One thing that bothers me-Your biggest Rule gripe!


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Lemme start this one! I may learn a thing or two

One thing that bothers me...
They give a Chirurgeon Alchemist Breath of Life as an extract with no practical way of using it.

By CRB-
"A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature's throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature."

So, unless a Chirurgeon has extract in his hand, and is already adjacent to the character-and that is if you do not charge a move action for the Alchemist to lower himself to the dying PC-there is no practical way of administering the extract-

Barring the cost of 8000+gp for a Merciful Syringe Spear filled with said extract and hurled at the dying PC for NL damage that is subsequently healed instantaneously (I am guessing that how it works)

The addition of Breath of Life text includes: "His infused curative ability applies to this extract" and yet James Jacobs himself said that the extract does not qualify for healing bomb though -as it is not specifically a CURE extract- "Ask James Jacobs Anything" thread, I'm not going to find it because reading and quoting it would simply miff me more than I am simply thinking about it

"Hear me Mr. Jacobs...I AM MIFFED!"

Now a Wasteland Blighter, if he is also a Chirurgeon gets a free Touch Injection- and yeah okay, I just answered my own gripe- Touch Injection=A worthy use of a Touch Injection extract would be to hold an extract of Breath of Life...but isn't that some sort of tax?
"Yeah, you get Breath of Life, but really you have to have Touch injection to use it.

So I guess the one thing that really bothers me is that an Chirurgeon cannot use his Breath of Life extract with Healing Bomb-even though that said extract states, once again-
"His infused curative ability applies to this extract"
Which would go along with Healing Bomb-
" A creature that takes a direct hit from a healing bomb is healed as if she had imbibed the infusion or potion used to create the bomb."
Even though Breath of Life is not technically labeled a true "CURE" spell due to a bunch of red tape B.S.

And while we're here, If a Chirurgeon is:
"An alchemist who studies anatomy and uses this knowledge to heal "
Why aren't they automatically given Healing Bomb as a bonus at second level? Grenadiers are given Precise Bomb, and a freaking martial weapon proficiency!

Thank you for listening to me! Feel free to retort and/or post your own rule gripe...I may learn a thing or twenty.

Bonus Gripe i thought of in time to re-edit: Why aren't Sacrament Alchemist's given proficiency in their deity's favored weapon...or are they?


you may want to review Rules Questions Guidelines
reformatting your post without the commentary may be helpful.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Breath of Life extracts can be used with Poisoner's Gloves.


well since the op asked us to share what we have problems with...

id go with anyone trying to snipe as a surprise (round) can't use sniping rules and loose stealth after the attack. (since to stealth after sniping you HAVE to use a move action). bye-bye dream of making a stealth sniper.


PCScipio wrote:
Breath of Life extracts can be used with Poisoner's Gloves.

Thank you for your input PC! Once again, though, it seems (to me) like a tax on the ability-though probably small at that point gp-wise, but still taking up a slot you may find something else useful to equip. I appreciate your acknowledgement.

"zza ni" wrote:

well since the op asked us to share what we have problems with...

id go with anyone trying to snipe as a surprise (round) can't use sniping rules and loose stealth after the attack. (since to stealth after sniping you HAVE to use a move action). bye-bye dream of making a stealth sniper.

good one-do you think someone could break the game though with abilities that would make it so they could snipe at will without ever taking a reasonable risk?


Hobo Sapiens wrote:

you may want to review Rules Questions Guidelines

reformatting your post without the commentary may be helpful.

Thank you for your informative post of warning. If there's any way I can remedy this situation at this point by reformatting, moving to the appropriate area, or eliminating this thread all together, please help with instructions...

This was merely supposed to be a healthful venting place, but it seems it isn't appropriate-My apologies to the powers that be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is an faq on the chirugeon breath of life issue. My linkfu stinks, but it is under the ult magic faq tab. Short version "oops, that should work, call it a full round action."


