What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Actually, i guess one change(not really something that was broken) is i would like to see the adjustment of anything that negates damage completely.

DR/ER should reduce it to a minimum of some amount (1 or 1 plus relevant mod) so for example, if you do 4 fire damage to something with FR 10, you still do a point.

Saves that negate damage should be quarter damage.

I'm just not a fan of the 'all or nothing' aspect of some of the higher level stuff. I sometimes wish there were degrees of success/failure to saving throws.

It's something I'd at least like to know the designer's thoughts on, why they think immunity is acceptable.

I just feel like the outcome of a high level rogue vs a maximized, empowered, catastrophied fireball should feel more varied than 160 damage, or nothing.


If there is ever a Pathfinder Revised, my main realistic hope is that they go through the game and clear up things that are unclear or contradictory. Things like the Energy Drain issue I found yesterday (where the CRB and Bestiary disagree on what happens after 24 hours), or magic item creation rules that both spread out important stuff across two different parts (there's nothing in the Magic Items chapter that says you can't make a potion of a spell with a Personal range, that restriction is only found in the Brew Potion feat) and still have confusing things like "Multiple Similar Abilities" discounts (No, you don't get the discount on an item giving you four different AC bonuses, you get it on things like staffs).

My unrealistic hope is that Paizo would come to some sort of agreement with Wizards that they can mine all the 3e/3.5 books for stuff they can use to improve the game. In late-era 3.5e, many problems with the game were identified and sort of fixed, like some of the magic item issues that got fixed with the Magic Item Compendium, and classes that could heal up to about half hp on a timescale of rounds to minutes (Dragon Shaman, Healing domain reserve feat). If Paizo could import those fixes to a revised Pathfinder, it would be awesome.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Since I don't think there will ever be a version of the game that doesn't elicit outraged cries of "Class XXXX is BROKENZ!!! or "Spell YYY is BROKENZ!!! or similar things... I won't waste time with trying to fix things that we can't all agree are broken.

However there are some fundamental things about the game that I'd like to see addressed.

1. I don't like the save mechanic. I never did. One of the very, very few things I like better about 4e than PF is that when I "attack" something, I get to make the "attack" roll against their defenses. That makes me feel more active and in control since there are things I can do to boost my attack rolls.

This would be a signficant divergence from the vancian style magic that dnd and pathfinder have since enjoyed. While that isn't neccesarily a bad thing, it does bear consideration. The dying earth style magic has been a part of the game for a long time, a big part of it is the all or nothing fire and forget(literally) nature of spells. That has somewhat eroded over the years but this is a kind of change that basically screams for spell slots and the whole spell system to be revamped to keep it making sense.

There are alot of things in the system that are balanced around someone making a save, rather then making an attack, if you change that you deeply change the feel of the game. For instance, poisons, hazards, diseases all become attackers instead of something to be resisted by the subject. That doesnt make a whole lot of rational sense. And what about enchantments? Personally I think the flavor of a saving throw makes a lot more sense for resisting a charm spell then an attack roll does, dont you? I would much prefer if the game didnt start taking large steps into dissociative mechanics any time soon.

Then there is the thought as to whether or not you WANT players to have more control over those kinds of effects. And if they do, should the effects stay the same. Like you say there are ways to make sure you hit with an attack, dms would likely be unhappy if that same ability was there for some of the more powerful spells. If you bring all that out from behind the screen, you have to reconsider a whole heck of a lot of spell effects.


Kolokotroni wrote:

Basically the summoner gets to pick each and every feature of the eidolon. Most classes and class features in some way spread out the abilities. Even a fighter gets bravery, and can take non-combat feats. A summoner is thus very easy to optimize. Just pick all the evolutions for whatever you wnat to do (usually combat). The offensive options for the eidolon are OBVIOUS, and require no effort to choose the 'best' ones.

So if you play in a group that normally doesnt optimzie heavily, a player could easily unintentionally or intentionally take all combat options for the summoners eidolon and be more powerful then is normal, as if a druid optimized the heck out of himself and his animal companion for combat. Which wouldn't be in line with non-optimized other characters. The solution is to make sure that the player playing a summoner takes some non-combat evolutions as well if you dont optimize heavily as a group. If you do, it wont be an issue in the first place.

and

Azten wrote:
Nothing, actually, if the player knows all the little rules that keep the Summoner & Eidolon balanced. Most of the "The Summoner is too strong!" threads come from Eidolons that were built incorrectly.

