|
I have never liked memorization magic. I never understood how you can memorize something twice or how you simply forget it once it's cast even though it's something you've studied for years. I have a hard time justifying why it works that way other than to say "it's magic," meaning it's a game mechanic. We got rid of memorizing in AD&D but brought it back in 3.X because of the introduction of actual spontaneous casters.
I miss the Concentration skill. If caster A spends time practicing casting spells while others attack them and caster B doesn't then caster A should be better at it than caster B. This is something that can be practiced so it should be represented by a skill.
A core book so think and heavy I can club a baby seal to death with it. (But those baby seals are just so clubbable!)
oh i did forget one thing.
We need to go back to Melee classes only haveing: One attacker per round ((2 Tops if they take Two-Weapon Fighting)).
|
Re: Concentration as a skill.
Maximizing 3.5 Concentration was so easy (not to mention Skill Focs > Combat Casting, which was silly), that any sensible optimizer would make his casting auto successful from the get go. At least now, at early to mid levels there is some reasonable chance of a caster not casting a spell in a sticky situation.
Actually if there is something I have against PF changes (as opposed to the conceptual shortcomings of 3.5 in general) is that concentration wasn't made even harder. That, and counterspelling is still rather stupid. Maybe UM will fix that.
|
|
Recently I lost the use of my writing hand. . .
. . .I've been elected as the scribe for the group, keeping all important information on my laptop. I'm desperate.
Your group are a bunch of d!cks for saddling a person who has a physical impediment to typing and writing with the job of party secretary. You should refuse to do it, and let them know in no uncertain terms what a cruddy thing it was for them to even suggest it.
Sorry I can't help you with the spreadsheet request, but I'm sure you'll get plenty of good suggestions from others.
As the thread says what do you think are the bad elements of Pathfinder. Please keep the topic civil.It didn't fix the caster/melee power discrepency at higher levels. It moved away from save or die, but still left one save or die spell in at most levels.
Honestly how can you fix caster/melee issues.
I mean a fighter is mundane and limited. Caster are virtually unlimited.
Personally I don't see the problem. The fighter is still fun to play at high levels even when the Casters are bending reality all around you.
|
Maximizing 3.5 Concentration was so easy (not to mention Skill Focs > Combat Casting, which was silly), that any sensible optimizer would make his casting auto successful from the get go.
Easy if the player was willing to put 20% to 25% of their skill points into it each level (depending on race and Int bonus). In 3.5 skill points were so few on the ground (especially with the bigger skill list) that I never took it for granted that a magic user would max out Concentration. Still, I can see how it may have been a pain for groups that optimise for combat.
Easy if the player was willing to put 20% to 25% of their skill points into it each level (depending on race and Int bonus). In 3.5 skill points were so few on the ground (especially with the bigger skill list) that I never took it for granted that a magic user would max out Concentration.
That being said, I saw literally hundreds of casters played by almost as many players in 3.X, and every one maxed Concentration.
(The number that maxed cross-class tumble for getting further away from bad combat situations? Much lower, but probably still a lot higher than you'd think. As a caster, surviving to successfully cast spells tends to be a lot more important than any of your other jobs.)
I like PF's change here -- having one skill with immense combat importance for casters wasn't great game design, and gave even more incentive to crank out Constitution to classes that already had too much incentive for it.
Not enough of a wholesale revision of the system / mechanics.
Like someone said, my PF issues are the same issues I always had with 3.x.
I know, backward compatibility... but these are the main issues imho...and I hope they will be addressed in a future version of this otherwise great game.
-Introduction of several subsystems. SEVERAL. Every class has 2 or 3, many feats have one...every skill has one... How the hell is the DM supposed to handle every single of them with the right degree of mastery? Improvise a npc is no longer possible without making huge mistakes.
-The save DCS of class abilities, spells and feats are calculated in 1000 different ways (see also "too many subsystems"). Other memory exercises for the DM... 10+BAB? 10+1/2 level+charisma? 10+spell level? 10+prc level+int? I have to note everything.
