What do you not like about Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 335 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

The average human doesn't see in the dark. The average human doesn't keep fighting once they reach negative one, let alone their negative con. Half-orcs suffer no penalties outside of Orc Blood trait or any in game prejudice that might be applied to them. The 3.5 half-orc was +2 Str, -2 Int, and -2 Chr. If you want them to keep the strength then they suffer no penalty. So I think the stuff that half orcs get from their orc heritage, both positive and negative, makes up for sharing the +2 to any stat they get from their human ancestry. Oh and they get weapon proficiencies which humans don't even get, but had during the beta. Not really seeing a down side.

Edit: Woot, top of page.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
christopher myco wrote:

what you write above would make sense if and only if humans did not also get a plus 2 bonus, but they do, which means that the avg human is the same strengh at the avg half orc. where the avg half orc is 6' 6" inches, this borders on absurd even for a fantasy game. if they couldn't find a way to make them work, they should have just taken them out of the game.

In Pathfinder, an average half-orc is just 2 inches taller than average human. And actually, it's the same as in 3.5


christopher myco wrote:
dm4hire wrote:
christopher myco wrote:
3. the half orc race is illogical and immersion breaking, either the half-orc is stronger relative avg than a human or it's not. it's current states make ZERO sense logic based upon the internal rules of the game. as it stands the avg orc and the avg human have the same strengh. if you can't balance the race logically, take it out the game.
The half-orc makes perfect sense, as a half-orc could just as easily inherit human weakness from their human parent just as easily as they could gain the strength from their orc parent. Not to mention that some aspects of strength are considered to be what has been acheived through training or the continuation of training. Fighters tend to continue increasing strength as they level which makes sense since they are running around in heavy armor and swinging heavy weaponry.
what you write above would make sense if and only if humans did not also get a plus 2 bonus, but they do, which means that the avg human is the same strengh at the avg half orc. where the avg half orc is 6' 6" inches, this borders on absurd even for a fantasy game. if they couldn't find a way to make them work, they should have just taken them out of the game.

No you've got it all backwards. THEY made it work just fine, YOU have the problem with it. I don't think there's supposed to be ANYTHING average about a player character... you're an up and coming hero. I think that what they did for the half orc was an AWESOME way to brake people from naming there character Grog, screaming GROG SMASH PUNY (insert poor villains name here) !!!! and making them play something that could actually be useful as something other then melee.


The only thing I don't really like is that Counterspell has not been changed at all.

Oh, well, either nobody would use it (like in 8 years of 3.x), or I will houserule it as an Immediate action (but not with Dispel Magic, that should still be a Readied Action... I already tried it, and without that difference every caster started to lose spells without affecting anybody).

EDIT: not completely true, another thing I don't really like is the fact that you cannot damage/Sunder a Magic Weapon which has an Enhancement bonus higher than that of the weapon you are using. In 3.5, this was lately corrected by an Errata (hidden among tons of others errata), but at least a Fire Giant could break your +1 Greatsword with his non-magical one; now, as a GM, I would have to add more magical equipment to such creatures, in order to allow them at least to try (this is even worse for creatures with DR/magic, which can only try to Sunder +1 weapons - and Monks are among them...).
Unless the Bestiary takes this into consideration for such creatures, that is (but Monks are still screwed, nonetheless...).


You know all, coming here to argue about things people don't like about pathfinder is off topic. Would you like people to start visiting the thread about what people do like and arguing everything there?


I prefered the +2 Str, +2 Wis and -2 Int of the Beta 1/2 Orc as well.
Sure it meant they were disadvantaged as wizards, but they were great for Rangers, Paladins, Druids and Clerics, all of which work with the pathfinder description of 1/2 Orcs. Namely semi-outcasts looking for respect from their chosen culture or becoming loners.

Ranger is respectable in human frontiers, Orcs and work as loners.
Paladins get high respect in human society.
Druids get respect in Orc society and some human sociries, and make good loners.
Clerics get high respect in both Orc and Human society.

