| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me it is the notion that any character can swim while wearing 35-, 45-, 50-, or 65-pounds of iron, steel, or bronze armor. Rules as written, you take the ACP as a penalty on Swim checks. BUT, there are so many things in the game that reduce ACP (masterwork/magical armor plus Armor Training 4 from the fighter makes full just ACP of -1, for armor that weighs a full 50 lbs).
Using any rationale amount of common sense, it seems that the character should drop like a stone. And yet, he can swim in a storm with only minimal risk if he has put even a few skill ranks in Swim.
For my game, I apply a 'special penalty' to swimming in armor; this penalty is in addition to ACP. The penalty is twice the armor bonus granted by the armor, so Leather is -4, Chain Mail is -10, and Full Plate is -16. Mithral armor, being lighter, I think I will let that reduce the special penalty by a quarter (Chain Mail -7, Full Plate -12).
What are you rules that raise your eyebrows?
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None, because RAW does not actually exist.
Actually, if you are strong enough and know how to swim, you can swim with 65 pounds of metal on. I've heard of soldiers swimming in full kit, which can weigh up to 100 pounds. It's not easy, and I sure couldn't do it, but it's doable by others.
What gets me is arcane spell failure chance. What could you possibly have to do to cast a spell that armor prevents but the stress of combat won't?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
What are you rules that raise your eyebrows?
Hmm. I once had a lifeguard test where we had to swim while carrying a cinderblock. The idea that a legendary hero can swim in full plate doesn't bother me. It's better than 3.0, where you could be dragged to a watery grave by carrying too much wood.
I am bothered by little things, like: standing still, casting a still silent spell, provokes an AoO. But standing still, paralyzed, does not. How is the spellcaster more defenseless in this situation?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Size modifiers, specifically that they go one way for attack/AC and the opposite direction for CMB/CMD, when applied to Sunder.
Most of the time, it makes sense: the halfling is going to be harder to hit and therefore gets a +1 to AC (and to him I'm a hulking target, so he gets +1 to attacks), but he's gonna have a hard time grappling or bull rushing me so he has a -1 to CMB (while I can probably pick him up and throw him across the room, so he has a -1 to CMD).
But Sunder? Now if there's a Tiny creature running around, I'm going to have a hard time stabbing him in the face, but I'm nearly guaranteed success at cutting his armor off of him without hurting him.
Or I take Greater Sunder (extra sunder damage rolls over onto the wearer), and suddenly my sunders and my attacks are practically the same thing, yet one is IMMENSELY easier than the other.
intimidate has always been based off of charisma. that one I always thought was fairly obvious. you don't have to be big and strong to be intimidating you just have to be good at voice tones, facial features, and persuasions associated with intimidation.*Scratch*
My fighter's Intimidate is based on Charisma?
*more scratching*
I have since come around to acceptance but that was my initial reaction back in Beta.
True, but you can also easily intimidate people without using Cha just by being really big. There is more than one way to scare the crap out of someone.
Maybe people should just use whichever stat is higher, Strength or Charisma, when intimidating people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scent auto detects within a range, but perception includes smells now. Really feel that scent ability ought to just give a bonus to perception.
True, but you can also easily intimidate people without using Cha just by being really big. There is more than one way to scare the crap out of someone.
Maybe people should just use whichever stat is higher, Strength or Charisma, when intimidating people.
Things like this are what confuse me. I wish there are some features that could be defined at character creation that persist through the life of that character. For instance, Weapon Finesse should not be a feat for races that are naturally dexterous. To me, you should be able to choose that you want to apply dex instead of str to melee attacks if you want to play a "flashy" character but after that decision that's how it would work regardless of what feats, features, etc you took.
I think it's weird that Arcane Spell Failure is a percentage based on armor. I think it should be a Concentration check of some kind. And classes that can cast arcane spells while wearing light armor just gain the ability to Take 10 on their Concentration check to avoid spell failure when wearing armor.
It's d20, not d%!!!!!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perception rules. I've got no issues with legendary heroes swimming in armour, i've got issues with the average guy being unable to spot the tarrasque from 100 meters away.
