/tg/ - Traditional Games

QTDDTOT >>194052

>>215669

Don't forget, it's a prerequisite to a hilariously large amount of feats, including hilariously simple shit like improved trip/disarm/dirty trick/anything combat manuver that would let a fighter be even slightly useful at early levels.

>Requirements: 13 int

Basically it's their way of refusing to let fighters use int as a dump stat

>>215678

I guess that's true, But then why nerf it from what it was in 3.5?

In 3.5 it was a 1 for 1 trade on attack v.s. AC. It was actually nice because if you played a fighter who had no trouble hitting, or some monster with low AC, you could make it harder for it to hit you.

At 5th level you could take -5 to all attacks (which sucked by if you were playing a Dex build you could still hit a lot) and get +5 AC, so you could turn a fighter or ranger into basically a rogue with high AC.

Whereas in this, you can only do +1/-1 until 4th level. Absolutely disgusting.

I thought it might be because of wizards, but you have to make a melee attack to use it so it'd be basically useless to them.

The feat was underpowered in 3.5, WHY THE FUCK DID THEY NERF IT EVEN MORE IN PATHFINDER? WHAT THE FUCK!!!

>>215675

Yeah sorry. If Chrow sees this he can make this a Pathfinder general in the title, but I have no idea how to edit posts.

>>215669

>Why is Combat Expertise so shit in Pathfinder?

You have missed a greater conundrum: Why are you playing Pathfinder?

>>215690

Let me get this straight: You played 3.5 and then decided to downgrade to PF? Why the fuck…

If you're going to ditch 3.5, you should upgrade, not downgrade.

>>215690

Because Paizo has a very sdisorted view of a lot of things about DnD. They'll nerf things just because it doesn't seem "realistic" if it isn't involving explicit magic and their idea of balance is wonky at the best of times. There is a reason Pathfinder is known to break down faster then 3.5.

If you like something from Pathfinder then just port it to 3.5 and have 3.5 override everything you don't like in Pathfinder.

>>215669

Next question: Why did they nerf combat maneuver feats by splitting them up into two feats instead of one? Next question: Why do whips suck in PF hardcore and require a batshit insane 4 feat chain with BAB requirements to be less useful than a 3.5 whip? Next question: Why the fuck did Quick Draw get nerfed so mundanes can't even full attack with alchemical weapons? Next question: Why does the PF Monk suck worse than the 3.5 Monk? Next question: Why is it so fucking painful to get a pounce on a melee character in PF while Magus, Druid, and Druid's Animal Companions get it at levels 4, 6, and 7 respectively? Next question: What fucking imbecile decided that ranged touch attacks, misfires, reload taxes, and alchemical cartridge costs are a good way to implement firearms in PF?

The answer to all these questions? Because it's Pathfinder and mundanes cannot have nice things.

>>215702

>What fucking imbecile decided that ranged touch attacks, misfires, reload taxes, and alchemical cartridge costs are a good way to implement firearms in PF?

I can actually explain some of these:

>ranged touch attacks

IRL armor fell by the wayside when personal firearms were introduced because even a shit gun will tear through sword-blocking armor

>misfires

early firearm technology

>reload taxes

what? it takes time to reload a gun

>alchemical cartridge costs

who the fuck else is going to make rounds for it?

>>215720

Most people don't realize exactly how incredible mundane skills are, and it's a huge problem with pathfinders developers. As I'm writing this there are people who make a good living selling 3000 dollar vacuum cleaners, people that can roll whatever number they like on a die, people that can pull 3 aces out of a deck of shuffled cards, and the list goes on. There are many amazing things people can do with a little practice, but others see as magical. I can't fix a car or understand an engine, but I know that it isn't a heroic feat for some guy who likes cars to rebuild one.

>>215701

>I'll determine whether x feat is possible by doing it myself

Behold, the design mythos of Paizo.

I'm not even fucking joking.

>>215739

Someone fetch the post where SKR (may he rot in Hell) said he was going to nerf weapon cords because he has a hard time fetching his mouse with the cord wrapped around his chubby wrist.

Or the one where he unironically equates crossbows with water balloons. That one's a classic.

>>215700

I liked 3.5 and supplement it with Pathfinder stuff. I also play Savage Worlds and GURPS.

>>215739

Top fucking kek.

>>215750

>>215750

Oh shit I need to see this.

>>215803

Read >>215789 's first pic.

>>215789

>It has realism tax for mundanes and free pass for spellcasters.