Okay, gotcha. Basically the customization that appears in most of the classes is just a bit easier to optimize for combat. That doesn't scream unbalanced to me as much as it does planning and focus. My games are more than fights so that kind of optimization isn't going to unbalance my games.

Thanks for the clarification guys. :D

Silver Crusade

Staffan Johansson wrote:

If there is ever a Pathfinder Revised, my main realistic hope is that they go through the game and clear up things that are unclear or contradictory. Things like the Energy Drain issue I found yesterday (where the CRB and Bestiary disagree on what happens after 24 hours), or magic item creation rules that both spread out important stuff across two different parts (there's nothing in the Magic Items chapter that says you can't make a potion of a spell with a Personal range, that restriction is only found in the Brew Potion feat) and still have confusing things like "Multiple Similar Abilities" discounts (No, you don't get the discount on an item giving you four different AC bonuses, you get it on things like staffs).

My unrealistic hope is that Paizo would come to some sort of agreement with Wizards that they can mine all the 3e/3.5 books for stuff they can use to improve the game. In late-era 3.5e, many problems with the game were identified and sort of fixed, like some of the magic item issues that got fixed with the Magic Item Compendium, and classes that could heal up to about half hp on a timescale of rounds to minutes (Dragon Shaman, Healing domain reserve feat). If Paizo could import those fixes to a revised Pathfinder, it would be awesome.

CRB will always trump the bestiary.


@Kolok, well, there may well be a need to revamp some of the rules around spellcasting if the save mechanic is converted to an attack roll. I don't think it's a challenge mechanically, but your comment about the result on "save or die" spells is interesting. Do you believe that GMs fudge those rolls that much? If so, is that a problem in itself?


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
@Kolok, well, there may well be a need to revamp some of the rules around spellcasting if the save mechanic is converted to an attack roll. I don't think it's a challenge mechanically, but your comment about the result on "save or die" spells is interesting. Do you believe that GMs fudge those rolls that much? If so, is that a problem in itself?

I believe that some dms fudge more then others, and that it has been an important option for the history of the game. In past conversations on these boards and others there has been plenty of testimony that many do it at least some of the time, for the good of the game, the story, the fun, or for their own indulgence.

Either way it is something that would need to be seriously considered with this kind of a change. Not just because of fudging, but because of potential impact on play. If I could optimize a save or lose spell the same way I could optimize an attack with a sword, how much impact on an encounter the spell should be able to have would have to be reconsidered and probably scaled back considerably.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
@Kolok, well, there may well be a need to revamp some of the rules around spellcasting if the save mechanic is converted to an attack roll. I don't think it's a challenge mechanically, but your comment about the result on "save or die" spells is interesting. Do you believe that GMs fudge those rolls that much? If so, is that a problem in itself?

I believe that some dms fudge more then others, and that it has been an important option for the history of the game. In past conversations on these boards and others there has been plenty of testimony that many do it at least some of the time, for the good of the game, the story, the fun, or for their own indulgence.

Either way it is something that would need to be seriously considered with this kind of a change. Not just because of fudging, but because of potential impact on play. If I could optimize a save or lose spell the same way I could optimize an attack with a sword, how much impact on an encounter the spell should be able to have would have to be reconsidered and probably scaled back considerably.

Well, suggesting that you could modify a spell attack on, say, reflex with additional bonuses is not necessarily the same as saying that you would do so the "same way [you] could optimize an attack with a sword." Just that you COULD do it. Typically, in 4e, attacks against AC are much easier to boost than attacks vs will, fort or reflex.

And I do like the idea of certain magic items, especially staves, adding to your ability to "land" a spell against a foe.

But that bring up another thing that I sometimes don't care for in PF, which is all the myriad ways of reducing or avoiding damage, either from spells, physical attacks or special abilities. This is something that gets continually more important the higher level you go, until at the highest levels most of your effort is targeted not towards boosting your damage, but instead to ensuring that you can at least get SOMETHING to hit the BBEG... That leads to some very frustrating encounter dynamics, imho.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Well, suggesting that you could modify a spell attack on, say, reflex with additional bonuses is not necessarily the same as saying that you would do so the "same way [you] could optimize an attack with a sword." Just that you COULD do it. Typically, in 4e, attacks against AC are much easier to boost than attacks vs will, fort or reflex.

Certainly

So if 'attacks' against will, fort or reflex are still dificult to boost then what is the point of making them attack rolls other then changing who rolls the dice? We already have things like spell focus and heighten spell that can shift the odds a little in the favor of the spell. So why do you feel rolling the dice put you more 'in control'?