Not sure if mine are more gripe or head scratcher, but here goes. A cleric of Ragathiel is proficient with their deity's favored weapon, as is a warpriest, a divine tracker ranger, but not a paladin.

Without magic I can get dex to attack and damage with a battle axe, but not a quarter staff.

Barring special training (a feat) I can only sunder a long weapon while in the face of the wielder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see a point in having "To Hit" and "Armor Class" along with "CMB" and "CMD".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spell Resistance is all or nothing. I understand that it's supposed to be to spell casters what DR is to non-spell casters. But it's weird to me that there's no partial effect. Either the spell does nothing or it hits you full in the face.

Instead it could be something like, if you fail to beat the SR the creature is treated like they have an equivilant of improved evasion.


I thought Spell Resistance was more like AC and energy resistance was more like DR.

Shadow Lodge

LordKailas wrote:

Spell Resistance is all or nothing. I understand that it's supposed to be to spell casters what DR is to non-spell casters. But it's weird to me that there's no partial effect. Either the spell does nothing or it hits you full in the face.

Instead it could be something like, if you fail to beat the SR the creature is treated like they have an equivilant of improved evasion.

As Mallecks noted:
  • SR = AC
  • Energy Resistance = DR
I once gave some thought to something along the lines you proposed, but gave up on it fairly quickly when I starting thinking about 'no save' spells (mind you, this was back in D&D 2.0): Simply put, far too much work for far too little reward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Java Man wrote:
There is an faq on the chirugeon breath of life issue. My linkfu stinks, but it is under the ult magic faq tab. Short version "oops, that should work, call it a full round action."

Wow Java, I am way behind on this- FAQ

2013 even-well consider me gripe-slapped!

Thanks for the update.
Well, everyone, don't listen to the monkey behind the curtain LOL! He's mal-informed!


Taja the Barbarian wrote:
LordKailas wrote:

Spell Resistance is all or nothing. I understand that it's supposed to be to spell casters what DR is to non-spell casters. But it's weird to me that there's no partial effect. Either the spell does nothing or it hits you full in the face.

Instead it could be something like, if you fail to beat the SR the creature is treated like they have an equivilant of improved evasion.

As Mallecks noted:
  • SR = AC
  • Energy Resistance = DR
I once gave some thought to something along the lines you proposed, but gave up on it fairly quickly when I starting thinking about 'no save' spells (mind you, this was back in D&D 2.0): Simply put, far too much work for far too little reward.

I would agree if intelligence added to SR checks. If we are doing the fighter comparison.

A fighter gets to add level(base attack) + STR + Class Abilites + Feats. So even if the creature has a monsterous AC a fighter should still be able to hit it.

A wizard on the other hand gets to add level + Feats. They don't get any baked in spell penetration and at most can only add another +4 with feats in order to over come it.

Sure there are a handful of items that increase your caster level, but there are a whole slew of weapons and items that grant +to hit. Even spells that will stack for a fighter for +to hit.

When a spellcaster runs into SR. It will either not matter because the character can easily make the check or it severely limits their ability to do anything since most of their spells will just bounce off the target.

If you want SR to be like AC then make it like AC. In it's current incarnation a character who dabbles in magic (like say a bard) has an equal chance of breaking it as someone who devotes their life to magic (such as a wizard). Whereas someone who devotes their life to combat (such as a fighter) has a much better chance of hitting than someone who dabbles in combat (like say that bard again).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

A red dragon can safely swim in lava, but not boiling water.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate, hate, hate the size limits on Trip, Bull Rush, Reposition, and Overrun. Imposing a Size limit on who can do these things is a stupid rule for stupid stupidheads. It is redundant with the rules, and it goes against the whole idea of heroic fantasy roleplaying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group just realized that it is only legal to summon aquatic creatures on the ocean floor/ riverbed etc...


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I hate, hate, hate the size limits on Trip, Bull Rush, Reposition, and Overrun. Imposing a Size limit on who can do these things is a stupid rule for stupid stupidheads. It is redundant with the rules, and it goes against the whole idea of heroic fantasy roleplaying.

