Why did Pathfinder add "traits" you can take to give free little bonuses to your character as situational flavor things, then proceed to do stupid shit like make a trait giving you +2 to initiative, one of the MOST important stats, or +1 on a save, or something else that DRASTICALLY outweighs the other little bonuses (which might never come up but it's okay because you got them for FREE). So now nobody picks those traits,because they'd be "punishing" themselves to do so. Bravo paizo. Bravo.
Oh look, it's yet ANOTHER thread where OP is a raging moron who willingly chose to play a shitty DnDogshit-clone and is SOMEHOW surprised to find out it's just as shitty as DnDogshit. Bravo, OP. Bravo.
>"oh but it's DnDogshit so you can't complain about it!!!!1!!"
That's not an argument. That's not an excuse. These fricking games are played by 90 percent of the playerbase and I am sick of them being allowed to defend this dogshit.
Creation and exit are stronger than voice. Make your own game.
Nobody defends it, moron. They either cope or they don't play, or the fabled third option, they just don't use those rules.
Christ, it's like you just want to be miserable. Ignore it if you don't like it, and stop giving a frick about what other people are playing. It's not like you're being invited to their games.
Well what do you want us to do about it? We all agree this game is bad, nobody is excusing or defending it, others are just not so moronic as to play the bad thing. All you're doing is seething, and inexplicably also seething than anyone has a solution (not engaging with the shit system).
yeah and 90% of the movies people watch is capeshit slop. Popularity does not =/= good in a world where half the people are below average IQ
I didn't choose Pathfinder, the pastor at my church forces me to play it.
Then take it as God testing you, stiffen your spine, and get on with it.
It's fine because traits are an optional rule, and most people aren't gonna take the "best" ones anyways. Pathfinder might be hilariously unbalanced but it's in such a way that there's not one single strongest path or build, like 3.5e. d&dfinder would do better to lean into wargaming autism anyways, retvrn to tradition.
Don't want no peasants in my ivory tower.
>playing Pathfinder
The first mistake
Pathfinder 1 is just shy of 15 years old at this point, and is an intentionally conservative clone of D&D 3.5 which has another decade of design baggage behind it. Yeah no shit it has some design decisions that aged badly.
Still a better game than Pathfinder 2e though. Holy shit do you want some examples of bad game design...
PF1drones really think this
Pathfinder 1e is bad too. But Pathfinder 2e is an actual wonder to behold in how shitty it is. Neither are good games. Neither come close to DnD 5e, which is still pretty shit itself.
Never played P2, but P1 can't be worse than 5e.
5e isn't just broken, it's boring.
3.5 > 5e > PF1
Pathfinder doubled down on the bloat way too hard, while also eschewing some of the fixes that had sprung up over 3.5’s lifespan. You end up having to do more bookkeeping for less enjoyment. And, somehow, they made martials worse.
Holy based. I'd say BX is equal to 3.5 but otherwise you're correct.
pf2e is actually worse than pf1e. imagine a game where gimp-ass pf1e martials are the most powerful character you can make. they nerfed the hell out of magic and have even more niggling little “you can’t wipe your ass unless you take a feat for it” situations than 1e ever had
Except D&D 3.5 traits were a self contained thing that gave a bonus and a penalty so they were inherently a bit more balanced.
Damn chess must be a shit game then, considering it's over a 1000 years old
Imagine playing cucked israelite checkers and not based Mahjong
Just typing this out made me want to stab myself, christ.
The actual answer that
is trying to tell you is that any game you play is shit and any game he plays is based. It's an ego play. Ignore him and play whichever game you have the most fun table for.
>The actual answer
No, my answer is literally the opposite.
If he's unhappy with the game he currently is playing then all he has to do is find some other game.
Go have a nice day you spoonfeeding Black person apologist type.
>an intentionally conservative clone of D&D 3.5
Lol
Lmao
Remember when one of the authors couldn't fathom the concept of weapon chains working to prevent disarming and so nerfed them?