Quote:

And I do like the idea of certain magic items, especially staves, adding to your ability to "land" a spell against a foe.

I do too, I love the rules for implements the Supergenius games has for their product The Genius Guide to Runestaves and wyrdwands.

Quote:


But that bring up another thing that I sometimes don't care for in PF, which is all the myriad ways of reducing or avoiding damage, either from spells, physical attacks or special abilities. This is something that gets continually more important the higher level you go, until at the highest levels most of your effort is targeted not towards boosting your damage, but instead to ensuring that you can at least get SOMETHING to hit the BBEG... That leads to some very frustrating encounter dynamics, imho.

I dont disagree that it gets complicated and frustrating, but that is also part of the nature and flavor of high level play. People who like this kind of thing (the multiple lays of spells and special abilities required for offense and defence) like high level play, those who dont, usually dont play to high levels. The nature of the game changes at high levels, and if you dont have the change, what is the point? Slightly higher numbers? I would rather see a clearer division in the levels, where things go from 'realistic' to wushu to superheroes and let people choose the kind of game they want to play.\

Either way I think you are looking for a much bigger change in how magic works then just changing saving throws.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Either way I think you are looking for a much bigger change in how magic works then just changing saving throws

Possibly so... Without a doubt there would be some unintended consequences to making this sort of change, and it would likely take a bit of play testing to work it all out.

And the end result might alienate more players than it pleases...

You do make a good point about the strategy of the game changing as you reach different levels. That is, in fact, something I don't like about 4e. It's just the same thing with different numbers, no matter how high you go.

Food for thought. Thanks for that perspective...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Either way I think you are looking for a much bigger change in how magic works then just changing saving throws

Possibly so... Without a doubt there would be some unintended consequences to making this sort of change, and it would likely take a bit of play testing to work it all out.

And the end result might alienate more players than it pleases...

You do make a good point about the strategy of the game changing as you reach different levels. That is, in fact, something I don't like about 4e. It's just the same thing with different numbers, no matter how high you go.

Food for thought. Thanks for that perspective...

My pleasure, its actually very interesting to think about. Most non-fans dont realize 4E really did do what it set out to do and came up with solutions to 'problems' in the system. It is a very good game for what it wants to be, its just alot of people dont like the consequences of 'fixing' those 'problems'.

My example is always the fact that a succubus couldn't dominate a commoner for more then a few rounds without some kind of dm fiat. Save or lose spells like dominate person are a problem. It sucks when an encounter is 'won' or 'lost' by a single roll of a save. But, at the same time something important in the flavor of a succubus is lost when dominate person becomes a 50-50 save to shake off every round regardless of level, stats or other bonuses.


Fix the monk. Flurry of blows was never a form of two weapon fighting in 3.5. Monks are supposed to be the best unarmed and maneuver combatant, but the fighter still surpasses them. The new ruling on fob has caused further issues.

There are a ton of threads about it, this one thing I'd like worked on and improved.

I'd like their standard attack with monk weapons and unarmed be the same as their first attack with fob on higher levels. This was never a difference in the 3.5, it makes a lot of feats a dead end with a monk that aren't so with the rest of the classes, fixing that opens up possibilities and doesn't overshadow any other class.

As to planar binding, I don't see anything wrong with it, maybe a longer casting time is appropriate but its not as written. Planar ally is more easily used though I don't see it as a problem either.

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing is weapon mastery rules like they had in basic, where the damage and abilities improved by more than weapon specialization, and was open to all classes.

If possible, don't know if it would violate the OGL, but I think have a set save progression and a simple non stacking bonus for the class would be great, like they did in saga and 4e. This keeps the multiclassing reasonable.

Pretty happy otherwise.


Quote:
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE FIXED IN PATHFINDER?

1)Construct Armor. I really love construct armors, me and at least other 15 persons I play with, but it is a bit frustrating, both for the players and the GM in charge, to re-read the description of construct armor every time to figure out how they work. The descriptive text is so vague and expeditious IMO, also the prices are a bit off.

2)Firearms. I still don't understand how double-barreled weapons work...


I dont mind doing this rant once a week. IF they do a 2.0 (which i am not necesarily calling for) I think they should have a good list of what players have a problem with.

Quote:
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE FIXED IN PATHFINDER?

