Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Pathfinder Rules You Don't Like


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

301 to 350 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thankfully, I have Gamemastery wire spell templates to help me count spell ranges.

Ah, but then suppose you're in the middle of a 20ft area, like a stinking cloud. Suddenly it's faster to walk out diagonally than vertical/horizontal.

If you make diagonal movement 5ft all the time, the same should apply to all ranges to maintain consistency. That's fine, but it has the side effect of making all circles square.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yeah, but you're not moving out of the cloud very fast anyway.


Jiggy wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
I wonder if this comes from a lack of trust in the GM?
The next question being, where does the lack of trust in the GM come from?

I don't think it is a trust issue, but more of a consistency issue. Players want the same ruling to be unanimous between all GMs.

As I see the value in this, I actually prefer abilities that give the GM a more involved influence over how the ability functions (and less robotic in general, as he isn't just reading from a page or spitting out numbers). It makes using the ability more interesting and variable, and rewards creativity and imagination.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sellsword2587 wrote:
It makes using the ability more interesting and variable, and rewards creativity and imagination.

That's great! Unfortunately, I get the feeling that's not most people's experience with abilities/mechanics that work differently under different GMs. If GMs were consistently rewarding creativity, I wouldn't keep seeing threads popping up asking for "PFS rulings" so they could stop having table variance on how their class features worked. It's far more often that the story is "I tried to be creative and the GM shut me down, so please protect me from future 'gotcha!' moments by giving me a ruling I can hang on to".

Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. :/

Qadira

Damon Griffin wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:

If in your game you are rarely seeing a character double move completely diagonally, but rather just see a single move and then a spell or attack with the movement only having one or two diagonals in it, then most of the time ignoring the rule means someone might move 5 feet more than they should - not a big deal to many.

TL;DR - it's a cost / benefit thing, to many people the rule is more of a hassle than any benefit it might bring - in which case why bother with the rule?

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that people didn't know the diagonal is longer, just that by ignoring that very simple fact the practical effect is "I can move faster/farther if I don't move in a straight line" which makes no sense. Ignoring complex considerations of reality in favor of speedy game play I absolutely get. But this isn't complex.

You're right in that if only one or two squares are crossed diagonally the effect will be minimal (zero effect for a single diagonal and an extra 5' for two diagonals) but it's not uncommon for a character to want to make a complete single move along a diagonal and then attack or use a spell -- and in that case you typically gain a much more significant 15' from the movement (45' instead of 30') if you ignore the diagonal.

The grid orientation is completely imaginary and arbitrary. It makes it so you can't move 10 feet diagonally on a grid. Diagonals add more chances for error and rule confusion. Plus they make your movement look stupid and if you throw in difficult terrain people's heads explode.


As a GM, I have a lot of problems with players who have a me, me, me attitude. If I tell them 'no' even if the rules can be read in some convoluted way to allow it, I'm just being a jerk. The players rarely think big picture like GM's have to. The GM's thoughts are "if I allow this now, it will become a problem when I want X to happen" a player just thinks the GM is being a jerk.

I have a player who tells his friends that he loves my game and always has a blast, and yet he still doesn't trust me. He also doesn't listen to me. He suggests an ability, I tell him that the environments I plan on taking them to, the ability won't be very useful. He takes it anyway and then gets mad at me when he can't use it.

The way I see it, I'm doing my job as GM, everyone walks away from the table saying they had fun, so who cares if I followed every rule to the letter? It seems like there are more and more players that would say follow the letter of the rules even if it ruins the game.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, but you're not moving out of the cloud very fast anyway.

Let's take Black Tentacles as an example. Suppose you're not grappled, but you want to get out there just in case. You start out in one of the 4 center squares. Black Tentacles causes difficult terrain in a 20ft radius.

Going horizontally, there's at least 3 squares of tentacles before you're out to square A. That's a 35ft move.

Diagonally, there's 2 squares before you're out. If diagonals always cost only 5ft, then you'd need only 25ft move to exit diagonally to square B

001111000
011111100
111111110
111111110
1111Y111A
111111110
011111100
0011110B0

I think it would be very weird if your first reaction to enemy spellcasting would be "run for the diagonals!".

Another example: suppose we've got an archer A, with some ranged weapon with 10ft range. B is trying to get close to A and has a speed of 10ft for some reason.

A00
000
102
000
B00

'1' and '2' are candidate spots for B to move to. If B moves to spot 1, A can hit him. If B moves to 2 though, he'd be at 15ft archery range towards A, but when it's his turn only 10ft movement range.

