Name one Pathfinder rule or subsystem that you dislike, and say why:


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 1,707 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

kyrt-ryder wrote:
-10 points till death isn't even Pathfinder.

Just checked this, and you're completely right. I must have missed that, been playing with Wounds and Vigor too long I guess.

Still, I have the same complaints about the use of constitution score. In my games this will typically be 10 - 14. Sometimes 8. Definitely not a big enough improvement in my eyes.


Knitifine wrote:


Fighter as a class.
I don't like Fighter as a class because it's concept is included in several other classes. The Paladin, Ranger, Rogue and Barbarian are all fighters, but with a more fleshed out concept. I think it would be much better to have a Soldier class to represent military and paramilitary types.
Fighter as a name for a better Warrior.
Fighter to me sounds like a a guy who beats people up in an sports arena for the entertainment of others. Warrior sounds like someone who knows how to handle armor and weapons.

You're complaining about names? Thats almost as bad as the GMs who banned samurai because of the name. If you want it to be called soldier then call it soldier.


Knitifine wrote:
Duiker wrote:
It'd be more efficient if you just said that the sub-system of Pathfinder you don't like is Pathfinder.

No, that would be extremely inefficient, because it's actually untrue.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Do... do you even like Pathfinder?
Very much, it's in the Top 3 of my favorite tabletop games(Alongside nWoD and 4e DnD), all of which I have several pages of critique for sitting up in my brain. Worth noting is that the number of tabletop games I've played/would play again is also very high.

Wait...

New World of Darkness and 4th edition D&D are your favorites?

Are we in Bizarro World?


Goddity wrote:
Knitifine wrote:


Fighter as a class.
I don't like Fighter as a class because it's concept is included in several other classes. The Paladin, Ranger, Rogue and Barbarian are all fighters, but with a more fleshed out concept. I think it would be much better to have a Soldier class to represent military and paramilitary types.
Fighter as a name for a better Warrior.
Fighter to me sounds like a a guy who beats people up in an sports arena for the entertainment of others. Warrior sounds like someone who knows how to handle armor and weapons.
You're complaining about names? Thats almost as bad as the GMs who banned samurai because of the name. If you want it to be called soldier then call it soldier.

I... do? I don't ban fighters for their name, but I think names are important to a game. (I mean, imagine if elves were called Farglehorns, would seem odd wouldn't it?). I just included the name because I was talking about my problems with the class anyways.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I could rock a Farglehorn.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
Duiker wrote:
It'd be more efficient if you just said that the sub-system of Pathfinder you don't like is Pathfinder.

No, that would be extremely inefficient, because it's actually untrue.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Do... do you even like Pathfinder?
Very much, it's in the Top 3 of my favorite tabletop games(Alongside nWoD and 4e DnD), all of which I have several pages of critique for sitting up in my brain. Worth noting is that the number of tabletop games I've played/would play again is also very high.

Wait...

New World of Darkness and 4th edition D&D are your favorites?

Are we in Bizarro World?

No, we're in non-grognard land. :3 Also this isn't the thread (or even the forum?) for talking about my favorite RPGs. If you're curious send me a private message and I can enlighten you on my opinions.


Knitifine wrote:

Darkvision

I hate dark vision having a range limit. I would prefer darkvision to function similiar to low-light vision, where it's range is the same as normal vision.

Nope

PRD wrote:


Low-Light Vision

Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light.

Twice as far as dim light normally permits, not 'as far as normal vision'


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Knitifine wrote:

Darkvision

I hate dark vision having a range limit. I would prefer darkvision to function similar to low-light vision, where it's range is the same as normal vision.

Nope

PRD wrote:


Low-Light Vision

Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light.

Twice as far as dim light normally permits, not 'as far as normal vision'

Again, this is usually ruled in my games to be "you can see normally in dim light". In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone specifically address the range low-light vision stops working even in organized games. So there we go. (The amount of nitpicking being done here, sheesh. None of this really effects my problems with the rules in question).


Heh, it's in my nature to clarify things. It's not my intention to nitpick.


Now I want to make a race called Farglehorn...


Goddity wrote:
Now I want to make a race called Farglehorn...

Paizo already did, they just called them Elves.


I agree with the darkvision; the range limit is silly.