Reagent costs and casting time. Casting spells that are not instantaneous incurs an attack of opportunity. Also, concentration checks. Enforce the rules

additionally, the reload tax on firearms goes away with the rapid reload feat–you can reload as a swift action. Stack with the gunslinger class's level 11 ability to do so and it drops to move action.

>>215678

>to let fighters use int as a dump stat

According to rules in "Pathfinder Unchained" you can take the perk without meeting int requirments, if you are a fighter.

>>215823

If you're standing close enough to an enemy that they can get close to you, even when most ranged attack spells have huge casting ranges, then you're not playing right.

Reagents are just a means of enforcing bookkeeping, but few spells require anything that you can't handwave away with a mage's pouch.

Casting times are VERY rarely ever more than one action for anything that will have a drastic effect on combat either way.

Concentration checks just mean the caster has one more skill to focus on.. Boo hoo. Phenomenal cosmic power with a skill tax.

>>215753

Last two pages are all but illegible.

>>215840

>for free action full attacks

Correction: for free action reloads to obtain full attacks

>>215841

Incidentally, there is a PF build that gets free action attacks for an infinite amount of attacks, but that's a different build.

>>215848

Holy shit fuck this faggot.

These are the people that made WotC hate feats. Not them specifically, but their type.

This is now a DnD 3.5/Psionics/True Sorcery/Tome of Battle thread.

is there any way to fix pathfinder? I really like archtypes and multi-classing but there is so much dumb shit.

>>216035

>is there any way to fix pathfinder?

Play something else.

>>215669

REMINDER THAT THE PAIZO CEO IS A BIG FAT TRANNY

>>216045

>people are still playing Pathfinder

>people use it for everything it's not meant to be used for

???

Pathfinder was always a cynical cash grab. Its only place is the trash.

>>215840

Later in that thread they posted a water-balloon fighter build that was superior to any crossbow build.

>>215962

I want my sword sage flying around shitting lightning out of his ass but don't know what the best build is for that wat do?

>>216160

Found the Wizard player.

>>216047

But /pol/, trannys are hot!

>>216207

/tg/ here. You're a fag.

>>216042

what I really like is the archtypes and multi-classing and plethora of options, if you can point me to somehting that is decently similar to DnD but with all those delicious options that would actually be less work for me then writing up fixes for pathfinder (cause pathfinder has so many fucking things to fix)

>>216235

The simplest thing is to simply port Pathfinder stuff you like to 3.5 which although is also broken, will only really break apart at a point where most groups wouldn't meet from a straight level 1 to the level you would usually abandon or finish the campaign.

>>216239

> less classes no archtypes

this would mean porting (and therefore fixing) almost all the classes and archetypes, that sounds like just as much work as fixing PF, granted there is probably some other benefit that I dont know about because I have never actually played 3.5, what would actually be fixed by doing this? a quick google search about the differences led me to stack exchange and it looks like it wouldnt fix most of the problems I have.

I want to fix

> having shitloads of d20 rolls, it bogs the turn

> feat taxes

> make shitty classes viable (monk, rogue, slinger, ect.)

> not have mandatory magic items for character progression like cloaks of resistance, belt/headband of stat, ac ring

> crafting is a huge clusterfuck and you need 3 feats to do it without casting for some reason.

> vancian casting is a huge clusterfuck and its op

> fix cool things like cleave and vital strike being garbage (although if we fix the 10 million attacks vital strike wont be a thing)

things I want to keep

>archetypes and multi-classing are the whole point

> combat maneuvers seems ok if it isnt feat locked

> skills are good how they are unless you show me something better

> apparently people didnt get feats every odd level in 3.5? I could be wrong about this because my source is a forum post but either way I like the feats every other level.

> the points system that many classes use like swashbucker, ninja, monk, gunslinger

> the rounds per day system that many classes use like barbarian, bard, alchemist ect.

> I am thinking of applying something like the above two to magic where you have a mana pool that you either get back somehow or have to wait a day, this will make metamagic simpler too by making your spells just cost more for extra effects.

>>216243

How about you play something else.

>>216282

wow get some reading comprehension you slavering mongoloid, I would be happy to play something else if you pointed out a good alternative that still seems like DND and has archetypes and multiclassing, but you are going out of your way to be totally unhelpful.