1) the silly 'flat footed until you act rule' simply does not makes sence in 90% of the cases that do not involved a surprise round. (makes total sense in a surprise round)

2) Feats should be revamped: there are so many feats with senseless prereqs why does farshot require point blank? why does shild of swords require power attack? why does the stand in place and attack everything around you feat (whirlwind) require a chain of feats that offer defense and movement (dodge, mobility, combat expertise)

3) same could be said for spell progression

4) others... but that rant wore me out.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Since I don't think there will ever be a version of the game that doesn't elicit outraged cries of "Class XXXX is BROKENZ!!! or "Spell YYY is BROKENZ!!! or similar things... I won't waste time with trying to fix things that we can't all agree are broken.

However there are some fundamental things about the game that I'd like to see addressed.

1. I don't like the save mechanic. I never did. One of the very, very few things I like better about 4e than PF is that when I "attack" something, I get to make the "attack" roll against their defenses. That makes me feel more active and in control since there are things I can do to boost my attack rolls.

2. I don't like that the skill system is so woefully unbalanced. As far as I know there isn't a single constitution based skill. I think some skills should clearly be associated with multiple attributes instead of just one. Swimming should be as much a dex skill as a str skill. Appraise should be as much a wisdom skill as an intelligence skill. Use Magic Device should be as much an int skill as a cha skill. Etc. etc...

3. I would like to see the cover/concealment rules revisited, clarified and expanded. The current rules are too draconian, arbitrary and illogical.

4. I think the metamagic feats are a little overdone now. There are too many exploits associated with some of the new feats. There are probably too many of them too.

5. I'd like to see the magic item creation system more formalized and consistent. Another thing I like about 4e is that you can move an enchantment from one item to another compatible item. I'd like to see that in PF as well. But mostly I'd just like to see the creation of magic items become a well supported part of the game with rules that don't turn every attempt to construct a unique item into "that's a house rule, just get with your GM". All that does is result in creative players ending up with characters that have a risk of not being usable outside of their original GM's campaign.

6. I'd like to totally,...

Dont take this as an attack, please. BUt it really sounds to me like you should be playing 4E instead of Pathfinder as a lot of these things exist in 4E. And a fair number of us are playing Pathfinder because we DONT want to be playing 4E.

Again for the record before someone ignores the fact that I said at the beginning that this wasnt an attack AND ATTACKS ME? This wasnt an ATTACK.


ShinHakkaider wrote:

Dont take this as an attack, please. BUt it really sounds to me like you should be playing 4E instead of Pathfinder as a lot of these things exist in 4E. And a fair number of us are playing Pathfinder because we DONT want to be playing 4E.

Again for the record before someone ignores the fact that I said at the beginning that this wasnt an attack AND ATTACKS ME? This wasnt an ATTACK.

LOL, Saying "Don't take this as an attack" is not any sort of indication whether or not what you say is an actual attack or not. It's just a weasely way of saying "I'm about to say something unpleasant, but I want a 'get out of jail free' card when I do it."

I do play 4e. I like 4e. I like Pathfinder.

I was going to do a point by point rebuttal pointing out how only one of the items on my list is suggesting adopting anything from 4e, but I think I've finally learned that it's almost always pointless to try to defend or explain a position on the interwebz, particularly to someone who introduces their position as "don't take this as an attack."


no. that was not an attack at all it was a fair comment.

I dont think he was right but I think his comment was fair.

some things about pathfinder and 4e are JUST DIFFERENT.

in other words Adam Dragon. I think that in THIS case. the poster was just trying to ensure that the tone of his post was not miss read.

he is not pulling a Simon cowell on you


blue_the_wolf wrote:

no. that was not an attack at all it was a fair comment.

I dont think he was right but I think his comment was fair.

some things about pathfinder and 4e are JUST DIFFERENT.

in other words Adam Dragon. I think that in THIS case. the poster was just trying to ensure that the tone of his post was not miss read.

he is not pulling a Simon cowell on you

Right. The guy LITERALLY is telling me what I SHOULD PLAY. Get real. If I even make a comment on these boards that can REMOTELY be interpreted as "you SHOULD play" ANYTHING I get lambasted for it.

THis guy comes right out and says you SHOULD PLAY 4e instead of Pathfinder. Because, you know, apparently I'm not able to decide what I SHOULD PLAY for myself.

Spare me.


/shrug/


The fact that the little old lady with a strength of 7 can possibly beat the giant with a strength of 30 in a strongman contest.

Some things should not even need a check if a creature has a certain score.