Orc1: Can you see me?
Orc2: Of course I can. You're only 60' away.
Orc1: (takes one tiny step backward) Can you see me now?
Orc2: Where'd he go? He was just there, I swear it. He just.... vanished into thin dark.

Then again, on the *ahem* bright side, at least it doesn't let you see in the infrared spectrum...

As for low-light vision (and the subsequent nit-picking), if you're going to dislike a rule because you read the rule wrong, then maybe you should re-read the rule (hopefully with some helpful messageboard guidance) and then re-evaluate the rule on its actual merit.

For me, I think low-light vision is perfect. Your eyes are so sensitive to light that you can see twice as far as a normal human in poor lighting. I have no problem with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Goddity wrote:
Now I want to make a race called Farglehorn...
Paizo already did, they just called them Elves.

From now on I shall call them by their true name. Elves are dead. Long live the Farglehorn!


DM_Blake wrote:

I agree with the darkvision; the range limit is silly.

Orc1: Can you see me?
Orc2: Of course I can. You're only 60' away.
Orc1: (takes one tiny step backward) Can you see me now?
Orc2: Where'd he go? He was just there, I swear it. He just.... vanished into thin dark.

Then again, on the *ahem* bright side, at least it doesn't let you see in the infrared spectrum...

As for low-light vision (and the subsequent nit-picking), if you're going to dislike a rule because you read the rule wrong, then maybe you should re-read the rule (hopefully with some helpful messageboard guidance) and then re-evaluate the rule on its actual merit.

For me, I think low-light vision is perfect. Your eyes are so sensitive to light that you can see twice as far as a normal human in poor lighting. I have no problem with that.

I always interpreted low-light vision as trying to imitate the visual adaption of a crepuscular or nocturnal creature, hence why it's applied every frickin' animal on the planet. The "every animal is a cat" mentality. Also again, I have never encountered a situation and cannot imagine one where this limitation mattered, so in my eyes (hah!) it might as well be unlimited.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knitifine wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

I agree with the darkvision; the range limit is silly.

Orc1: Can you see me?
Orc2: Of course I can. You're only 60' away.
Orc1: (takes one tiny step backward) Can you see me now?
Orc2: Where'd he go? He was just there, I swear it. He just.... vanished into thin dark.

Then again, on the *ahem* bright side, at least it doesn't let you see in the infrared spectrum...

As for low-light vision (and the subsequent nit-picking), if you're going to dislike a rule because you read the rule wrong, then maybe you should re-read the rule (hopefully with some helpful messageboard guidance) and then re-evaluate the rule on its actual merit.

For me, I think low-light vision is perfect. Your eyes are so sensitive to light that you can see twice as far as a normal human in poor lighting. I have no problem with that.

I always interpreted low-light vision as trying to imitate the visual adaption of a crepuscular or nocturnal creature, hence why it's applied every frickin' animal on the planet. The "every animal is a cat" mentality. Also again, I have never encountered a situation and cannot imagine one where this limitation mattered, so in my eyes (hah!) it might as well be unlimited.

Eye see your point.


Goddity wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Goddity wrote:
Now I want to make a race called Farglehorn...
Paizo already did, they just called them Elves.
From now on I shall call them by their true name. Elves are dead. Long live the Farglehorn!

I think the proper plural form is "Farglehora".

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knitifine wrote:
Again, this is usually ruled in my games to be "you can see normally in dim light". In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone specifically address the range low-light vision stops working even in organized games.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Lighting is determined in a radius from the light source. Do you mean that Elves simply have no concept of 'dim light', seeing without penalty 40 feet from a torch, with darkness beyond?

Knitifine wrote:
(The amount of nitpicking being done here, sheesh. None of this really effects my problems with the rules in question).

It's because when you complain about a rule you're ignoring or changing, it sounds like someone complaining about a food they've never tried, or claiming a recipe is bad after making an unlikely substitution.


DM_Blake wrote:
Goddity wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Goddity wrote:
Now I want to make a race called Farglehorn...
Paizo already did, they just called them Elves.
From now on I shall call them by their true name. Elves are dead. Long live the Farglehorn!
I think the proper plural form is "Farglehora".