So basically what I'm saying is, you should be consistent; make EVERY diagonal 5ft, including for spells and archery, or keep the current system.


oh of course i hate the archetypes!!

maybe Paizo´s need to fix them, all of them are so poor, they took away the best of the classes in most cases and give u one usable and others poor abilities


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The archetypes aren't very equal. The fighter archetypes mostly disappoint for example. But the druid and bard archetypes bring very interesting new abilities to the table, often for an acceptable sacrifice.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The iterative attack/ move or damage dichotomy.

Cinematic combat: leaping over barrels, riding to the top of the stairs on the chandelier rope, etc are supposed to be the most fun for the melee types. Instead they tend to be the most frustrating because while the Debonaire swashbuckler moves and pokes once, the spellcaster moving 30 feet is at full effectiveness and so is the archer holding still in the doorway and letting loose 50 arrows a round.

Andoran

I do not like material-based DR. It used to be immunity. For example, a werewolf could not be hit by a weapon unless the weapon were made of silver. Now the werewolf just has DR. In my opinion, the old way was better.


Theconiel wrote:
I do not like material-based DR. It used to be immunity. For example, a werewolf could not be hit by a weapon unless the weapon were made of silver. Now the werewolf just has DR. In my opinion, the old way was better.

the old way was a rather stupid route that rewarded those who actually bothered to invest in a golf bag of different weapons and had a DM whom allowed the purchase of said weapons. the DR is better, but not perfect.

thing was, most old school groups had extremely adversarial DMs, and once you lost access to the silver (or other material) weapons, you were screwed.

i think that instead. i would have prefferred a so many points of situationally bypassable damage absorption per round mechanic over DR, Fast Healing, Regeneration, SR, spell immunity, energy resistance and energy immunity that worked in a way similar to Monty Cooks Moon Hit points.

protection from energy is a good baseline to look at, although it would be usually fewer than that, and refresh every round on that creatures turn.

essentially, overwhelm the creature enough in a round, than your full damage can easily go through.


Theconiel wrote:
I do not like material-based DR. It used to be immunity. For example, a werewolf could not be hit by a weapon unless the weapon were made of silver. Now the werewolf just has DR. In my opinion, the old way was better.

I like the DR versus the "you must be this tall to fight" mechanic of yore. What I dont like in PF is the "higher the plus, the more different Dr/material you can overcome" mechanic.


The problem with DR is that it encourages all melee characters to be high strength power-attacking two-handed attackers, because that does maximum damage per attack. That's effective against any DR, unlike the rogue who uses spends his feats on two-weapon fighting.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

The iterative attack/ move or damage dichotomy.

Cinematic combat: leaping over barrels, riding to the top of the stairs on the chandelier rope, etc are supposed to be the most fun for the melee types. Instead they tend to be the most frustrating because while the Debonaire swashbuckler moves and pokes once, the spellcaster moving 30 feet is at full effectiveness and so is the archer holding still in the doorway and letting loose 50 arrows a round.

That's a very interesting point.

Taldor RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Ascalaphus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

The iterative attack/ move or damage dichotomy.

Cinematic combat: leaping over barrels, riding to the top of the stairs on the chandelier rope, etc are supposed to be the most fun for the melee types. Instead they tend to be the most frustrating because while the Debonaire swashbuckler moves and pokes once, the spellcaster moving 30 feet is at full effectiveness and so is the archer holding still in the doorway and letting loose 50 arrows a round.

That's a very interesting point.

Oddly, "no multiple attacks on a move" was added in 3.0 - in 1e and 2e, you didn't ever get more than 2 melee attacks (excepting specialization, which allowed up to 5/2) but you could always take them if within range. This may have been due to the transition from 1 minute rounds to 6 seconds. All your attacks were also at the full attack bonus.

From a "realism" point of view, attacking at range should be superior to melee in many situations. Just look at military tactical and weapon development historically. There's a lot of value in playing "keep away."


But isn't part of the value in attacking from a distance, that you're not getting counterattacked from up close?

I mean, if attacks up close do more damage, but so do counterattacks, you have a choice between staying at range, avoiding harm to yourself, or closing in to finish combat more quickly.

Also, on the realism front: ranged attacks eventually became superior, but that took centuries; cavalry used sabers as a standard weapon well into the nineteenth century, and even now the military tends to train in close-combat weapons.

---

So much for realism. Let's talk about cinematic effect.

High-mobility melee combat certainly has cinematic potential. Swinging from chandeliers, intercepting enemies, cat/mouse combat in a complicated environment.

To some degree, the rules support this; ranged superiority depends on an open field. If melee enemies can close in on the archer quickly, the archer has to worry about AoO and it becomes much harder to get a full attack.

There's also the cover rules; it takes significant feat investment to shoot into a melee without massive cover penalties.