Falling rules ahoy?
Counterspelling is just counter-sensible.
Crafting rules...ok, let's not go there, it's dark damp and stinks of dead grandmas.
The above quote, and the Paladin code, which has been misinterpreted so many times that it's not even funny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The -1 penalty to Perception checks for every ten feet of distance.
EDIT: ninja'd!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imo, the components part of spells is horrible unflavored. ASF should only affect spells with somatic components for instance. Other silly things include:
-wizards not being combat viable (think gandalf. I suppose he was a gestalt fighter/wizard. I also suppose magus 'fixed' this)
-slings being terrible weapons (watch deadliest warrior, slings are highly lethal and can penetrate armor)
-daggers being terrible (VERY lethal against armored targets and non armored ones assuming you know how to strike properly)
-someone with a 7 strength who can barely carry equipment is able to swing a great sword properly assuming they have the right proficiency. someone that weak wouldn't be able to pick up nor swing a great sword. (not talking about -str damage penalty)
-alignment restrictions (why can't a vanilla paladin be chaotic good? or rather, a raging barbarian respect the laws by not breaking other good peoples things?)
-wizards, pinnacles of magical knowledge, forget spells that they had memorized because they used them (seems sirry to me, also see:prepared casters)
-alchemists throwing bombs as a main feature
-some of the requirements for the prc's
-SO MUCH MORE
This is less about poor wording than it is about odd rules, so sorry if I went off track.
|
-wizards, pinnacles of magical knowledge, forget spells that they had memorized because they used them (seems sirry to me, also see:prepared casters)
It's my understanding that a wizard when wizard is preparing his spells, he's actually starting his casting. So think of it this way, lets say you know how to make a grenade (aka fireball), so you make 2 in the morning. You get into a fight and toss your two grenades. Sure you know how to make a grenade, but you can't simply say "I toss out a third grenade" because you know how to make one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, if you are strong enough and know how to swim, you can swim with 65 pounds of metal on. I've heard of soldiers swimming in full kit, which can weigh up to 100 pounds. It's not easy, and I sure couldn't do it, but it's doable by others.
Note that density is a huge issue! Metal has very very high density. A modern soldiers equipment maybe much less so. So a lot of the 100 lb. you are talking about could be compensated by buoyancy.
Anway no one could realistically hope to do something that resembles swimming with full plate armor on. Not a chance.
Trying to mix Pathfinder/D&D/*Insert TTRPG name here* with realism? Excuse me, I have to go laugh my arse off elsewhere.
Trying to mix Pathfinder/D&D/*Insert TTRPG name here* with realism? Excuse me, I have to go laugh my arse off elsewhere.
Why? No one is suggesting changing the rules or making them "more realistic". We are simply stating which ones really grossly deviate from the real world conditions.
Craft. I find the rules as written unusable as a player and DM. Most of the time I just ask for DM fait on whether or not my check result accomplishes something I want to do with the skill or not.
Also, the assumption that every group of heroes is going to be encrusted with X amount of magic items over the course of their adventures.
Trying to mix Pathfinder/D&D/*Insert TTRPG name here* with realism? Excuse me, I have to go laugh my arse off elsewhere.Why? No one is suggesting changing the rules or making them "more realistic". We are simply stating which ones really grossly deviate from the real world conditions.
I was just joking, you know. :)
Anyway, I do agree that the Craft rules are rather silly.
hp and something that would realisticly kill you instantly.
It's like a high level character can loose 10 liters of blood without dying.
Also I always tought that it was double armor check penalty on swim, but couldn't find it, was that 3.5 only?
Also I always tought that it was double armor check penalty on swim, but couldn't find it, was that 3.5 only?
Yes. And 3.0 had -1 per 5 lb. carried/worn IIRC.
Imo, the components part of spells is horrible unflavored. ASF should only affect spells with somatic components for instance. Other silly things include:
-wizards not being combat viable (think gandalf. I suppose he was a gestalt fighter/wizard. I also suppose magus 'fixed' this)
-someone with a 7 strength who can barely carry equipment is able to swing a great sword properly assuming they have the right proficiency. someone that weak wouldn't be able to pick up nor swing a great sword. (not talking about -str damage penalty)
-wizards, pinnacles of magical knowledge, forget spells that they had memorized because they used them
Asf only affect somatic spells already.
