|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the original subject:
Sorcerers only getting 2 skill points per level, while Oracles get 4. This makes no sense to me. Sorcerers explicitly have more time and opportunity to learn such things than Wizards, probably have fewer advantageous class features than Oracles, and get spells later. Why should they be screwed on Skills, too?
Ninjas being able to get everything Rogues get but not vice versa. What, does being Asian or wearing a full-face mask suddenly make you better now?
A vast swath of the Monk rules. I mean, seriously, what?
Inquisitions. Not how they work, that's fine, but which deities get them. I mean...Calistria lacking Vengeance? Zon Kuthon not having Torture? Who wrote that b&&*%!$$?
All these are fixed by House Rules in my own games, obviously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't find any absurd, though some are poorly conceived or unnecessary in my book. I don't like the chase rules, so I made my own. I don't see a need for both To Hit and AC AND CMB and CMD. There are a great many things players should be able to do without having to take feats for them. And some things should be more skill based than feat based.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a great many things players should be able to do without having to take feats for them.
agreed, why should a fighter (or anyone) have to take a feat to swing hard?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yes, another.
Power-loss mechanics.
Roleplayed actions should have roleplayed consequences, not mechanical ones. 'You lose your powers' is painfully boring and unimaginative.Racial prereqs 90% of the time
As referenced above by blue the wolf, 90%+ of racial prerequisites are nonsense. If it doesn't directly pertain to a race's mechanics, it should not be racially restricted.
i hate racial prerequisites and power loss mechanics too. if it doesn't tie into a races Biology, it should neither be a racial ability nor a racial prerequisite.
cultural boons should be seperate from biological ones.
darkvision and blind sight, i consider learned rather than innate. yet there is no trait that gives darkvision and no feat for blindsight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much any part of the combat rules that isn't rolling for initiative or rolling to hit/for damage.
Attacks of Opportunity, Flat Footed, Action Types (ye gods how many types again?), CMB/CMD. I mean, sheesh, I just want to roll a couple of dice, work out the damage, and move on...
So, that's exactly what I do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having to take Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite for Improved Grapple. Many styles of combat do not have striking. Wrestling, Judo, Aikido and others.
Are there specific ones or even entire sections that you simply dispense with because you find them ponderous, convoluted, detrimental to flow, nonsensical, irritating or just effin' stupid? Do you rewrite, hand-wave, rule ad hoc, or ignore?
Please don't attack others' comments. Simply list those YOU dislike and why.
The fact that the number of melee attacks a mundane/martial classed, two-armed, humanoid can make in a single full attack caps out at around 7 attack, even tough I've seen a boxer land 11 hits on another boxer in less than 6 seconds. I honestly don't know how to fix this other than to laugh at the stupidity that level 20 monks aren't fast as Muhammed Ali (notable moments at 1:17, 3:40, and 3:54).
Oh, and after reading the post below mine: Combat Expertise is probably tops my list as least liked feats. The feat is only useful as a prerequisite for me to waste feat slots on.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combat expertise as a prerequisite for any feat that have nothing to do with fighting defensively.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOL. Combat Expertise also has the most idiotic prerequisite ever.
With Int 12, you can learn how to cast 2nd level Wizard spells... But you can't figure it out how to disarm or trip someone without provoking attacks of opportunity... Because breaking the laws oh physics if obviously easier than basic martial arts.
It's funny how it requires Int 13 but has no BAB prerequisite, so Dr. Stephen Hawking could certainly learn Combat Expertise and all related maneuver feats while Chuck Norris and Anderson Silva probably can't.
|
the flat footed in the first round of combat rule
I despise how the whole first round of combat works. I hate it with the burning passion of a thousand suns.
Here's why:
The players are getting rowdy in a tavern, and finally the half-orc bouncer has had enough. He throws a punch at the party's drunken fighter.
Combat begins, everyone rolls initiative. The bouncer rolls poorly, so he goes last. No big deal.
But the fact that he's FLAT FOOTED during the first round of combat is absolutely absurd. This is the guy who STARTED the fight, and now the entire party gets free hits (due to a gimped AC, plus he suffers from sneak attacks) before he even gets to act?
Basically, that rule says that, with one poor initiative die roll, you have (on average, all things being equal) a 50% chance of being unprepared for a fight that YOU start.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Headfirst The bouncer should get a surprise round in that case. I'd probably give the party members Perception followed by Sense Motive checks, so -maybe- somebody might notice his intention and be able to go before him (and there's magic), but he should be going before most of the party even if he has poor initiative.