I get it that you dont like pathfinder and guess what? NEITHER DO I! NO-ONE HERE DOES!

so I am trying to find an alternative that has the few things I like about it, or failing that I am going to spend a bunch of my time modding the shit out of it.

the only thing you can do to stop me from playing pathfinder (since you seem so intent to do so) is to suggest something better that has archetypes and multi-classing, or help me mod it to the point its not really pathfinder.

>>216235

The Dark Eye, but TDE 5E is not coming out in English until May, so until then you better speak fucking German.

>>216309

m8 I agree that he was kind of a cunt in saying it but if either of you is a "slavering mongoloid" it's definitely you. You want to keep most of the meat from pathfinder (archetypes, classes, multi-classing, etc.) with none of the actual bones. You can't just take the classes and use them while somehow "fixing" everything else–there's no good way to fix all the math in the game without having to alter the things you want to keep. You're even complaining about the pacing of actions and attacks. You can either take PF for its various aspects and houserule some of the content more to your liking or you can find another game. You can't separate the content from the math, that's just not how it works.

There's a lot of d20 fantasy games out there and even a google search would get you started. Or you could just make another thread, which would do a lot better than replying in here. I'm sure the combined power of /tg/ can suggest a fantasy system that's to your liking.

>>216362

your probably right about "slavering mongoloid" being a total over-reaction its just the "try playing something else" thing really bothers me, hearing it reminds me of a gurpsfag trying to shill gurps for everything, but in reverse and it is equally unhelpful.

I will just try to alter it, it will take a ton of work but I am a huge autist (as evidenced by the fact that I play pathfinder I suppose) and if I ever finish my frankenstein monstrosity of a system stitched together from the corpse of the devil known as pathfinder I will post it on tg of course.

is there anything you guys would like to see changed about pathfinder? it will be haphazardly implemented in this homebrew if you let me know and I feel like it.

>>216378

I think slavering mongoloid was rather appropriate as >>216362 used it.

It does sound like you haven't tried many different systems though. If you dislike rolling a shitload of d20s pathfinder may not be for you. If you like options and already know what you want in a game why not try GURPS?

>>216403

> If you dislike rolling a shitload of d20s pathfinder may not be for you.

You only need to roll 1d20 in pathfinder. It is a 1d20 system.

>>218687

You roll one, but you roll it a lot, is I guess what they were saying.

Any thing that I can introduce to my casual friends that is better than pathfinder but wont scare them away?

>>215669

So…less attack roll for more AC? Why is that bad?

>>220399

Generally, the idea of trading accuracy for defense isn't inherently bad.

Most other 3.shit family games let you trade accuracy for ac at a 1:1 scale limited only by your BAB. And can be used with any weapon. So, if you have a +4 BAB, you can take a penalty as large as -4 to get an equal AC boost. With that level of freedom in use people still only ever considered taking it because it was a feat tax for other better feats.

The PF version has a limitation of +1 per 4 points of BAB, and limits the feat to only being used with melee weapons. And limits it to only being used on rounds where you are attacking with a melee weapon as an attack on your turn.

It is a literal wasted feat.

>>215840

>Blood Money

is sin magic and should only be available at a certain time in the campaign Rise of the Runelords. I recognize it's broken as fuck, but it isn't supposed to be available to players normally. In the campaign I just mentioned I believe you are punished for using it via mechanics specific to that campaign.

OK…I was wondering..can Pathfinder be fixed.

>>220754

Yes. With fire.

>>220755

Well..aside from the nuclear option. I mean, it can be salvaged..right? Curse my boundless optimism.

>>220757

Sure, all you'll need to fix is the power that magic classes have over non-magic classes, the developers' hatred of everything that is personal skill because it "makes no sense" and kills the immersion despite magic not doing this, get rid of the rocket tag shit at higher levels, get rid of feat taxes and other such crap, make shit classes not be shit and streamline crafting stuff.

>>220759

Sounds simple enough…for someone who has more experience in PnP games which I am not.

>>220754

It's fundamentally broken in a way that would require you to go back and completely fix D&D 3.5's broken game design.

Fantasy Craft made a pretty admirable effort, but even that game has a distinct streak of caster supremacy and some undeniable faults.

If someone wanted to fix Pathfinder, they'd need to make a new game from the ground up.

>>220760

Long story short, it pretty much means redesigning everything.

>>220754

Iirc TOME was designed as a fixed Pathfinder in response to the horrible response Pathfinder beta testers got from the paizo dev.

