I just saw the expanded material for pathfinder. What the fuck did I just read?

The expanded material for pathfinder.

>And why is this particular mechanical structure legitimate and not others?
None of the rules fight against running the game. Why is your mechanical structure legitimate and not others?

Attached: brevity is the soul of wit.jpg (409x314, 35K)

>brevity is the soul of wit

No. Wit is the soul of wit.

>None of the rules fight against running the game.

That applies to any game with non-contradictory rules if the GM actually knows the rules of the game, even with intensely rules-heavy games. With a competent group, they can enhance the game substantially if you're willing to put in the effort.

>Why is your mechanical structure legitimate and not others?

What the fuck makes you think I was saying any game was illegitimate? Lighter games have their place, I don't always feel like prep work, in fact I rarely do and prefer many much lighter games. But I know from personal experience that someone who cut their teeth on Pathfinder (assuming they didn't quit out of exhaustion with the rules) probably wont find the vast majority of OSR titles, with their sparse mechanical options in general to be very satisfying.

Different people desire different things from gaming.

>That applies to any game with non-contradictory rules if the GM actually knows the rules of the game,
Mechanics don't have to disagree to oppose each other. Not everything coherent is well designed.
Ivory tower game design, feats that specially allow actions that ought to be widely available, and the odd juxtaposition of reliance on balance and lack of balance immediately spring to mind.

Attached: t3_m13qz.jpg (720x565, 180K)

As evidenced by the fact that plenty of people successfully run 3.PF games (keeping in mind I don't play 3.PF and haven't for nearly a decade now) we can assume that those don't actually get in the way of running games. They can represent mechanical issues, and many people have taken to fixing them with various degrees of success or jumped ship to other games, but they are not actually impediments to successfully running a game (even an enjoyable game) with the system.

But I'm also not specifically referring to 3.PF. There are plenty of rules heavy games that are pretty remarkable for it.

Stop playing D&D.

>Not everything coherent is well designed.
see: D&D 4e.

Fairly coherent design(take WoW and turn it into a tabletop game, a job it accomplishes well), completely dogshit game.

> 8 pages for the basic information needed to run the game
> "brevity"
That guy clearly couldn't recognise brevity if it slapped him in the face. Over the Edge's rules can be summarised in less than a single, normal page and that game's from 1992 ...

>there is no such things as qualitative distinctions

meme harder, mr. b8

that's most of ad&d
reprinted in 1986
for copyright infringement reasons

>there is no such things as qualitative distinctions

Not what I claimed. You'll note that I suggested that people sometimes try to fix these issues or jump ship to other games. But these particular things are not truly impediments (as in, they are not inherently so, only situationally so depending on individual tastes) to running a game, and the evidence for this can be found in the countless successful games run with this game.

ascending AC

Attached: vomit.jpg (680x680, 82K)

I notice you did not post this in their ghetto of a general.

Wonder why that was.

They'd probably tell him to play a better system as well. They aren't delusional enough to think that everyone has to love their shitty game.

Attached: 1502707085594.jpg (657x548, 107K)

Aight this might not be the best place to ask but I've never played pathfinder. What's so bad about it

See the first tab on the side menu? That little tab is the core rulebook. Now see all the other tabs? Yes, that's right, there is material exceeding thirty times the size of the original core rulebook.paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

Some people like characters that can actually do things mechanically, maybe even interesting things, and not be expected to die unmourned in the dungeon gutter. I even like OSR shit but it's not ideal for every or even most campaigns

There's nothing wrong with Pathfinder that isn't also wrong with 3.5, so if you like 3.5 then you'll like Pathfinder, and most likely vice-versa.

Pathfinder is kind of like GURPS in that it's provided players and DMs with a million options outside of its core rulebook. The problem that some people have is that they're retarded and assume that if it's printed anywhere, it MUST be allowed in ALL games. That is, they don't understand the concept of the DM not allowing certain races, classes, feats, spells, and so on.