I think there's also some room available for making mobile melee combat more important (without rule changes), but it requires some changes in thinking;

* If many combats start within one move's distance, then a melee fighter moving in and Cleaving works. Suddenly cleave is better than it gets credit for normally. In what kind of environment would this be? Urban, ships, dense forests and dungeons. That's swashbuckling, piracy and classic dungeon/hex crawling games. It's based on the GM's style of maps whether it'll work though; the not-so-obvious power of drawing the battle mat. (That cover-dense smaller-scale maps limit archery is obvious, that they can make Cleave and Vital Strike good is less obvious. Full attack is still desirable, but these lesser alternatives work better.)

* Combat where you need to keep moving. The enemy won't remain in a static position anyway, and neither should you. If you as an archer remain stationary, the enemy's artillery can take you out. This works in settings where above-APL CR monsters are also involved, but not on a skirmish level but more on a higher battlefield level. For example, a big jungle. When a PC is discovered by the enemy, the enemy informs the dragon, who'll arrive to roast the spot the PC was seen in 4 rounds, so remaining stationary is suicide.
That's maybe a bit dramatic an example, but I've played a lot of campaigns where the party used hit&run tactics; we didn't want to be stuck on the same spot for a long time because then the enemy could gather against us.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I think there's also some room available for making mobile melee combat more important (without rule changes), but it requires some changes in thinking...

All of those are great suggestions for encouraging mobile melee combat, but I think the point folks are raising in this thread is that the Pathfinder rules tend to punish characters for engaging in mobile melee combat. A melee character's most effective attack routines usually rely upon standing in place and making full attacks, so melee characters tend to move around only if forced to do so, since moving around reduces their effectiveness.


The problem with attacks representing multiple attacks over a period of time is in ammunition, unless you outright state "you have enough ammunition for everything you're going to do until you get back to town" which can literally be months or years in some cases, then attacks every turn shouldn't represent multiple attacks over the course of that time.


Epic Meepo wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
I think there's also some room available for making mobile melee combat more important (without rule changes), but it requires some changes in thinking...
All of those are great suggestions for encouraging mobile melee combat, but I think the point folks are raising in this thread is that the Pathfinder rules tend to punish characters for engaging in mobile melee combat. A melee character's most effective attack routines usually rely upon standing in place and making full attacks, so melee characters tend to move around only if forced to do so, since moving around reduces their effectiveness.

Yeah. I'm not altogether happy with the current system, even though I can see the why of it. But I also wanted to explore the ways of getting to a better place without rule changes.

However, I do think that a game's basic rules should encourage/reward the behavior you want players to exhibit. If you want people to kill monsters, give them XP for it. (D&D does, Vampire doesn't, but then Vampire isn't supposed to center around fighting, and D&D/PF is.) If you want people to engage in mobile combat, make it attractive.

It's a matter of push and pull. Push is when staying stationary has disadvantages (heavy enemies closing in, unless you keep moving). Pull is when moving is attractive in itself; right now it really isn't.

Changing it is hard though. It just makes sense that if you "sacrifice" your move, you'd be able to invest that effort into fighting better. You can only do so many things at once.

The weirdest part is casters vs martials here. Martials really need the full attack; most combat spells are Standard actions, so the caster likes mobile fights better than others. He's not going to do a lot more by standing still, with the exception of full-round spells (which is it's own kind of weird, but the end result can be so powerful that it's only fair), than he's going to do walking around.

So maybe do it differently: you can make a full attack as a standard action, but if you do it while not moving more than 5ft, you get a bonus. This bonus can be +2 to hit, damage or AC; since you're not walking, you can dig in your heels or something. Standing still and concentrating is still valuable, but moving around isn't quite as painful anymore.

(I'm sure there are all kinds of unforeseen and horrible consequences to this; but it's just to get started thinking about alternatives to the current rule.)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I think maybe the best thing to do is to change the way Attack Action/Standard Action works a little bit.

Like with additional Attacks it is directly linked to BaB.

Institute a rule that a character with a +8 BaB can actually make 2 attacks as part of their Attack/Standard Action, and when their BaB is +13, they can make 3 attacks as part of a Standard/Attack Action.

When they do this, they can break up their attacks between a single movement, (if they have 2 attacks, they can attack, move, and then attack again, similar to how a castr can cast a touch attack spell, move and then try to make the touch attack), but if they do so they take a -1 to AC and all Attacks until their next turn. The benefit to just Full Attacking then is you do not get the penulty, but can only take a 5ft step.

Also note that this is not like Spring Attack or Fly-By Attack, and you can not make an attack "during" the movement, only before or after it.


I hate armor class.