-Adventure preparation is way too time consuming. In part it's due to the bloat of systems and subsystems...but the major issue is that npcs and monsters have the same rules as PCs. This is a HUGE mistake that 4e addressed very well. Why the hell should I detail every single trait-skill-feat-class ability-equipment of a character who will be likely fought to death by pcs?
-Christmas tree. It's always there and I hate it.
-The system is still caster/magic oriented, and this issue get worst with levels...
-Craft rules...
-Grapple... clumsy subsystem...
-critical feats. They don't work well. If my character isn't a scimitar-wielder, he simply can't use them. They aren't reliable.
-d20 is a poor statistical factor. Especially at low level, the success of the actions is too luck-dependent. 2d10 is far better for example.
-Vancian spellcasting. I HATE IT AND ALWAYS WILL!
-Traps are a joke... They're way too easy to manage for they CR.
-Skills are too difficult to handle... every skill is a different subsystem. The DCs should be unified and streamlined, like 4e.
-The whole 3.x standard/immediate/move action rules...way better in 4e.
-Hard or impossible to determine the CR of a non-combat challenge. They are almost absent in the game. Something like 4e skill challenges (good idea, but boring implementation), but better. Paizo can do it.
In one word: the sistem is too complex to handle for my liking. An ocean better than 3.x, however.
Vancian magic.
I was hoping Pathfinder would have the courage to get rid of that nonsense, but no.
Skills.
I don't think the Pathfinder skills are easier to use, on the contrary.
Distributing points is a major part of character customization.
I don't like class/nonclass skills either. They are confining characters in stereotypes.
Vancian magic.
I was hoping Pathfinder would have the courage to get rid of that nonsense, but no.
I don't think it's about courage per se, but that a lot of people like it. :P
|
I don't know who is using what kind of program to make their maps, but so far every derogatory term you can apply has been applied to their maps by my group. The font used makes it virtually impossible to read if printed, in kingmaker, it is basically impossible to tell if the land is grassland or hills, swamp or forest, and so on. We have in our group a talented amateur cartologist, and he has undertaken the task of redrawing all the maps, in readable form.
Really, for a company that has such high standards in everything else, the maps are a huge disappointment.
*boggles*
I personally think Paizo makes some of the best damn maps in the industry.
I'm going to answer this question with the design constraints of Pathfinder firmly in mind. There are many criticisms I would otherwise level that simply aren't fair given the backward compatibility requirement.
The worst thing about Pathfinder are the little changes that take away from compatibility with 3.5. They may be improvments, but the gain isn't worth the cost. This isn't all changes; just the ones that require rebuilding stat blocks, or subtly change the way the game works in-play.
For example:
- Good: Hit die changes. It's easy to go back and add a hit point for every wizard level an NPC has.
- Good: CMB/CMD, because they make things easier in-play, and can easily be calculated and added to all stat-blocks.
- Not so good: Racial stat changes. If you want to be accurate, this kicks off a mess of recalculation for pretty much *every* NPC.
- Not so good: Changes to the way existing feats like cleave work -- they're simply not worth the overhead of learning and remembering the new rules.
A core book so think and heavy I can club a baby seal to death with it. (But those baby seals are just so clubbable!)
We be clubbin'? :P
The complicated rules and size of rulebook is a barrier to new players (hopefully soon-to-be-fixed). I can't imagine grabbing a copy to try with a few friends unless one of us had already played it.
Also, althoug I can't quite put my finger on what it is, we only played one game of 3.5 before pathfinder and in some, hard-to-articulate way I suspect ties in with the backwards compatibility, it sometimes feels that the rules are assuming some prior knowledge about 'how things used to be'. If this is not a figment of my imagination, it is probably a huge strength currently, but may become a hindrance as the number of 3.5 -> PF people diminishes.