To answer the original question, nobody in any other of the games where I play uses the soft cover rules. I guess we feel it's kind of already covered by the penalty for shooting into melee, and it's just easier not to remember and adjudicate what exactly is in the way.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grappling. If you need full-page flow chart to handle a single action, you've gone too far down the rabbit hole, in my opinion.
Touch attack + opposed strength check = grappled
This isn't the first time I've seen the sentiment that Pathfinder's grapple rules are overly complicated, but I've never understood why.
How is "touch attack + opposed strength check" simpler than Pathfinder's "CMB check"? I don't have a math degree, but I'm pretty sure your two steps are one step more complicated than Pathfinder's one step.
What exactly is so complicated about grappling in Pathfinder? You make the check, they're grappled. You maintain, and they stay grappled plus a bonus effect selected from a bulleted list.
How on Gozreh's green earth does anyone need a flow chart for that?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that the number of melee attacks a mundane/martial classed, two-armed, humanoid can make in a single full attack caps out at around 7 attack, even tough I've seen a boxer land 11 hits on another boxer in less than 6 seconds. I honestly don't know how to fix this other than to laugh at the stupidity that level 20 monks aren't fast as Muhammed Ali (notable moments at 1:17, 3:40, and 3:54).
Personally, I go with the idea that even a first level character with a sword might be hitting more than once as part of a single 'attack'.
the flat footed in the first round of combat ruleI despise how the whole first round of combat works. I hate it with the burning passion of a thousand suns.
Here's why:
The players are getting rowdy in a tavern, and finally the half-orc bouncer has had enough. He throws a punch at the party's drunken fighter.
Combat begins, everyone rolls initiative. The bouncer rolls poorly, so he goes last. No big deal.
But the fact that he's FLAT FOOTED during the first round of combat is absolutely absurd. This is the guy who STARTED the fight, and now the entire party gets free hits (due to a gimped AC, plus he suffers from sneak attacks) before he even gets to act?
Basically, that rule says that, with one poor initiative die roll, you have (on average, all things being equal) a 50% chance of being unprepared for a fight that YOU start.
Wait...first round and flat footed? I guess my group and I wasn't aware of that one.... *walks away whistling casually*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, my list (at least the ones I can think of now, though there most assuredly are others):
Alignment restrictions, and more broadly any rule which makes RP decisions for the character. For example god restrictions for useful feats (which I'm of two minds on; on one hand it's nice to have stuff that makes people who aren't divine casters' deities matter, but when the boons are stuff like Dervish Dancer, then people just follow the god to get the mechanical bonus)
Feat Trees: I can see some of the purpose for feat trees; they can make it so stronger abilities require more investment to attain. But in practice, they are the least fun way of doing this. Scalable feats would be nice to fix this, but that's too much effort to do as a houserule, and any third party scalable feats have the downside of not filling every proprietary feat with a scalable alternative, meaning a lot of interesting and cool feats are made worthless.
The big 6: My dislike for them is twofold. Firstly, I'd prefer the ability to give inherent bonuses based on level, but the way WBL and such works, it's incredibly difficult to parcel out these bonuses, at appropriate levels. The other dislike I have for them is that there are a lot of cool magic items that are all but worthless, because they're in the same slot as a Big 6 item, and thus will always be the inferior option. One of the things I liked about 4e, was not only were the enhancement bonuses more easy to give as inherent bonuses, based on the game's math assumptions, but the fact that magic items gave their bonuses, but also tended to have secondary abilities. So it wasn't a choice between a +1 flaming longsword and a +2 longsword, but it was more between a +1 flaming longsword and a +1 tactician's longsword (or whatever), and the +2 bonuses only came around after they cycled through the other enhancements. As such, you didn't really have to choose between the mechanically valuable and the fun to use option.
Sorcerer archetypes that use casting stats other than Charisma.=???
The Sage and Empyreal Wildblooded archetypes use INT and WIS, respectively, IIRC.
Here's one: Encumberance.
Not that it's a bad rule, and it's a good thing to fall back on when people try to carry too much, but I've never been at a game where it gets re-calculated every time folks ransack a room.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the flat footed in the first round of combat ruleBasically, that rule says that, with one poor initiative die roll, you have (on average, all things being equal) a 50% chance of being unprepared for a fight that YOU start.