Grand Lodge

Guy Kilmore wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Kakitamike wrote:

I routinely don't allow spells like knock, fly, create water or phantasmal steed (at least, not at their suggested level) because I think they're really overpowered, but I wouldn't start a call to have them changed by the system overall. I can change them myself.

I'm one of those people that think ring of sustenance is ridiculously overpowered, but again, i'm fine houseruling it.

Wouldn't it be better to have to those spells appropriately leveled so you can use them in your games?

But wait! I think Kakitamike is nuts and in the games I run those spells are fine at the levels they are. Doesn't this mean that if Pathfinder suddenly changed to Kakitamike Spell levels now I am suddenly stuck house ruling, post basically the same thing and then getting that response from you?

ETA: Kakitamike I don't think you're nuts.

As a player and a GM, every situation and game is different, and every player is different. I have no problem with min/maxers. I'm up for the challenge and I can probably 'break' every class if I choose to when I play them, but really it matters what kind of game you are running and group running for. The only thing that is challenging to me is that player that always wants to be the center stage and tries to dominate all the game time. I try as a gm to let everyone in the group to feel like the hero they are supposed to be even for a little while. As a gm we control every encounter we put our group in we can manipulate it to our hearts content. I know my group very well even though they do surprise me from time to time --- and that's Awesome! Pathfinder has done a wonderful job of balancing the game but yet not being to restrictive. If there was a gripe coming from me and my group it would be the crafting skills! It can really take them so long to craft a mundane item weeks if not months, but a magical item with all the feats available it can be done in a fraction of the time especially considering the cost differential hundreds of gold for masterwork armor and thousands of gold for a magical one.


I've played, as I am sure many here have, all sorts of games. The mechanics vary but I haven't found 1 system that handles everything so well that I stopped playing everything else. The things I would change I do in my game. I use optional rules, house rules, and on the fly changes if need be. What I like is having fun and so if I am, and my group is then I call it a win. Most things that are over powered are situational so I deal with the situation and move on.

I am currently running the Crimson Throne AP with an oversized group that includes a summoner. The eidolon's a beast in combat but can't make a will save for love or money. It's also been banished more than once.

Finished playing the Runelords AP and one more than one occasion our Paladin gave the DM fits, especially with Aura of Justice. Of course the same paladin had to be resurrected a few times through out the AP. She kind of glowed to all things that were truly evil.

Shadow Lodge

This thread is full of yuck but I'll bite.

What I would like to see improved in PF is a reduction the amount of referencing required to understand how Wild-shape functions and what its limitations are.


I'd like there to be a dramatic reduction in the number of pages of rules. (Or alternatively a 'rules compendium' collecting all the rules in a simple to navigate, well indexed (hardcopy) book).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to see alignment billed as a set of optional rules instead of as a default part of the system.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

The fact that the little old lady with a strength of 7 can possibly beat the giant with a strength of 30 in a strongman contest.

Some things should not even need a check if a creature has a certain score.

I've heard game developers say they would run arm wrestling competitions, not by opposed strength checks, but by simply having the person with the higher score win (perhaps defaulting to opposed checks in the case of a tie).

Applying that logic to other forms of strongman competitions would eliminate your problem entirely. The strongest competitor simply wins. Always.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

My recent complaint has been about the brokenness of the Intimidate skill (especially with regards to classes and races that can focus on it) and to a lesser extent, the Diplomacy skill. I'm in the process of trying to rewrite Intimidate to work more like the way Diplomacy and Bluff work (before addressing Diplomacy, which is also broken). I would really appreciate feedback on the rewrite over here: Intimidate Modification

The skill is broken down into several different actions (much like Acrobatics and other skills that incorporate more than one type of ability). It's not nearly as complicated as it might look. If people are willing to play test, that would be even more interesting feedback.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:

Dont take this as an attack, please. BUt it really sounds to me like you should be playing 4E instead of Pathfinder as a lot of these things exist in 4E. And a fair number of us are playing Pathfinder because we DONT want to be playing 4E.

Again for the record before someone ignores the fact that I said at the beginning that this wasnt an attack AND ATTACKS ME? This wasnt an ATTACK.

LOL, Saying "Don't take this as an attack" is not any sort of indication whether or not what you say is an actual attack or not. It's just a weasely way of saying "I'm about to say something unpleasant, but I want a 'get out of jail free' card when I do it."

I do play 4e. I like 4e. I like Pathfinder.