I could've sworn it was Farglehornapi.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
Again, this is usually ruled in my games to be "you can see normally in dim light". In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone specifically address the range low-light vision stops working even in organized games.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Lighting is determined in a radius from the light source. Do you mean that Elves simply have no concept of 'dim light', seeing without penalty 40 feet from a torch, with darkness beyond?

Knitifine wrote:
(The amount of nitpicking being done here, sheesh. None of this really effects my problems with the rules in question).
It's because when you complain about a rule you're ignoring or changing, it sounds like someone complaining about a food they've never tried, or claiming a recipe is bad after making an unlikely substitution.

I once baked a cake. I substituted Crisco instead of frosting. Cakes are awful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way templates are handled. It could have been done better, in my opinion. It makes it hard to apply them to player characters.


Ross Byers wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Lighting is determined in a radius from the light source.

I have never seen any creature with low-light vision penalized for dim light conditions. This includes in organized play. Hopefully that clarifies.

Ross Byers wrote:
It's because when you complain about a rule you're ignoring or changing, it sounds like someone complaining about a food they've never tried, or claiming a recipe is bad after making an unlikely substitution.

Surprising no one, it's hard to recall all the rules of a given system at all times. Especially when one has played several similar systems with slightly different rules. The -10 rule comes from DnD 3.5 and the low-light vision assumptions comes from 4e. The corrections were, again, not significant differences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never been a fan of the five-foot step mechanic.

Why is it that a Cat can move five times further than the length of its own body without risking getting smacked for it, but a titan can't move the length of it's own big toe?

I've ruled in my games that a creature can "adjust" up to the size of it's own Base. This means small characters have a bit of trouble moving safely, but I add Size bonuses and penalties to Acrobatics checks to balance this.


Doomed Hero wrote:

I've never been a fan of the five-foot step mechanic.

Why is it that a Cat can move five times further than the length of its own body without risking getting smacked for it, but a titan can't move the length of it's own big toe?

I've ruled in my games that a creature can "adjust" up to the size of it's own Base. This means small characters have a bit of trouble moving safely, but I add Size bonuses and penalties to Acrobatics checks to balance this.

Well that certainly gives a lot more mobility to large and bigger creatures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

5ft step is more a product of full attacks than anything. Without a 5ft step the game would just be call Bows & Magic.


CaptainGemini wrote:
The way templates are handled. It could have been done better, in my opinion. It makes it hard to apply them to player characters.

Templates were meant to be used on creatures for the GM, to make more interesting opponents, to mix things up. Adding them to PCs while possible, is outside the original intended uses for them.


Skylancer4 wrote:
CaptainGemini wrote:
The way templates are handled. It could have been done better, in my opinion. It makes it hard to apply them to player characters.
Templates were meant to be used on creatures for the GM, to make more interesting opponents, to mix things up. Adding them to PCs while possible, is outside the original intended uses for them.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if some of the templates were not designed in a way that PCs could end up with them. Vampires come to mind.

Scarab Sages

CaptainGemini wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
CaptainGemini wrote:
The way templates are handled. It could have been done better, in my opinion. It makes it hard to apply them to player characters.
Templates were meant to be used on creatures for the GM, to make more interesting opponents, to mix things up. Adding them to PCs while possible, is outside the original intended uses for them.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if some of the templates were not designed in a way that PCs could end up with them. Vampires come to mind.

Generally, if a PC gets such a template applied to them, they are no longer PCs. They become NPCs, and the player gets to roll a new character as if they had died. Which they did.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I love the magic item creation system and checks. *So* elegant and diverse, fair and yet can result in failure or curses.

And no Taking 10 on it!


CaptainGemini wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
CaptainGemini wrote:
The way templates are handled. It could have been done better, in my opinion. It makes it hard to apply them to player characters.
Templates were meant to be used on creatures for the GM, to make more interesting opponents, to mix things up. Adding them to PCs while possible, is outside the original intended uses for them.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if some of the templates were not designed in a way that PCs could end up with them. Vampires come to mind.

So your issue is, when not using the rules as intended or pushing them past the expected limitations, they are difficult to adjudicate?


Goddity wrote:
An inability to grant at least level one spell casting on rogue like characters without crippling them. In skill based RPGs I've always enjoyed my rogues and assassins having enough scrying to see around to corner and other minor things but thats difficult to achieve in Pathfinder.

