/tg/ - Traditional Games

>5e

Easier to pick up and play.

Easier on newbie GMs.

More streamlined experience.

Lower power level than other editions.

Rules largely up for interpretation.

>3.5

Just play Pathfinder, It's an updated and objectively better version of 3.5 despite what everyone else says about it.

>>416152

Okay lets say 3.5 OR Pathfinder (1st ed of course). What does it do well?

If your players are creative go for 3.5e, if they just want to play something without investing a lot than go for 5e.

3.5/Pathfinder allows for a lot of character customization, and high level parties can end up feeling unstoppable. The downside is that it takes a lot to make a good character, and if you fuck it up your character will be gimped beyond recognition.

5E is explicitly a game for stupid women and non-whites.

Best option is PF with the right third party. DSP, Spheres and Radiant House (Binder).

>>416152

>Pathfinder is better than 3.5

This is a meme, a dead one. Pathfinder has long since eclipsed 3.5E in completely absent balance, excess of legal play material, obscure and arcane rulings, and insufferable popularity. They are, at best, the same. At most realistic 3.5E is a much more solved system that has less bloat in it. Stop telling people that Pathfinder is better when that stopped being true ages ago, if it ever was true considering the statements that trap choices, poor balance, and other tabletop design faux pas have been stated to be intentional by the game's designers (which means they're either telling the truth and retarded or lying and hoping you're retarded enough to believe them.)

>>416166

Never forget, Pathfinder is the sort of system that tests 'realism' by 'Can I, myself, a fucking game designer, pull off this feat that's only accessable to a trained warrior? Oh, I can't. Guess it's not feasibly realistic'

>>416183

Only for non-magic characters though, if you use magic you're allowed to do whatever you want according to Sean the Genius, this was the same excuse he gave about feat and weapon balance. I don't remember where I put those screenshots about him comparing throwing weapons to waterballons and thus they should be worse than a crossbow or when he said he couldn't fire more than a couple arrows in six seconds so nobody could and was shown footage of archers launching an arrow a second.

I'm of the mind that 5e does a lot of babying and dumbing down of the rules. Of course, this is coming from someone whose been immersed in 3.5 for years, but it seems like they just decided to make it simple so that it wouldn't scare away more "normie" people who might be interested in trying dnd, but see a 3.5 book and burst into tears. My group actually brought in two new players who had been watching critical role and other 5e related content and they just couldn't handle 3.5 rules. They refused to read the PhB and just complained the game was too complicated. My dislike for 5e is only made worse from the excerpts I've read in their books like that "gender" section, doing the "rainbow thing" and giving off the feeling that 5e will be slowly dragged into the mud of politics and (((tolerance)))

>>416214

>refused to read

Then they'd fail at any game, in any edition

If there's one thing PF fixed from 3.5, it's the skill system. PF actually lets you have off-list skills a lot easier, makes intelligence boosts retroactive, always has one point spent on one skill and doesn't have 4x skills at level 1. This fixes a lot of the mess of the original.

>>416149

OD&D.

Make the game, don't let the game make you.

>>416149

3.5 if you're playing with artists. 5e if you're playing with children and|or idiots.

as OP im gonna add Fantasy Craft to the lineup. so-

3.5 vs pathfinder vs 5e vs Fantasy Craft

go fuck each other up

>3.5 vs 5e

In that match-up it's very obvious that the one, undisputed, winner is 1e Dark Heresy.

>>416251

What is there to say that wasn't already?

>Fantasy Craft > 3.5e > Pathfinder > 5e

FC is the most cohesive and effective way to play a fantasy d20 game but it has far FAR less available content than 3.5 and Pathfinder, although the community has a lot of support materials and an entire homebrew book that matches the FC publications (and is basically core if I'm being frank.) 3.5 and Pathfinder are giant messes but they at least offer more options to fiddle with than 5E and Pathfinder doesn't fix anything it says it does and instead introduces MANY more issues than 3.5 ever had.

5e is good to get new players into tabletop, but I recommend weaning them off the system as quickly as you feasibly can. If you are playing with experienced players, play 3.5 or another system entirely. Anons are saying FC is good but I haven't tried it.

If you are playing with fags or retards, they will want to stick to 5e. Just play with better people in that case.

>>416282

Know what the FC homebrew book is called?

>>416322

Book of Holding

>>416388

You stop that, you're making us look bad.

>>416251

FC > PF > 5e > 3.5

This is the order of how well the design does what it sets out to do. The rest is mostly preference. Sure 3.X is better than 5 in a lot of ways, but for some people 5 is more what they're looking for, and it's less troubled by shitty design choices.

>>416388

I DON'T REMEMBER ASKING YOU A

GOD

DAMN

THING

>>416388

Not as complex as people would have you believe, but not as easy to use as its defenders would insist that it is.

>>416149

Just play GURPS 5E Lite expanded with the Dungeon Fantasy supplement (preferably using GURPS Ritual Path Magic as it is the more enjoyable magic system, but if you want more D&Dish magic the regular magic system has you covered). This is a serious recommendation. It's legitimately the best option of them all and the rules are actually straightforward and easy too understand, esp. when compared to FUBAR shit like 3.5 and PF where you keep needing to dig into more books, FAQs, and random web rulings for strange examples, asides, and clarifications to try to figure out what mechanic does what (and bang your head against a brick wall when you realize the authors, FAQs, and designers frequently contradict not just each other but even themselves). PF in particular is a big fan of that smarmy and frustrating "It's not a nerf, it's a clarification!" crap where they reinterpret rules in radically new ways and act like it always worked that way to nerf whatever they don't like (even though their newfound definition breaks old and new content so half the time you are supposed to interpret them the old way and the other half the new way...) and occasionally you'll only know how this rule is supposed to work now if you looked at this new book where they say it since they never update the old books. This makes D&D and PF a big offender of "Gotcha!" game design where shit does not work as you'd expect because they expected you to have fucking encyclopaedic knowledge of all the various books and web rulings they keep shitting out and even if you do it's still an inconsistent mess since even the designers can't keep their own rules straight. D&D is practically synonymous with "unnecessary fucking rules debates" and "lol mechanics are fine just make the GM do constant work fixing and guesstimating everything" cancer.

3.X is overall an unbalanced fucking clusterfuck best avoided if you ask me. It's riddled with trap options (character building options that look good but actually shoot you in the foot), bad design, terrible balance, and unnecessarily vague rules text. If you want to be a non-spellcaster definitely do not play 3.X, especially Pathfinder, since martial combat is painfully rote and dull.