The open favoured class I do like, but the unattached +2 stat makes them to "Blah" to my mind.

------------

Another thing I don't like about Pathfinder is the effect of rage ending when the Barb becomes unconcious. Note I have no problem regarding it is a sensible decision given the current mechanism of Rage, but it basically means raging above 5th level becomes "have your new character sheet ready cause you'll probably need it". Not a good situation.

That said I think this could be solved ny adding a Rage Power
- use as an immediate action, character goes comatose for 5 rounds and will not lose hps through bleeding and will not be checked for death through loss of hit points until the 5 rounds are ended. They may still be killed by death effects and successful coup-de-gras.

Stephen


dm4hire wrote:

The average human doesn't see in the dark. The average human doesn't keep fighting once they reach negative one, let alone their negative con. Half-orcs suffer no penalties outside of Orc Blood trait or any in game prejudice that might be applied to them. The 3.5 half-orc was +2 Str, -2 Int, and -2 Chr. If you want them to keep the strength then they suffer no penalty. So I think the stuff that half orcs get from their orc heritage, both positive and negative, makes up for sharing the +2 to any stat they get from their human ancestry. Oh and they get weapon proficiencies which humans don't even get, but had during the beta. Not really seeing a down side.

Edit: Woot, top of page.

Whether or not human see in the dark does not have much to do with anything. if the starting propositions are orcs are stronger than humans. humans are not on avg 6' 6" then it does make any sense internally to have humans and half orcs have the same avg sense.

if see did it for balance then they should have removed the race, because the race is non sensical. merely because somthing is fiction or fantasy does not excuse from adhereing to an internal logic. if darth vader hugged han solo at the end of empire strikes back, we all would walk out of the movie, or if sauron decided on well lets be friends.

the half orc is the same problem as the death spells. who writes a spell name slay living or finger of death, that doesn't actually kill you in any other way than normal. it's one thing to say nerf a firball to less damage, it's quite another to say that a fire ball no longer ignites objects.

my point is not that the orc is unbalance, my point is that the half-orc like many of the death spell, is not consistant with the internal logic of the game, and they stand out and say, we did this just for purely game balance, which ruins some aspects of the RPG. they should have just been removed from the game, instead of being poster childs for balances.

Tumbling was also reblanced, but it makes sense in terms of the logic of the world, death spells and half-orcs do not.


Gene wrote:
Not enough was done with the monk to differentiate one monk from another. I'll be using my own variant in place of the stock one.

definitely my main gripe so far. I can't believe that they weren't given options(although having extra feats is cool) for there special abilities. Why the f%+~ do all monks choose to learn the secrets of the Abundant Step or the Quivering Palm? It seems like they would have done something similar to the sorcerer bloodline to determine some monk abilities(a school or style perhaps).


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
pres man wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I'm not having a go at you or anyone else for that matter, but can someone explain why it matters so much? Paizo have clearly made their call on this issue (unless it turns out to have been an accidental ommision from the cleric writeup or something) and for something as minor and limited in scope as this they are hardly going to revise the game, even if you change their mind. Isnt "Houserule it" a reasonable reply?
You know what else I can houserule? A new feat called Power Bean. With that feat, as long as the character has eaten beans in the last 24 hours, they can fly by farting. This is an (Ex) ability (non-magical). Dwarves and halflings get this feat for free. How is that for houseruling?

I obviously dont get where you're going because I think that's fine for houseruling if that's how you want your game to be. (Obviously you don't, I just dont understand what you mean - some people's houserules are going to be silly and others are going to seem sensible. I don't see the point..?)

Quote:
Seriously, saying if you don't like it, then houserule it is saying that the person's issue with it is non-relevant. You are blowing them off. Why not just come out and be honest and say what you mean, "Get lost whiner. I got mine, who cares about you?"

Well because I dont consider people discussing their objections to be whining and I do care if they dont enjoy the game. I'm not saying their concerns are non-relevant, I'm saying that it is a fact of life that, unless you design one yourself from the ground up, every RPG is going to have some rules you agree with, some you disagree with, some you dont particularly care about.