Pathfinder also fixes the problem of "dead levels" pretty definitely; i.e., remember how about half of a 3.5 fighter's table was empty? Not anymore. Every class gets something new at every level, and every class gets a "capstone" at level 20.

Past that it's just the same problems as 3.5: linear warriors, quadratic wizards, a million bonuses, etc. Nominally it made some things harder, like some feat chains in 3.5 got expanded, but given that Pathfinder characters get more feats (one at every odd-numbered level, for a total of 10; not one at 1st and then another at every level divisible by 3, for a total of 7) anyway that's not a real problem.

Then why not play 4e?

It's got all of the flaws of the system it's a continuation of, 3.5 (casters vastly outstripping martials by early levels, a janky skill system that's easy to game, lots of 'trap' options that really suck but look appealing to new players, encouraging a really toxic gamey playstyle, etc), then kept piling on things to the already bloated mechanics that just exacerbated the problems. It also has a really shitty fanbase who insist that it's perfect and shriek and bitch and moan at the idea of playing something else.

>Pathfinder is kind of like GURPS in that it's provided players and DMs with a million options outside of its core rulebook. The problem that some people have is that they're retarded and assume that if it's printed anywhere, it MUST be allowed in ALL games. That is, they don't understand the concept of the DM not allowing certain races, classes, feats, spells, and so on.
This is pretty much the problem I have. I make a certain setting and people don't get that they can't play a flying half-orc fighter mage with a laser sword and a gravity gun.

>wanting to be a cuck who never has improving defenses

I think you’re late to your bull prepping session Mr. Soylent

Not really my style, but I don't hate it the way some people do. I''ve run several battle royale sessions of Strike! between 'real' campaigns and my players liked it, we just didn't really feel like it'd work for the more grounded things we normally play

>It also has a really shitty fanbase who insist that it's perfect and shriek and bitch and moan at the idea of playing something else.

Attached: Jesus_Christ_How_Horrifying__.jpg (225x220, 56K)

The problem with the GURPS comparison is that GURPS stuff is basically all first party and kind of meant to be balanced against itself( as opposed to PF's billion third party splats that are outrageous and unbalanced, and half the time even the official stuff doesn't take into account what is already printed) , and also that most GURPS players recognize that the GM has final say in what is and isn't allowed (meanwhile most PF players I've encountered get incredibly pissy if you turn down their cheesy netbuild assembled from twenty different sources)

t. Guy who has ran too much Pathfinder

You haven't known true horror until your group/some idiots online try to whine and browbeat you into using PF for something it's completely inappropriate for. My old group would get really excited for some new piece of media or something and want me to run a campaign or a session based off of it, but when I'd start trying to pitch systems that would be perfect for it their eyes would glaze over and they'd just start moaning those dreaded words "Can't you just hack Pathfinder? I think it would work".

Predator style jungle horror action? "just use pathfinder".
Space opera politics? "Just use Pathfinder"
Fucking Exalted? "Just adapt it for Pathfinder man it can't be that hard. "

I play a spanish retro clone of 5e. One of the players is an obnoxious cunt that started playing wizard that kill himself in game because he didn't like the class abilities so he created a rogue like ninja that ended up doing piss damage. I was playing the shield guy that protects but also attacks.

Durint the last session we got jumped by a bunch of thieves on our way to our hq intown. I tried my best to get everyone alive but there were too many and I didn't notice that that guy got left.

He got really pissed off at me because I should play my character as my class and protect everyone, I told him I was sorry (and I was) and explained what I was trying to do and rolled being guilty for leaving behind that guy and swore an oath to never abandon someone while multiclassing to the paladin class of the game.

After all that he talked about how much better pathfinder was and how shitty 5e and every retroclone are. He said that all of those were too vague with its rules. Our table entered hiatus immediatly after and our dm keeps promising us he'll retake it but that day never comes.

>Just adapt it for Pathfinder man it can't be that hard.
Now that is going full retard

Okay, and just what is this "expanded material" you're salty over?