Just FYI if you enjoy these characters and want a tiny bit of magic, taking "Minor Magic" rogue skill for the acid splash spell is pretty hilariously good for what it is.

Even at level 17, your silly cantrip is still working hard 3/day allowing you to attack absolutely anything, a demon hellspawn of doom, whatever, with a ranged touch attack (!) that is a spell and thus bypasses all DR (!) that has no save (!) and no spell resistance (!) no weapon drawing or loading or any chance of being patted down for weapons (!) and still does your scaling 9d6 sneak attack damage if the target is flanked or whatever (!)

Scarab Sages

Crimeo wrote:
Goddity wrote:
An inability to grant at least level one spell casting on rogue like characters without crippling them. In skill based RPGs I've always enjoyed my rogues and assassins having enough scrying to see around to corner and other minor things but thats difficult to achieve in Pathfinder.

Just FYI if you enjoy these characters and want a tiny bit of magic, taking "Minor Magic" rogue skill for the acid splash spell is pretty hilariously good for what it is.

Even at level 17, your silly cantrip is still working hard 3/day allowing you to attack absolutely anything, a demon hellspawn of doom, whatever, with a ranged touch attack (!) that is a spell and thus bypasses all DR (!) that has no save (!) and no spell resistance (!) no weapon drawing or loading or any chance of being patted down for weapons (!) and still does your scaling 9d6 sneak attack damage if the target is flanked or whatever (!)

Or use the fractional BAB system so you're not punished so much for dipping into non-BAB classes, and grab a level of divination wizard for initiative, acting in the surprise round, limited scrying sorts of things. Or witch. A slumber hexing rogue would be a nifty concept.


Imbicatus wrote:
CaptainGemini wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
CaptainGemini wrote:
The way templates are handled. It could have been done better, in my opinion. It makes it hard to apply them to player characters.
Templates were meant to be used on creatures for the GM, to make more interesting opponents, to mix things up. Adding them to PCs while possible, is outside the original intended uses for them.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if some of the templates were not designed in a way that PCs could end up with them. Vampires come to mind.
Generally, if a PC gets such a template applied to them, they are no longer PCs. They become NPCs, and the player gets to roll a new character as if they had died. Which they did.

Could you point me to the exact page and book that comes from? I'm having trouble finding it within the books I have. I don't play Society, so I don't use their ruleset.

That also means that the books Blood of the Night and Blood of the Moon are a bit confusing as to why they exist.

Skylancer4 wrote:
CaptainGemini wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
CaptainGemini wrote:
The way templates are handled. It could have been done better, in my opinion. It makes it hard to apply them to player characters.
Templates were meant to be used on creatures for the GM, to make more interesting opponents, to mix things up. Adding them to PCs while possible, is outside the original intended uses for them.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if some of the templates were not designed in a way that PCs could end up with them. Vampires come to mind.
So your issue is, when not using the rules as intended or pushing them past the expected limitations, they are difficult to adjudicate?

Not really. My issue is that one edge case is a bit of a pain. Pathfinder rules on vehicle combat work very well with minor adjustments when adapted to combat between starships and other cases far beyond the expected limitations.

Plus, two books make me question if that really is the expected limitations, or if it's just an artifact inherited by the system. Might just be that I can't find the text, though.


hiiamtom wrote:
5ft step is more a product of full attacks than anything. Without a 5ft step the game would just be call Bows & Magic.

It's not?

Scarab Sages

CaptainGemini wrote:


Could you point me to the exact page and book that comes from? I'm having trouble finding it within the books I have. I don't play Society, so I don't use their ruleset.

That also means that the books Blood of the Night and Blood of the Moon are a bit confusing as to why they exist.

From the PRD entry on Lycanthropes:

Quote:
When a PC becomes a lycanthrope, you as the GM have a choice to make. In most cases, you should take control of the PC's actions whenever he is in hybrid or animal form—lycanthropy shouldn't be a method to increase a PC's power, after all, and what an afflicted lycanthrope does while in animal or hybrid form is often at odds with what the character would actually want. If a player wants to play a lycanthrope, he should play a natural lycanthrope and follow the guidelines for playing a character of a powerful race.