Gandalf mostly fought cr 1/3 orcs. He might have been a 7th level wizard with long sword proficiency. Personally, id say bard.A twohanded sword isn't that heavy, and a -2 penalty to attacks and damage means you'll suck at it. I'm not particularly strong and i regularly swing a chainsaw weighing three times as much.
Wizards don't memorise spells, they prepare them, like loading a gun. You always known how to shoot, but you need time to reload.
-wizards not being combat viable (think gandalf. I suppose he was a gestalt fighter/wizard. I also suppose magus 'fixed' this)
well, they are combat viable. A high level wizard is better at fighting than your average commoner and better than your average fighter if buffed and equipped. Just because you don't come across goblins at level 20 it doesn't mean that the wizard can't slaughter them at this point. Actually I've the opposite problem imagining the very old wizard not get killed by a greataxe blow.
On Gandalf: he was a maiar, had one of the three rings, probably had impressive stats and that was not d&d nor pathfinder.
-slings being terrible weapons (watch deadliest warrior, slings are highly lethal and can penetrate armor)
Yep, but so are weapon in general: I'd rather get hit by a sling than by a bow, would you not?
-daggers being terrible (VERY lethal against armored targets and non armored ones assuming you know how to strike properly)
yes, and knowing how to strike is called sneak attack. Try comparing you hitting someone with a dagger and with a greatsword.
However me too I'm bugged by the way armor works, I'd like to try the rules for armor as damage reduction in the future (maybe dr/piercing or bludgeoning)
-someone with a 7 strength who can barely carry equipment is able to swing a great sword properly assuming they have the right proficiency. someone that weak wouldn't be able to pick up nor swing a great sword. (not talking about -str damage penalty)
Totally agree on you with this, I'd like to see a minimum str modifier (but that would add complexity to the game and would be rarely used. Moreover, if you are proficient with a weapon and are using it you probably have the str to do it, I've never seen a duelist wielding a great-sword)
-wizards, pinnacles of magical knowledge, forget spells that they had memorized because they used them (seems sirry to me, also see:prepared casters)
can be seen as casting the spell in advance and only releasing it later, this explanation did the job for me.
This could also explain why you need a spell book, casting those spells is really difficult that not even your memory could keep up.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
watch deadliest warrior
Yeah, about that, I'd rather don't, especially if I want a realistic approach to the issue.
Anyway, Pathfinder and D&D are made almost entirely made by unrealistic rules, so I don't see why these ones make you scratch your head, and the rest of the game doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-wizards not being combat viable (think gandalf. I suppose he was a gestalt fighter/wizard. I also suppose magus 'fixed' this)
I don't know what you are talking about, probably because I am too busy cleaving orcs in half with my longsword as a 1st level elvish transmuter. After that I will probably still be too busy casting mage armor, shield and extended bulls strength to notice whatever it is you are talking about. After I am done casting transformation and becoming better than the fighter at being a fighter, then I think I can find some time to talk about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-wizards, pinnacles of magical knowledge, forget spells that they had memorized because they used them (seems sirry to me, also see:prepared casters)
If you read the descriptions between sorcerer and wizard you'll see the difference. Wizards are just ordinary people who have decided to study magic. Sorcerers are born with magic in their blood and that is the source of their power. Wizards need to prepare spells. I've always understood this as doing whatever incantations, chants, etc to summon the magical energy required to cast the spells they prepare. Once cast, that energy is gone and is why they can no longer cast that spell. They don't "forget." They just don't have the magical energy innate to sorcerers.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
intimidate has always been based off of charisma. that one I always thought was fairly obvious. you don't have to be big and strong to be intimidating you just have to be good at voice tones, facial features, and persuasions associated with intimidation.*Scratch*
My fighter's Intimidate is based on Charisma?
*more scratching*
I have since come around to acceptance but that was my initial reaction back in Beta.