Attached: Curse Them.jpg (611x392, 138K)

They were really excited for it until they realized I wanted to use the system and not just the setting.

>"wahhhh I want to play my overpowered synthesist summoner build"
God, fuck off.

so.. where can I get a peek at this pathfinder 2e?

Nigger I've successfully run 3.PF games for most of my life. 90% of my gaming experience is D&D 3.5 and/or Pathfinder. No, faggot, the rules do get in the way, all the time. I have yet to run a PF game RAW where people aren't stopping every few turns to look up some asinine rule. And the worst part? I fucking know the rules. That was why I hated switching to Pathfinder. All the minutiae was different, and with the nostalgia of 3.5 stripped away I really began to hate the system and everything about it. Now I am finally dropping it in favor of OSR where there is no more of this faggotry of someone rolling a 32 Acrobatics check and demanding they do something hilariously impossible. OSR games are grounded and make for a more engaging narrative as a result. Every single retard in this thread talking shit about OSR clearly knows nothing about it besides memes. Kinda like GURPS: my D&D group refused to play GURPS because it is "overcomplicated" and "broken".... right before we sat down to play Pathfinder. I never got over that irony.

Not that OSR is good for everything. But god-fucking-damn is it a good antitode to the mental cancer that is the Pathfinder mindset.

>There's nothing wrong with Pathfinder that isn't also wrong with 3.5
Wrong.
>so if you like 3.5 then you'll like Pathfinder
Wrong.
>Pathfinder also fixes the problem of "dead levels" pretty definitely
Except it wasn't a problem. You get a feat every odd numbered level in Pathfinder. That's plenty. You don't need that PLUS class features PLUS ability score improvements PLUS a ton of other shit. The game is bloated out the fucking ass. And sorcerer bloodlines / wizard class features were just extra bloat that made making one of them even more complicated.

Pathfinder improved Toughness, it improved Cleave, it debatably improved Power Attack (even though it nerfed it into the ground). The rest of the game is shit. CMB is hardly any good and it just makes for "big creatures win" which was the case anyway so why fucking change anything?

>retro clone of 5e
I don’t think you understand what “retroclone” means.

you're projecting user. Also synthesist is weaker than a core-only druid.

You can actually do things in OSR and if the dozens of high level players from Greyhawk didn't tip you off, you don't die if you know what you're doing.

How's that argument any more tired than yours?

Please stop projecting. Wanting an actual strategic and tactical element to the game is not the same as wanting to play some bizarre agglomeration of mechanics.

Once again, plenty of people successfully run games of it. It got in the way for you, that doesn't mean the mechanics inherently get in the way. Also I defy you to point out a single person "shitting" on OSR (for that matter, I don't think anyone here is actually shitting on OSR, just expressing distaste for it) in this thread with a criticism that's actually dishonest.

Your being tired with a system does not an objective criticism make.

Because his argument is just a tired projection of his own biases onto the motives of other peoples in pursuing increased mechanical structure. As I pointed out later, the drive behind an increased mechanical structure isn't to constrain a bad GM (this would be entirely counter-productive as a rules heavy game actually makes a bad GM more noticeable, as their lack of effort and unwillingness to actually abide the game they're running causes more issues against the game's mechanical components) but to enhance other aspects of the game be it tactical and strategic components (D&D 3e and 4e would be iconic here, as would Savage Worlds) or simulation (GURPS, Mythras, Phoenix Command, too many to really name).

>the drive behind an increased mechanical structure isn't to constrain a bad GM
DM horror stories are 100% what those rules were written in response to

PROOFS
R
O
O
F
S

Because as far as I've seen, they were included as a continuation of the direction second edition had already taken at the end of its run, towards increased tactical options (Combat and Tactics) and Player options (Skills and Powers).

Have you tried playing a better sistem?

>Except wizards who for some reason get to do defined mechanically interesting things in OSR because reasons.

Does 2e count?