I was going to do a point by point rebuttal pointing out how only one of the items on my list is suggesting adopting anything from 4e, but I think I've finally learned that it's almost always pointless to try to defend or explain a position on the interwebz, particularly to someone who introduces their position as "don't take this as an attack."

Listen. If I were attacking you or purposefully trying to be rude I'll just come out and DO EXACTLY THAT.

I didnt tell you what to do. I didn't come out and say to you "YOU NEED TO BE PLAYING SOMETHING ELSE." I said "It sounds to me LIKE you SHOULD be playing..." It wasn't an attack. It was an honest benign suggestion. I didn't mean it as an attack or insult. That wasn't my intent.

If you choose to take it as such and you want to have words about it we can take it off the forum. But that wasnt my intent so stop reading into my statement something THAT I WAS NOT SAYING.

Trust me if I wanted to come right out and get at you I WOULD. Ask around about me here. I have absolutely no CONSCIENCE about that sort of thing WHATSOEVER.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
I didnt tell you what to do. I didn't come out and say to you "YOU NEED TO BE PLAYING SOMETHING ELSE." I said "It sounds to me LIKE you SHOULD be playing..."

The bolded text is a thinly veiled version of "you need to be playing something else". Don't lie to yourself, okay? And stop telling other people what games they should be playing too. It's rude.

/ I used to tell ugly RP'ers and Story Hour DMs to go play White Wolf, but I don't do that anymore. My point here is that I know a crappy, snarky, comment when I see one.


loaba wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
I didnt tell you what to do. I didn't come out and say to you "YOU NEED TO BE PLAYING SOMETHING ELSE." I said "It sounds to me LIKE you SHOULD be playing..."

The bolded text is a thinly veiled version of "you need to be playing something else". Don't lie to yourself, okay? And stop telling other people what games they should be playing too. It's rude.

/ I used to tell ugly RP'ers and Story Hour DMs to go play White Wolf, but I don't do that anymore. My point here is that I know a crappy, snarky, comment when I see one.

And I'm saying this for second time here, that wasn't my intent. If I wanted to openly say something dickish and rude I wouldn't prefaced it with "THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK" Just so the person I was addressing would know not to take it as such as that WASNT MY INTENT.

EDIT: If I honestly meant this to be snarky and rude would I even BE HERE trying to clarify this? Or would I be on the counterattack goading AdmDragon a confrontation?

Seriously, I didnt mean it like that.


loaba wrote:
I used to tell ugly RP'ers and Story Hour DMs to go play White Wolf, but I don't do that anymore. My point here is that I know a crappy, snarky, comment when I see one.

If I may derail this crap conversation, may I ask, what's an "ugly RP'er" and what's a "Story Hour DM"?


jupistar wrote:
loaba wrote:
I used to tell ugly RP'ers and Story Hour DMs to go play White Wolf, but I don't do that anymore. My point here is that I know a crappy, snarky, comment when I see one.
If I may derail this crap conversation, may I ask, what's an "ugly RP'er" and what's a "Story Hour DM"?

The Ugly RP'er generally has a 50pg backstory, never lets go of the of the in-game microphone and lords his RP skills over everyone else at the table.

The Story Hour DM runs the most transparent railroad out there. Nothing can happen that might endanger his game or his fun. Players and their game desires are secondary.

I could go on, but is that really necessary?


loaba wrote:

The Ugly RP'er generally has a 50pg backstory, never lets go of the of the in-game microphone and lords his RP skills over everyone else at the table.

The Story Hour DM runs the most transparent railroad out there. Nothing can happen that might endanger his game or his fun. Players and their game desires are secondary.

I could go on, but is that really necessary?

Yeah, only to explain, why "Ugly"? :P


It's a play on Ugly American - travelers from the States who refuse to accept that there are other cultures who do things (rightful so, of course) differently then here in the US. They expect people to things their way.

The Ugly RP'er refuses to sit down, shut up and let someone else have a turn.


Thanks. Got it now.

I can imagine the arbitrary nature of that sort of judgment. I would think it common that those who really just like to see the story progress, hit the combats, and explore the next room in the dungeon is likely to see any railroading as "Story Hour" and any role-playing players as Ugly RP'ers. But I get the idea. It's often very noticeable with these types.

Anyway - review the Intimidate rewrite, I say!