True, but you can also easily intimidate people without using Cha just by being really big. There is more than one way to scare the crap out of someone.
Maybe people should just use whichever stat is higher, Strength or Charisma, when intimidating people.
Sheer physical presence certainly helps, but its all in how you present it. For example, you ever seen Mike Tyson? He is a huge, scary looking fighter, and if I saw him in a dark alley, I'd soil myself.... Until of course he tried to speak threateningly to me in that high pitched mickey-mouse voice of his. Then I'd be hard pressed through the laughter to take any of his threats seriously.
Of course then he'd pummel me to death, but that's a different issue.
For player characters who want to use strength, I usually ask them to describe how they are using physical intimidation, and then possibly provide a bonus to their charisma based intimidate check.
For example the barbarian who crushes a tankard in his fist while intimidating the barkeep (strength check) may gain a +2 synergy bonus to his resulting intimidate check.
The Intimidating Prowess Feat lets you add your Str to Intimidate in addition to Cha, so Pathfinder kinda have this covered if you really want to.
|
What are you rules that raise your eyebrows?
Most if all 3.5 based rules/abilities. Here are a few:
-Cannot fail a skill check on a 1 (the "skills are in constant use" paradigm). Take 10/20 nonsense. Skill checks should only be made at dramatic moments and not in constant use.
-Create X (water/food/walls) and the in-game world consequences of making something from nothing (society, economy, etc). Aka, anti-immersive and creates a nonsensical world beyond what you would get in a fantasy world. Fanatsy is one thing, having to make excuses and impact on the world due to the rules is another (unneeded) thing altogether.
-Falling damage and Hps rules in general (no critical non-hp long term conditions - ex. Broken bones, they don't exist)
-Stat emphasis (at mid level or higher CON can almost be as important as HD) and stat value imbalance.
-Crafting rules and making magic items - beyond horrible rules (self inflating characters/stats, "Something from nothing part II")
Those are just a few. Personally 3.5/PFRPG is on it's last legs in my group. Going to go back to an older edition or switch systems entirely.
I have never had as many "bitter pills/that's just the system" arguments as I have had with 3.5 and derived games.
Actually, if you are strong enough and know how to swim, you can swim with 65 pounds of metal on. I've heard of soldiers swimming in full kit, which can weigh up to 100 pounds. It's not easy, and I sure couldn't do it, but it's doable by others.
Note that density is a huge issue! Metal has very very high density. A modern soldiers equipment maybe much less so. So a lot of the 100 lb. you are talking about could be compensated by buoyancy.
Anway no one could realistically hope to do something that resembles swimming with full plate armor on. Not a chance.
Now, that's just plain wrong. I've read accounts (such as one from Lancelot's Song) about armored soldiers swimming moats. The Japanese had an art for the practice of swimming in armor. The Romans had units specifically trained for it. Some medieval knights mastered the ability.
You can do it. The weight makes it incredibly difficult and exhausting, and I wouldn't want to do it over any sort of distance, but it's not impossible.
Trying to mix Pathfinder/D&D/*Insert TTRPG name here* with realism? Excuse me, I have to go laugh my arse off elsewhere.Why? No one is suggesting changing the rules or making them "more realistic". We are simply stating which ones really grossly deviate from the real world conditions.
which ones don't?
we're talking about a game where it's expected that experienced characters can swan dive off of 100 foot towers and sprint away from the impact point, whilst low level characters treat a 10 foot pit as a deathtrap.
Treated as a physics engine, the RAW are an awful exercise in insanity. However, as an environment to host games about unusual people doing interesting things, they work tolerably well. Were it otherwise, we aren't having this exchange.
My head scratcher has always been the escalation of HP. Getting better at avoiding damage should increase with experience. The ability to absorb it, rather less so.
The game mechanics for sneak attacks have always offended my sensibilities. It is hard to imagine that there are techniques for striking targets in vulnerable locations that are only known exclusively and universally by rogues. You can't convince me that fighters, rangers, monks, etc. would never study these techniques.