To be fair, it was a nerf to spellcasters who used them for meta magic rods. Fighters never used them.
>Why did Pathfinder-
Rewrite what you don't like or make what you want.
>bbbut anon you are PUNISHING us for taking away these traits to make us more powerful
>houserule cope
Every time
It's not like I disagree with the notion that pathfinder traits are yet another example of how tying characterization to optimization simply incentives players to concede on their backstory for the sake of mechanics, instead of choosing abilities that coincides with their planned backstory. But couldn't you just have posted this in the paizo general?
Anyway, here are some of the pf1 outcomes of tying backstory to power.
>A concerning amount of characters were meek and bullied as children because the Reactive trait (+2 initiative) says so.
>Many Paladins were found in the wilds as a child, due to Fey Foundling being so potent for their Lay on Hands.
>A clear majority of Magi are trained in a deity-specific scimitar technique originating in not-arabia, had a gifted spellcaster as their parent that developed multiple new magic items, and the most egregious of powergamers also grew up on an isolated archipelago island populated by shadow creatures that engage in ritual scarification and hate outsiders.
DnDogshit 5e does the same thing. Holy frick the amount of "Feytouched" backgrounds I see makes me think Fey are bigger predators than actual Succubi. Because the benefits of the background are just THAT fricking good.
Feytouched isn’t a background, it’s something that doesn’t happen to you until level four.
A) 3.5/PF is broken and nobody should play it
B) Have you considered not playing D&D?
C) Have you considered staying in your fricking containment general?
D) Have you considered not posting wojaks/frogs?
E) kys moron Black personhomosexual
Yeah I'm thinking about the time I ran Pathfinder and let the players beg me into allowing traits, then they all took the one that lets you use INT instead of CHA for diplomacy and bluff checks and had a party of diplomats who all had 7 Charisma.
Yeah, HOW DARE they give you extra options and dimensions for character customization.
the problem isn't the options, it's that the overwhelming majority of those options are made the wrong option because they are flavorful-but-niche picks that take up a slot you could be using for a powerful general pick.
you see the same issue with Warlock's invocations over in D&D, and it's very much in the vein of MtG's "Gotcha!" mechanic, which Mark Rosewater has gone on record to call "the worst mechanic... ever made".
if optimal play is to never do anything fun, it's a shit design and whoever made it is a shit designer.
Yeah, my DM and I basically came to an unspoken understanding that characters are best built with flavor and concept, but need to be actually functional, so I just take whatever options best result in that and then refluff absolutely everything about why things work the way they do. As long as we remain internally consistent in our explanations it works out fine, but I get why others wouldn't want to bother.
Yeah, but there's so many different good traits. You're saying that the +2 to Initiative or +1 to one save is good, but then there's
talking about the Philosopher trait that lets you use INT instead of CHA.
But then there's also traits like Magical Knack, which helps with caster levels for multicasting, or ones that allow you to make magical items for cheaper, or ones that allow you to maximize your various skills: Stealth, diplomacy, etc etc.
There's a lot of differently good options that support a lot of different character types. Having to decide if one of those are better for you than a +1 to Will Saves is a decision that you have to make.
if you don't like it don't play it
I hate you d&d-type homosexuals, you realize there are dozens of better RPGs, right?
>he thinks initiative traits are actually worth taking compared to some other traits
lol
Well if pathfinder is so bad what should i play, moron?
Figure it out yourself you incompetent fool
Fricking chatbot typed response from a bot typed human.
>Arrives in D&D thread
>Shits self because there's D&D in here
>Flings shit at everyone for playing D&D
>Doesn't actually know any other systems
>Expects everyone to thank him
If it was just PF2 he might have a point, since PF is pretty much house ruled 3.5
What is all of this?
I didn't start the thread.
Did you? Are you the OP? The one who shat themselves to the point of including a WHOAJAK?
