely tuned, they can also be very predictable.

5e: Clone army designed for maximum efficiency. Highly effective fighting force without the shackles of individuality or morality. Good at lighting assaults but bad at operations requiring abstract thought.

GURPS: All terrain, all environment, this regiment can be deployed anywhere, at any time. They always have the right tools and training for the job... even if some of them are badly outdated.

WoD: Edgy terror tactics guerrillas.

Most of what they're using so far was already created in the PF Unchained book, which is distinctly not like 5e.

>pretending that pathfags aren't the grimy crust on gaming's boots

That would be WH40Kids, user.

More like
>GURPS: a regiment of orcish militia who have come to believe they're crack troops outfitted for all terrain, all environment operations, but who were actually left behind in the jungle during a revolt decades ago. All of their gear is clunky Soviet castoffs or overcomplicated WWII-era Italian gear prone to part breakage, but they believe this makes their equipment "versatile"

Has anyone told you guys that you all take this way more seriously than you should?

Often. They're literally obsessed with it.

Battletech A Time of War: May not even exist, only hinted at in leaked cables, zero confirmed operations, but rumors abound.

>They are famously good and effective

I think you mean that fans tend to exaggerate their importance and efficacy.

>OSR is emus.
I believe we can live quite comfortably with being that.

>I'm loyal to PF because 3.5e was shit
That's like the single worst reason to play PF.

>40K
>having any kind of relevance outside of wargaming

>OSR is emus.
Surprisingly accurate, 5e and GURPS are wrong though

That's not what he means, he means he was a devoted player of 3.5 who got assmad when Wizards decided to release a fourth edition. Which is consistent, but if you think about it, an even worse kind of retardation.

Sounds about right.

Where does this idea of 5e come from?

The game?

It's highly streamlined and easy to play, even for complete newcomers, but it lacks interesting mechanics or options for character customization.

Ah, that makes sense

From being designed by committees and polls to be as bland and inoffensive as humanly possible, all individuality and original thought carefully smoothened out lest someone might not like it, a mechanically logical mix of nostalgia and new rules, so that everyone can play it and rack in all the money.

It's the AAA of tabletop roleplaying games. Shit everyone plays because they're familiar with it and because it at least mechanically works, even if it's about as exciting as a piece of wet toilet paper.

>paizofag
>buttmad about editions
>sunk cost fallacy
>angry dwarf avatar

Could this guy be any more of a stereotype. I wouldn't be surprised if he's one of the guys on here that just can't help themselves from shitting up D&D threads for any edition but 3.5.

>tfw love magic initiate and ritual caster and pretty much always want to use them
I never feel like I don't have enough options for characters, but I'm so used to being foreverDM that I guess my perspective on actually making a character and playing it is a bit skewed.

It's the Japanese army

>playing is akin to suicide
>horrific experiments in character builds and rules
>some guys are stuck in a war that's ended ages ago

Early WWII Soviets.
>throwing as much stuff as you can at the problem hoping it will do
>solid, but outdated base
>some good, heavy-hitting bits that are being outmaneuvered by more advanced opponents

Then I guess 3.5fags are the Nazis.
>ruled half the world once but are now fallen on rough times
>newer and better armies crashing down on them at all sides
>no matter how fucking stupid it is to stay, they just can't back away from Stalingrad

Hah! The guy in OPs pic was responding to my post.

What did you say?

You mean 4e.

Hang on, let me find the post and screencap it

Boom

What is sunk cost fallacy?

Except unlike Nazi's, they're not only still alive, they're the most numerous army. They're mongols, hacking and slashing their way through all territories as they please, leaving their stigma and seed everywhere, defeatable but never stoppable.

Because face it, no matter how many 3.PF hate threads you make, 3.PF is still the most played and most sold system ever. Sorry that the truth hurts.

"This game can't be bad, I've invested a lot of money into it"
>Or
"I've sunk a lot of money into this so I better continue to get more from this product line"

No, I meant 3.5, I didn't stutter.

The idea that after a certain point, you basically have to continue supporting something because the alternative is admitting that you wasted your money on an inferior product.

You see the same logic flying around for LoL and MtG players who sink thousands of dollars into their hobby.

Or "I can't stop playing this game even though they stopped putting out anything for it because I spent money on what I have of it!"

Though your attempt to exclude the true sunk cost fallacy game from your definitions was cute.