Talking about the changes you object to and seeking clarification for reasons is perfectly reasonable. Arguing against the change and suggesting alternatives is perfectly reasonable. I didnt say shut up. I said that houseruling is one practical option available to you - can you think of anything better? Do you think they will revise Pathfinder any time soon on the basis of discussion such as the above?


Steve Geddes wrote:

I'm saying that it is a fact of life that, unless you design one yourself from the ground up, every RPG is going to have some rules you agree with, some you disagree with, some you dont particularly care about.

I said that houseruling is one practical option available to you - can you think of anything better? Do you think they will revise Pathfinder any time soon on the basis of discussion such as the above?

Do you assume that the other posters are so ignorant they are not aware of the fact that things can be houseruled in their non-official games. Do you really, seriously believe that they need your mighty intellect to come in and tell them something so utterly obvious? Do you think that was what we keeping them hanging around and your amazing clear thoughts will make them suddenly whip their drool off and say to themselves, "Durr, I guess we could done change it out our own game. Wow, that them there guy is perty smart." Everybody knows it can be houseruled, they don't need you to tell them that.

I mean, maybe if you gave an example of a houserule that could be used that someone might not have thought of. And no, giving the cleric back the heavy armor or the spiked chain reach isn't a non-obvious houserule. Then maybe that would be something. But saying, "Hey if you don't like it then houserule it." surely is not.

Maybe some folk just don't see how condescending a statement like that is. Maybe they subconsciously think the people griping are so ignorant that they are not aware of houserules. I don't know.

Sovereign Court

Are we there yet papa smurf?


Pax Veritas wrote:
Are we there yet papa smurf?

Don't make me smurf this smurf over and smurf the lot of you smurfs.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
pres man wrote:
Do you assume that the other posters are so ignorant they are not aware of the fact that things can be houseruled in their non-official games.

No.

Quote:
Do you really, seriously believe that they need your mighty intellect to come in and tell them something so utterly obvious?

No.

Quote:
Do you think that was what we keeping them hanging around and your amazing clear thoughts will make them suddenly whip their drool off and say to themselves, "Durr, I guess we could done change it out our own game. Wow, that them there guy is perty smart."

No.

Quote:
Everybody knows it can be houseruled, they don't need you to tell them that.

I understand - I'm not presenting a revelation, I'm asking a question, namely "Why is houserule it a bad answer?" (I'm sure I've said that - I think the arguments people have put forward are reasonable, clear and perfectly appropriate. I'm not purporting to solve their problem).

Quote:
I mean, maybe if you gave an example of a houserule that could be used that someone might not have thought of. And no, giving the cleric back the heavy armor or the spiked chain reach isn't a non-obvious houserule. Then maybe that would be something. But saying, "Hey if you don't like it then houserule it." surely is not.

Again - I'm asking a question. Why is it so offensive - you answer it below, but please don't misunderstand my position. You're assuming a whole bunch of things about my position which I certainly didnt mean to imply. Maybe there's someone else's post you thought was mine? (Alternatively, of course, I made a bad job of asking my question...)

Quote:
Maybe some folk just don't see how condescending a statement like that is.

I certainly dont - that's why I asked why it is seen as condescending. I think it's just stating "how things are". I dont mean to imply you hadnt thought of it. I dont mean to imply it solves your problem. I dont mean to imply that anything you've said is unreasonable.

I couldnt really care less about the rule. I'm interested in why it's aroused such passion - it seems to me that things like this are inevitable consequences of playing by someone else's rules. That's all.

Quote:
Maybe they subconsciously think the people griping are so ignorant that they are not aware of houserules. I don't know.

Again - I know that people who object to a rule are perfectly aware that they can houserule it away. That's nothing to do with what I was asking.