I allow it, but I apply a -4 penalty when trying those maneuvers on creatures larger than the size limit usually allows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I hate, hate, hate the size limits on Trip, Bull Rush, Reposition, and Overrun. Imposing a Size limit on who can do these things is a stupid rule for stupid stupidheads. It is redundant with the rules, and it goes against the whole idea of heroic fantasy roleplaying.
I allow it, but I apply a -4 penalty when trying those maneuvers on creatures larger than the size limit usually allows.

That's part of why I dislike the size limit. The rules already provide for penalties and bonuses due to size: imposing an absolute limit is redundant.

Also, if you have a a Halfling who thinks he is so awesome, he thinks he can Trip a rhinoceros, why not let him? Succeed or fail, the results will be awesome and hilarious!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Java Man wrote:
My group just realized that it is only legal to summon aquatic creatures on the ocean floor/ riverbed etc...

Maybe this was a joke, but just in case, it's not quite true.

Conjuration (summoning) wrote:
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

It doesn't say it has to be a solid surface. It has to be able to support the creature. You could summon a creature onto a spiderweb or onto a narrow beam, as long as it wasn't so heavy that it would break it or so narrow that it would immediately fall off. A creature that treated mist or cloud as solid could be summoned onto a cloud surface.

Water is considered a surface. If you summoned or created a ship or boat, you could have it appear on the surface since the water can support it. Most creatures also float or are supported by water. Possibly if your GM wishes to rule an iron golem or something differently (ie. water can't support it) then that's their call.

This is a bit different with flying creatures, however. Most creatures aren't supported by air (aside from the specific wording above that says they cannot appear floating in empty space). A bird will fall from the sky, a dragon will fall from the sky, etc. unless they take specific actions to fly, glide, or whatever.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I allow it, but I apply a -4 penalty when trying those maneuvers on creatures larger than the size limit usually allows.

That's part of why I dislike the size limit. The rules already provide for penalties and bonuses due to size: imposing an absolute limit is redundant.

Also, if you have a a Halfling who thinks he is so awesome, he thinks he can Trip a rhinoceros, why not let him? Succeed or fail, the results will be awesome and hilarious!

That would be so wonderful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It reminds me of an adventure where one of the players had a Rod of Wonder. Aiming it at the bad guy an angry rhino appeared. The fight was literally in a china shop.


Pizza Lord wrote:
Java Man wrote:
My group just realized that it is only legal to summon aquatic creatures on the ocean floor/ riverbed etc...

Maybe this was a joke, but just in case, it's not quite true.

Conjuration (summoning) wrote:
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

It doesn't say it has to be a solid surface. It has to be able to support the creature. You could summon a creature onto a spiderweb or onto a narrow beam, as long as it wasn't so heavy that it would break it or so narrow that it would immediately fall off. A creature that treated mist or cloud as solid could be summoned onto a cloud surface.

Water is considered a surface. If you summoned or created a ship or boat, you could have it appear on the surface since the water can support it. Most creatures also float or are supported by water. Possibly if your GM wishes to rule an iron golem or something differently (ie. water can't support it) then that's their call.

This is a bit different with flying creatures, however. Most creatures aren't supported by air (aside from the specific wording above that says they cannot appear floating in empty space). A bird will fall from the sky, a dragon will fall from the sky, etc. unless they take specific actions to fly, glide, or whatever.

Well, water has a surface. And if you are near the ocean floor, that's a surface. But what if you are in the Oceanic Zone: far from the surface, far from the floor? Do you rule that the summoned creature appears at the closer surface and then swims for you? Do you declare the Spell doesn't work? Or do you just declare Stoopud Rool?