Thanks


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the subject of railroading - I've said before that I think the average player pretty much just wants the illusion of choice. All roads lead to china and that's fine, but just let us choose how we get there.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
loaba wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
I didnt tell you what to do. I didn't come out and say to you "YOU NEED TO BE PLAYING SOMETHING ELSE." I said "It sounds to me LIKE you SHOULD be playing..."

The bolded text is a thinly veiled version of "you need to be playing something else". Don't lie to yourself, okay? And stop telling other people what games they should be playing too. It's rude.

/ I used to tell ugly RP'ers and Story Hour DMs to go play White Wolf, but I don't do that anymore. My point here is that I know a crappy, snarky, comment when I see one.

And I'm saying this for second time here, that wasn't my intent. If I wanted to openly say something dickish and rude I wouldn't prefaced it with "THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK" Just so the person I was addressing would know not to take it as such as that WASNT MY INTENT.

EDIT: If I honestly meant this to be snarky and rude would I even BE HERE trying to clarify this? Or would I be on the counterattack goading AdmDragon a confrontation?

Seriously, I didnt mean it like that.

Two things.

1). When recommending what kind of game someone should play, it is usually a good idea to get more information than 5 or 6 points of something they would like to change about the game. It is usually a good idea to get an idea of what they like in their RPG. I mean we have no idea why this guy comes onto a paizo message board to write about paizo products, that usually denotes some kind of passion and enjoyment of something.

2). If you have to clarify a statement as "this is not an attack", "don't take this the wrong way", "I'don't mean to be rude but", etc., etc. usually is a way that you know what you are about to say is inappropriate, or is rude, or is an attack. If you must say that first, then it is probably a good idea to re-examine your statement.

On Topic:

I think that something I would love Pathfinder to explore is a way of mixing and matching various abilities utilizing a point by system. I think the ones in Mutants and Masterminds is a little too much and leaves more uncreative players with little direction and feeling vague. I think marrying the structure that exists in Pathfinder with the flexibility of something like Mutants and Masterminds could be interesting.


OK.

Here is another one.

Why is intimidate based on CHA and not STR?

Intimidate... being the primal reaction it is should be based on STR.

I accept that an intelligent or charismatic person may be able to bluff that they are more dangerous than they appear (even if its true in the case of a sorc for example)

in fact there is even a skill for that

Taunt: it allows the person to use the bluff skill to intimidate instead of the intimidate skill.

so why not make intimidate bassed on STR, bluff bassed on CHA and leave the feat as is?


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


2. I don't like that the skill system is so woefully unbalanced. As far as I know there isn't a single constitution based skill. I think some skills should clearly be associated with multiple attributes instead of just one. Swimming should be as much a dex skill as a str skill. Appraise should be as much a wisdom skill as an intelligence skill. Use Magic Device should be as much an int skill as a cha skill. Etc. etc...

4. I think the metamagic feats are a little overdone now. There are too many exploits associated with some of the new feats. There are probably too many of them too.

I agree with those two.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blue_the_wolf wrote:

OK.

Here is another one.

Why is intimidate based on CHA and not STR?

Intimidate... being the primal reaction it is should be based on STR.

I accept that an intelligent or charismatic person may be able to bluff that they are more dangerous than they appear (even if its true in the case of a sorc for example)

in fact there is even a skill for that

Taunt: it allows the person to use the bluff skill to intimidate instead of the intimidate skill.

so why not make intimidate bassed on STR, bluff bassed on CHA and leave the feat as is?

I'm actually "ok" with it being CHA-based. Not just from a meta-gaming point of view (it's good to have CHA-based skills), but also from a reality point of view. Intimidation isn't about strength or fearsomeness. It isn't about the intimidator, at all. Intimidation is about fear and uncertainty. It's entirely about the target. You're only looking at one method of trying to instill that fear and uncertainty. But Conan is more likely to make someone run away than to have them stand around and do what he wants them to.

Intimidation is, in fact, a very nuanced skill and it requires the use of whatever tools that are at your disposal to instill fear and/or uncertainty (they don't both have to exist) in just the right amount. Strength is just one such tool. Bluff is another. Weaponry, support, and even legends of your name all work as tools to intimidate another person. This belongs as a Cha-based skill as you create a force of personality that intimidates another, in my opinion.