(I'm fully aware that the last paragraph has lots of words with not much content. There's something I want to identify as basically a non-3.5 player who has picked up PF, I just can't quite make sense of it).
I think you're right, Steve.
Focus on 5 or more combats per day making any single dramatic conflict in a day an exercise in top-down spellcasting for any full caster.
Spiked Chains, and other equipment stupidity.
No, really. When I'm talking about the overall improvements to the system, the spiked chain - and the nerfs Sean K. mentioned about some of the armors - makes it look like they have no concept of fair game design.
For example, it was noted that an exotic weapon shouldn't be better than a regular weapon just because you had to spend a feat on it. Well hell yeah it does, that's why you spend a feat. Do you really think a bastard sword is worth a feat? The spiked chain now requires a feat but is all around overshadowed by the heavy flail.
Seriously, this kind of stuff is not complicated. If you're going to spend a feat, it should be worth it. Instead of making the only exotic weapon in core that was worth something worthless, maybe they should have added a few more exotic weapons that were better, to make things more attractive.
Y'know, maybe a great bow or something that deals a d10 damage and has a longer than average range. Or maybe a pole-arm version of the spiked chain, with a weapon shaft (think spiked handguard or something) used for striking up close. Maybe a meteor-hammer that's basically a bludgeoning spiked chain. Maybe upgrades to normal weapons.
Heck, a few more like the sawtooth swords (they function as longswords but they have special abilities unlocked by the feat) would be better than nerfing existing options for melee that were at least half-decent.
Here, something like this.
Chain, Spiked: A spiked chain is about 6 feet in length, covered in wicked barbs on each end. You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a spiked chain sized for you, even though it isn't a light weapon. Any character that possesses the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Spiked Chain) feat may treat the spiked chain as a reach weapon while retaining the ability to attack adjacent enemies.
95% of the game is awesome, and Paizo's designers have done a PHENOMENAL job creating vibrant rules that are eloquent in their execution. When rules make simple, believable, thematic sense, it makes me excited to play.
But if I had pick stuff that bothers me (some of which is legacy 3.5 stuff), it would be this.
Stealth, Invisibility, and Perception
The rules here are split up into many sections and often have ambiguities about what key words mean, as well as the when stealth is dropped, whether people are flat footed, under what conditions that HiPS works/fails, etc. There are people that play stealthy characters and classes, such as rogues/assassins/rangers/ninja-type-shadow-dancer-batman-peoples, who have stealth as a major part of their mechanics, and the RAW gets interpreted wildly differently from GM to GM. Not talking house rules, but interpretation of what the RAW means.
Crafting
The time it takes is based on market price, rather than the item's complexity. This leads to poisons that take months to brew 1 dose. Granted the game is not called Crafters and Crucibles, but crafting could use some attention. Of course I play a crafter as my main character so I am obviously partial to this aspect of the game:D
Feats
I love them, but a few of them are about playing a different character, such as a dex-based combatant, rather than providing an additive bonus. Being less MAD is a bonus often it takes a lot of feats to make it work as whole. Also a lot of the feat chains are designed so the feats don't scale unless you take the next one at +6 BAB or +11 BAB. Both of these really lock you into playing one style of character, when it would be nice to branch out, and create a more diverse fighting style. As mentioned in another thread, it might be part of what gives us the linear fighter/quadratic wizard feel.
In a far flung second edition of PF it would be interesting to see a the role of feats and the role of traits work together to free up that specialization that feats currently encourage. Traits might be able to stand in for those feats that change the style of a character, such as a dex-based combat character (always something intrinsic to the character's background), and the Feats might be more like additive abilities that people learn as they progress. Any current feat that is only available at 1st level, would be a trait instead. Something along those lines.
|
|
1) Trolls on the forums
2) The assumption that the player knows the insides and outsides of 3.5 so that they can automatically know how stuff is supposed to work when the rule in the core rulebook is vague (Ability Increases at 4th levels).
3) Weapon Finesse & Agile Maneuvers being a feat instead of a choose it at first level option.