Off topic, but a stupid rule I made up and kind of like is I might declare that somebody under the influence of True Seeing loses the ability to read or see images in mirrors. You see things as they really are: you don't see the meaning a symbol represents. Try to look at yourself in a mirror, and I'll say, "You see a mirror." Try to read a scroll, "You see stretched, dry rectangular piece of goatskin with stains on it in shapes like lines and curves."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The most silly and pointless rule (not the most important one, mind you), is the fact, that you can only draw a weapon as part of a regular move, if your BAB is +1 or higher.
I have never seen a more niche rule. It only applies to like half the players for the very first level of the game. After this, it is never relevant again. It doesn't make anything more fun, it doesn't balance anything, as warriors are already the best at level 1, and it doesn't seem to make much sense.
I have never understood why this rule exists, why anybody ever even thought of it or what they hoped to accomplish with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
It reminds me of an adventure where one of the players had a Rod of Wonder. Aiming it at the bad guy an angry rhino appeared. The fight was literally in a china shop.

You know, bulls in china shops are actually quite graceful. But they didn't test rhinos in china shops, I suppose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The rule I have the most problems with is the fact that rolling a natural 1 on a save versus energy damage also damages an item. I've never seen anyone enforce it. It's niche, needlessly punitive, and stupid. I guess it's in line with the "critical fumble" expectations, but it just adds insult to injury. You've already failed a save against a Fireball, I don't want to randomly have my gear breaking as well.

Attended items wrote:
Unless the descriptive text for a spell (or attack) specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks to determine order in which items are affected. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt. If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.

I have two further problems with this. First of all, there's a 50% chance it'll target you armour or weapon. Having your armour fall off in the middle of a dungeon is terrible and not fun. Realistic, yes, but needlessly complicated. Second of all, if your weapon or armour is magical, it's almost moot anyway. A chain shirt has about hardness 10 and 20 HP, so it needs to receive at least 20 damage to count as broken. On average, a Fireball deals 3.5 damage per level. A sixth-level Fireball will break a chain shirt. But by that level, you'll probably have found (or bought) a +1 version. And magical enhancements give another +10 HP (and 2 hardness).

So now you have to track your chain shirt is banged up and have another stat to keep track of. Either you fail another save in the future, forgot your armour already had damage, and it breaks, or you'll have to keep in mind to fix it once you have the time. That's needless busywork and brainspace I'd rather spend on other stuff.

DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I don't see a point in having "To Hit" and "Armor Class" along with "CMB" and "CMD".

I'm currently reading another system called 13th Age, which folds a lot of things into each other. Everyone has an AC, but also PD (physical defense) and MD (mental defense). PD and MD acts as saves the opponent has to overcome, as well as CMD and the like. Poisons and area attacks have to roll versus PD to stick, much like rolling a Fortitude or Reflex, and some monsters can bull rush people if they exceed their PD, for instance. And MD works like Will saves. Now you've reduced four different stats to two, and they all work the same: the GM rolls to see if something works or not, instead of rolling vs CMD and having the players roll saves. It really streamlines things. On the GM's turn, only the GM needs to roll, on the players' turn, only they need to roll. That's elegant, IMHO.


I see Quentin has never run afoul of shatter or a well-timed sunder maneuver (or has run afoul of them and doesn't want to repeat the experience). Sometimes bad stuff happens to your stuff.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules, Tales Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
I see Quentin has never run afoul of shatter or a well-timed sunder maneuver (or has run afoul of them and doesn't want to repeat the experience). Sometimes bad stuff happens to your stuff.

At least shatter doesn't affect magical items. And as far as the new rules on items taking damage from energy damage...I don't mind. They're much, much tamer than the way the game used to be played. I mean, all of 1 item might get damaged or destroyed in rare instances.

For another example of "it used to be much, much worse", see the PF "mage's disjunction" and compare it to the original "Mordenkainen's disjunction" in previous iterations of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Conjuration (summoning) wrote:
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
But what if you are in the Oceanic Zone: far from the surface, far from the floor? Do you rule that the summoned creature appears at the closer surface and then swims for you? Do you declare the Spell doesn't work? Or do you just declare Stoopud Rool?