This is specifically for lycanthropes, but it should apply whenever a PC gains a template. Regardless, Rule 0 says you can disallow any Rule you wish.

As for Blood of the Night and Blood of the Moon, Dhamphirs and Skinwalkers are pc races, and they have great info for those characters. Even if they didn't, there is nothing wrong with a book for NPC options. I love Champions of Corruption, even if I would never allow a PC to take anything in it.


Rhedyn wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
5ft step is more a product of full attacks than anything. Without a 5ft step the game would just be call Bows & Magic.
It's not?

It's teetering on the edge, but melee is still viable mostly because of small maps and 5ft steps.


Imbicatus wrote:
CaptainGemini wrote:


Could you point me to the exact page and book that comes from? I'm having trouble finding it within the books I have. I don't play Society, so I don't use their ruleset.

That also means that the books Blood of the Night and Blood of the Moon are a bit confusing as to why they exist.

From the PRD entry on Lycanthropes:

Quote:
When a PC becomes a lycanthrope, you as the GM have a choice to make. In most cases, you should take control of the PC's actions whenever he is in hybrid or animal form—lycanthropy shouldn't be a method to increase a PC's power, after all, and what an afflicted lycanthrope does while in animal or hybrid form is often at odds with what the character would actually want. If a player wants to play a lycanthrope, he should play a natural lycanthrope and follow the guidelines for playing a character of a powerful race.

This is specifically for lycanthropes, but it should apply whenever a PC gains a template. Regardless, Rule 0 says you can disallow any Rule you wish.

As for Blood of the Night and Blood of the Moon, Dhamphirs and Skinwalkers are pc races, and they have great info for those characters. Even if they didn't, there is nothing wrong with a book for NPC options. I love Champions of Corruption, even if I would never allow a PC to take anything in it.

By the PRD words, it's not actually against the spirit of the rules for a PC to gain certain templates and yet continue to be PCs. Which goes back to what I said about templates could have been handled better.

That's really all I have problem with on templates. For ones that can be acquired by PCs, they could have been handled better. Either to just have the GM take the character away as default, or to make them easier to mesh with the group without potential problems with power level.


With Blood of the Moon I don't think the old rule of "if you want to be a PC lycan use these templates" is valid at all. You now have a variety of skinwalkers to pick from.


Skinwalkers aren't Lycans. The curse and the trials of gaining control over it [and the responsibility of the power it brings] are a hell of a story that many would like to experience once.


Imbicatus wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Revan wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
1) DCs that don't scale, like with poisons, alchemical items, and most magic items. A 95,000 gp item that imposes a measly DC 19 saving throw (mindmaster's eyes, for example) just sort of makes me cringe.
Good lord, this. So much this. And DC 19 is actually on the high end for those saving throws. I swear, I see way too many endgame level items with DC 14 saves.
The biggest problem, though, is you've got characters with poor saves and a dump stat so that at 20th level they only get a +6 or +7 to a will save alongside the cleric with the 34 Wisdom who has a +19 or so.
How did they ever survive to 20th level without being dominated into murdering their party?

Because that's now how Dominate works, most likely. It auto-fails if you're commanded to do anything "obviously self destructive" like, say, attacking your long-term friends and allies who are currently trying to save you from the evil enchanter who has possessed your mind.


Knitifine wrote:


Vancian casting.
This system of magic is clunky and doesn't follow naturally from the fiction any of my players have ever consumed.

Neither do Spell points. Oddly, I have not found any well known fantasy book that uses spell points. I am sure there are a couple.

A system where the Mage runs out of personal energy and gets tired, sure (Gandalf for example). This is hardly ever used in gaming.

I mean, it's only Zelazny, Sir Terry Pratchett,Lawrence Watt-Evans,Diane Duane, Glen Cook,Patricia C. Wrede,Mercedes Lackey and James Mallory- and others (Not to mention Vance) that use Vancian. And your players have read NONE of them? I can't even count the awards those authors have received and the number of books they have sold are legion. Pretty much those are some of the best known names in Fantasy.

Basically you dont like any thing that makes D&D the best selling FRPG ever.

And, I cant think of a single FRPG that doesnt have at least one of those things.