Rules Cyclopedia
It's not bad per se but it's a game with its own assumptions baked-in, if you're not fine with them b***hing about and then expect to have an alternative laid down directly on your lap isn't the way to go. Self reflect on what you dislike and what you want for your game and then go to a trial and error process of selection that eventually will lead you to more refined parameters.
90% of people here don't play games. The other 10% will recommend some sort of turbo autism mode RPG that you have to have written at least 3 sonic the hedgehog mpreg fanfictions to understand.
Pendragon or Honor + Intrigue. It's not hard.
>"punishing" themselves
Your GM will never let you get ahead of the curve. They have infinite resources: you can't win. Equally, they'll softball if you do. As such, there's no point striving for power. Build your character accurately, not optimally.
Pathfinder is fricking shit so I'm not here to defend it but I really think it's on the DM to police everyone's back stories so they don't all have the thief background when that has no bearing on their class or aren't just a Seelah-ripoff.
The answer is because they are bad game designers due to their proverbial guiding star being WotC's god awful D&D 3.5, which was rife with identical bad design that offered the illusion of balance and choice and character flavor, but punished you all the same for not hyper-optimizing with only the best (least awful) feats and character options.
Pathfinder 2.0 is the most cucked thing in existence. I can't imagine anyone playing it. Total slop sellout trash that broke the soul and entire point of Pathfinder.
Pathfinder 1 still uses the word r*ce and doesn't have a place on the character sheets for your pronouns, get on the right side of history shitlord.
It's pretty ok if you don't give a shit about the soul of Pathfinder though.
"The soul of Pathfinder" is like saying "the soul of Great Value".
>Here's a list of custom traits that are actually related to my setting instead of generic traits for powergamers
Have you tried applying any creative thinking to your roleplaying game whatsoever? Did you know this solution is universal to literally every RPG, and if you couldn't imagine this solution yourself then RPGs are simply not for you?
>still committing the Oberoni Fallacy
>Oberoni Fallacy
The oberoni fallacy is itself a fallacy because it's pretending like roleplaying games should be treated as regular games- which fall apart when you don't follow the rules. They're roleplaying games, you fricking moron. You're supposed to be creative otherwise the game is simply not for you.
By giving you a solution to your problem, I have both conceded that there is a problem but also demonstrated it's a solvable problem. Citing the oberoni fallacy is basically just covering your ears and shrieking like a child because you don't want a solution, you want a debate. You can take the solution or leave it, just stop acting so childish
The Oberoni fallacy fallacy is itself a fallacy because it's pretending like the company who expects money for their product shouldn't put in more effort in its creation, and it assumes that everyone is going to automatically want to, or know how to, make the necessary edits to make their version of the product fair and functional. They're supposed to be products for sale, you fricking moron. There's supposed to be some level of effort put into their quality before slapping a pricetag on it and getting their fans to run defense saying "REEEEEEwrite what you don't like!!" otherwise the business is simply not for them.
By citing a problem with the constant spew of "just ignore the flaws and do what you want", I have both conceded that TTRPGs should be edited to taste but also demonstrated that considerable effort needs to be taken to make the product worth buying in the first place. Citing the Oberoni fallacy fallacy is basically just covering your ears and shrieking like a child because you can't handle your system and its company being criticized, you want to shill. You can take the solution or leave it, just stop acting so childish.
I hate how so much of our discourse is dictated by stuff dickheads on the old 3e message board says 20 years ago.
Except Tempest Stormwind and Oberoni were both completely right.
Right about how to suck wieners maybe
>roleplaying games should be treated as regular games- which fall apart when you don't follow the rules
This is, in fact, a factually correct and true statement.
>I have both conceded that there is a problem but also demonstrated it's a solvable problem
Congrats, you actually don't know what the Oberoni Fallacy is. Lets go to the original text.
>Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
>Several correct replies can be given:
>"I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
>"I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
>"I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
>Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:
>"There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
You've given option 2 but then claim you've actually given option 4. This is false.
Oberoni Fallacy means it's a good game, though.
Do the jobs of the people you bought the product from, rewrite what you don't like.