I hate the "static full attack"

I hate hit points and their add-on effects, such that combat boils down to "death by cheese grater" and 100 hit point character diving off of a 200' cliff because the odds say that 20d6 of falling damage won't even put him to 0 hp.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Pathfinder scales from "competent normal" to "wuxia action movie star" to "superheroic combat" to "When they ask you if you've met a God, say 'yes', for you have met Gnorts the 17th level Barbarian."

The method by which they dial up the competence level is clunky, was clunky in '77, and remains clunky going on 40 years later...


Over the years I've actually gone from hating hit points without pain effects, to liking them.

Pain penalties are good if you want a dark, gritty game, with a wounded hero using his last strength to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. That's a valid game, but;

Painless hit points enable a "kick in the door" style of macho-barbarian play; real heroes just grunt when hit, then kill the guy stupid enough to step into range. That's a more lightly-toned, boisterous style of adventuring. More like an action movie, where someone who gets hit moans a bit during that scene, but in the next scene he's just got a scratch on his face (for the rest of the movie) which doesn't seem to slow him down a bit.

So I think the hit point system is well-adapted to the standard (upbeat) tone of the game. Of course, if you want a different tone, then it may not work.


Ascalaphus wrote:
The archetypes aren't very equal. The fighter archetypes mostly disappoint for example. But the druid and bard archetypes bring very interesting new abilities to the table, often for an acceptable sacrifice.

i was thinking about the archetypes!!

the paizo crew made a 20lvl base class which calls Gunslinger (a guy like John mcClane in abilities) and he uses all the deeds, but using a western theme stroy (hoomemade)the players picks the obviously archetype which gives all class a gunslinger abilities... and guess what?

everyone are beter with guns, but gunslinger...
i mean casters can load free of action with spells, and fire a rainstorm bullets... even the wizard (since at 20ft the attack is made like touch attack) do more damage, a cleric with a shotgun, even the monkey animal companion for the druid can use a gun beter than gunslinger...so Paizo What happen here?
we can help u with an errata if u want, free of charge of course

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

That successful archery looks more like a machine gun than a well-aimed, hard-hitting shot.

That it requires 2-3 extra feats to bring crossbows into anything like parity with bows.

Entry-barrier feat taxes. PBS, Precise Shot, Improved Unarmed Strike, I'm looking at you.

I'm not crazy about the armor and hp mechanics, but I live with them. I prefer armor, including natural armor, to function as DR, but I don't like the armor as DR optional rules enough to use them. They mess with to-hit values too much and can radically change encounter balance. And a character with 1 hp is exactly as combat effective as a character at full hp.

Diplomacy to adjust attitude. I prefer and use when possible the GiantITP Diplomacy houserules.

As BNW pointed out, the full attack vs. move and attack dichotomy.

Sizes and size changes for animal companions. A bear shouldn't be smaller than a wolf.

WBL and Big 6 assumptions for encounter balance. Magic items should be special, not standard loadout.

TBH, I like the DR rules that seem to be getting so much hate. Elric shouldn't put down Stormbringer and pull his backup alchemical silver longsword out of his golf bag of special material weapons just because he's fighting a werewolf. I hated the old golf bag of weapons you had to carry to deal with DR. +3, +4, +5 are powerful magic and should be able to beat DR.

Although I dislike these rules, I GM and play by them all the time.


Well, I disagree with a couple things others posted. I like channeling. Turn undead sucked, was overly complicated and basically became near worthless at high levels in 3.5.

But here is my list of things screwed up:

Sundering- can you sunder multiple times in a round? Just once? Unclear. Also it is stupidly powerful. You can sunder anything pretty easily with the right setup. Gear has crappy hit points, not enough hardness to make a difference and pretty much is just a sitting duck.

Brilliant weapons- completely worthless unless your opponent is a walking rust bucket. Not worth +4. Can't use it against nat armor, doesn't ghost touch, no bonuses vs sunder. They are crap.

Rage cycling- Yeah.......I am sure you were meant to do all that cool stuff over and over and over and over.

Inquisitor- Holy crap. I initially thought about a multiclass in this, then just went straight inquisitor plinker. I volunteered to nerf myself because the damage was silly, and the really stupid part was....you don't really even need magic items. Str bow is all. Class has defenses against everything, can heal a bit, has awesome saves, domain abilities, bane damage, super skills, tons of special abilities and your damage output is beyond dumb. I calculated that with a holy bow and couple standard buffs I could do 40d6 + 120 if all arrows hit. WTF were they thinking?

Summoner- Wow. Uh. The recycle on the eidolon is way too easy. No penalty for it dying, ungodly range. Why not just throw your eidolon against an enemy till it dies? From 1000 feet away? Another busted class. I played one as an NPC as a gm to assist players in a path then realized that I was breaking the module, even though numbers and levels were correct. Oh and we can summon tons of crap to clog the field too. Silly.