Generally speaking if you are fixing PF you're better off redesigning it from the ground up. If you want to add houserules to fix PF then don't. That list of houserules is eventually going to become a goddamn doorstopper of its own and still not succeed. It's been done. People have tried and gone mad from the effort. "Fixing" PF is a terrible use of your time. You're better off making a new system or moving on to something better instead. One of the worst parts of the D&D legacy is the vast number of D&D-likes it spawned by people who wanted a "fixed D&D."

>>221096

This

as one who beta tested the shit out of pathfinder, they still let a mess through, though I, sadly break newbies teeth on this system before moving onto others

>>221096

>TOME

What is that?

>>221098

Start with 5e instead. It's the smarter decision for a number of reasons. Going to Pathfinder is like forcing crippling scoliosis on someone to teach them how to stand up straight.

>>221132

Seconded. My Google Fu is weak.

>>221138

Prolly this: https://code.google.com/archive/p/awesometome/

I think what makes 3.5/PF unfixable is that it's trying to be too many things.

1. It's trying to be a D&D-type gamey game with easy-to-digest building blocks like classes, levels, HPs, spells, etc.

2. It's trying to be almost "realistic" or "simmy," with things that follow a sort of insane internally-logical consistency (magic vs mundane for example, DCs).

3. It's trying to be balanced. It fails the worst at this part, but it is trying, and trying in this instance is even worse than if they had just said "Casters are better than not casters, but cost more XP or something."

I don't think any game can be those three things, unless it's so abstract and simplistic that the idea can fit onto a couple of pages. I personally like to drop out the whole D&D-like framework, but many people seem to have a pathological fear of games that aren't D&D derivatives.

>>216235

You may have to realise that the 'options' are so many in number because there is so little thought put into them. Paizo especially has realised that the 3.x diehards literally don't care about quality or playability, they just want a bigger list of Options.

>>221212

Well..I kinda like the options..granted, some of them are basically the stuff from AD&D 2e's class kits..but I kinda like it. Just wish some of them aren't too crap to begin with…like 90% of the Fighter's archetype.

>>221219

You're falling victim to the trap of false variety, the result of shotgun-spamming 'options' with the bare minimum of effort as a marketing ploy to prey on the optimism of customers.

Everyone seems to think that somehow at the core of 3.whatever is the True Game that is great and balanced and realistic and fun. There is not. They failed to do the math or balance the options from day one, and a generation of gamers has Stockholm Syndrome from it. And instead of trying to fix that, they made the bare minimum effort to cover it up and pretend the game could be everything it isn't.

You want D&D that badly, play any edition but 3rd and its derivatives. Really, anything.

>>221153

Classes, levels, HP, Spells and so on aren't so much the problem. It's the way they are implemented that causes problems.

The fighter has to have shitty skills and rely on feats.

Feats have to suck because magic exists.

Magic is great and scales in power in ridiculous ways.

Monk has to suck worse than a fighter, because being able to punch things really hard is too unrealistic for a monster and magic game.

And so on.

There's all this baggage and sacred cows and all of these unwritten laws dictating how things have to be in a D&D/d20 games.

If they started with a clean slate but still approached it with the same structures, it could be an interesting game, but it would require throwing out practically everything, especially all the spells.

>>221231

>If they started with a clean slate but still approached it with the same structures, it could be an interesting game, but it would require throwing out practically everything, especially all the spells.

And when they did that, people flipped their shit and said it was unrealistic and WoW.

>>221236

I still think 4e's problem was presentation. It's just really off-putting when 80% of every book is boring little spreadsheets of text and numbers.

The whole power system isn't too far off from the standard model of "3 times per day" or "The ability recharges after a short rest" type of stuff that we had in 3.5 and now 5e, but it just came off as really sterile and rigid.

Either way, there's a better way to do things, but that's a topic for another thread.

>>221240

I feel kind of bad for 4e. I hated it at first, then I sat down and played a game using the system, and fell in love with it.

>>221240

The main problem I had with it was the standardization of the "per encounter/per day" model of resource recovery across all classes. I feel that model only really works for magic using classes, because it's magic and it can behave in strange yet specific ways. It's less obvious why the rogue can only do an awesome roll once per day or whatever.

I think that mundanes should be able to do borderline superhuman stuff as a matter of course as they level up, with obviously superhuman abilities linked to some kind of resource system. The "points" used by monks, ninjas, gunslingers, and swashbucklers is really good for this purpose.

>>221283

Yeah, it was a level of thematic abstraction that made no sense at even a cursory glance and gave you no way to work around it.