Um... spell point is very commonly used..

It usually goes by its other name... mana


Yeah... "Running out of personal energy and gets tired" is what spell points emulates in most systems. Though RuneQuest 6 manages to have both Vancian and spell point systems at the same time and both work great.

I think most Vancian magic hates comes from spell slots. Vancian casting (as I understand it in fiction) operates more like a 5e Warlock who knows a certain number of spells and can use that pool of spells, like RQ6 theism where a priest prepares their spells with a holy sumbol and then can relearn them after casting them.

Personally, I like the D&D take on Vancian casting. Since the system is built around high level magic being ridiculous but scarce, it makes for fun spellcasting. I personally think 3.pf goes way overboard with bonus spell slots and a crazy number of spells being cast in a day. It also undervalues spellcasting as an ability and frequently gives casters more (and often better) class abilities too.


It also hands out magic to just about every high level threat in existence


I'm surprised people think that templates aren't PC options, when a T-Rex is a PC option by the books text.


You could do Moorcock magic =P

Mortals simply can't cast spells at all -- sorcery is merely making deals and bargains with immortal spirits. Every time you want to cast a spell, it is up to you to have established a contract prior to that that made the relevant spirit owe you a favor, or it ain't gonna happen.

And each one may ask different things of you at their whim to agree to any such contracts.

It's essentially as if the only spell in pathfinder were "summon planar ally", you could cast it pretty much whenever you felt like, and the allies were less boring in what they wanted than just "plz giv gold"


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Um... spell point is very commonly used..

It usually goes by its other name... mana

In Games. But in Novels? Not much. I have never heard any protagonist say anything like "I only have 6 points of mana left". It's usually "I was tired".

In novels, "mana" is usually tied to physical or metal energy- it makes for a better story.

Now in the Niven fantasies he actually uses the term "Man" but it's drawn from the surroundings or items.

Can anyone show me a award winning & best selling Fantasy novelist that uses spell points?

Where they dont drain themselves in a notable way? or they cant pull more magic out when they really, really need it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:


I think most Vancian magic hates comes from spell slots. Vancian casting (as I understand it in fiction) operates more like a 5e Warlock who knows a certain number of spells and can use that pool of spells, like RQ6 theism where a priest prepares their spells with a holy sumbol and then can relearn them after casting them.

Nope. A Mage would literally force the words and symbols into his brain(usually by reading a spellbook), then once he uttered the spell, they were gone. He'd prepare his spells, just like a Wizard does.

The Jack Vance Dying Earth novels are quite good, everyone should read them.


Crimeo wrote:

You could do Moorcock magic =P

Mortals simply can't cast spells at all -- sorcery is merely making deals and bargains with immortal spirits. Every time you want to cast a spell, it is up to you to have established a contract prior to that that made the relevant spirit owe you a favor, or it ain't gonna happen.

And each one may ask different things of you at their whim to agree to any such contracts.

It's essentially as if the only spell in pathfinder were "summon planar ally", you could cast it pretty much whenever you felt like, and the allies were less boring in what they wanted than just "plz giv gold"

Pretty much, except for Minor cantrips, yes. Magic was also physically draining.


DrDeth wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Um... spell point is very commonly used..

It usually goes by its other name... mana

In Games. But in Novels? Not much. I have never heard any protagonist say anything like "I only have 6 points of mana left". It's usually "I was tired".

In novels, "mana" is usually tied to physical or metal energy- it makes for a better story.

It's actually really common in Xianxia [Chinese Fantasy] novels.

Granted the heroes tend to supplement their physical bodies with mana as well, so although they may not be physically fatigued when their Spiritual Energy is depleted, their physical performance still drops off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for the "fetching magic spells" thing Paizo actually already did that...

The Sha'ir class in 3.5s Dragon Compendium was a class that TECHNICALLY had little magic of his own. Instead he had a minor Genie thing that, when hw prepared spells, he would have to make diplomacy checks to get and the Genie would go out and fetch the spells.

The.nifty thing os that, even though they used Sorc/wiz spells, they could actually grab cleric and druid spells if they were good enough.

551 to 600 of 1,707 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Name one Pathfinder rule or subsystem that you dislike, and say why: All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.