Witch- Cackle, hex and feeble mind with a specialization in enchantment magic. Can see this train wreck from a mile away.

Weak feats with no tree and no point- There are too many feats that leave you wondering..." Why the hell would I pick that?" See focused shot. So..I can shoot 5 times, or shoot once with + int bonus, oh and that int damage is ignored if something can't be critted. Completely worthless. Someday I will make a class for fun with the most useless feats I can find just to try it. This will make the list.

I do love pathfinder overall, the above bugs me but much of the system is better than 3.5 IMO.

Enjoy


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Feats: too many of them are useless, "feat taxes", or barriers to actions that characters should be capable of in the first place. I hate almost the entire concept of them.

Prestige Classes: if you have a character concept, you should be able to play the basic form of that concept from first level. You shouldn't have to wait until 6th level (or higher) to be the class you were meant to be.

Multiclassing in general: Same as above, plus it's a newbie trap for spellcasters. You have to have a Prestige Class-- grrr.-- to play a character that would have been effective out of the box in AD&D, and you're still way behind until 6th level-- grrr.-- and slowly more and more obsolescent after 16th. And that is only if your multiclass combination is one of the lucky few supported.

Full Attack: One of the biggest offenders for the balance problem between casters and fighters. There was absolutely no reason for the 3e design team to cripple Fighters and Monks in this fashion; it's a Rolemaster rule divorced from the Rolemaster system in which it makes sense and is balanced.

Concentration checks: one of a caster's biggest weaknesses, reduced to a skill tax in 3.X and reduced to a trivial d20 check in Pathfinder.

I'm sure there's more, but I can't think of them right now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

yeah I see your point on full attack, in AD&D all fighter/warrior that got multiple attacks even if they moved, while casters could not move while casting. no movement was a small price to pay the power spell casters have at high levels, maybe all spells should be full round actions? balance it back out with Melee.

I see why they add concentration though, in the AD&D your spell did not take effect until the end of the round or start of next. IF you took any damage you lost your spell. Concentration was a way to give caster at least some chance to still cast spells. the shift seemed to go to heavy in one direction. instead of balancing out. All that was need was the concentration checks. that way if something got past you melee party members you still had a chance to have your spell go off.

Sczarni

The spiked chain.

I know it was nerfed from the 3.5 version. All I remember from the 3.5 version was that the artwork in the 3.5 players' handbook made it look like a double weapon, and it wasn't.

Now, it's still not a double weapon. It is, however, a finessable weapon, which raises the question of why you'd take Weapon Finesse and wield a two-hander. The elven curve blade at least has the excuse that it's an elven weapon, and elves are known for dexterity over strength. The spiked chain requires a proficiency feat just to have a finessable two-hander, even though two-handed weapons almost always work better when you have high Strength. A Weapon FInesse build is usually based around two-weapon fighting-- all the more reason the spiked chain should be a double weapon!

Would the spiked chain be too powerful as a 2d4/2d4 double weapon? That's kind of high for a double weapon's damage dice, but you'd need proficiency, TWF, and Weapon Finesse to best exploit it, so I'd think it'd be alright.

Qadira

Yeah concentration checks are jokes. To many items, feats, and traits to boost your roll.

Wizards and spell casters do everything PF tried to fix it by nerfing spells but its creeping back.


One thing I find odd... is how the higher level you get... the more moving hurts you.

At first level, there is NO reason to NOT make your move then Attack. Full attack and move and attack are same number of attacks.

Eventually as you grow in skill... you are LESS effective then you were when you were at first. I could do FOUR attacks... or move 10' and do one. >.<


judas 147 wrote:


i was thinking about the archetypes!!
the paizo crew made a 20lvl base class which calls Gunslinger (a guy like John mcClane in abilities) and he uses all the deeds, but using a western theme stroy (hoomemade)the players picks the obviously archetype which gives all class a gunslinger abilities... and guess what?

everyone are beter with guns, but gunslinger...
i mean casters can load free of action with spells, and fire a rainstorm bullets... even the wizard (since at 20ft the attack is made like touch attack) do more damage, a cleric with a shotgun, even the monkey animal companion for the druid can use a gun beter than gunslinger...so Paizo What happen here?
we can help u with an errata if u want, free of charge of course

Um no? Gunslinger will outgun all of them. You are devaluing deeds and how much they really meant to the gunslinger. The only person who could get close to the gunslinger in damage output would be a gun wielding vanilla fighter.