I think a stamina/MP/AP mechanic of somekind would make a fuckload more sense than randomly deciding one maneuver is just too hard to do more than once without a 15 minute rest in between.. Even if that maneuver is simply stabbing someone really good, or moving an extra 10 feet and then punching them.

I'm the complete opposite. I dislike Pathfinder, but I actually like the "imbalances," reality-warping combos, and the fact that Fighters can't Close Burst 1 or whatever.

I dislike Pathfinder is because 1) The abstraction of shit like Hit Points, Levels, and Classes, makes it still just a little too gamey for my personal tastes, despite the fact that they're trying not to, and 2) Combat is a drag and a bit boring.

Everything that people usually cite as the main flaws in the system are things that I think are the closest it has to its good points. I really dislike how homogeneous and "balanced" characters are in so many modern games, makes shit boring to me. Pathfinder characters feel the least samey, video-gamey, and artificially abstracted for muh class balance of any class-based game.

Still don't like it though.

>>221288

Exactly..why do tabletop RPGs never implemented the MP/Stamina mechanic to begin with?

>>221314

It's an optional mechanic you can find buried in some random splats.

I know 3.5 had a ton of optional mechanics sprinkled about that covered a lot of the shit people usually offer up as fixes for the game, like the HP/Wound split, for instance.

How can you possibly be against game balance?

>>221340

Power fantasy. These people were the lowest of the skinny nerds in high school, so the idea that a fighter could win through superhuman muscles is triggering. The spindly wizard is their dream.

>>221283

>>221288

It makes just as much or more sense for martial classes IMO; fatigue is a thing, the martial characters can only pull off their special tricks once before the enemy catches on or they pull a muscle, and need a breather before they can try that again.

I get the impression people who say this have never actually done any significant physical activity. It's a far more realistic and nuanced portrayal of martial combat than 'I hit it with my sword over and over' anyway.

>>221240

4e's biggest problem was Wizards having no fucking idea how to actually sell it. They pulled PDFs because of a fit over piracy and thus made it the only way to actually get most of the material, married themselves to a subscription model that would have maybe made sense if the virtual tabletop had actually materialised (though that was its own disaster) and tried to relaunch the system just as bookstores collapsed.

As much as the 'Give the system away for free' model came to bite them in the ass with Paizo, it turned out to be effective. People will stick with what's convenient even if it's broken.

>>221347

..and they don't want to be the musclebound fighter because?

>>221340

>game balance

Do you want 4E? Because that's how you get 4E.

Let fireballs be fireballs and a sword be a sword. The more equal you try to make them, the more abstract they become and the less they behave like different things. I don't care if a fireball is more efficient, less efficient, or exactly the same at clearing a room of goblins compared to a sword, I just want them to feel different and to behave in ways that make sense for fireballs and swords to behave.

And I definitely prefer bladeslingers & barbarians to casters.

>>215669

So, expertise is shit in most cases. It's a requirement feat, but honestly its for a lot of other shit feats. Theres some dooable things with them.

I have see it used though. There's a trait that reduces the attack penalty by one, so it works well for a while. At the higher levels (where pathfinder starts to break down) it can be used against stuff with lower atk bonuses to make them need 20s to hit you. So theres some tanking you can do.

>>221340

We're not. We're against sterility, which is the only way WotC seems to be able to achieve game balance.

Or not publishing any splats because "wahh muh splat bloat" while publishing low-effort modules that require zero balance or effort to create.

>>221340

Its impossible. Everyone runs games differently. Rogues in pathfinder, which are pretty suck, can excel in particular games. Wizards, which are seen as the end all be all of unbalanced power, have so much criteria to do their task that other GMs can neuter them.

It is the quest for this balance that I'm against. The time wasted on adding this and removing that so the powers a character gets are 'on par' with another. Its a players job to use the things they've chosen to their advantage and to be engaged in a campaign, its a gms job to present a clear definition of a campaign and help keep players engaged. All the balance in the world wont give participants this, but it can sure as fuck take it away.

>>221381

Read the post you're quoting again

>so the idea that a fighter could win through superhuman muscles is triggering

He's saying they would rather beat the big, dumb jock through their perceived strength of being smarter than them.

>>221382

The problem is when you have five characters, and one does better just fucking around than the other four do minmaxing their asses off Rules As Written because player one showed up with the "good" class while the rest came with interesting builds for "lesser" classes. It becomes "GM has to babysit player one's four pet niggers so they don't die following him around".