5E is a much more decent system in many regards, but its problem are seriously SJW designers horribly ruining all the campaigns and settings they convert over and a significant dearth of decent character building and playing options. There just isn't a whole lot to do with 5E. It's better designed in a number of regards, but it's also rather simplistic and dull. Not much to do.

If you must play a D&D for the classic D&D experience, you should hands down play 2E. It has the best modules, including stuff like Ravenloft and Planescape. Martial combat still isn't much good though and spellcasters are still gods.

If you want to play a Dungeon Meshi themed campaign, then definitely use GURPS since it will give you the fusion of survival/hunger rules, cooking rules, scavenging mechanics, and dungeon-crawling fantasy rules you need.

>>416152

>PF is objectively better as long as you ignore all the critics and criticisms of PF.

Really now? 3.5 with ToB+Psionics only classes is easily a better experience than PF. ToB has decent martials and Psionics has non-crazy spellcasters, while in PF martials suck ass doing little other than repetitively spam their full attack action for damage while the spellcasters are gods with all the fucking shiny toys.

>>416239

>If there's one thing PF fixed from 3.5, it's the skill system. PF actually lets you have off-list skills a lot easier, makes intelligence boosts retroactive, always has one point spent on one skill and doesn't have 4x skills at level 1. This fixes a lot of the mess of the original.

Sadly, no. 3.5's 4x skills at level 1 did a great job of letting you be trained in a wide variety of skills, which is now no longer an option. Skill consolidating Spot and Listen and Search into one skill made Perception too much of a no-brainer must-have skill for everyone. Allowing everyone and their grandmother to get off-list skills is not a good thing when skills like UMD are broken when used right and meant to be restricted to the rogue classes (Bard and Thief, now Bard and Rogue). Sorcerer and a lot of spellcasters flat-out got UMD as a class skill now because paizo doesn't understand what UMD is about. New skill system also allows the Wizard to encroach very heavily on the Rogue's toes as a skillmonkey because the Wizard can easily nab any of those off-list skills with his giant int modifier and buff himself with magic if he wants too (also it's super easy to make anything into a class skill in PF) while the Rogue is usually hard-pressed to invest in int (not that anyone should really play a rogue in PF) and thanks to traits and feats they can make every charisma-based skill they want be int-based too. Bards with their versatile performance also have the most painfully ass-backwards skill setup since they need to invest 1 point in the skills whose ranks they are no longer using to avoid being untrained in them unless they are level 10 and can use all skills untrained making that 1point investment a full waste (this only really applies to Handle Animal afaict) and they are encouraged to avoid investing in the skills they want to use Versatile Performance to replace since otherwise the redundant ranks are wasted. The new Fly skill in Pathfinder is also an abomination of a must-have skill inducing unnecessary rolling, and the Tumbling changes from 3.5 to PF flat-out broke it because Jason Bulmahn considered AoO-free movement OP for Rogues. Meanwhile PF is still dithering around on the glorious question on how to ensure the party has a capable trapfinder and uses shitty archetypes and spells to provide magical disarm. And for some reason with their love of skill consolidations they still didn't merge Knowledge (arcana) with Spellcraft.

So no, I wouldn't really say PF fixed 3.5's skill system.

>>416408

True that, but anyone calling 3.5 or PF with its clusterfuck of intentional trap design, vague rules texts, clarifications, and sub-mechanics spread out over multiple different books and whatnot "easier to use" than GURPS needs to get their head examined if you ask me. GURPS Lite is actually pretty ez though. Smart money is to just start with GURPS Lite and expand selectively with the GURPS rules you actually want for your campaign. But if you have one of those 10-different-books and many overly tangential rules systems DMs then GURPS rules can certainly get annoying. GURPS can suck horribly or be the best thing ever depending on the DM. Applying the D&Dish "throw in everything from all the fucking books" attitude to GURPS (where even in a single book you are meant to cherrypick the rules you actually want for your campaign and ignore the rest) is definitely a recipe for disaster.

>>416423

No worries, nobody runs GURPs games that is also a sufferable human being so even if someone is interested in the system they'll be turned off by the people. It works 100% of the time.

>>416432

>>416423

>>416407

>>416402

>>416395

Hows Spellbound coming along?

>>416449

Supposedly it's done with editing and they're moving on to layout soon, per the forum.

>>416449

Most of the contents are leaked already but also >>416511

>>416526

Got any links?

>>416555

The FC thread >>305697

Is Savage worlds an option?

How does Shadow of the Demon Lord compare to other d20 systems? I remember it having a bit of popularity a while back but I never got a chance to try it, and dont know much besides it being d20 and heavily influenced by warhammer fantasy

>>416594

It would depend on how the leveling works

I assume its like AD&D 1/2?

>>416636

As in every class levels at it's own speed? Yes, that's the case. However, it doesn't have percentile thief abilites. Every action you want to do that would require you to do a skillcheck in 3E get's decided by an attribute test.

>>416738

I feel your pain

>>416149

If you actually like the d20 system, then 3.5/pathfinder will be good.

If you've never dm'd and don't really know the d20 system, then 5e is okay.

If you're not in love with d20 and you have enough experience in ttrpg gaming, then try any other system.

I personally like d100 systems myself, but d20 is a classic and most people know it, so I understand why some will prefer it.

>>416738

>If you want something as simple, but with a more narrative oriented perspective, FATE systems are good, if I were to believe I'm sure someone will correct me if they're not.

I guess you could call them "narrative oriented" but after getting to play them I finally understand why so many people call them trash. You can barely call them rules and they use far to many spacial terms for stuff that does almost nothing.

>>416738

I've only played FATE over a dozen sessions with the same lazy GM. I didn't have a high opinion of it. A lot of the system came down to rolling and hoping for the best, or arguing with the GM about how I should be able to use my highest skills for certain actions. As it turns out, my best skill was shooting, so I naturally tried to use it in as many situations as possible in order to succeed. I consider it the system's failing more than my own, as I felt like I was being encouraged to do so by the mechanics. Basically, half of FATE is rolling the same dice over and over, and the other half is playing Magic Tea Party with your GM instead of actually playing FATE.

Maybe it was my GM.

I find pozzfinder to be bearable as long as you use literally nothing from their official setting, which is the LITERAL worst fluff I've had the displeasure of reading. There are a few fun crunchy character options, but none of them are actually any good compared to being a barbarian or a wizard (or one of the literal dozens of caster classes, because no one at pazio has ever heard of restraint and over-saturation)

>>416738

>but with a more narrative oriented perspective, FATE systems are good

I'd sooner make cards that signals the GM that my feelings are hurt from his narrative prose then play a FATE game ever again. Even nWoD, where it's 1e core book's main rules is some simple "anything goes" GM call for rolls and the rest of it's pages is dedicated to fluff a bajillion skills/merits, is a superior system to FATE. I'd even try a serious crack at GURPS autism.