4) The assumption that someone has always been this class, and that before they started adventuring they weren't a Warrior 1 or an Expert 1, and that they possibly lost a few HP when they went from their HP roll in the NPC class to the max HD in their PC class.
5) Inconsistent usage of wording, specifically "Trait."
95% of the game is awesome, and Paizo's designers have done a PHENOMENAL job creating vibrant rules that are eloquent in their execution. When rules make simple, believable, thematic sense, it makes me excited to play.
But if I had pick stuff that bothers me (some of which is legacy 3.5 stuff), it would be this.
Stealth, Invisibility, and Perception
The rules here are split up into many sections and often have ambiguities about what key words mean, as well as the when stealth is dropped, whether people are flat footed, under what conditions that HiPS works/fails, etc. There are people that play stealthy characters and classes, such as rogues/assassins/rangers/ninja-type-shadow-dancer-batman-peoples, who have stealth as a major part of their mechanics, and the RAW gets interpreted wildly differently from GM to GM. Not talking house rules, but interpretation of what the RAW means.
Agreed. Vague rules are bad rules.
Crafting
The time it takes is based on market price, rather than the item's complexity. This leads to poisons that take months to brew 1 dose. Granted the game is not called Crafters and Crucibles, but crafting could use some attention. Of course I play a crafter as my main character so I am obviously partial to this aspect of the game:D
A fix in the meantime is making it so you earn your craft check * DC in gold pieces per week instead of silver, which speeds the process up dramatically (same for work by the day in silver rather than copper). Likewise, allow the crafter to intentionally increase the DC in increments of 1 instead of 10. Thus a crafter with a +10 modifier working on a DC 15 item could willingly set the craft DC to 20 and take 10 for 20 * 20 = 400 gp worth of progress that week. When you factor in assistants (aid another), masterwork tools (+2), and so on, you can produce useful items in fair amounts of time.
I don't mind the cost of the item being the defining piece as to its craft time. Items that are slower to craft are likely more expensive as a result. I realize that's far from a universal rule, but it works well enough for me as an abstraction.
Feats
I love them, but a few of them are about playing a different character, such as a dex-based combatant. Also a lot of the feat chains are designed to the feats don't scale unless you take the next one at +6 BAB or +11 BAB. This really locks you into playing one style of character, when it would be nice to branch out, and create a more diverse fighting style.In a far flung second edition of PF it would be interesting to see a the role of feats and the role of traits work together to free up that specialization that feats currently encourage. Traits might be able to stand in for those feats that change the style of a character, such as a dex-based combat character (always something intrinsic to the character's background), and the Feats might be...
Agreed. I'd love to see more feats like the martial arts feats in Oriental Adventures. They were truly ahead of their time in terms of mechanical superiority. Several of the feats provided abilities that were useful forever (Roundabout Kick gave you an extra unarmed strike against an opponent you scored a critical hit against) or scaled with your level (choke hold allowed you to force a pinned opponent to make a fortitude save - DC 10 + 1/2 your level + strength modifier - or fall unconscious).
As it is, players get a lot more feats but warriors have an increased feat tax to remain viable. Look at fighters for example. PCs in 3.5 gained 7 feats over 20 levels. Pathfinder players gain 10 feats over 20 levels. But a fighter who wants to be efficient at grappling, disarming, and tripping will need 6 feats instead of 3. See a problem here?
EDIT: Also, the Flying Kick feat was another that scaled up effectively. Basically it allowed you to deal double damage with an unarmed strike if used as part of a charge. This was highly effective for opening up a fight with, and it scaled nicely due to static modifiers (double bardsong damage, +5 gauntlets = +10 damage, double strength modifier, etc).
So as you got stronger, the feat's benefit got stronger as well. Excellent design, and it was a good feat (and yet so very well balanced too).