>>221396

Splats were never the problem. All the most broken parts of 3.x were always in the Player's Handbook.

And sterility was never a problem. Every class does not need its own overcomplicated subsystems to be interesting.

>>221457

>All the most broken parts of 3.x were always in the Player's Handbook.

This is an oft repeated lie. Player's Handbook has the worst default balance between caster and martial base classes. But the truly vile broken shit – caster level loops, action economy rape, divine metamagic with stacking nightsticks, dragonwrought kobolds – is all in the splats.

>>216309

I know I'm late, but have you tried out Fantasy Craft? I switched to it after being bored as fuck of Pathfinder, and haven't been disappointed.

>>221462

The completely broken stuff is splat, but the core broken shit that makes the system broken is core.

There's a reason you can fix a lot of 3.x problems by banning core.

>>221472

Banning core? But I like Rogues.

>>221472

>>221478

Play a Sword Sage. The best D&D3.x is Rules Cyclopedia, XPH, and Bo9S.

>>221356

I have experience with physical activity, which is why I can understand "per encounter" abilities at the very least. "Per day", however, does not make sense. There is no single maneuver that requires a full day's rest to recover from - only prolonged and intense activity on the order of hours does that.

However, that's beside the point that once you get past level ~5 or so, the shackles of "realism" should be falling off. If pathfinder and other d20 systems are supposed to emulate a High Fantasy setting, not a Sword and Sorcery setting. Martials should be backflipping over attacks and headbutting through solid plate and other ridiculous shit once they get up in levels.

One system I'm toying with as a homebrew addon is a kind of reverse-point system. Instead of gaining grit or panache through actions and then spending them on abilities, the martial accumulates exertion points by performing amazing feats, which impose penalties on further feats. A system like that has more verisimilitude than a per-day recovery rate because it doesn't impose a false binary. You can continue to attempt ridiculous feats, it just gets progressively harder as you drain your reserves.

>>221465

I love me some Fantasy Craft. Hands down, the most homebrew friendly d20 game. It's been ages since we had a thread for it, now that I think about it.

Spellbound never ever.

>>216209

I know right

>>215669

Just use Path of War if you want martials to be good.

>>221491

That sounds basically like a mana system. Which is fair enough.

The problem is that 3.x got it into people's heads that martials and magic HAVE to work completely differently, and when 4e made them work more similarly so they'd be on even footing it made people mad because they'd decided everything 3.x did was 'realistic'.

>>221689

If the spellcasters aren't going to use a mana system, may as well give it to martials.

>>215796

>GURPS.

Muh niggah.

>>215700

Havne't touched 3.5 but have been with PF. What's makes it a downgrade going to PF from 3.5?

>>221822

Less content mostly. Also, the process of "improving" the martial classes from 3.5 ended up making most of them incredibly weaker in the long run (see rogues and barbarians)

>>221822

Pathfinder is only good if you throw out Paizo's stuff and use 3rd party stuff like Green Ronin's True Sorcerer, Dreamscarred Press's psionics stuff and Dreamscarred Press's Path of War.

>>221838

Mind giving me a comprehensive explanation or somewhere I can read up on it?

>>221847

there is no concise list to what they fucked up because it would be really big but everything is online.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ (more up to date)

http://archivesofnethys.com/ (no ads, search function, looks better)

>>221838

Ugh..while I do like having Rogue talents every even levels..how much weaker do they make rogues?

>>221845

>Dreamscarred Press's psionics stuff

How good is that stuff anyway?

>>222067

More monsters are not immune based on their type (constructs, plants, undead), but as levels go up their HP goes up faster than your sneak attack. And if you don't kill them in one turn, you're fucked.

Also trapfinding was nerfed, several other classes get that + better BAB (you only get 3/4, have fun!), your damage output sucks (Fighters are a lot better at this) and they were shafted by what Paizo did to melee.

>>222427

Well..I played a Soulknife before…looks OK.

>>222427

Ah…shit. Man, why do Paizo hate Rogues?

>>222443

>Ah…shit. Man, why do Paizo hate Rogues?

Because Paizo got a massive throbbing cum-dripping boner for magic users and hate people who do things that can be seen as above average without the use of magic. They don't think Monks should be able to deal any amount of real damage, so they got nerfed. One of the writers nerfed weapon chains (the things you use to fasten your weapn to your wrist to not let it go flying if you get disarmed) because he claimed that you couldn't get the chain around your wrist. Feat taxes (having to take feats to make certain things not suck outright) are a thing. Certain weapons just outright suck because they are claimed to deal less damage than others. Behold:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvkj&page=3?False-Options-in-Pathfinder

>>222449

Huh..that explains why I always wanted to make a Monk but always have an aversion against it but seriously why punish the people who wanted to play non-magic user classes?