Stats for Roll20, FantasyGrounds, sells on DMs Guild/ DriveThru RPG, amount of 3.PF and 5e threads on enworld, stackexchange, reddits and here on Veeky Forums seem to paint a completely different picture to what you say, dear mongol.

>Because face it, no matter how many 3.PF hate threads you make, 3.PF is still the most played and most sold system ever
Actually, that'd be 5e.

Yeah, this. 4e actually outsold 3(.5) and 5e has apparently blown both of them out of the water.

3.PF players are basically what they accuse 4e players of being, sad lonely losers who play an outdated system because they can't accept that a better alternative is available due to undiagnosed autism, undeserved pride, and an aversion to change.

Of course, the irony is lost upon these sad souls, who will default to calling everyone a 4rry even though they haven't existed for years.

I still play 4e though...

>taking the bait

4e actually makes for a pretty decent tactical battle game, if nothing else. 3.PF by contrast has no value.

The point was more on how they blame 4e players for their problems while also saying that 4e players don't exist.

I genuinely don't know how this started. Just suddenly a few weeks ago, one butthurt fanboy started blaming 4e for all criticisms being hefted at 3.PF.

youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/

The Italian Army of WW1 and WW2.

Handful of decent specialist battalions and commando-ish elements, masses upon masses of dreadfully bad everything else, relying on outdated and breaking-down tech mustered by incompetent and self-obsessed generals.

Unless it was a troll who can get lots and lots of (you), much like people who start PF hate threads.

Novel idea, isn't it.

Except 4e players don't exist (barring one dude ITT) so there'd be nobody to piss off by bringing up 4e.

At best, you might piss off a small handful of people who are pissed off at the misconceptions surrounding 4e but that's even assuming the people involved are even aware that they're misconceptions in the first place.

It's like shitting on oWoD for being an imbalanced clusterfuck, I mean you can, it might be true, but nobody on Veeky Forums is going to really give a shit since most people have never played oWoD on here to be affected by it.

If anything PF is the cold and robotic while 5e are the emotional mooks.

Being that one 4e fan ITT, I fully recognize the problems of 4e. You can actually find the lists of issues online even. That said, it's still a lot of fun and I personally wish more people gave it a fair shake instead of falling for the echo chamber screeching against it.

It's the opposite. 5e are emotionless but effective, while PF is angry mooks that don't get anything done.

Funny, most PF players say the same thing and get called brain damaged idiots. I guess that makes you a brain damaged idiot too.

You can give something a fair shake while still coming to the conclusion that it has nothing of value in it. PF is like that, but 4e has a few worthwhile things (if still not too many).

I'm not saying the system is perfect or that it's the only one everyone should play. Hell, I'm not even saying people should pick it up today.

I've been asked by a few people which system new people should be introduced with and I say the same thing everytime - Basic Fantasy RPG. Gets people in the mindset of how to play RPGs, it's free and the rules are slim compared to some of the monstrous books you see on the market nowadays. Once people get a grasp of it I usually direct them to the style of games they may like - Traveller or Jovian Chronicles for sci-fi, 7th Age or WHFRP for fantasy, etc etc. I am always willing to teach them D&D if they want to play that though.

So you're saying that we should never judge anything ourselves and just stick to the screeching opinion of the majority, and that everyone thinking for themselves is a brain-damaged idiot?

God I'm so triggered by this post even though PF is the system I played the most.

Not even 50 posts and Pathfags are already blaming the 4rries.
Keep up the good work, Pathfags. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

I must correct myself, we're closer to 100 posts. Still funny though.

The American military
>bloated
>overpriced
>tons of useless additions
>tons of obsolete additions
>requires massive investment of time, effort, and cash to get started
>certain characters outclass others, unbalanced
>constantly trying to sucker new people
>people in it think it's the best, people outside know it's the worst
>routinely beaten by foreign farmers

$20 says it’ll have a furry race in the core book

I don't think there will be, but Goblins are in it so just as bad.

>Funny, most PF players say the same thing and get called brain damaged idiots.
Because the way they say it makes them sound like SJW's with an axe to grind; just replace 3.PF with [insert minority here] and 4e with white people.

It also doesn't help that you're always confrontational whenever someone brings up grievances with 3.PF, and that you screech so loudly that your very presence derails threads more often than not.