Sorry for offending you - I was curious as to where the passion came from. Clearly I didnt explain that very well. My sincere apology for coming across like that - please just ignore it. The only thing I would ask is that you accept that saying "You're too dumb/angry/blind to think of houseruling" was never my intention. It was an error in phrasing a question - not an attempt to dismiss an objection as trivial.


Steve Geddes wrote:
I understand - I'm not presenting a revelation, I'm asking a question, namely "Why is houserule it a bad answer?" (I'm sure I've said that - I think the arguments people have put forward are reasonable, clear and perfectly appropriate. I'm not purporting to solve their problem).

It is not a "bad" answer, it is just a meaningless answer. Something doesn't become non-flawed (in that person's view), just because they can houserule it. If anything, the need (by that person) to houserule it shows that it is in fact flawed (in their view), because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Steve Geddes wrote:
Again - I'm asking a question. Why is it so offensive - you answer it below, but please don't misunderstand my position. You're assuming a whole bunch of things about my position which I certainly didnt mean to imply. Maybe there's someone else's post you thought was mine? (Alternatively, of course, I made a bad job of asking my question...)

If you spilled ketchup on your shirt right before your date, would my saying "you can always wash it later" or "you can always change your shirt" make you less upset about spilling ketchup? Or would I just come across as an arse for pointing out the obvious?

Steve Geddes wrote:
I certainly dont - that's why I asked why it is seen as condescending. I think it's just stating "how things are". I dont mean to imply you hadnt thought of it. I dont mean to imply it solves your problem. I dont mean to imply that anything you've said is unreasonable.

Then why even say it? What does it gain? Does it inform you of anything? Does it make them feel any better? If your car just got hit and some bystander comes by and says, "Sometimes that happens." Is that going cheer you up?

Steve Geddes wrote:
I couldnt really care less about the rule. I'm interested in why it's aroused such passion - it seems to me that things like this are inevitable consequences of playing by someone else's rules. That's all.

Then that's what should be asked. Why does this issue matter so much to you? And we have gotten answer to that for somethings, usually on different expectations and game philosphy from those designing and loving these changes (or lack of them in some cases). "Just house rule it" isn't benefiting you, because it doesn't answer your real question, and it doesn't make anyone else feel better either.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Again - sorry for upsetting you. I'll drop it and continue wondering. This comment might be key to our misunderstanding/disagreement:

pres man wrote:
If you spilled ketchup on your shirt right before your date, would my saying "you can always wash it later" or "you can always change your shirt" make you less upset about spilling ketchup? Or would I just come across as an arse for pointing out the obvious?

I think that's a fine response. I certainly wouldnt think of you in any negative light for making it.

*shrug*

Text isnt the best way to chat I guess - or not for me, anyhow.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Again - sorry for upsetting you.

Dude, I'm not upset. You asked "Isnt "Houserule it" a reasonable reply?" I'm trying to explain to you why for alot of people it is not a reasonable reply. I'm sorry if I upset you with trying to explain it.

To put it another way. Some people's response to the comment of "houserule it" might be similar to Han's response to C3-PO's observation.
[the asteroid quakes]
C-3PO: Sir, it's quite possible this asteroid is not entirely stable.
Han Solo: Not entirely stable. I'm glad you're here to tell us these things. Chewie! Take the Professor in back and plug him into the hyperdrive!


My biggest complain lies in the races section, pictures in beta are FAR better than the core rule book. I almost always play human but those pictures of elve and half-elf make me actually want to play an elf. Well, the new one in core rule book just couldn't do that. I don't know why they change that. I don't like the new race bonus of half-orc either, guess I'll use the beta version bonus.

Paladin seems too powerful while bard seems underpowered. Counting abilities by rounds works fine on barbarian but not bard. Sorcerer got lots of love, at the same time the universal Wizard is really boring and underpowered.

Not a big fan of new prohibited schools,specailists can use scrolls and wands of their prohibited schools without penalty,really? I'll houserule that to active such scrolls cause you full round action or longer,use wand and staff cost you two charges instead of one.

I'm also concern about critical feats, but haven't try one yet so can't comment on that.