>>222450

Because non-magic users don't use magic and FUCK THOSE DICKGOBLINS.

And because they want to maintain realism in the game for the "mundane" things. So you can summon legions of demons to devour your enemies but you can't fire your crossbow quickly because that would be unrealistic.

As for the reason behind THAT… well, maybe the Paizo guys were bullied by the jocks in high school?

>>222449

And this is why we have the Path of War and glorious book of weaboo fighting magic. No, I don't have a hardon for Iron Heart Surge shut up.

>>222463

I like Diamond Mind and Shadow Hand myself.

>>222467

>>222463

Setting Sun here.

All other disciplines are for nice people.

>>222467

>>222479

The way some of the Diamond Mind maneuvers use Concentration makes me think of Ijutsu duels from L5R where the fight is over after the first strike.

Never had a chance to try Shadow Mind or Setting Sun stuff and for a dragon slayer I'm playing(Warblade) I'm planning on having him go into Master of Nine? Got any ideas for nice maneuvers to get from those two?

>>222480

Hmmm..Warblade right? So, what kind of Warblade you are going for? I could suggest Iron Heart or Stone Dragon stuff.

>>222571

So far my bread and butter has been Stone Dragon and Iron Heart with a bit of Diamond Mind. My DM is nice and will let me learn new maneuvers from other initiators if they're willing to teach me without spending feats. My end goal is to exploit the Dragon Doom Feat with Avalanche of Blades, or Diamond Nightmare Blade as much as possible with my Falcata. Right now, with my 12 dex I basically stick to the front lines on full offense since wearing the Wyvern Plate Mail I made gives me the AC to do so. Also like I said, I'm prestieging into Master of Nine at some point, not only for the power, but the flavor of him using the sublime way to create the ultimate dragon hunting maneuver eventually with his knowledge.

On a side note though, out the same book(Draconomicon) I'm grabbing Dragon Cohort. Mainly because I think it's cool and to draw more parallels to him and Buster Blader.

Sorry if all of this is a mouth full.

>>222576

Well..Mighty Throw chained to a Devastating Throw maneuver looks good.

I don't play 3.5/PF, not for any specific reason, it just worked out that it was one of the very few games I and my various playgroups skipped. We all stuck with 2nd for a long time, then messed around with various less known systems. Then I went on an Exalted, AFMBE, and Fading Suns kick for a while, then I spent a lot of time trying to get people to play Riddle of Steel. And then some other stuff.

When I finally felt like taking a look at a D&D game again, 4E was on its way, so myself and basically everyone I have ever played with completely skipped 3.5/PF/d20. Although it's the most prolific of all the D&D editions, it's the only one that I have next to no first hand experience with.

Now I find myself glancing at PF from time to time, and checking it out in the hallway and across the watercooler. Funny enough, the major complaints that just about everybody I've talked to about the system has–that it's unbalanced, that there are unfair "realism" taxes, etc–are always things that I kind of find attractive about it. I love options, even if they're not perfectly balanced with each other. I love "realism" limitations to keep non-magical things from getting silly.

Too much rigidly enforced balance makes characters and games feel a little stale, homogeneous, predictable. That's one of the things that killed 4E for me, and one of the reasons I'm already starting to feel like 5E is a stale movie that I've seen six-dozen times. Give me a character who is REALLY good at playing the banjo or a character who is REALLY good at world domination through reality-warping magic. They don't need to be "equal" according to some kind of arbitrary measurement. I'll play the one I want to play depending on whether I'm in the mood for banjoing or not, or whatever. Them being different and feeling different is way more important to me than them being "equal." I'm a big boy, I can make a decision to play a "less powerful" character if I want, and I'll fucking have fun doing it. Just watch me.

Pathfinder's ability for different characters to be able to do wildly different things reminds me of the older games I grew up with, instead of the newer games where classes are balanced like it was an MMO and we need to be fair to everybody or something. Rigidly enforced balance in these class systems like 4E and 5E is kind of like totalitarian Government trying to take away choice in order to protect us from making a choice we might not like. Fuck you. Let me choose. I'll suss it out on my own.