Let me start by saying that I am enjoying the hell out of the game, and think it is a very strong overall design. That said, I have a lot of nagging issues with it, soem of which are carryovers from previous editions. Think of them as nitpicks, or my wishlist for a future (hopefully distant future, for my wallet's sake) edition.
-- Dislike the continuation of general power creep, would like to see this reversed or official alternate rules for dialing things back a bit
-- Dislike the baseline assumption of Magic Mart availability of magic items. I understand DMs can alter this for their own campaigns as they see fit, but I wish it were not the baseline.
-- Wish there were more limitations on spellcaster power, particularly at higher levels. Something like more restricted access to spells, or consequences for casting certain spells ( a la 1st and 2nd edition haste or teleport), or more defenses against spells, better chance of interrupting spells, better chance to save against them, etc.
-- Better/more consistent crafting rules, both mundane and magical. On the one hand, crafting mundane items is incredibly time-consuming and difficult, and on the other making magical items is quick and easy. I'd like to see this balanced.
-- Wish the rules were lighter and more were left to the DM to adjudicate, with appropriate guidelines, rather than spelling everything out.
-- I'd like to see the laws of physics and common sense applied to such things as swimming in armor, falling damage and jumping
-- I think armor is undervalued and should give more protection. AC simply doesn't keep up with attack rolls in many cases, making combats at higher levels attrition fests, since noone misses much.
-- I'd like to see damage-inflicting spells and effects (like falling) scaled up to match the increase in the number of hit poitns characters and monsters have now. Fireball still does 1d6 per level (but stops at 10 HD now) while the targets freequntly have at least twice as many HPs as they used to. As a consequence, one of the iconic spells is arguably way underpowered now.
-- Finally, I'm not a fan of the anime-influenced Pathfinder art, with big eyes and big weapons and so forth. I know lots of people love it, but that's my opinion.
I know that looks like a long list, but the question was asked. I love the game. But everything can be improved. I'm sure lots of people disagree with some or all of my suggestions, and I'm not really that interested in debating them in this thread. Just laying them out there as one man's opinion.
1) Trolls on the forums
Arrrrr... Sure'n I know tha bitter lashes of the sea, I can tell yah, boyo ... Where thar be forums, thar be trolls ...
-- Dislike the baseline assumption of Magic Mart availability of magic items. I understand DMs can alter this for their own campaigns as they see fit, but I wish it were not the baseline.
Not I. I like the fact they assume people in a magical world will use magic.
-- Better/more consistent crafting rules, both mundane and magical. On the one hand, crafting mundane items is incredibly time-consuming and difficult, and on the other making magical items is quick and easy. I'd like to see this balanced.
Speeding up the mundane crafting would be enough for me. As someone who's an apprentice blacksmith, I don't mind that enchanting an item doesn't take terribly long, but I understand why using mundane means to craft something can. Speeding up the crafting by x10 wouldn't hurt anything though. Making it scale might be good too.
-- Wish the rules were lighter and more were left to the DM to adjudicate, with appropriate guidelines, rather than spelling everything out.
Oh god I hope not. Why would I pay money for something I have to keep patching myself? Standardized rules make it easier to play with multiple groups, end arguments (which can be a pain in the butt, especially since "I'm the GM so shut up" easily leaves harsh feelings), and makes sure everyone is playing the same game. Look at the crap involving Stealth and Perception right now on the boards. When you can't agree on what basic rules are, you have a problem.
-- I'd like to see the laws of physics and common sense applied to such things as swimming in armor, falling damage and jumping
They are actually. Have you ever seen a commoner in full plate trying to swim? They are statistically ensured to die. They can't even hit a DC 10 swim check with the -6 check penalty. Have you ever seen what a 20ft fall can do to a regular person? Have you ever seen how lethal fire is to a regular person? The average person in PF has 2-4 hp, with tough warrior types having 4-6 Hp. A 10ft fall can be lethal.
-- I think armor is undervalued and should give more protection. AC simply doesn't keep up with attack rolls in many cases, making combats at higher levels attrition fests, since noone misses much.