I'm fairly confident I know the non-stupid intent behind the rule: No summoning a rhinoceros 100 feet in the air above an enemy's head, instantly crushing them to death. So I'd allow any use that doesn't go against that intent. If you summon a shark in the middle of the sea, it won't plummet, so it's OK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
I see Quentin has never run afoul of shatter or a well-timed sunder maneuver (or has run afoul of them and doesn't want to repeat the experience). Sometimes bad stuff happens to your stuff.

Fair enough, indeed not run into Shatter yet, but I did meet sunder builds. But those are legitimate tactics. Rolling a 1 on a Fireball is just dumb luck and adds needless complications.


Matthew Downie wrote:


I'm fairly confident I know the non-stupid intent behind the rule: No summoning a rhinoceros 100 feet in the air above an enemy's head, instantly crushing them to death. So I'd allow any use that doesn't go against that intent. If you summon a shark in the middle of the sea, it won't plummet, so it's OK.

I can understand that. We had a fight with a lich and it was going badly. My druid had summoned some elder xorns for their tremor sense so that we could keep track of the lich. I was looking at the monster description to see if there was anything else useful it could do when I noticed that it listed how much the thing weighed. Additionally, because of the kind of enclosed space we were in it could use it's earth glide to get above the lich.

So, I did that and then had it drop out of the ceiling and land on top of the lich. The table agreed that the lich should get a reflex save, at which point a 1 was rolled. The lich died thanks to the obscene number of damage dice I got to roll. The xorn did take falling damage, but it was so little that it walked away relatively unharmed.

This was of course all under 3.0 rules. I completely understand why pathfinder would have rules in place on every aspect of that to keep this sort of thing from happening.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I dislike how readied actions create time paradox shenanigans. Your readied action goes off before the trigger but the opponent is still committed to performing the triggering action, even if your readied action makes it impossible. This leads to nonsensical results from readying movement in response to attacks where you can completely negate attacks just by 5' stepping in mid-swing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quentin Coldwater wrote:
blahpers wrote:
I see Quentin has never run afoul of shatter or a well-timed sunder maneuver (or has run afoul of them and doesn't want to repeat the experience). Sometimes bad stuff happens to your stuff.
Fair enough, indeed not run into Shatter yet, but I did meet sunder builds. But those are legitimate tactics. Rolling a 1 on a Fireball is just dumb luck and adds needless complications.

Also fair enough. It never bothered me much, though I winced every time my gunslinger's mount ended up anywhere near a caster on account of it carrying a keg of spare powder....


The fact that there's a specific rule for what state you're in when you're at exactly 0 hit points.
It's always seemed ridiculous that there's a rule for being at an exact hit point number.


I'm bothered that Druids can never grow more than 2 sizes bigger with Wild Shape. Paizo seems to really hate letting anyone grow more than 2 sizes in any way, but they don't even let Mythic Druids Wildshape into Gargantuan or Colossal creatures. I mean this is what EVERYBODY that ever played a Druid wants to be!

C'mon Paizo, give us your blessing. Let it happen!


Druidzilla aversion is real. 3+ size wild shape would have been a nice capstone at least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of Druids (and surprising noone who has ever encountered me discussing magic), I find their restriction from metal armour to be so paradoxical as to render the class unplayable with anything resembling the Wisdom score needed to cast Druid spells. Earlier today I saw a post saying "maybe Druids hang around people to teach them to recycle" and I went "Wow, wouldn't it be cool to have a druid decked out in a material that is way more efficient to recycle than produce normally, oh wait I can't do that." Metal is natural.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I'm bothered that Druids can never grow more than 2 sizes bigger with Wild Shape. Paizo seems to really hate letting anyone grow more than 2 sizes in any way, but they don't even let Mythic Druids Wildshape into Gargantuan or Colossal creatures. I mean this is what EVERYBODY that ever played a Druid wants to be!

C'mon Paizo, give us your blessing. Let it happen!

Unless you're playing PFS just houserule it and happily go skipping away.