And somehow, despite relying on pinpoint accuracy to deliver this bonus damage, the only class that has access to this forbidden knowledge is not particularly accurate with its attacks...
Actually, if you are strong enough and know how to swim, you can swim with 65 pounds of metal on. I've heard of soldiers swimming in full kit, which can weigh up to 100 pounds. It's not easy, and I sure couldn't do it, but it's doable by others.
Note that density is a huge issue! Metal has very very high density. A modern soldiers equipment maybe much less so. So a lot of the 100 lb. you are talking about could be compensated by buoyancy.
Anway no one could realistically hope to do something that resembles swimming with full plate armor on. Not a chance.
one word "IBA"
the modern day full plate armor is gust as bad
My head scratcher has always been the escalation of HP. Getting better at avoiding damage should increase with experience. The ability to absorb it, rather less so.
The game mechanics for sneak attacks have always offended my sensibilities. It is hard to imagine that there are techniques for striking targets in vulnerable locations that are only known exclusively and universally by rogues. You can't convince me that fighters, rangers, monks, etc. would never study these techniques.
HP is also the ability to parry, "roll with the blow", and generally "getting lucky". James Bond has a s~$*load of hit points; that's why the bad guys always miss. Kinda. The abstraction still doesn't make sense, but at least it's not as bad as could be thought (a 5th level barbarian can NOT have 7 longswords sticking out of him and walk around).
And on the rogues, the thing is that the other classes also study those methods. For fighters it's called weapon training and weapon specialization, for rangers it's favored enemy, for monks it's stunning fist, increased unarmed damage and so on. The difference is, most warrior classes can always use these tactics - while the rogue is worse at fighting, so he can just go for the weak spots when the opponent can't defend himself properly.
weapon specialization and stunning fist aren't the same spots as sneak attacks, but everyone can learn these techniques, it's called multiclassing.
I mean everyone can learn surgery but not everyone knows surgery, and the usual way is to go learn being a surgeon even if you don't act like one later you still know the the things you learned.
I still agree with the HP, if armor is used to dodge, it's hard to say that HP is partly dodge too. Also James Bonds HP represent mainly the stupidity of his ennemies who still think that its better to hang someone over a sharkpit than to just shoot him in the face. Just as Luke Skywalkers base attack bonus represents the intelligence to put ventilation shafts on the death star in space.
|
|
HP has always been the same through the editions of DnD and now into PF.
Your experiences through your adventuring career have honed your senses and techniques to avoid blows from your enemies. This is why @ 1st level that longsword would kill you in a few blows, but @ 10th it is merely a scratch. It went from near eviseration to a cut on the forearm.
|
|
This.
Cockatrice Strike? Is that any worse than a creature that can turn you to stone with a glance?
That Animate Objects is not on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. It's bothered me all the way back to 3.0
This.Cockatrice Strike? Is that any worse than a creature that can turn you to stone with a glance?
Oh, it's a LOT worse.
1: it's a full round action to use, for one attack2: the target needs a condition on it already
3: you need to score a crit with a weapon that only naturally crits on a 20
4: the save DC is going to be Very easy to make, no matter what
5: it requires more BAB than a monk could actually get
So, you need to set up a condition of the target, then on your next tuen make a full round for a single strike with about a 1 in 400 chance of working. Less, since you still need to confirm the crit.
EDIT: fixed 5
LOL - I read the feat first and was like - bad feat - so what...
But DAMN that's a bad feat!
Don't forget the 4 feats you need as pre req (scorpion style is needed for some of the other pre req's)
But not 1 in 400. you have 1/20 to make a natural 20 - and then you just need to comfirm..
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
nothing chaps my hide more than the "flat footed till action" rule of initiative.
the idea that even if your looking at some one holding your weapon and ready to fight but because they rolled a higher initiative they can run 30 (or charge 60) and hit you as if you were flat footed and unprepared is so stupid it has caused me to walk out of a game before.
I dont care if its supposed to help rogues and I dont care what kind of random scenario some one who has never been in a fight comes up with to explain it. the reality is that unless its a surprise round of some sort loosing the initiative should not automatically = flat footed.