Hey man. It doesn't matter that a wizard gets nine times nine cool things to do because the fighter gets a whole SECOND ATTACK! I mean, those are totally equal, amirite?

DnD? Thaco and all that where pretty bad, still miles better than 3rd, 3.5 or pathfinder.

I'm sorry to hear you lack the capacity for abstract thought, or the ability to grasp how designing a character with more complexity than race class and level is a creative act like painting or writing prose.

No, but concrete rules will sometimes make a GM's job easier, as they don't have to constantly be making calls

>increased tactical options (Combat and Tactics) and Player options (Skills and Powers).
The Player's Option™ line (C&T, S&M, and S&P) were a grab at the GURPS audience. They were also a right mess
You're also addressing different changes than

The spell list is kind of lackluster and mostly involves running away.

You're also making some pretty broad generalizations that don't hold across editions.
boards.fireden.net/tg/thread/58237626/#58254971

No I'm not. 3e was literally just a continuation of those two books, and he has no actual proof of his position.

My generalization is based on the standard archetype of OSR games, which is B/X clones.

Also I'm not opening that archive link, just make your point yourself.

>3e was literally just a continuation of those two books,
EVERYTHING is point-buy in 3e?

Hardly, but you can't blame them for abandoning a structure that didn't work with a class and level based system. The idea of modular character customization none the less remained standard in 3e. You're harping on meaningless idioms and not focusing on the roots of the ideas themselves.

Been a pathfinder player for years, I'll say the nice thing is the variety of subclasses and such, it makes building characters kind of fun, slotting in and out archetypes, and there's a lot of potential for minmaxing, sadly. But finding archetypes that fit a character concept and building a character into them is pretty fun.

I do agree with the sentiment mentioned above, sometimes people freak out if they don't get to play their sprawling gunmage from across 20 paperbacks, but that's why you hold character building sessions

It might help if you actually explained what the hell youn were talking about OP

We keep asking but OP is just a fag making bait threads about nothing.

You're harping on meaningless idioms and not focusing on the roots of the ideas themselves.

Core Rulebook
Advanced Class Guide
Advanced Player's Guide
Advanced Race Guide
Bestiaries
Game Mastery Guide
Monster Codex
Mythic Adventures
NPC Codex
Pathfinder Unchained
Occult Adventures
Ultimate Campaign
Ultimate Combat
Ultimate Equipment
Ultimate Magic
Technology Guide

>Core Rulebook
>Expanded material

Yes, obviously not that one. I just wanted to show how the expanded material is roughly 13x the size of the core rulebook.

>replying to things you didn't read
Oh. You don't care about persuasion. You're just trying to drag out conversation.

Attached: 5f4.jpg (700x460, 73K)

Yes, every edition has had stuff added as it goes along. Some okay, some bad, a rare gem or two per book. Why does this upset you OP?

Because dumbfuck players get mad when I don't let them play a half-kitsune gunslinger/monk with a lightsaber and wings.

...

All fine and dandy but the thief skills are shit.
Use the a fixed table with better percentiles you dummy.

lol okay

They are just 2 different genres. You can enjoy both, I do.
Relax you turbo autist.

Can't argue with that.

Some people are into the whole "builds" aspect of 3.5 and Pathfinder. It scratches a similar itch to building Magic decks. I'm not that into it myself, but I'd be lying if I said I haven't had fun building characters for Pathfinder and 3.5 before. It's just all that minutiae tends to bog shit down at the actual table, even worse than in Magic. At least in Magic if the player is doing some wacky bullshit with his build, he's likely to have an in-depth understanding for how the rules of that build even work, rather than just leaving the DM to deal with it.

If people want to play something similar to Pathfinder, depending on what part of it they like, I suggest they try 4e, E6, Fantasy Craft, or Legend.