>>417472

You can play a dragon in 3.5 if your GM is stupid, and if he's absolutely downright retarded you can play a hatchling time dragon who can become an elder time dragon in the first minute of the first session.

>>417483

A scalie would more likely choose to be a kobold (if they're scaly kobolds), lizardman, or some other scaled humanoid as opposed to an actual dragon or drake. They aren't usually creative enough to be interested in the actual monster as its hard to understand or relate to, much less write about or pretend to be, compared to having all the degenerate features you want stapled to a humanoid. Furries are lazy people, they aren't going out of their way to try and imagine what its like to be something they aren't unless that something is an idealized humanoid with few to no flaws besides maybe having a dick thats too big.

Not that I'd be happy with a party including any number of Drakes in FC though, they tend to be either an enormous pain in the ass or the cause of an awful lot of conveniently large buildings and cave entrances with strangely wide construction.Plus players tend to pick them up because they seem really strong (they are) without understanding how much trouble they're going to have or create in the long term because they need expensive modifications or rare forms of equipment to get geared up and unless you start giving them specific things they can actually use, the odds are low they'll get anything and will always be behind other party members in equipment and loot. Add that to the fact that they are too fucking big and will often be put outside with the horses while every other normally sized person talks to Count Dicksuckem unless, again, you make adjustments that make no logical sense just to accommodate their desire to be a dragon. Even if you do decide that they beat the odds and get dragon-sized equipment and have the mystical ability to warp building codes within a 5km radius, you still have to account for the terrible impression they leave on anyone who isn't a dragon, them being around drags the party impression down by game statistics alone since they're Reviled (let alone non-statistically, Drakes are not common enough to avoid comment) or the problem that they make stealth adventures not happen because a lot of the book's examples of impossible checks to Blend or Disguise literally mention Drakes and how they can't hide or pretend to be anything because they're enormous fucking dragons.

Purge them because they make a lot of problems, both for players who can't possibly know better (even if you explain it to them) and for the unfortunate GM who has to deal with the new disgruntled player who can't do HALF of what everyone else does and can only shine in combats which also happen to be outdoors.

>>417472

For your sanity and ease of play I would immediately ban Drakes if its your first run of the system, honestly I've had the most success with only human parties but I also understand some of the appeal of FC is looking at the races and seeing that the first player race is a literal dragon.

>Tfw you just want to play a fantasy race in a fantasy game, but furries have to ruin everything

My first rpg character ever was a dwarf. Then I made a dragonborn paladin. He was also fun to play. I like the dragonborn breathattack, it had a surprising amount of options in 4e that never got expanded upon in 5e. Now I just hope I get to play a robot in some sci-fi game, but that would require a gm.

>>417507

I wouldn't worry too much as this game us going to be a one shot. If things fail spectacularly its limited to this session and could be potentially hilarious.

>>417472

Virgin D&D Dragonborn

Chad Fantasy Craft Drake

Thad Fantasy Craft Draconic Legacy Saurian.

>nobody's automatically racist against you

>have hands

>normal sized so not easy to hit, plus saurians get defense bonuses

>can breathe fire every turn

>have a tail that can slap from out of reach

>always armored with that thick hide

>can cast spells without using your hands

>can upgrade breath weapon like a drake

>all species feats make your breath weapon harder to resist

>can choose to grow wings or not and then decide to grow them later for free

>fly speed 60 feet

If you play a Sorcerer you can even get all this at level 1 or get Draconic Heritage and Elemental Heritage at level 1 and let Draconic Legacy unlock Elemental Legacy's Drake prerequisite. With the Darkness element you can also gain the Abide in Darkness feat for spell resistance.

>>417605

Virgin D&D Dragonborn

Chad Fantasy Craft Drake

Thad Fantasy Craft Draconic Legacy Saurian

Boss RIFTS Dragon

>People either worship you or are affraid of you

>The only real threat are world powers and other dragons

>Physical form changes at will

>While in your normie form retain dragon resistances

<Get punched by a supersoldier, supersoldier breaks his hand on your vibranium chin

>Immune to most technofuckery

>Fly speed of fuck you

If we're gonna dump on shitty games that deserve let me bring up 4e:

The argument from sell-out fags usually goes

<You can role-play with in any system

<its balanced!

Yeah you can rp in 4e especially if you use your background but when you get in a combat encounter get ready to be in it for the long haul because 4e is designed as a tabletop wargame and those kinds of things are meant to take hours in and of themselves. Sure you can play a face-y rogue and talk up the gaurds but when you meet up with the orc bandits get ready to spend a couple hours of your life combing through your WoW power-bar power cards while waiting 10-30 minutes for your turn to come up. You can't even use your powers in your game if the DM is trying to run the game it was meant to be played. When I first played an Executioner-assassin I used a garrote ability by jumping over giant fish men while wraping my coils around their necks before bringing them crashing down on their backs as I choked them. It was cool up until we realized that its was only supposed to be used when the enemy was unaware. Fair enough. Rules are rules. Then you realize that many of your powers have to be used under specific circumstances in a specific way, every time. Fucking kill me. Rather play 5e as pozzed as it is at least combat is fast and I can use that extra time to describe how the brain matter pours from my enemy's skull as I wrench my morningstar from his head while disturbing the tranny across the table from me.

>>417812

4e is a pretty shitty tabletop wargame, too. Anytime you put a monster in your bestiary that has over 1000 HP, you should reconsider your life and career as a game designer. Nobody wants to chew through all that shit.

>>417812

It can be argued that the cookie-cutter classes of 4e are a matter of taste, but they can be meaningfully customized - but only with obscene builds that tend to end up powerful as shit. I actually like running characters twinked to hell (not for power, but for greed), but 4e is the worst system to do it in. People mostly just follow what they find online, and going your own way was fucking obnoxious. It's been some time but I recall having to find a copies of a specific articles in the Dragon magazine to get errata that should have been applied to the source products.

I also have a huge chip on my shoulder about the 4e Skill Challenges system, where the GM decides a check DC and number of successes then presents everyone with an in-game situation they should start rolling their way out of. It only really works if the players do exactly what you expect them to, and even then it's a backwards way to plan. As I've experienced it, it's been absolutely retarded.