That's all for now.


Steve Geddes wrote:

Again - sorry for upsetting you. I'll drop it and continue wondering. This comment might be key to our misunderstanding/disagreement:

pres man wrote:
If you spilled ketchup on your shirt right before your date, would my saying "you can always wash it later" or "you can always change your shirt" make you less upset about spilling ketchup? Or would I just come across as an arse for pointing out the obvious?

I think that's a fine response. I certainly wouldnt think of you in any negative light for making it.

*shrug*

Text isnt the best way to chat I guess - or not for me, anyhow.

[Sighs] Once again many of the people on this board are players, not DM's that means they don't get to houserule anything, and if the DM does not have time to observe the balance of a rule it may not get changed unless it is very broken in one way or the other. I am in the same situation with a few things. [/sighs]

PS: I do DM, but I am not the only DM, and some of our rules are different.


yukarjama wrote:
My biggest complain lies in the races section, pictures in beta are FAR better than the core rule book. I almost always play human but those pictures of elve and half-elf make me actually want to play an elf. Well, the new one in core rule book just couldn't do that. I don't know why they change that. I don't like the new race bonus of half-orc either, guess I'll use the beta version bonus.

I completely agree, and I made similar comments when the revealed the new races art, but apparently too many people started screaming bloodly murder (a.k.a. WoW) and not enough people who did like the art noticed this.


Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
yukarjama wrote:
My biggest complain lies in the races section, pictures in beta are FAR better than the core rule book. I almost always play human but those pictures of elve and half-elf make me actually want to play an elf. Well, the new one in core rule book just couldn't do that. I don't know why they change that. I don't like the new race bonus of half-orc either, guess I'll use the beta version bonus.
I completely agree, and I made similar comments when the revealed the new races art, but apparently too many people started screaming bloodly murder (a.k.a. WoW) and not enough people who did like the art noticed this.

The new 'gnome' race art scares me ....

---


I'll say this - while I did list the Cleric's lack of heavy armor as a dislike, it wasn't an extreme dislike. It was more of a disconnect, a "wha huh?" sort of thing. I wasn't sure exactly whether I could live with the change or not.

I haven't been on the actual "Inevitable Discussion" thread since its first day, but I suppose I can gather that many of the arguments there have been put forth here - and I find the people arguing against the change more convincing than those arguing for it. If no one really used heavy armor anyway, why take it away - it was a vestigial feat that obviously wasn't a part of the class's power, but some people thought it appropriate. In my experience as a DM, I've had clerics wear full plate and not, and it honestly wouldn't have been a problem to take it away from most of them since those had dipped a level or two of Fighter. But the lack of it just doesn't seem to actually be a way to "fix" the cleric's balance, and it infringes upon their second-tier meleer niche, which is a niche I expect your average cleric to fulfill, thanks to the medium BAB and d8 hit die, as well as many of their buff spells. Thanks to everyone who's argued it - I probably will be doing the houseruling in my own games - priests of Alran-Kor should have full plate training in my world, and clerics who want to be all cloistered have a freaking variant class option just for them in the SRD.

Edit: Oh, and add the new race art to my dislike list, too. I usually like Scott Prescott's stuff (like the 2nd Darkness covers), but the races in the line-up just don't have the same personality and such as the old art. They're less cute, stylish, or interesting. I'm especially sad to see the dwarf, gnome, and human go.


Dislikes thus far:

1. Barbarian is no longer the intro class. Rage powers have all these fiddly parts to them and tons of math. In one campaign I'm in, the new player has a complex sheet filled with 66 flavors of "I split its head with my axe." Keep one class simple, guys. The rogue's got tons of skill rules to master and the fighter has all these combat maneuvers.

2. The fly skill makes sense, but its mechanics have horrific effects. It's a skill point soak. If you fly, you MUST max it out. And, even if you do that, you'll still fall out of the sky half the time. If I understand this right, you take damage and you have to make a skill check to keep flying. Now apply this to a dragon. It has tons of hit points, but that 20 damage magic missile or ranged smite evil from the paladin is practically guaranteed to bring it to earth, because a DC30 check is hard to pass. And then there's the fact that it undermines storytelling by making it extremely hard to have aerial battles or to have the BBEG fly in or fly away.