So anyway, I want to like Pathfinder, I really do. I want to take a chance and show it some love, but then I watch a combat play out and holy shit. It takes like eleven million years and it's about as exciting as golf. It's like 4Es combat, but slower and less interesting. By the way, in case you've never played 4E, that's an insult of absurdity, like saying something was wetter than water.

Long ramble short, are there any hacks (not table tricks, I know how to do those or come up with them on my own, but legitimate system hacks) to speed up PFs combat or at least make it more visceral and exciting?

>>222795

> I love "realism" limitations to keep non-magical things from getting silly.

> or a character who is REALLY good at world domination through reality-warping magic.

Let me guess, you play a Wizard right?I think I have a simple solution that should satisfy everybody though. Fighters, monks, rogues etc… are treated as NPC classes like Commoners, Experts, Adepts and Aristocrats.

>>222427

Psionics is basically tier 2 level (Sorcerers and similiar) in power.

The Thrallherd class is in a league of cheese of it's own though. It can be used to create your own personal evil cult (use Reality Revision + MindWipe + Mind Control + Modify Memories + Psychic Chirurgery + Psychic Reformation to mind rape your followers into personal servants any way you want.) Also to create the perfect minions you should look into hiring a Druid to Reincarnate your followers into more powerful bodies.

>>222829

I forgot you can also use the Mind Seed power to create little clones of yourself. For bonus points capture peasants and send them into Catatonic states with Microcosm and use them as living batteries for the Assimilate power.

>>222825

Not typically, no. I mean I play just about everything (to stave off class boredom), and sometimes I'll play caster types, but I generally prefer swordslingers, and I love systems like RQ or Riddle where the mechanics for swording people are fun. In D&D games (again, not 3.5/PF) my favorite classes were usually Paladins, Rangers, Gladiators, and Barbarians, but like I said, I play everything.

>>222835

Oh, and Kensai. AD&D1 Kensai were pretty fun.

>>222836

So is anyone else here looking forward to In the Company of Dragons Expanded? I thought the base book was pretty good, barring what some classes had to give up when taking an archetype or lack of clarification in places.

One example that bothers me is not modifing Poison Use to include natural weapons, thought I imagine a nice DM would allow it. Another that bothered my was Fighter not capitalizing on the opportunity to allow better use of manufactured weapons and armor. Which I'm actually working on an archetype for that for fun. I'm just a bit doubtful about Barbarian waiting 3 levels for Rage and the same for the Bard's Performance. Full casters seem good though. Overall though it seems more punishing to martials than anything else. Hopefully this is better balanced in Expanded.

Fredrick the legless, allow posting!

>>222795

Problem is, the 'totalitarian' limitations of 4e are what make it a functional game. 3.Pathfinder loves to give you 'choices' at the expense of putting any actual thought into them, arbitrary 'realism' that brings nothing to the actual table, and a focus on your character sheet making you feel good over actually being any goddamn fun to play.

It's a cargo cult system and most of its fans rarely if ever actually play the game, and tend to houserule it unrecognisably when they do because the default just isn't fun and doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

Any use for Shadow Enchantment? I can't find any good utility Enchantment spells on the required list.

Is there anything useful that can be done with Eldritch Scoundrel, or is it just a slightly worse Arcane Trickster more playable 1-20 and easier to build?

Anybody know if I can use Lyre of Building to protect vehicles like ships?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/h-l/lyre-of-building

Alright /pfg/ I want to make a Dragonrider class that's a lot more fun looking than the one on the pfsrd here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/super-genius-games/dragonrider.

Or at the very least rework it so it's more mechanically exciting. So does anyone have ideas they want to contribute? I had ideas for a talent list they can select from to play off of their bond with hopefully no bad choices, I'd list for the list to be good. As for the dragon itself, I'm a bit stumped on how to make Chromatic and Metallic dragons both viable choices. Only ideas I had so far was to do something with their stat line while allowing them to gain all the special attacks as they grow. I have a work in progress, but I'm out at the moment. I'll post it later if anyone's interested.

Does anybody have a copy of Scions of Stone?

The problems with Pathfinder are part in parcel to the problems with SRD d20. One of the main problems is feat bloat. The other is an issue intrinsic to Class-based systems that pigeon hole you on certain paths to stay relevant in your party and not be a liability, and any exploration outside of a pre-prescribed path is at best a waste of time, and at worst a recipe to cause a TPK.

It's not a D&D vs Pathfinder thing.

It's Class-Based d20 vs ALL OTHER SYSTEMS.