I can agree with this. I think a scaling AC value wouldn't hurt. Something like "Dodge bonus", which represents your learned skill to evade things. As is, a 20th level fighter isn't actually any better at avoiding an attack while sparring with a 1st level fighter, unless his Dexterity has gone up.
Since it's a dodge bonus, they would loose this when flat-footed or otherwise denied their dexterity bonuses, so catching people off guard or stunning them would still be a great debuff.
-- I'd like to see damage-inflicting spells and effects (like falling) scaled up to match the increase in the number of hit poitns characters and monsters have now. Fireball still does 1d6 per level (but stops at 10 HD now) while the targets freequntly have at least twice as many HPs as they used to. As a consequence,...
Again, falling scales fine. Damage dealing spells however should have options for adding static damage to them, like psionics does with fire and cold energy attacks. Offering the ability to scale up attacks would be useful as well, such as allowing Heighten Spell to increase the cap on damage dealing spells by 5 caster levels (so a 4th level fireball can reach 15d6 fire damage).
Offering the ability to scale up attacks would be useful as well, such as allowing Heighten Spell to increase the cap on damage dealing spells by 5 caster levels (so a 4th level fireball can reach 15d6 fire damage).
Intensify Spell (APG) is precisely this, FYI.
Intensify Spell (APG) is precisely this, FYI.
Offering the ability to scale up attacks would be useful as well, such as allowing Heighten Spell to increase the cap on damage dealing spells by 5 caster levels (so a 4th level fireball can reach 15d6 fire damage).
Seriously? Noice. ^.^
I really need to pick that book up.
-- Dislike the baseline assumption of Magic Mart availability of magic items. I understand DMs can alter this for their own campaigns as they see fit, but I wish it were not the baseline.Not I. I like the fact they assume people in a magical world will use magic.
I think this is a chief issue for people. It appears in several sections of the core book that magic is like technology in our soceity. People go to Target, Gamestop, Best Buy, use the magical communications box to order a special item from far away. To get wondrous items that make thier life easier or them more effective at something they want to do.
I fully understand that many people do not like this. Seems like an opportune time to Rule 0, just make sure that the players you are playing with are aware of this upfront. It is not fair to anyone for them to make assumptions that magic (as the technology of the setting) is every bit as prevalent as our technology is in Europe/ North America. As it is listed as such in those sections of the book and then are shocked, argumentative, PO'ed and similar because of a failure to communicate.
-- Dislike the baseline assumption of Magic Mart availability of magic items. I understand DMs can alter this for their own campaigns as they see fit, but I wish it were not the baseline.
The question there is, what's a more reasonable universal baseline? Something like, "You find whatever the DM puts in" or "You find whatever the DM rolls randomly." isn't consistent enough to easily balance adventures/encounters/monsters against.
(Bonus points if you can come up with a better baseline that also doesn't skew the game more towards casters, which restricted magic item choice unfortunately tends to do.)
I say this as someone who runs a non-magic-mart game, incidentally.
-- Dislike the baseline assumption of Magic Mart availability of magic items. I understand DMs can alter this for their own campaigns as they see fit, but I wish it were not the baseline.
The question there is, what's a more reasonable universal baseline? Something like, "You find whatever the DM puts in" or "You find whatever the DM rolls randomly." isn't consistent enough to easily balance adventures/encounters/monsters against.
(Bonus points if you can come up with a better baseline that also doesn't skew the game more towards casters, which restricted magic item choice unfortunately tends to do.)
I say this as someone who runs a non-magic-mart game, incidentally.
You just need something to stand in for the longsword +1 slots. It could be easy as the GM handling out small trait like bonuses based on completing objectives or doing something special. Something like achievement feats, instead of moor majik lootz. PFS has something like that already. You might just implement it on a more dramatic scale.
The question there is, what's a more reasonable universal baseline? Something like, "You find whatever the DM puts in" or "You find whatever the DM rolls randomly." isn't consistent enough to easily balance adventures/encounters/monsters against.