You can build and have fun and don't bog down.
In an old epic campaign I had, one of my players was a gatsu-like Barbarian/Frienzed Berser/Berserk stacking all these possible effects plus a couple of feats. Simple and, if buffed and controlled, effective. Fun.
He just hwrote down the combination for any of these once (when obtained or improved leveling up) and that's about it. The rest was his motivation and how he played a madman on the RPG level. No time wasted.
The guy played a barbarian but did not feel compelled to be a retard, go figure.

I'm running a 3.5 game right now, you're preaching to the choir.
The assumption you're making there is that the players are really interested in figuring out those modifiers.
Some people like watching those numbers go up. It's cathartic, similar to how watching numbers go up in Diablo is fun.
Others hate dealing with all the number and modifier stuff and view it as basically homework, getting between them and further exploring fantasyland.

No, I'm just not chasing after links. Make the argument yourself is all I'm asking.

user, that dude made 4 additions once. I cannot imagine someone unable to do that and being a functional member of the society.
Said this, when there are temporary bonuses the things become fiddly. One huge advantage of BECMI or similar things is that you generally have single-shot penalties (this poison is so bad you have a -4), 1-2 bless spells, and constant bonuses like weapon mastery or magic armor.

So you're going to argue like a parrot are you, rather than acknowledge that 3e was just a continuation of ideas and trends started within 2e rather than some reaction to shitty DMs?

It's not a question of 'are they capable of it', its a question of 'do they enjoy dealing with the extra paperwork' especially when there are other options for games available.
Again, I'm not saying that 3.PF is inherently bad (at least in conception, execution is a whole different ball game). I'm saying I absolutely get why some people don't want to have to keep track of a bunch of numbers (such as temporary modifiers, which 3.PF is actually filled with) when all they want is to pretend to be an elf for a few hours.
Different strokes and all that.

If people could accept that other people have different tastes, half the discussion in this thread wouldn't exist. But here on Veeky Forums, people seem to be short on empathy, and arrogant enough to assume that their tastes are without qualifier superior to the tastes of others.

I am not assuming anything and I stated that temporary bonuses are bullshit.
But the normal leveling adjustment should not scare any literate person. If you are literate, you were expose to enough math, too, to deal with that.

I played in a game using PF for a WW2 fantasy game. Like world war 2 except the Nazis were elves. There are gun rules in pathfinder except they were HORRIBLE and it was just bad and never should have been used. I played for 1 session.

You can do a lot with 3rd edition in general especially if you use the alternate rules in the SRD.
The problem is people that do not understand that you are not supposed to use everything at once, especially if experimenting with something new.
Better start low level with few elements, and then add up to what works. Otherwise is like those that say they want a gritty fantasy but use teleport. Even if you include the spell, you have to change at least its safety if not where and where it can be cast.

>especially if you use the alternate rules in the SRD.
You mean rules that are mostly shit outside of class variants and gestalt and have major knock-on effects that make the game even more annoying to deal with? If you've ever played a game where the optional rules actually worked you'd know how stupid citing UA is.

The gun rules were horrifyingly bad. Machineguns are essentially a piercing beam; they hit everything in a line once, and do atrocious damage. There's no rules for cover, or anything like that.

It depends what you want. They change the game considerably, it feels very different and more adapt on different genres.
Other is stuff actually used. As an example the spell points are more or less what Psionics is.

>Your being tired with a system does not an objective criticism make.
No, but the absolute brokenness of Pathfinder casters, does.

As usual, OSRfags are right.

t. butthurt OSRfag

Psionic powers are weaker than spells as a whole and they have psionic focus to limit metapsionics. Spell points are working with more powerful abilities and have no such limitation on metamagic.

This beyond the point. Is more or less the same mechanic.

But they're not. The basic focus of 5e is the same as any other D&D.

I completely approve the birth of Ghita of Alizarr reaction pics.

Be happy, Thorne, your work lives on on mongolian image boards.

About OP, who cares.

Attached: 1519175453669.jpg (131x207, 21K)

That's fair, but the mechanics themselves are still coherent, and in the hands of a GM who knows the game, not an impediment.