Starn wrote:


Inquisitor- Holy crap. I initially thought about a multiclass in this, then just went straight inquisitor plinker. I volunteered to nerf myself because the damage was silly, and the really stupid part was....you don't really even need magic items. Str bow is all. Class has defenses against everything, can heal a bit, has awesome saves, domain abilities, bane damage, super skills, tons of special abilities and your damage output is beyond dumb. I calculated that with a holy bow and couple standard buffs I could do 40d6 + 120 if all arrows hit. WTF were they thinking?

At what level and with what buffs? I could build a fighter that could do more. Oh, also, that's only against evil creatures. Not all things you will fight are evil. Or then again, maybe you're one of the ones claiming a paladin is OP because he can massacre evil things.

Sczarni

Borthos Brewhammer wrote:
Starn wrote:


Inquisitor- Holy crap. I initially thought about a multiclass in this, then just went straight inquisitor plinker. I volunteered to nerf myself because the damage was silly, and the really stupid part was....you don't really even need magic items. Str bow is all. Class has defenses against everything, can heal a bit, has awesome saves, domain abilities, bane damage, super skills, tons of special abilities and your damage output is beyond dumb. I calculated that with a holy bow and couple standard buffs I could do 40d6 + 120 if all arrows hit. WTF were they thinking?
At what level and with what buffs? I could build a fighter that could do more. Oh, also, that's only against evil creatures. Not all things you will fight are evil. Or then again, maybe you're one of the ones claiming a paladin is OP because he can massacre evil things.

He's not talking about Paladins, he's talking about Inquisitors. And yes, their Bane abilities are quite heinous, especially if you're fighting multiple enemies of the same creature type.

I think Paizo intended the Inquisitor to have to pass the Knowledge check to know what creature type to name with Bane, but most GMs allow "Bane for whatever the heck that thing is", which makes the ability more powerful. Still, Inquisitors get enough skill points (and add their Wisdom plus Int via Monster Lore) that passing the Knowledge check is a trivial requirement.


Animation wrote:

I dislike:

I hate that humans get an extra feat. Ropes me into being human way too often. Would rather all races get 2 feats at level one. Extra skill points for being human is still enough to make humans desirable.

YMMV but I could not get a single person to play a human character for 4 sessions so I had to give a 10% XP bonus to humans to get people to play them. First game I had 3 half-orcs, 1 elf, 1 half-elf and a dwarf. Imagine the small hamlet of humans when this motley crew showed up at the gate. Now I get around a third to a quarter of the people playing human with the bonus.

Agree on the assumptions of magic item availibility but that is easily handled with the gp base level of the town.

Gunslingers: Not allowed in most of my campaigns. If I am running Erde there would be some limited use of BP guns but not specialized shells. The rules here are extremely gamey and belong in Steampunk IMHO not D&D. Fire rate should not be greater than 1 per 2 rounds and most 1 per 3. Missfires should involve a much greater change with some chance of blowing up in the owners hand. One must remember that the first effective chartridge wasn't developed until 1860 by Henry Winchester and they didn't have cartridges for pistols until 1871. Both of these are long past the D&D period and what might be available would be flintlocks and a blunderbus or two.


Silent Saturn wrote:
Borthos Brewhammer wrote:
Starn wrote:


Inquisitor- Holy crap. I initially thought about a multiclass in this, then just went straight inquisitor plinker. I volunteered to nerf myself because the damage was silly, and the really stupid part was....you don't really even need magic items. Str bow is all. Class has defenses against everything, can heal a bit, has awesome saves, domain abilities, bane damage, super skills, tons of special abilities and your damage output is beyond dumb. I calculated that with a holy bow and couple standard buffs I could do 40d6 + 120 if all arrows hit. WTF were they thinking?
At what level and with what buffs? I could build a fighter that could do more. Oh, also, that's only against evil creatures. Not all things you will fight are evil. Or then again, maybe you're one of the ones claiming a paladin is OP because he can massacre evil things.

He's not talking about Paladins, he's talking about Inquisitors. And yes, their Bane abilities are quite heinous, especially if you're fighting multiple enemies of the same creature type.

I think Paizo intended the Inquisitor to have to pass the Knowledge check to know what creature type to name with Bane, but most GMs allow "Bane for whatever the heck that thing is", which makes the ability more powerful. Still, Inquisitors get enough skill points (and add their Wisdom plus Int via Monster Lore) that passing the Knowledge check is a trivial requirement.

You might be right about the knowledge check for bane, I'd implement it if I were DMing an inquisitor. However you failed to notice he said a holy bow which means unless whatever he is fighting is evil, subtract about 10d6 from that, which is a good amount of damage.

Besides, I'd love to see that build anyway. With those standard buffs, it could take him a few round in combat to do anything, which by then could mean the end of combat, especially at a level high enough to do that kind of damage, assuming the attacks after the first hit.


brvheart wrote:
Animation wrote:

I dislike:

I hate that humans get an extra feat. Ropes me into being human way too often. Would rather all races get 2 feats at level one. Extra skill points for being human is still enough to make humans desirable.