>You come across a swift moving riving cutting across your path. Dare you ford its treacherous-

<We're high level magic users. I pop a daily power to teleport us across.

>Uhhh, the other bank was unstable and you fall in. Start rolling swim.

>>417863

4e can get very boring when its done by a my way or the highway DM. Even Pathfinder doesnt run into that kind of problem (its just has its own fuckery with the way its designed).

>>417980

>>417989

>>418002

What in the actual fuck does this guy have against martial characters?

>>418009

You didn't even see his "I think casters are underpowered in Pathfinder"-houserules yet. Nor his posts on monk rule-changes.

>>418010

>"I think casters are underpowered in Pathfinder"

Bullshit, there's no way anyone can say this and still expect to be taken seriously as a casual RPG player, much less a dev.

>>418015

Well it's not really as if he stated it like that but it was still a collection of feats that only buff casters. Can't find it though.

Man this makes me want to fix 3.5 ... again

>>418002

>weapon cord nerf

Putting aside the retardation of messing with it at all, it upsets me that he doesn't even try and use it right.

If you have the cord spaced correctly, the handle of your weapon will naturally fall into your hand when you have your hand down, or if you swing your arm the centrifugal force will get it right into your finger's grasp. These are trained fighters, not bored office workers.

Putting it at move action means it takes as much effort as bending down and picking it up off the ground from a couple feet away. It's not even close, realism is just their shitty excuse for the rebalance.

Fun note about the 3.5 OGL: it has the familiar rules for diagonal squares counting one-and-a-half, so squares on your diagonal are 5 then 15 feet away. This has problems with 10" reach characters (players will approach ogres from the diagonal to avoid AoO, etc). The rules in 3.5 to fix this are not under the OGL, so Pathfinder can't use them, and chooses to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

>>418177

I'd like to point out as well that even with a hilariously long cord, the association between a heavy metal weapon, and a mouse isn't a very good comparison. Not to mention a weapon is weighted better, so the odds of reefing on a 2' cord to catch your blade is gonna end up with you getting the handle, instead of getting the back end of your mouse or whatever, is much more likely without any training. This of course doesn't take into account anyone trained in the use of them ie: anyone who'd be adventuring with one.

>>418326

OP here. I see this thread has become a "general system thread." Thats cool.

>>418326

>bethesda plagiarizes mods for fallout 4 DLC

>now bethesda plagiarizes entire prefab adventures for their ESO TTRPG

Amazing.

>DDAL08-02

I see these alphanumeric codes on many of the files I download from Vola. Is there some kind of Dewey Decimal system for RPG splatbooks?

>>418335

In this case it relates to how its an Adventurer's League module

>DDAL - D&D Adventurer's League

>08 - The season's number, which is odd since Storm King's Thunder was season 5, maybe its a carry over from previous editions, but thats the number seen in the screen shots, so who knows.

>02 - Refers to being the second module in the league's season.

>>418177

what the actual fuck, that's retarded.

>>418173

>I love applying the same reasoning to his insane hatred of gunslingers, too.

Got any juicy retarded posts about this to share?

>People who train with modern revolvers - which the setting clearly apes instead of period-accurate guns - can quick draw and unload every shot in the cylinders and comfortably have time to reload within 6 seconds.

Your aim will suffer though. Just apply the logic of 2-weapon fighting here. Hell, maybe adjust the rule so instead of a flat attack penalty you drop the range increment, making it powerful in close quarters but quickly turns garbage with range. That gives you more balance and makes it tactically relevant.

>>418326

Also, now that I'm reading these more closely, I can see that the Bethesda book is full of sentence fragments and other grammatical mistakes. It's as though they told one of their curry nigger programmers to throw something into Microsoft Word and say yes to every green squiggle suggestion.

>His big tent is filled with several Khajiit, which seem unaffected by the heat, they stare at you cuatiously.

>the people are busy over eating, drinking, and conversation

>The eagle moves, blinking, and looks at you. She gives the Khajiit a nod before it collapses and seems to go napping

>Kah'reem likes to move before sunrise, when the full glory of the sun makes the dunes look like mountains of diamonds.

>And from late in the afternoon to sunset.

>>418337

So it's specific to product lines rather than the hobby as a whole. I see.

>>418338

>Got any juicy retarded posts about this to share?

No, just what was already posted where he says "magic users can do superhuman things because they're using magic but gunslingers are real people and thus can't do superhuman things" before promptly locking the thread.

>>417980

>>417989

>being so autismal about "realism"

>in fucking D&D

This guy also has no idea how long six seconds is, either.

>>416417

>And for some reason with their love of skill consolidations they still didn't merge Knowledge (arcana) with Spellcraft.

Other shit Pathfinder did not fix about 3.5: Social skills like Diplomacy and Bluff are still absurd campaign breakers if your skill bonus goes high enough (and there are many ways to achieve this - you can get a diplomacy modifier of +21 at level 1 - even with the core rulebook only you can get +14 at level 1 not counting spells and Aid Another) since the automatic persuasion makes it even better than mind control. And craft skills are still horribly unfriendly for players if they are not using magic spells to craft items. A wizard casting Fabricate can achieve in 6 seconds what a regular blacksmith with twice his crafting bonus could not achieve in over a year. And a lot of skills have no decent usage at all, like perform which does practically nothing on its own.

>>416432

You know, bitching about GURPS players being insufferable on imageboards is like wearing a "kick me" sign saying "Please troll me about GURPS." Why don't you just relax and learn to play GURPS like a normal person?

>>417989

That last pic isn't about grappling (although grappling is also affected by PF's shitty CMB system as described in pic related) but about the Brawler's level 20 capstone ability. People did the math and realized their level 20 combat maneuver just does not work at the level you get it. But if you're a martial at those levels you're probably gonna suck anyway.

>>418002

IIRC the weapon cord nerf was done to wreck dual-wield gunslinging builds because players would drop a gun as a free action then pick it up as a swift action with the weapon cord and they would use this sort of stunt to reload both their guns (usually used with double-barreled pistols which fire twice per attack). Paizo was also flirting with a 5 free actions limit which was ridiculed to death by irate forumgoers until they finally gave up. Like, those boards are filled with asskissers and even they were pissed at how bad and unnecessary this was. So for once, paizo nerfed something properly and fixed double-barreled pistols directly instead of making awful general rulings at a distance.

>>418010

>You didn't even see his "I think casters are underpowered in Pathfinder"-houserules yet. Nor his posts on monk rule-changes.

You can't just mention something like that and not share the details man. Tell us.