Basically, creatures with the fly skill are like WWI prop planes now. And the people shooting at them have surface to air missiles.

3. Wizards get more spells. Please. They never needed this power boost.

4. The lack of a pilot skill. There's nothing there for chariot races or for captaining naval combats. And before you say "profession" remember that every other profession skill has no combat or adventure application; they're flavor or NPC descriptors. If there's a fly skill, there's no reason not to add this skill.

5. Given how tough it is to succeed at a concentration check to cast defensively, I'm not sure how gishes and melee casters are going to work. We'll see.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
roguerouge wrote:

.

2. The fly skill makes sense, but its mechanics have horrific effects. It's a skill point soak. If you fly, you MUST max it out. And, even if you do that, you'll still fall out of the sky half the time. If I understand this right, you take damage and you have to make a skill check to keep flying. Now apply this to a dragon. It has tons of hit points, but that 20 damage magic missile or ranged smite evil from the paladin is practically guaranteed to bring it to earth, because a DC30 check is hard to pass. And then there's the fact that it undermines storytelling by making it extremely hard to have aerial battles or to have the BBEG fly in or fly away.

Basically, creatures with the fly skill are like WWI prop planes now. And the people shooting at them have surface to air missiles.

Could you folks actually read the final rules before posting here ? The check for damage while flying is a at a flat DC of 10.

Sovereign Court

roguerouge wrote:

Given how tough it is to succeed at a concentration check to cast defensively, I'm not sure how gishes and melee casters are going to work. We'll see.

I want to welcome all the new folks to the PAIZO boards! We've been participating in open feedback and playtesting for about 1.5 years now. Upthread I was reminded that not everyone is a GM... a fact I completely overlooked, and which explains some of the commentary.

Just wanted to pop in and say last Monday, using the final Pathfinder RPG, combat was improved by the defensive casting concentration check, and the seperation between concentration and spellcraft. For those of us who GM weekly—I'm thinking Jason did a near perfect job with Pathfinder RPG.

It might take some work to embrace the full context behind some of Jason's decisions—but it may be worth mentioning that the playtest forums for the Alpha 1, 2, 3, and Beta Playtest are still available for viewing to help some folks understand the discussions around the tweaks to the system.

For what its worth, in-game play runs very smoothly with this system. I guess I shouldn't smurf the thread for folks new to PAIZO (not refering to you, roguerogue), or who may not yet be aware of the context of some of these decisions. But in play anyhow, and as a GM, this particular check brings classic danger back to melee spellcasting. Enjoy.


Pax Veritas wrote:
It might take some work to embrace the full context behind some of Jason's decisions—but it may be worth mentioning that the playtest forums for the Alpha 1, 2, 3, and Beta Playtest are still available for viewing to help some folks understand the discussions around the tweaks to the system.

On the other hand, some of the more contentious changes were not done in the Alpha or Beta, and so it would seem inappropriate to discuss them in those forums.


Pax Veritas wrote:
roguerouge wrote:
Given how tough it is to succeed at a concentration check to cast defensively, I'm not sure how gishes and melee casters are going to work. We'll see.

But in play anyhow, and as a GM, this particular check brings classic danger back to melee spellcasting. Enjoy.

That it does. That was a delight as a beguiler. I'm still waiting to see how it works with the party druid, who's had a baby recently and missed the conversion. Casting shocking grasp seems to be a two round process now, though, with casting it and then moving into combat to use it lest you get an AoO. Making all melee touch spells like True Strike seems problematic, but we'll see.

As far as the fly skill, I made a mistake based on what my GM had told me. My apologies. (I DM in a 3E campaign, so I'm not making a huge effort to MASTER these rules.) As the other parts of my post make clear, however, I have read the rules. One mistake does not a moron make, Gorbacz. As an "Academic Teacher 3", you should know that.