YMMV but I could not get a single person to play a human character for 4 sessions so I had to give a 10% XP bonus to humans to get people to play them. First game I had 3 half-orcs, 1 elf, 1 half-elf and a dwarf. Imagine the small hamlet of humans when this motley crew showed up at the gate. Now I get around a third to a quarter of the people playing human with the bonus.

People I play with (including me) also have a critical aversion to playing human characters. I guess I don't help it by allowing ARG races. I'm currently building a new campaign and the first three out of 6 PCs that have been made are Samsaran, Wayang and Ratfolk.

What really bothers me in pathfinder (but that comes from DnD 3rd) is that AC doesn't scale with level. You'd think a seasoned warrior would get better at dodging attacks altogether. What I would like to see is AC and Reflex being rolled together like in I think it was 4th Ed DnD and maybe also Star Wars Saga (both games i absolutely can't agree with but making reflex and AC essentially the same thing just makes sense to me).

Other than that i actually like the AC mechanic. Having your ability to dodge and your physical armor rolled in one to me represents how hard it is to hit a vulnerable spot, and makes sense with having Strength as the governing attribute for regular melee attacks (because a stronger character is more likely to pierce the weak spots of an armor and thus has an effectively larger target area). And using armor as DR would mean that an attack couldnt do its full damage to an armored character, no matter how precisely you hit (shouldn't a dagger that finds its way past a fighter's breastplate deal full damage after all?)


Threeshades wrote:
People I play with (including me) also have a critical aversion to playing human characters. I guess I don't help it by allowing ARG races. I'm currently building a new campaign and the first three out of 6 PCs that have been made are Samsaran, Wayang and Ratfolk.

'Cuz when you've got so many other fun options, who wants to play Human?


Darkwolf117 wrote:
'Cuz when you've got so many other fun options, who wants to play Human?

Me.

No, seriously... not that I have even played that many characters since I am always the GM, but those that I have played have been human in every case but a single dwarf and a single elf.

When it comes to my players, they also tend to lean towards human except for one player that will never choose anything but dwarf if he has the choice (we more frequently play a game where race is determined randomly).

I've never really understood how playing a non-human race was considered inherently "more fun". Most likely because I don't understand how playing the same race with every character can get boring.


AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I've never really understood how playing a non-human race was considered inherently "more fun". Most likely because I don't understand how playing the same race with every character can get boring.

It isn't more fun. At least not inherently so. But some players prefer races that are as little human as possible, maybe because they already have the rest of the month for being human, maybe just because they find it interesting to explore the nature of being something else, or even the nature of being human by trying a different perspective. Other players prefer to play human.

And I honestly can't think of a reason why. I only ever play human characters when the race is crucial to the character concept.


Well, I was kidding really. I don't find it any more fun, in and of itself, to play something other than human, because the race is a fairly small part from the overall concept of a character.

I honestly tend to pick races more based on the class I'm going for, or maybe if I like one better than another for a particular concept. Of course, human works with pretty much anything, so there's rarely a case where human wouldn't be a fine choice.

Still, when you've got access to a few dozen races, there's not much reason to not try out others. It's true you may not get bored by playing the same one... but you're likely not going to get bored by playing a different one either, yes?

Edit: Ninja! Probably obvious, but this is directed two posts up, not one.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the reasons many don't want to play human is a holdover from pre-3E D&D. Where humans had one of the better abilites in that they could reach any level in any class. Which I found BS because they never gave a good or logical in game reason for it. And no the "if we don't put level limits on demi-humans no one will play humans" vibe that I from the 2E devs that I got at least did not help matter. Outside of the game one is a human 24/7 365 days of the year. For some playing non-human is a excuse to get away from daily life. For me I rather not get a bonus feat and have something truly interesting in terms of mechanics for humans in gameplay Then again too many fantasy rpgs seem to go out of their way to make humans better than other races. If it's not humans being the most successful empire on the planet. It's bein the most numerous. Or like in 3E/PF get one of the better starting racial features. Nothing imo that makes them stand out in terms of a uniqe race.


AaronOfBarbaria wrote:


I've never really understood how playing a non-human race was considered inherently "more fun". Most likely because I don't understand how playing the same race with every character can get boring.

Irarely EVER play human characters. Mostly, because I can be a Humna ANYWHERE... We played Marvel, Indiana Jones, Robotech, Star Wars, Wheel of time... Etc. etc....

And I was a human in ALL of them.

D&D/patfinder? Give me an Elf or Dwarf anytime. It's more fun for ME to explore the 'fantasy' aspect of this world.