(Bonus points if you can come up with a better baseline that also doesn't skew the game more towards casters, which restricted magic item choice unfortunately tends to do.)
I say this as someone who runs a non-magic-mart game, incidentally.
Likewise, I'm pretty restrictive about what can be bought without a lot of legwork. In a homebrew setting, I skew even more magic light... but if you're going to have crafting rules, you're going to have an economy whether you like it or not. Better that the work is done and standardized so that people can just ignore it, rather than having to calculate the numbers for every dang item themselves.
|
My least favorite aspect of PFRPG isn't a rule, mechanics, or flavor issue. My personal "worst thing" is the arguing, fighting, name-calling, and utter lack of civility associated with the open playtests.
Open playtesting worked well for the core rules as there was enough material that people didn't get too wrapped up in any one thing for long. This is especially true when the groundrules were hashed out (backward compatibility sprinkled with improvements instead of new/improved rules sprinkled with backward compatibility).
Open playtesting worked ok for the APG as there was still enough content for people to pick their battles. The Magus playtest was pretty bloody. The base material just wasn't as good as the previous playtests (my opinion; sorry Jason) and everyone involved fought tooth and nail over every tiny nit-noid of the class because it was the only thing they had to focus their nerd-crazy on. When crazy turned to rage, there wasn't enough material for nerd-rage so they turned on each other. Add to that the fact that the playtests tend to bring traffic to the board that is only marginally interested in the end product and more interested in drama and sowing chaos.
So, yeah, playtests have become my least favorite aspect of Pathfinder. They seriously damage my calm.
-Skeld
You just need something to stand in for the longsword +1 slots. It could be easy as the GM handling out small trait like bonuses based on completing objectives or doing something special. Something like achievement feats, instead of moor majik lootz. PFS has something like that already. You might just implement it on a more dramatic scale.
What I'm getting at is: the designers of the game need to pick something as the assumption for magic availability. That way, published adventures can roll with that assumption, and GMs will have a consistent baseline to adjust against, even if that's not the same level of magic availability they use in their game..
That is to say, if I run a theoretical campaign in which PCs have magic-mart action and typically run double the suggested WBL, once I figure out that I need to mentally subtract 1 from CRs before 10th level and 2 from CRs after 10th level (or whatever the fudge factor turns out to be), I can always work around published adventures because I'm off from the assumed baseline in a consistent way.
Worst thing about Pathfinder? I only get to play it about every 3 weeks.
As the thread says what do you think are the bad elements of Pathfinder. Please keep the topic civil.Recently I lost the use of my writing hand [right hand] via a glass door. It may take 2 years before I get full use of my hand. I can use my laptop, somewhat slowly with my left hand, and I'm in need of a PDF that I can fill-in via my computer. I don't have the ability to create the PDF as I don't have the access password. I can't believe that it would take that much time to create the three files I need ['Front' & 'Back' Character Creation page, and the 'Chronicle Page'. If anybody has something I can place on my laptop that would surfice, as the same, I'd really appreciate you downloading it to david.j.jacoby@hotmail.com. As of now I'm desperate. The group I'm with starts playing on Monday the 15th at 4:00 P.M. I've been elected as the scribe for the group, keeping all important information on my laptop. I'm desperate.
Use your good hand to threaten them menacingly and tell them to do it.
Dislike:
-The entire change to the Concentration mechanics
-Addition of Fly as a skill
-Combination of Listen and Spot/Search into a single skill
-Lack of official errata for repeatedly brought up issues
-Dropping the ball on their multiple choice system for new classes
|
Groupthink on the boards.
Honestly, is the craft system such a major hindrance to everyone's games that it needs to be mentined in this list? How many people would have mentioned if it were not for the postings? Are you guys playing Artisans & Accountants or are you playing Pathfinder? Same thing for the stealth rules. Our group has been using it since 3.X and we haven't had any problems with it.