This is exactly why I make what I want, instead of buying from corporate pigs. It saves more time to get exactly the things I'm looking for out of a game for free, than to have to add, remove, and change shit in something I had to buy.
Shut up moron. The system exists as an authority. Changing things about it is always swimming up river, ESPECIALLY when you are taking things away from the players. I'm making a full homebrew system for this reason.
This is probably the shittiest take I've ever seen on /tg/ regarding roleplaying games.
You've never played with PFgays.
>removing slavery from a fantasy world where it's been well established that slavery is key to the economy of several major powers and was the entire point of the Eagle Knights as a faction
I think pf2e’s feat system feels very bad. Those small shitty flavor feats/traits only further bloats the game for very little gain. And when they do work , they aren’t even that exciting because they are all bonuses to their “degrees of success” thing.
I’d rather just play dnd 3.5 over it or pf1e tbqh
Play the good Pathfinder edition instead, moron.
This is actually really common with a lot of games. The point is though, that the people playing PF and D&D in general, ever since 3.5, just fricking optimize out the ass.
V20 as a counter, has a shit ton of merits, disciplines, etc. that are just really fricking good, but players typically take shit that is flavorful for their vampire first and foremost, because who the frick cares about optimization in Vampire?
These games have boxed themselves into a play style where you have to optimize, or you feel like you have to optimize in order to function, but you don't. You DONT need +2 to initiative or +1 on a save, just like you DONT need the Vicissitude discipline or some strong merit. It's your mindset, the mindset of your table, and the mindset of your GM doing this to you. It's also D&D being moronic in general and not just having varying costs for taking really strong shit at character creation.
Ya know, I've always felt it's because the combat in those games just sucks. Even people who think and say that they like it subconsciously don't, and so they optimize their characters to clear through it because it feeds the power fantasy but also because it speeds things along, especially at higher levels when it just becomes massive HP sponges with resistances out the ass.
>The point is though, that the people playing PF and D&D in general, ever since 3.5, just fricking optimize out the ass.
Honest question, do you prefer your players to just make a character that just doesn't really stand out in any significant way?
It's funny that that's not my experience at all,.with 3.5e or 5e.
The people I play with make characters that range from okay to competent in their thing.
Neither of the two tables I play with display that kind of behavior.
Hells, me and my buddy from the 3.5e table spend our time trying to optmize characters to be strong without breaking the game,.since some combinations are juat so fricking string and easy to be too strong in comparison to the rest of the table.
We all silently kind of agreed to not ruim the game I guess.
Comes with playing with a bunch of 30+ people I guess?
It's funny because the guys I play with are all between 40-50 and I can think of at least two that keep internal DPS charts and spend the entire campaign nerdraging and fricking over the plot if they feel like their carefully crafted munchkin build isn't working out for them like they want it to. I think they should stick to MMOs but they act like they've outgrown computer games despite treating tabletop like one.
No why?
Have you tried having fun instead of constantly obsessing over numbers like an autistic child?
Of course none of this matters since you don't play games.
Pathfinder 1e is not a good game.
My character is a rogue-witch who specializes in darkness, light-stealing and spatial spells. She just goes stabbity stab in between two illusion spells to frick around with Black folk.
Is she good at fighting? No, she's completely fricking useless half the time.
Is it fun to roleplay as an edgy chuunibyou 14 years old terrible spellcaster and a failure of a thief who calls herself "Princess of Darkness" and is absolutely fricking moronic? VERY MUCH SO.
So yeah, I would say it's a player issue. If your GM is throwing encounters at you that only a min-maxed party can solve, he's a shit gm. If your players can't roleplay and instead are looking up guides on how to build the best characters, they're shit players.
TLDR: Skill issue, dayo.
Requiring the party to not actively be moronic like you is not asking for only a minmaxed party. Frick off.
Wait till you hear about my paladin who refused to use his deity's spells.
>she's completely fricking useless half the time.