This is one of the things that I think Pathfinder got RIGHT though... I see a LOT more humans here than I did in 2E. We cut out the levle limits, and nobody bothered with a human. Now they're pretty popular.


I used to be really picky about it. I was deathly afraid of 3.0/3.5 after looking at all the splatbooks... I didn't ever consider the idea that when i asked a person what they were playing that saying "I'm a celestial dragonborn demonslayer of miggledygog" or whatever was 'good role playing'... It always sounded to me more like "Hi, I'm a 12 year old!"

I've lightened up a little in my old age. I used to play elves a lot growing up but now I'm almost always human. I no longer want to stab every tiefling in the face just for being a tiefling... If it helps a player feel happy about his character to go whackadoo I say let the good times roll.

Grand Lodge

1. A +5 Weapon bypasses all DR. Why waste money on Axiomatic or Anarchic.
2. Paladins smite bypassing all all Dr no matter what.
3. Counterspelling. Ive been playing D&D since the early 90's and have yet to see a counterspell other than dispel magic.
4. Dervish Dance
5. The 10ft. reach diagonal square rule.
6. Large creatures only getting a +1 on CMD, Huge only a +2. WTF
7. Clustered Shots, why is archery 10 times better at dealing damage than anyone else hands down.
8. No combat maneuvers on Attacks of Opportunity
9. Synthesist Summoner
10. Charging in a straight line
11. Running in a straight line
12. Common weapons being so crappy
13. Crafting normal items takes way too long
14. One swift action per turn no matter what
15. Why isnt grab more powerful than a full attack
16. Did I mention counterspelling

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I pretty much agree with what you have said, but a few points I wanted to make. Not arguing, as much as wanting to know a bit more, I guess.

#1, I 100% agree. I hate PF's DR system because of this. With the recent change of AoMF to work the same way, it means the only Enhancements that do not are from casters now, which seems ven more a slap in the face for the sake of just wanting to nerf casters again.

#2, Paladins are a very, very strong class in PF, and I personally think that they got too much. I understand that they needed it from the normal 3E Paladin, but it's time for them to take a backwards step, and little things like this are a place to start. Maybe the overcome DR equal to their Cha Mod, or only Chaotic or Evil DR, but not all.

#4, I really see this being changed back to 3.5's version in the fairly near future. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

#6, many people forget that most CM's auto fail on targets 2 or more sizes bigger than you, and also it is probably a mechanic purely for rules. The CMB/CMD system is already kind of broken, or rather I should say that many people are not happy with it, especially at higher levels. It's just one of those things.

#7, kind of always been true in the 3E sphere.

#9, the Summoner itself is probably the most controversial class in PF. Often outright banned, not because of flavor issues, but because it creates so many problems, but at the same time, it is one of Paizo's babies, so I am not sure if they will be changing it, and the Synthesist Summoner has all these issues multiplied.

Qadira

Eugene Nelson wrote:

1. A +5 Weapon bypasses all DR. Why waste money on Axiomatic or Anarchic.

2. Paladins smite bypassing all all Dr no matter what.
3. Counterspelling. Ive been playing D&D since the early 90's and have yet to see a counterspell other than dispel magic.
4. Dervish Dance
5. The 10ft. reach diagonal square rule.
6. Large creatures only getting a +1 on CMD, Huge only a +2. WTF
7. Clustered Shots, why is archery 10 times better at dealing damage than anyone else hands down.
8. No combat maneuvers on Attacks of Opportunity
9. Synthesist Summoner
10. Charging in a straight line
11. Running in a straight line
12. Common weapons being so crappy
13. Crafting normal items takes way too long
14. One swift action per turn no matter what
15. Why isnt grab more powerful than a full attack
16. Did I mention counterspelling

In book 1 of carrion crow I counter spelled a lot in one encounter. He bit the dust in book 3 though. Never counterspelling again.

cc comments:

Getting the bbeg spell book in advance helps! But at higher level when they are invisible or far away doesn't.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Just how helpless you are when prone.

If risking an AoO is something you're trying to avoid, there's not a lot you can do. Stand up? No - that provokes. Crawl away? Nope.

If you're a rogue, you can at least (at the cost of a feat) do something. But non-rogues (especially at low level, where it's most important) have far fewer options.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You know anyone can attack from prone at a -4 penalty right? Or free for ranged (though that will usually provoke)

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Coridan wrote:
You know anyone can attack from prone at a -4 penalty right?

Yep. But while I'm at -4, the guy whacking at me is at +4. The odds have shifted considerably in his favour, and there's almost nothing I can do to reverse that without provoking.

It makes a successful 'trip' practically a combat-ending maneuver at low levels.

301 to 350 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Pathfinder Rules You Don't Like All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.