>>418364

>PF's shitty CMB system

Thankfully Fantasy Craft addressed this problem with a wide variety of combat actions based on different skills. Non-combatants can actually do worthwhile shit. What kind of retard thought it made sense to put all combat maneuvers under one number like that? Jesus.

>>418335

> Is there some kind of Dewey Decimal system for RPG splatbooks?

Module codes are old hat. Been around since TSR. G series and D series.

>>418364

>You can't just mention something like that and not share the details man. Tell us.

I wish I could but i don't have any link to it. It was linked in some PF thread, either here or on halfchan, years ago. I don't even remember if it was Jason, Sean or some other PF writer but it was certainly one of their team.

>>416594

that doesn't sound too bad

>>418364

>bitching about GURPS players

>mentioned, exclusively, people who run GURPs

Never blame a player for the GMs sin, they build the table and decide the game to be played.

>>416240

Let's go even simpler than this. One Page RPGs. Become the Demiurge and rule over the land of mortal, corporeal filth with a hand of endless procreation.

>>416149

2e

>>418788

Not an option. The OP asks between 3.5 and 5e. 2e is not an option in this case.

>>418801

One one hand other systems have been recommended. On the other hand anon should probably post some reason as for why he recs 2. edition.

>>418822

as OP I already opened it up to other systems before. Anon really should explain why he recs 2e though.

I just started my first foray into GM'ing (first experience with DnD at all minus a couple of podcasts) and I'm using 5e; however, I'm only loosely following the rules and making a bunch of house rules instead to make combat more interesting. Everyone seems to be having fun and the campaign takes place in hell, so trann5e works for me.

>>418894

>i don't know what art looks like, so this shadow is just as appealing

Branch out to another system. If nothing else, it will give help you stop thinking of TTRPGs as "D&D vs everything else."

>>418895

Don't worry, I will. Like I said, I already can tell that 5e is oversimplified. I'll give Pathfinder a try with my next campaign unless there's a superior alternative you would recommend.

>>418894

>I'm only loosely following the rules and making a bunch of house rules instead to make combat more interesting.

That's how 5e was intended to be played, because making rules is hard.

>>418898

>I'll give Pathfinder a try

Have you even read this thread?

>>418898

>Pathfinder

Play Fantasy Craft, quit the shit. Start on good taste early.

>>418927

How do I get my current players to switch? I have read some of the book and I already vastly prefer it to DnD, but my group is far newer to the hobby than I (about a decade difference of experience though I admit my own is not consistent). I have a hard enough time getting them to wrap their heads around 5e's rules, except one guy who DMed the system for about a year. Should I wait until they are comfortable enough with tabletop to branch out? I fear if I switch suddenly they will lose interest. They are good roleplayers, I have all but stopped them from minmaxing and metagaming, and we have fun, so I don't want to fuck it up.

>>418944

Hold a test one shot. Tell players this is a chance to play characters they don't normally play like a courtier or a keeper.

>>418944

Do this >>418945 and make sure to highlight the mechanics of Fantasy Craft, make it clear how scenes work and all that kind of stuff. If you want to show them what the system is capable for character builds you can stick to the Rogue's Gallery for NPCs and focus on species templates/feats and class abilities. It's pretty straightforward to translate a PC build into an NPC.

Bad idea for an introductory one-shot but in general you can also use NPC characters as the PCs in one-shots to keep the bookkeeping to a minimum and allow for more customization. The big difference is NPCs don't track character progression or Lifestyle. The one thing you should probably change to make it work is vitality, maybe use Level x Health x 5 2. Special NPCs are individually meant to be a match for the average party after all.

>>417812

All of D&D is a tabletop wargame, and combat takes long in every edition. Your argument is shit.

>>418993

You obviously never played 4e or you have and think roleplaying is supposed to be 99% combat that takes an hour long per fight scene.

>>419010

>combat that takes an hour long per fight scene

If you're using the monster manuals, yes, combat is a huge slog, however late in 4e's life the Monster Vaults were published which more or less halved max HP and doubled damage. This really changed combat to be far faster and a lot more exciting.

If you are using Monster Vault and you're still taking hours to finish combat, I don't know what to tell you, anon, you and your friends probably need to learn to be more decisive.

On the subject of RP, I will both agree and disagree. RP is easy in 4e, but the problem is that it's not like other editions because 4e is so structured. I've found that 4e operates best under a very formulaic structure, similar to an episode of a superhero cartoon:

Intro (RP)

First Combat (Easy Fight)

Rising Stakes (RP)

Second Combat (Medium Fight)

Villain Monologue/Big Reveal (RP)

Final Fight (Hard Fight)

Conclusion/Epilogue (RP).

So if you want a more free form story, 4e is not a good system for you, but if you want a highly structured story, I find 4e to be exceptionally good.

I like 2e.

>>416149

Been gaming well over 50 years. In the OD&D Gygax proved himself a genius by inventing both the RPG genre and the dungeon crawl. But his rules were cribbed from primitive medieval miniature skirmish war game rules and were even clumsier than the state of the art way back then. Started as unplayable crap and NEVER got better. All D&D is for idiots.

Systems that seem to work;

Runequest (but don’t get bogged down in Glorantha)

Chaosium’s simplified Basic Roleplaying

Dungeon Fantasy powered by GURPS (The worst of GURPS is that it isn’t ready to play — the GM is given a toolkit of rules to cover any genre, but has to decide what small fraction of the rules to use for the game he wants to run. Dungeon Fantasy does this for Old School Dungeon Crawl; no customization needed)

Torchbearer from Burning Wheel seems like it’s what OD&D should have been, but I haven’t tested it yet.

>>419121

burning anything

>but especially torchebearer

you have shit taste anon, luke crane and all those indie knifefight faggots are the same.

>>418993

Combat only takes forever if you ignore roleplaying and character motivation and make every combat a fight to the death.

I'm sure this will echo what others have said already, but: I'm all about autismal character building. 5e feels like Tonka Toys with training wheels to me.

>>418907

I apologize, I hadn't finished reading through it. I'm taking the recommendation to try out Fantasy Craft. Me and my players are all still new, so transitioning to a new system shouldn't be a problem. I appreciate the feedback.

>>419250

Pathfinder isn't a good system unless you love using magic since it gimps non-magic classes. It's also annoying to read since it is mostly filler before telling you what you need to know.

>>419237

You know I looked at the OD&D rules and they're really not that bad. Theres a few gaps you have to fill and assumptions you have to make but they seem to work alright.