I wish Pathfinder could throw D&D 3.0s armor and weapons in the dumpster and rip off the stuff from GURPS without getting sued by Steve Jackson Games.


and turn the system from d20 to 3d6 too?


Warped Savant wrote:

The fact that there's a specific rule for what state you're in when you're at exactly 0 hit points.

It's always seemed ridiculous that there's a rule for being at an exact hit point number.

Or that when you've lost 3 hit points, you're technically "fighting off death." Yeah, the level 20 Barbarian with 200 HP stubbed his toe and now he's fighting off death...

ryric wrote:
I dislike how readied actions create time paradox shenanigans. Your readied action goes off before the trigger but the opponent is still committed to performing the triggering action, even if your readied action makes it impossible. This leads to nonsensical results from readying movement in response to attacks where you can completely negate attacks just by 5' stepping in mid-swing.

Yeah, those are stupid. I've seen charges go horribly awry by getting tripped after 10 feet, and since it's a full-round action, he can't get up again until next turn... Sometimes the rules are a little too prohibitive for my liking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It’s always seemed an unnecessary complication that drawing a weapon is a move action but can be combined with a regular move provided your base attack is +1.

ie just about everyone in the game can do it, except a handful of level one characters.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HelloCthulhu wrote:

The most silly and pointless rule (not the most important one, mind you), is the fact, that you can only draw a weapon as part of a regular move, if your BAB is +1 or higher.

I have never seen a more niche rule. It only applies to like half the players for the very first level of the game. After this, it is never relevant again. It doesn't make anything more fun, it doesn't balance anything, as warriors are already the best at level 1, and it doesn't seem to make much sense.
I have never understood why this rule exists, why anybody ever even thought of it or what they hoped to accomplish with it.

I have the same problem with Exotic Weapon Proficiency requiring a +1 BAB. If the human warpriest of Torag wants to start out able to take vengeance with the Dwarven war axe he inherited from his dying Dwarf mentor, shouldn't he be able to? Is it really going to break the game that much if the rogue is proficient with spiked chain at level 1 than if he uses the Combat Trick rogue talent to get proficient with it at level 2?


I think iterative attacks should begin at +5. Make it +5/+0. It's only a small change and since many classes start with 0 it just makes more sense to me and my group. We should have house ruled it but our campaign house rulebooks have already been printed and bound. I'd hate to throw something in there with most everyone having multiple attacks per round at this stage in the game.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another silly rule, IMHI: the 24 hour reset time for hexes. I imagine that most people just have them reset after an 8 hour rest, instead of keeping track that the Witch can't use her Healing Hex on Joe the Barbarian again until 11:42 AM the following day.


Quentin Coldwater wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:

The fact that there's a specific rule for what state you're in when you're at exactly 0 hit points.

It's always seemed ridiculous that there's a rule for being at an exact hit point number.
Or that when you've lost 3 hit points, you're technically "fighting off death." Yeah, the level 20 Barbarian with 200 HP stubbed his toe and now he's fighting off death...

What rule is that?


blahpers wrote:
Quentin Coldwater wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:

The fact that there's a specific rule for what state you're in when you're at exactly 0 hit points.

It's always seemed ridiculous that there's a rule for being at an exact hit point number.
Or that when you've lost 3 hit points, you're technically "fighting off death." Yeah, the level 20 Barbarian with 200 HP stubbed his toe and now he's fighting off death...
What rule is that?

I think they are referring to the deathwatch spell

Deathwatch wrote:

You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meh, that's the context of one spell.

Apart from that, stubbing your toe drops you 3 hit points? What'd you stub it on, a live wire?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wizards should be d4 and rogues should be d6 hit dice. And in games I run, they are most definitely thus house ruled.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

and thanks for telling me not to play in games you run, the distribution of full BAB > d10 hp, 3/4 BAB > d8 Hp, and 1/2 BAB > d6 hp is one of the elements of PF that I happen to find elegant, like the simplifications to the skill system and the class skill bonus.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / One thing that bothers me-Your biggest Rule gripe! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.