Headfirst has the rights of it. People can argue specific examples. But the RAW remains that if two people are standing 60 feet apart weapons drawn and hurling death threats at each other, then when they begin to fight the one who looses the initiative will, by raw, stand calmly while his opponent charges 60 feet screaming bloody murder and tries to run him through with something sharp and heavy.
I think that in general flat footed in the first round should be a special exception. Not a rule
People should not take a specific example too far just
It makes a degree of sense to me. It's like when two gunfighters square off ... just because you go for your gun first doesn't mean you're going to fire first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like attacks of opportunity. I don't use ones based on movement at all, and I usually don't have ranged attacks or casting cause them either. Only feats and abilities that specifically trigger them cause them. (Like come and get me, or the trip feats)
The Sage and Empyreal Wildblooded archetypes use INT and WIS, respectively, IIRC.Sorcerer archetypes that use casting stats other than Charisma.=???
I know that, I'm just not sure why someone would specifically rank those as one of the first things they ban.
i beleive it is because they beleive one of the balancing factors of the sorcerer, is the lack of the ability to dump charisma, as well as the need to invest in this otherwise useless attribute.
it is also why ninjas, paladins, bards, and oracles are forced to invest in charisma. because people beleive they should be forced to invest in an attribute that is useless to the adventuring lifestyle to justify what they perceive as being a superior power
the most powerful classes in the game are Cleric, Druid, Wizard and Witch and they all got around the need for charisma based by being based around intelligence or wisdom. in fact, witch can access the 2 best casting stats in the game. in fact, there is an attempt to balance the arcanist by making it need both intelligence for spells and charisma for arcane resevoir and arcane exploits.
Practically everything published since the APG.
Large portions of all of the books up to and including the APG.
That is a big portion of PF, can you elaborate?
Yeah, RE: flatfooted in the first round, I think being flatfooted in a fight you start is reasonable if both know a fight is eminent. And if one doesn't, well then, that's when you break out the surprise round.
Grapple.
Lions don't grapple they attack with claws and bite.
Dragons don't grapple they attack with claws and bite.
Kraken don't grapple they attack with tentacles and beak.
Humans don't grapple they attack with hands or weapons.
There is no reason for grapple to exist in the game. Combat is attacking by way of the creatures various attack forms. That's it.
what about
Disarm?
Trip?
Sunder?
Dirty Trick?
Bull Rush?
Drag?
Reposition?
Overrun?
and other manuevers a monster would be built for? the bread and butter of martial special abilities beyond attacking and dealing damage?
Erm, there are actually a lot of examples of grapples used by humans in combat. I could cite several sources if I cared to invest the time to look up the details.
(Also, Grapple is the mechanic whereby a creature forcibly holds onto another creature in combat, such as when the Kraken goes after the token girl in the party.)
in my group, i am usually that token girl the kraken goes after. usually some kind of Eternally young and cute Fey or Outsider. thank the Weaver for Rings of Freedom of movement. now we can walk across her silken nets and embrace her without fear.
It makes a degree of sense to me. It's like when two gunfighters square off ... just because you go for your gun first doesn't mean you're going to fire first.
Are you seriously comparing the act of drawing and firing a supersonic projectile at the pull of a finger.... to the act of running 60 feet waving a sword? Only i. Anime my friend. ^-^
Anyway the point here is not who gets to go first. Initiative works fine for that. The point is why does going secong mean that you are automaticaly incapable of an active defense.
I would probably change the lack of combat viability for fighting styles besides two-handed. If 3.5/PF were a reflection of historical combat, we'd expect to see nothing but people wielding greatswords on the battlefield.
|
|
in the 3.0 book.
I dislike that there was the Wizard and the Sorcerer in the same book. It is the same class with different mechanics.
Now in PF, you have a caster then you have the pretty chic/boy that can do it better. (Abit, with less known spells and later availability to higher level spells)
These mechanics should have been combined (The Arcanist is a good start) from the beginning instead of keeping the "fire and forget" old Vancian way.
Dislike... no...
I hate it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really find many (if any) rules *absurd* and I certainly don't *hate* any (I reserve that word for more important things than games), but I think I would re-do monster and npc creation to be more simple and standardized if I had the design chops. I also have a good amount of houserules, but I don't think they're objectively better, just better for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classes with 2+Int skills per level. I think it's stupid to balance characters by limiting their skills that much.
What I tend to do is bump the 2+ crowd up to 3+, then give every class an automatically increased skill, or choice between 2 skills. That does a little to allay any concerns rogues and such may have about their territory being encroached upon.