>>419396

It's not so bad if you already know how to play D&D. But if you were some random guy in the 70's who never played an RPG, and tried to learn the game by yourself with these books, it would be rough. My guess is a lot of people back then learned from other people who played before, or even directly by joining a local group. Either that or they were hardcore wargamers who could adapt to this new paradigm. But the average guy wasn't like that. At most he read some Tolkien books and whatnot...

>>419396

>>419479

>>419121

OD&D is almost certainly not unplayable. People who say that are retarded faggots. Even fucking 8 year olds figured out how that shit worked. Looking at it today, I certainly wouldn't call it the cleanest, but for anyone that actually does the bare minimum amount of homebrew, OD&D is the absolute best basis for a fantasy role-playing game.

That said, anyone who unironically considers Torchbearer or Burning Wheel to not be absolute shit is a retarded mouthbreather. Let alone Dungeon Fantasy, which is strictly inferior to any TSR-era version of the game.

I like to play 5e with my players using stripped down rules. 5e lends itself so well to roleplaying that its not terribly difficult.

>No initative rolls, side split and party usually goes first, martials before casters.

>Players can give themselves “bonuses” during combat at detriment of getting a “punishment” should they fail. This is usually determined on the fly.

>No skill checks except with tools. DM decides if your character is socially convincing.

>No passive persuasion/insight. If your character is looking for something, specify it. All party members can “hear” bumps in the night.

>AC is inverted: 20 - your previous AC. I like playing seafaring wargames and a low AC makes more sense for being dodgy.

>Saving throws only against specific threats. I have a homebrew chart of what your class gives bonuses to. Things like poison, dragon breath, turning into stone, magic.

>>419485

Is there a reason I never see anybody bring up Basic Fantasy RPG?

>>419550

>5e with stripped down rules

So, 5e? There are barely any rules already. Are your players slow on the uptake or do you just prefer a very, very freeform experience?

>>419550

>5E

>stripped down even further

>retarded changes to an already bad game

Back to reddit

>>419485

OD&D is playable, but you're even more of a retarded faggot for saying that its the best basis for fantasy roleplaying when it is an extremely cumbersome and limited system designed to emulate a narrow band of fantasy roleplay gaming out of the box. You saying "well you can just homebrew it" is true of any system and most of them don't have the baggage of being 20+ years behind the design curve. Why would I homebrew for a game that needs so much more work? Why wouldn't I just use an OSR option that covers the kind of fantasy I want, better?

>>419550

>stripped down 5e

You're just doing improv at this point.

>>419550

>5e lends itself so well to roleplaying that its not terribly difficult.

It lends itself to "roleplaying" because the GM is required to make shit up because half of the rules don't exist. I guess it's even more suited for RP when you strip away even more rules.

>>419485

I'm not buying the 8 year old thing, because it's around 11 years that a kid acquires abstract thinking, and those 1974 rules were too disorganized and assumed wargaming background to really make sense of them on your own (without someone guiding you through it). I started with the 1981 Basic edition at age 11, and even that was "just right" and took a long time reading and slowly absorbing the contents. It probably sounds strange to people now, but back then 64 pages of rules was a whole lot! And yeah some of it is monster descriptions, but still even without that it was a lot to keep track of, and all new and unfamiliar to me at the time.

>>419629

>because it's around 11 years

5-6 year olds are already halfway to acquiring abstract thinking and in 1.5-2 years they will be fully capable of it. Unless the kid is mentally impaired in some way 11 years for abstract thinking is absurd and if you seriously treat your kid like 11 is when he should start learning more advanced concepts you've already crippled him for the rest of his life.

>>419550

At that point, just co-author a novel.

>>419828

Acks is solid.

>>419637

But look dude, I'm not a retard or anything, and it still took me a lot of time to get to grips with just the Molvday Basic book when I was a young teen. When I was 8 years old, I don't think i'd have been able to grasp the rules in their totality. Probably could have been able to play with some guidance, but not teach myself to be a DM like I did a few years later.

And that was even after I played a few Fighting Fantasy gamebooks. Even those were groundbreaking at the time and seemed really deep. Some of the adults I showed the books to had a hard time wrapping their heads around the concept. They were like "but this isn't real, it's not really you, etc." That's how different today's world is from back then. It was so new, so groundbreaking, that people had trouble even getting the concept alone, much less pouring over a huge set of rules (compared to any game they played before EVER), and so on.

>>416210

hear hear

Myfarog

>better than all this shit

<bad pr

>>419237

IDK what there is about the art+aberrant colours man modules looked so good back then

>>419828

I've never heard of it, but it looks neat. Mind posting some of the files in the vola or book reading thread so we can get a taste?

>>419959

>bad pr

Isn't it all about pr in the first place? Being written by an E-celeb is it's main selling point.

>>419583

Your entire post reads as someone who's never actually played. But to answer the final point - If you don't plan on homebrewing, then yes, another OSR system will do the job more cleanly. ACKS will give you a better domain building experience, just plain B/X will give you a more complete system, etc. Where OD&D shines is that it has few moving parts, and you can more easily patch things on. That's because, fundamentally, every OSR-style game is a homebrew of OD&D.

>>419629

The absolute earliest age I can confirm someone I know started with OD&D was 10 years old. So I'll give you that 8 years old might be a stretch, but that doesn't change the more salient point, which is that even children could puzzle this shit out.

>>419828

ACKS is a good system, but it doesn't get as much publicity because of faggots going off about, as you said, political bullshit. That said, it shines most at the domain level, which is a bit of an issue when most people are concerned principally with the lower levels.

>>416149

5.0 is mostly 3.5 with fixes for some stupid things, like saving throws from C&C, no?

>>416210

><Modern WotC cares more

Do you care about what WotC cares, or about what's in SRD?

><poz poz poz

Something collected more poz than Pozfinder?

>>420159

> Castles & Crusaders

Could as well go there. That said, it's still simplified.

>>420614

>5.0 is mostly 3.5 with fixes for some stupid things, like saving throws from C&C, no?

No. You should actually take a look at the rules sometime.

5e feels like it has no real identity. We really don't have many world books. We haven't done much to revisit fan favorite settings. It seems to rely HEAVILY on D&D Beyond's homebrewing.

>>420728

On the one hand I prefer homebrew settings. On the other hand this sounds like they're adopting the Bethesda business model of "let the players fix it"

>>416210

>SPELLBOUND

I'm already sold on Fantasy Craft, what is spellbound

>>421032

A splatbook for Fantasy Craft that was supposed to be out years ago. New spells, classes, mechanics, and all kinds of wild shit. Crafty game is such a small company of 3 or 4 guys that when they got hired to work on some Mistborn stuff, Spellbound got put to the side for years.