Also, the extra-large rulebook is a problem, as my bindings and cover have already broken due to the sheer weight of the pages.
The assumption that everyone is already familiar with 3.5 left some gaps in the rules. Maybe the rules could have been explained better by keeping two separate books (thereby leaving more page count per book for rules and tables).
1. Trying to figure out all the permutations of what a given polymorph type spell does, or related abilities like Wild Shape or Change Shape. Frex, I look up an ability, which says, "As Beast Shape IV," which in turn says, "Like Beast Shape III, but this," and then you look THAT up and it's "As Beast Shape II..." and THEN I have to look up the lengthy section on Polymorph subtype spells in the magic section of the book to see how it all comes together and what applies and what doesn't. There's no easy shorthand either, no nice easy to consult table to see how it all works together. (Hmmmm.... maybe I'll make one some day...) As it is, if you want to do something like write up a mid-high level druid as a combatant, including prepping some sample wild shape stats so you're not trying to do the calculation during game, it's an exercise in patience, time, and general masochism.
2. It's a very small thing, but I don't like certain aspects of the statblock. I always make three changes to my own homemade statblock to make it more intuitive to me:
-- Move movement and space/reach at the top of the page, next to initiative. When I'm running a monster, I need to know what size base to grab to put on the battle grid even before I need to roll initiative, and I don't want to go digging into the middle of the statblock for its move rate either.
-- Move CMD next to AC in Defense where it belongs. I don't want to look in two different places to look at my character's two main defensive scores. Likewise move BAB and CMB, the core offensive modifiers, to Offense. A lot of time I need to know what BAB is despite also having usual attacks written out, and again, I don't want to look in two different places for all attacks.
-- Move all attack abilities to offense and all defensive abilities to defense. Duh. I don't want to have to dig all the way to the bottom of the statblock to see what the poison attack does that's listed all the way up with the associated bite attack. Leave skill related abilities next to skills, etc. When I'm running a combat I don't have time to dig to the bottom to see what stuff does--I need it right there!
Obviously I already write my own statblocks so I have my own solution, but it's a pain to tweak it all the time. OTOH, I also realize this boils down to, "I wish every one thought like me," and yeah, I know, good luck with that. :)
Aren't there some variant magic systems promised in the Ultimate Magic?
Personally I love the Vancian system :)
Personally I'm allwing masterwork for more than just +1 to help with the magic christmas tree effect.
|
Aren't there some variant magic systems promised in the Ultimate Magic?
Personally I love the Vancian system :)
Personally I'm allwing masterwork for more than just +1 to help with the magic christmas tree effect.
Yes words of power. You combine words to get effects you want. From what has been said it won't be anywhere as flexible as the White Wolf game Mage was, but it will be pretty flexible on what you can do. I am very interested in seeing it. I hope we get a beta test of it. That is something I think would benefit greatly from a open beta before printing.
I would have liked to have seen a return of the "if your hit while casting to loose the spell automatically". This balances out the casters. Casting while being attacked was meant to be seen as a last disparate resort.
S.
Yeah, I see people comlain of the changes of Concentration, but I'd follow your idea instead.
As a DM, this could nevertheless lead me to play differently some monster (outsiders mainly, but some "build" of dragon too)... so I guess I should be careful about what I wish for ;P
I don't care what you feel about the system, it should - if it isn't already - be a universal thought that the inherent bonuses idea from 4e isn't just amazing, it's something that should be carried back and given to every previous edition. Presto change-o, you now have a low magic item world without the problems of non-spellcasters becoming hilariously worthless.
|
|
I would have liked to have seen a return of the "if your hit while casting to loose the spell automatically". This balances out the casters. Casting while being attacked was meant to be seen as a last disparate resort.
S.
Yeah, I see people comlain of the changes of Concentration, but I'd follow your idea instead.
Not my idea, Gygax's. If the inventor of D&D didn't know how D&D was 'meant' to be I don't know who would...