Wizards get Knowledge: Arcana or Spellcraft as an auto-skill, for example.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a big portion of PF, can you elaborate?Practically everything published since the APG.
Large portions of all of the books up to and including the APG.
It might be easier to link you to what I consider the D&D-type fantasy RPG ruleset that is closest to my ideal:
Are there specific ones or even entire sections that you simply dispense with because you find them ponderous, convoluted, detrimental to flow, nonsensical, irritating or just effin' stupid? Do you rewrite, hand-wave, rule ad hoc, or ignore?
Please don't attack others' comments. Simply list those YOU dislike and why.
Casting a spell of a certain kind of alignment is that kind of act.
So a sorcerer can go around punting babies, but if they cast protection from evil enough time, they stay good aligned.
In one of my two campaigns (the one where I try out house or alternate rules) I'm going to do away with CMB and CMD entirely to see if combat maneuvers can be done without them. Back in the days of 2e my group and I came up with a simple formula for resolving things now called "combat maneuvers. You tell me (the DM) what you want to try, I tell them to do it though there might be a penalty on their To Hit roll and then let the dice fall where they may. Next round the one being attack gets to either retaliate or fight his way out of, say, a grapple with a STR, DEX, or Escape Artist check, depending on which is better or whatever his whim is at the time. Simple and fast. It worked before so I see no reason why it wouldn't work now.
|
Sorcerer archetypes that use casting stats other than Charisma.
I dislike the fact that Sorcerers use Charisma rather than Intelligence in the first place. I've disliked it since the first time I read the 3.0 Player's Handbook (for those who weren't aware, the contemporary D&D Sorcerer made its very, very first debut in legendary computer game Baldur's Gate II, as well as 2nd Edition prototypes for what would become 3.0's Monk and Barbarian classes - and in this game and its expansions, its magic was Intelligence-based). It makes perfect sense for Bards (and more recently, Oracles and Summoners), but the idea of making Sorcerer magic Charisma-based set the precedent that led to Charisma becoming the 'rule' for arcane magic-users in 3.0 and 3.5, rather than the exception it should have been. In any home game I were to run, I would say right out the gate that Sorcerer magic (as well as that of certain other 3.0/3.5 classes, most notably the Warlock) is Intelligence-based. Heck, I'd also be inclined to declare Cleric magic to be Charisma-based (mainly since I come from the background of the Might & Magic computer games, where there were only two mental ability scores, Intellect and "Personality," the latter of which Cleric and Paladin magic were both based on - Rangers and Druids, whose magic was kind of a compromise between that of Sorcerers and Clerics and thus drew magical power from both abilities, I would keep Wisdom-based in the context of the D&D ability score constellation)!
Grapple.
Lions don't grapple they attack with claws and bite.
Dragons don't grapple they attack with claws and bite.
Kraken don't grapple they attack with tentacles and beak.
Humans don't grapple they attack with hands or weapons.
There is no reason for grapple to exist in the game. Combat is attacking by way of the creatures various attack forms. That's it.
Lions bite, and if they get a good grip on whatever they attack with the bite, they now have a hold on it. A kind of grapple maybe?
Dragons can also get a hold with a bite, or claws (arguably having a human-like enough hand to grip things, depending on your fantasy of choice). A classic attack I like to use is to have a dragon grab someone, fly up high, and let gravity attack for them. Also, your allies make good missiles. Isn't that sort of grappling?
Kraken are essentially oversized magic squid. Ten tentacles that attack by grabbing and squeezing. That's seriously not grappling?
Humans. Really? Ground and pound. That's a classic grapple/tackle/hold 'em and continue hitting attack. or at least as classic as MMA is allowed. Or watch a grade school fight (optionally bar fight). It's amazing how often trading punches (or scratches, slaps, whatever) becomes a wrestling match on the ground. Not to mention there are lots of fun things you can do when you get a good lock on someone.s shoulder, starting with the classic of pounding their head against something hard and working up to some truly despotic actions I've seen (had done to me, failed to properly execute, and at least once accidentally invented a whole new one in the attempt of something else....)
I'm assuming you don't like the word grapple, for some reason. Remember when it was wrestling? Basically, grappling is a catch all term for holing something, against it's will, and preventing it from being able to effectively retaliate.
Of course, as ANY RPG combat system, it is vastly oversimplified. (How, exactly, does the tiny faerie with enough stats manage to effectively grapple a giant? And shouldn't someone be able to get a hold on someone that doesn't leave them in control?)