>>418173

>six-at-a-time speed loader

That's called a moonclip Anon.

t. Gunless yuropeen

>>417812

> let me bring up 4e:

TBH, if it weren't for 4E, I wouldn't have dipped my toes into RPGs. Everything is BIG and BOLD and the math is easy to calculate because it's half your level plus your die-roll against an obvious target.

I get BABs now, but at first I found the idea of everyone having a different BAB rate utterly confusing. Too, EnWorld put out a beautifully written essay on the process of creating a custom monster, so as the DM (Yes that's how I got into RPGs. Figured if no one else was running a game, I'D do it) it saved me a bunch of time and let me fine tune the challenges to my party.

Then the wizard swapped out his illusury daggers for a rolling, encounter-long ball of flame that I wasn't prepared for. Oh well.

anyone has a link to the D&D creator saying women are too retarded for rules & lore?

>>421257

4th edition

>>421316

I found it

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/955153201434525696

https://archive.fo/OU5vX

>>422056

Meant co-creator, and 5e. I'm a retard though.

I just want to play in Mystara.

>>422494

Given how Blackmoor, Hollow World, and Savage Coast are all parts of the Mystara setting, we're probably never gonna see a reprint of Mystara. Too much wresting various important parts back from various disparate copyright holders.

Pathfinder/3.5: overly complex with systems that deep systems, I'd argue it's mechanically superior to 5e if for no other reason because their are simply more mechanics based one what you need to do, duel wielding is my go to example as in pathfinder it's a huge ordeal with a whole paragraph explaining how to do it and an accompanying feat, where as in 5e it's just innate and simple.

5e: far simpler but consequentially lacks some depth. I think 5e went for quality mechanics over quantity, their aren't as many but you can still do the same things as pathfinder you just need to rely on DM's discretion more which, for a good DM anyway, means more creative ways to deal with situations as opposed to a ridged rule.

I think my hometown DM described the differences very well. "pathfinder/3.5 feels a lot more like a game where as 5e feels more like a way to tell a collaborative story."

>>422523

3rd-ed is a continuation of AD&D design theory.

5th-ed is a continuation of B/X D&D design theory.

Both have their merits, both have their flaws. Neither are the best choice for D&D-style games.

Is it just me, or is 3.5e an unbalanced, overcomplicated mess of rules that actually gets in the way of the game? I have seen games that pause combat or even the game itself for a while with their ass backwards roll systems, and even games that have some obscure edge case rules, but none of the GM I have seen decide to apply them. 3.5e GM I have seen seem to rejoice in pausing the game to search for rules, and then argue for a bit to rule out that something that should make sense in real life can't be done in the game. Why does 3.5e tend to attract players and DM this strict? I hate rules lite systems with a passion, but 3.5e is just too autistic, even for me. 5e is oversimplified, but despite that, it feels cleaner. It's still far from the pinnacle of game design more or less like all D&D, but at least you fight the system less, and the DM seem to care more about having fun than obeying the book or caring about some nonexistent balance.

>>422749

Yeah. That'S exactly my problem with 3.finder and also the reason why I don't plan on getting into Fantasycraft. It can be fun to come up with so builds and ideas but playing them is something else entirely, especially if the GM understood some rules differently. Works alright in some vidya though.

>>422749

Yes, and 5e's response was to not bother trying to fix anything while removing any rules that were even the slightest bit sticky. 3.0 at least tried to be something new and fresh and try to simulate a fantasy world instead of telling the GM to make up half the game and setting. It may be a giant, unwieldy bunch of half-baked parts thrown together, but it had ambition that the brand hasn't had since 4e killed it.

>>422753

>since 4e killed it

Playing 3e for a while made me realize why they thought 4e was a good idea. They made it into "D&D+WoW" since that's how most people play 3e anways.

>>422749

>Why does 3.5e tend to attract players and DM this strict?

Well the whole "rules for every situation" thing directly encourages this play style. The philosophy behind it is that mastering the mechanics is the challenge, which is pretty dumb. The rules should directly encourage the game, not be opposed to it. You can ameliorate a lot of the problems by just not rolling for things a lot of the time. Just because the character has a skill that applies doesn't mean they need to roll every time they use it. Rolling is supposed to represent taking an action under pressure where even an experienced person could mess up, or a situation with a similar amount of uncertainty. Stopping combat or RP to roll should only happen with some kind of pivotal moment or if a character chooses to do something that's clearly a risk/chance.

>>422756

There's a rule for that. It's called taking 10 or taking 20. Rules are there to protect the players from the DM's giant, floppy wang.

>>422767

>DM reliance

You are going to rely on the GM either way, you dumbass nigger. It's just that 3.5 limits gameplay by having too many badly written rules that.

>>422749

Munchkins love hilariously broken exploits, exploits only a strict GM wouldn't tolerate. Even relaxed GMs will quickly despise those loopholes and cut them out of the game and become strict.

>>422777

But that doesn't have anything to do with 3.5e being overcomplicated. If anything, being complicated is what makes it so exploitable: Risus is the simplest rules-lite shit you could find, and it's impossible to cheat in that system. Only WotC could think generating iron out of thin air is not exploitable, for example.

>>422767

The DM is the one running the bloody game, otherwise you're just thinking out loud.

New to tg. both the board and the hobby. Trying to write up a setting for a LitRPG story using 3.5 ruleset - both as a way to gradually learn the rules and make something fun to read. went to 4chans tg, found the trove on there. Currently downloading it for further research (btw, anyone knows if there is a way to download a whole folder off there https://thetrove.net/Books/ ? )

Have lots stuff i want to do with the setting/story and there is a lot of material to read through - was hoping someone here would be willing to point me in the right direction on where to look for relevant rules/tables etc..

>>422979

first question - I Want to include slavery as a commonplace aspect of most societies in my fantasy world.

Given that:

a) most city state governments officially allow slavery systems though the details of said systems differ. Common trends include imposing slave status on criminals, heavily indebted, war prisoners and disabled people deemed unfit to be self-sufficient.

b) the most common way slavery is enforced in economically developed city states and nations is by means of magic, either as magically imposed geas or a magic slave collar. Poorer tribes, remote places and the like make do without the magic, with just more traditional means of collars, tattoos or brands and enforcement.

The general scenario I am considering would be that a city state would condemnd a criminal who has done something than normally warrants death or long imprisonment to slavery instead, and auction them off to cover or at least offset the costs of arrest/processing.