LOUD NOISES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd rather house rule something to be less powerful than more powerful, therefore I am believe the system works better as is, occasionally we think things are OP so we tone them down, maybe it's just me but I see that as more reasonable than bumping up underpowered things. But honestly who flipping cares, everything will never always be acceptable to everyone


jupistar wrote:

My recent complaint has been about the brokenness of the Intimidate skill (especially with regards to classes and races that can focus on it) and to a lesser extent, the Diplomacy skill. I'm in the process of trying to rewrite Intimidate to work more like the way Diplomacy and Bluff work (before addressing Diplomacy, which is also broken). I would really appreciate feedback on the rewrite over here: Intimidate Modification

The skill is broken down into several different actions (much like Acrobatics and other skills that incorporate more than one type of ability). It's not nearly as complicated as it might look. If people are willing to play test, that would be even more interesting feedback.

intimidate is not broken except for the fact that its a charisma skill not strength.

you just want it all spelled out but the developers leave it intentionally open for GM interpretation because there are so many available options. your system is not wrong. its fine. its exactly what the developers want you to do. come up with a system that works for you.

I personally would never use your system for various reasons that I am not going to argue about because its a fair system. just not perfect.

as for your comments on it being Cha vs Str.

/shrug/

walk down a dark ally and see a big scary man on one end and a slight guy talking dangerously on the other. who are you likely more afraid of?
and what does all this nuanced conversation have to do with me swinging my sword around to scare people? (dazzling display)

In my view what your talking about, carefully convincing some one to do what you want, is covered in diplomacy. Intimidate is about making some one fear you. but im not going to argue about it with you here.

have the last word if you want.


Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The fact that the little old lady with a strength of 7 can possibly beat the giant with a strength of 30 in a strongman contest.

Some things should not even need a check if a creature has a certain score.

I've heard game developers say they would run arm wrestling competitions, not by opposed strength checks, but by simply having the person with the higher score win (perhaps defaulting to opposed checks in the case of a tie).

Applying that logic to other forms of strongman competitions would eliminate your problem entirely. The strongest competitor simply wins. Always.

That was an analogy. I don't really expect such a contest in a game. Using a strength check to try to knock a door down would be a more common example or to break an object.


blue_the_wolf wrote:

OK.

Here is another one.

Why is intimidate based on CHA and not STR?

Intimidate... being the primal reaction it is should be based on STR.

I accept that an intelligent or charismatic person may be able to bluff that they are more dangerous than they appear (even if its true in the case of a sorc for example)

in fact there is even a skill for that

Taunt: it allows the person to use the bluff skill to intimidate instead of the intimidate skill.

so why not make intimidate bassed on STR, bluff bassed on CHA and leave the feat as is?

I have seen big people that don't scare anyone. Intimidate is more about presentation*, and you can't really look at someone, and know how strong they are. You can guess, but many times two people who are the same size will not have same capabilities.

*How dangerous is the person? How likely are they to harm me or try to harm me as opposed to how easily could they do so, which is represented by the bonus based on size.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
blue_the_wolf wrote:

OK.

Here is another one.

Why is intimidate based on CHA and not STR?

Was John Coffey from the Green Mile intimidating?

What about Kingpin from the Daredevil movie?

That's the difference between low and high Charisma on strong characters.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Was John Coffey from the Green Mile intimidating?

I'm not sure I follow where you're going with this. John Coffey was physically intimidating, he never actually said anything that was intimidating at all. He did have an aura about him though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

But the moment he spoke...


I'd like to see utility spells that don't mean anything, like speak with dead, moved to lower levels. I'd like to see major game changing powers like invisibility and flight impossible before 7th level, and I'd like to see save or fail spells like sleep and hold person removed entirely.


your example doesn't work.

Michael Clark Duncun is an intimidating man no matter how you slice it, why do you think he is most often cast in big scary guy roles? sure he can play a nice guy, but when he does its usually specifically to present the contrast of a large scary guy who turns out to be nice or funny.

however.

The question is not weather or not some one is intimidating or not. the question is who is MORE intimidating when they actively try to scare you.

a 5 foot 5 inch 140 pound guy with a great sense of personality?

or

a 6 foot 5 inch 240 pound guy flexing his muscles?

now... i know that some contrarian is going to mention how SOME small guys have that knack to get under your skin and all that. but thats the exception not the rule.

Its like when someone says a woman can be stronger than a man. Sure, some women are physically stronger than some men but the fact is, generally speaking, men are physically stronger than women.

in the same way generally speaking big strong people are more intimidating than charismatic people.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
blue_the_wolf wrote:

your example doesn't work.

Michael Clark Duncun is an intimidating man no matter how you slice it

But it wasn't Michael Clark Duncan in either case. It was John Coffey and the Kingpin, respectively.

51 to 100 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.