Perusing the PSRD, however, seems to indicate that it's relatively impossible to shoot someone down, unless I'm missing the part where you have to land if you've taken half your hit points in damage, which is what it was in 3.5.


roguerouge wrote:
Perusing the PSRD, however, seems to indicate that it's relatively impossible to shoot someone down, unless I'm missing the part where you have to land if you've taken half your hit points in damage, which is what it was in 3.5.

Fly only grants 1/2 caster level to your fly check. A heavy armor Fighter with little DEX that only gets a +1 bonus from drinking a Fly potion is treading dangerous waters. The common, "I drink a fly potion and go chop it down" option comes with great risk now...a change I really like. The DEX based character is probably good but has a chance on a bad roll to fail. And the Wizard, as long as he sinks a couple of points in it can stay aloft pretty easily.

I don't know if there's any auto-fall if you take a certain amount of damage. To tell you the truth, I never realized that there was one before.


Frogboy wrote:
roguerouge wrote:
Perusing the PSRD, however, seems to indicate that it's relatively impossible to shoot someone down, unless I'm missing the part where you have to land if you've taken half your hit points in damage, which is what it was in 3.5.
Fly only grants 1/2 caster level to your fly check.

I've been imprecise. I'm talking about flying creatures, like, with wings.


Hi, I am late coming in, but, I do not like what they did to the
Univ. Wizard, they are nerfed to the whaazoo, and no 20th level
ability either.


Gene wrote:
Not enough was done with the monk to differentiate one monk from another. I'll be using my own variant in place of the stock one.

My opinion too

Shadow Lodge

One of the things I sort of dislike about the PF final, is a lot of the fluff about Galorian and the factions isn't in it. While I understand why (so the rules could be used with any setting), and I'm not sure if I had the chance to put it in there I would either, but I think it would have been nice to see a bit of the world, too. Particularly the Factions, and a little bit about what they are and how they interact.


Thurgon wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
All we do know is they did hide it, for whatever reason.
And all I know that they didn't hide it, but you are insisting they did, for whatever reason.
Was it revealed? No. Omission is a form of hiding, it matters not if it is intentional or not.

I tried to make that point a few days ago myself...you are totally right - heavy armor is a very, very important attribute - more so now than in 3.5 given the movement rule changes.

They changed it because it makes sense - in what cleric school do they teach heavy armor? A few...in what fighter schools do they teach heavy armor - depends on your theme but by standard RPG logic - all of them by necessity.

Feats are to customize characters - so now take a feat and get the proficiency


wraithstrike wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

.........

So, they came up with a better plan. They carry around a bag of small marbles, cast silence on exactly one of them, and throw the lot around the BBEG. Stupid spell.

This tactic is actually used in Shackled City against the PC's. It is a valid tactic.

Other tactics I have seen were to disarming the cleric of his holy simple and to sundering spell component pouches.

Yes - however the caster has to spend a standard Action casting it (provided he can in silence) then when he finds it go and pick it up and toss it far away - so he looses two full rounds dealing with it - and after round 1 Mr. Fighter says hello anyways - Bye Bye casterguy


Nope, not yet!

-- david
Papa.Smurf

Pax Veritas wrote:
Are we there yet papa smurf?


roguerouge wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
roguerouge wrote:
Perusing the PSRD, however, seems to indicate that it's relatively impossible to shoot someone down, unless I'm missing the part where you have to land if you've taken half your hit points in damage, which is what it was in 3.5.
Fly only grants 1/2 caster level to your fly check.
I've been imprecise. I'm talking about flying creatures, like, with wings.

Oh, I see. Well, any creature with wings should get a +8 racial bonus to fly just like any marine creature gets a +8 to swim. It does make collosal dragons with clumbsy manueverability extremely prone to dropping out of the sky. I'm guessing you'll be seeing them using a feat or two on Improved Flight to prevent this.

301 to 335 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What do you not like about Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.