1. I am trying to come up with a way of pricing for slaves that would appropriately fit in with the pricing of all the items.

2. And also how to spec out accessibility and pricing of the tools enforcing slavery so that it doesn't seem entirely out of whack with the cost of the rest of the magics.

>>422980

There are a lot of costs given for items, but I figured a good place to start for the cost of slave would be cost of food and upkeep vs. earning potential vs. the cost of actually enforcing the slavery

From here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#meals), cost of Meals(poor) comes in at 1sp.

Which happens to be the wage for untrained labor here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellcastingAndServices): Hireling, untrained 1 sp per day

Using this as baseline, keeping kids as slaves would be generally uncommon because owner would likely be a net loss in upkeep vs. whatever labor they contribute even before factoring in cost of slavery magic. So that sort of thing would presumably be limited to orphanges/schools that might try to train them into professionals and hope for long term profit.

Meanwhile teens to adults would presumably be trainable for some kind of labor and their earning potential is estimated at 3sp. There are also earning potentials for professionals - so one can estimate daily profit from a skilled slave and than work out how long it would take to balance out the cost of whatever magic was used to enslave.

>>422981

What I am missing in all this would be the 'cost of enforcement' variable - I am looking for stuff like magical geas, cursed items, curses that control behavior etc.. and their costs.

Also helpful would be if any module/setting already has worked out a table or formula for costing slaves.

>>422979

This is the wrong thread for this sort of thing.

>>422983

I wasn't sure about posting here, but I didn't see a thread for D&D stuff specifically and this seemed the closest fit. What's the norm for this board - should I just start a new thread for this question?

>>422985

Seems like a question for the QTDDTOT that's linked in the pinned header thread.

>>422988

thanks... turns out I am really poor at reading

>DM won't let my Eldritch Knight bond with a shield because that would give me the mechanical advantage of donning a shield on a bonus action

Worst part about this is some guy asked Jeremy Crawford this specific question on Twitter, but the dumbass didn't address the actual question. I'm starting to hate D&D just because of the amount of rules lawyering it has.

>>423410

Are you that guy from the QTDDTOT?

>>423412

I am that guy. Been discussing with my friend about the shield binding, but he is not convinced because, apparently, being able to don a shield with a single bonus action instead of a full action is too much of an advantage. I proposed being able to summon the shield as an Action, but he doesn't want to make any rulings and just follow the rules to a T.

I swear I have never seen a system that attracted as much rulefaggottry as D&D. It'a the only system where game masters think the rules are always perfect and make perfect sense, and thus can't be judged. Only met once a D&D DM that wasn't afraid of making up new rules and non-magical-item buffs and skills. I'm starting to think about mocking this attitude by being literal about the rules, and binding my Eldritch Knight to a siege weapon, like a battering ram, a cannon or a ballista. Hey, they are technically weapons, and Weapon Bond never specifies the type of weapons you can bond to.

>>423460

Apparently, he is gonna homerule not being able to link myself to a siege weapon, despite the RAW allowing me to do so. So yeah, it seems it's plain old no fun allowed, rather than strictly following the rules.

>>423471

can you not think of a way to get the same effect in another way? i mean, this is dnd, there must be a way to do that

>>423474

I guess I could try to stove it in some pocket dimension item, but most of them specify taking stuff out of one of them takes a full action, so in order to fire them, I would have to wait at least a turn. By bonding it, I can summon it as a Bonus Action, then, assuming it is loaded, aim it with my Haste Action, then fire it with my standard Action. I guess I could Action Surge my way out of it, but then, siege weapons weigh a buttload, and most bag of holdings don't let you put in more than 500 lb. Floating Disks aren't able to hold much weight, too, so I guess I am SoL unless I spend a lot of levels in Wizard to cast a Demiplane.

>>423476

Disregard that, I just noticed a Rogue (Arcane Trickster) 12 / Paladin (Oath of the Ancients) 7 / Monk 1 can deal insane DPS via kicks or ranged attacks (waaay more than a siege cannon per Action thanks D&D), and still be a better tank, support and utility than an Eldritch Knight. So yeah, gonna proceed to wreck this game with no survivors. You could have given me the summonable shield.

>>416572

Seconding one of the better midweight systems out there with the craziest settings, Necropolis and Rippers ftw

>>423471

If he's going to be a rules lawyer and piss in your cornflakes for daring to have fun, why not be that guy and wreck the campaign by subtly easing 1-2 players off the rails against each other?

Is this the thread to talk about things Pathfinder related? Because I need random generation tables for stuff, at least one for gods or for magic/cursed items.

The problem is not creativity, but tracking all the items or even do something fun like rolling the dice everytime a player finds a magic item to see the effects.

>>423732

>not making your own random tables

>>423733

I like the time to do so and I have no fucking idea how to balance it. Should the best results be on the highest numbers or in the lowest? maybe in the middle ones?

>>423734

I don't have the time I mean.

>>423734

Gee, I don't know. Do 90% of the inputs of your game have a better result the higher your roll is, or do you use THAC0 roll-under bullshit? You know your party better than us, YOU balance it for THEM.

>>423732

No. This is not a pathfinder thread.

>>423739

What? Of course it is. OP even asked about it. Scroll up.

>>423744

It's not a thread for asking for pathfinder resources, you newfag retard.

>>423734

If you're only using the one die, with one item per result, it doesn't matter where the results go, because on a d20 a 10 is as likely as a 20. Now, convention says to put the best things at the highest numbers, but it doesn't affect the balance of the table. For that to matter you need to roll multiple dice, or maybe have less interesting results take up ranges of results, like the weapon is +1 from 1-10, +2 from 11-14, +3 from 15-17, or whatever.

Besides, do you even need the table to be balanced? Obviously, if you're going to roll on the table every time they fight a monster you don't want everyone walking around with multiple Hands of Vecna, but if you're using it sparingly, like only at the end of the adventure, you can get away with throwing whatever the hell you want on there and just vetoing results that would be stupid. Somebody's already got the bag of holding? Reroll.

Or don't bother with the random magic item table at all and just give something fun to them. It makes no difference to the player whether they find a sweet sword because you said so or because you rolled a die, looked it up on a table and the table (which you wrote) said so.

>>423754

I was thinking about using a d100 table, and mostly rewards for high perception rolls in searching spots or make random treasures.

>>423750

The joke is that Pathfinder is the same as 3.5, you stick in the mud.

>>423802

>Be me. Be OP. Fuck off newfag retard.

>>424003

Now you're just babbling.

>>424036

You're not really dumb enough to think that works.