Skill issue, and it might not be on your end
>If your GM is throwing encounters at you that only a min-maxed party can solve
I don't think these really exist. I think a party with good synergy and communication can overcome most encounters with in reason. Like wise an unreasonable encounter could curb stomp the most min-maxed party.
>makes a useless character that's a burden on the rest of the party
>narcissistically pats himself on the back of it
Yep it's a "real roleplayer".
You think those are the best ones?
Try the dangerously curious trait which gives anybody use magic device as a class skill or the pragmatic activator trait which lets you scale UMD off of intelligence instead of charisma
>the pragmatic activator trait which lets you scale UMD off of intelligence instead of charisma
Why would you want this?
gee, why would somebody want to use the stat that gives you more skill points instead of the stat that does literally nothing except pump up social skills?
i’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’ve never played pathfinder, but charisma is the most universally dumped stat. it is almost completely useless if you don’t use it for any of your spells or class features. so for classes that don’t use charisma, it’s beneficial to make your charisma as low as possible to pump up more useful stats, so pragmatic activator allows a character that wants to dump charisma to have a large bonus to use magic device that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to get without reducing more valuable stats to pump charisma up just for umd
So it's just a +1-2 to UMD for the few classes that don't dump int and aren't casters (and therefore have no use for UMD)? You sure this is as big of a deal as you're making it out to be?
imagine you’re a rogue with 14 Intelligence and 7 Charisma, which is a fairly common stat spread for a rogue
Pragmatic Activator becomes worth a +4 to UMD, and that’s really strong for a trait
Now imagine you’re a wizard with 20 Intelligence and 7 Charisma, also a common spread, now it’s with worth +7 to UMD which is more powerful than a feat and it only gets stronger as the wizard increases his Intelligence through ability increases and magic items
Why would a wizard need UMD?
to cast cleric and druid spells from scrolls and wands
That's more than a little redundant.
How ironic.
Read the skill moron.
You’re obviously not arguing i’m good faith if you’re pretending you can’t understand the benefit of being able to cast more spells.
Or just a moron.
You're the one in hysterics over a mediocre trait.
It's not a mediocre trait if you bother to read the fricking skill.
>casters
>therefore have no use for UMD
I suggest you actually read what UMD is used for.
I think UMD is often overhyped by people more accustomed to majority martial parties with one caster playing mother hen, during which you need to fill the knowledge gap with scrolls/wands. UMD can be a very valuable skill though, and both Dangerously Curious + Pragmatic Activator/Clever Wordplay are worth ~4 to UMD each.
But straight skill bonuses are not the flashiest of traits, and not something I would bring up as an example of the 'best ones' if I wanted to downplay the importance of intiative boosting. Which is a solid stat. Instead I would bring up busted traits that give you unique abilities ripe for abuse.
>Magical Lineage / Wayang Spellhunter
Metamagic spell level reduction. People would pay feats for this benefit if they could. Pretty much 90% of magi has the Magical Lineage trait.
>Fate's Favored
Improve any luck bonus affecting you by 1. Suddenly every half-orc with the Sacred Tattoo racial trait now has +2 to all saving throws. And every Warpriest/Inquisitor that spams Divine Favor gets an additional +1/+1 to Att/Dmg.
>Power of Suggestion
DC 20 bluff check to get away with outrageous, impossible lies. Why yes, this Glaive is actually just a walking stick.
>Resilient Martyr
Triples natural healing. If only there was some kind of feat path that gives you instant healing worded as natural healing. Like say, Signature Skill(Heal) with Healer's Hands.
>Whiteout
Oh look, it's Hide in Plain Sight whenever it rains or is humid.
>Undine Loyalty
The one and only way to use "adjacent" teamwork feats at a distance. And as written it's a limited version of Solo Tactics, although prob not RAI.
...and so on. Traits are, just all other pf1 content, encompassing this huge spectrum from "actually worthless/actively harmful" to "build defining".
>another nogames pathfinder thread
Better than AI and warhammer wednesday I guess