For me, it's multiclassing, summoners, and mounted characters. Eidolons make my head hurt, level dipping annoys me and I can't explain why, and I just plain don't like trying to run a party where some people are mounted and some aren't.
What about you guys?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spontaneous spell casters having to wait 1 more level to gain new spell levels compared to prepared ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Small sized PC races and common enemy races (goblins and kobolds). I HATE small characters.
Two weapon fighting. It's a stupid tactic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Vancian Magic
-"...Quadratic Magic-Users"
-Magic items that just add math (+X to a stat or something, rather than a unique effect, like immovable rods)
-Dual Wielding increasing number of attacks, rather than increasing the effectiveness of attacks (I'd far rather it just give flat bonuses comparable to the +50% damage a two-handed weapon gets)
Spontaneous spell casters having to wait 1 more level to gain new spell levels compared to prepared ones.
Technically, that's a rule you don't like, not an option you don't like.
Spontaneous casters are and option though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The method of rolling stats. Leaving it up to the group can be annoying. Most systems I have played have a single method used by every group. I wish they would simply settle on one method and be done with it.
Sneak attack. Some think its weak. Some think its overpowered. No one seems to like it. I wish it was different.
Arch types where fun at first but I think they are getting old. I want real prestige classes. I have always enjoyed flipping through a new book to see what new prestige classes had been created. I like theory crafting new multiclass combinations to my hearts content. The idea that they led to power creap might be valid but I dont see why that shouldnt be monitored by the DM.
Summoning/Shapeshifting by anyone who doesnt pre gen his summons/forms and what they have. I wont allow them at my game if you dont have them pre written out. Same goes for casters in my games. Its not my job to know the casting time/range/target/effect of every spell in the game. Thats your job as the PC to know what the spells you memorize can do. If you cant take the time to write them down then dont expect to use them at my table.
And most important. Trying to pull one over on the DM. Sure you might get away with it once... but trust me it wont go well for your character. I enjoy allowing my players to make powerful characters. I like having them think of themselves as heroes. But the kicker is I want to no up front what you plan to do with your character. To many times I have played in games where the point of everyones character was to get one over or sneak something broken by the DM. I wont put up with that at my table.
Thats about it off the top of my head.
Spell Sunder
Letting barbarians add their primary stat and up to +4 from combat maneuver feats to dispel checks when nobody else gets to isn't kosher.
And that's what I like best about Barbarians.
To make you hate it even more, let me tell you that they don't actually make a dispel check at all. They make a maneuver check against your maneuver defense, and if they win by enough (10 I think), the power is dispelled--so, your caster level doesn't even matter, just your CMD.
The Eastern weapons from UC. They're the only thing I have completely banned from my game. Anything else that's core is fair game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell Sunder
Letting barbarians add their primary stat and up to +4 from combat maneuver feats to dispel checks when nobody else gets to isn't kosher.
And that's what I like best about Barbarians.
To make you hate it even more, let me tell you that they don't actually make a dispel check at all. They make a maneuver check against your maneuver defense, and if they win by enough (10 I think), the power is dispelled--so, your caster level doesn't even matter, just your CMD.
Actually, while it isn't exactly a dispel check, it has nothing to do with CMD and everything to do with caster level.
As to what options annoy me? None. Options are options, they're not mandatory, if I don't like one option I move on to the next, maybe that option may be better after another book.
From this page of the prd:
Spell Sunder (Su): Once per rage, the barbarian can attempt to sunder an ongoing spell effect by succeeding at a combat maneuver check. For any effect other than one on a creature, the barbarian must make her combat maneuver check against a CMD of 15 plus the effect's caster level. To sunder an effect on a creature, the barbarian must succeed at a normal sunder combat maneuver against the creature's CMD + 5, ignoring any miss chance caused by a spell or spell-like ability. If successful, the barbarian suppresses the effect for 1 round, or 2 rounds if she exceeded the CMD by 5 to 9. If she exceeds the CMD by 10 or more, the effect is dispelled. A barbarian must have the witch hunter rage power and be at least 6th level before selecting this rage power.
It has absolutely nothing to do with a dispel check, it is totally about beating the buffed character's CMD+5.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only options that really bother me are "trap" options, that may look good on paper but really don't work out in play, that new players might be tricked into taking. For example, Powerful Sneak from the APG.
Usually I'm all about piling on the options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything that makes print and looks great but either doesn't do anything.
Prone shooter does nothing yet it made the book.
Or anything that causes a tactic to be illegal by entering the game.
Such as if a feat came out that said you can jump before attacking.
Right now i can do that if that feat came out i can't without the feat.
|
I am amazed that no one mentioned Gunslingers yet ;-)
I dislike that so many Rogue archetypes do away with trapfinding. Doubly so because it means that there is almost zero archetype for the Ninja, even though some of the Rogue archetypes would fit the class perfectly.
I dislike that at the same time there are so many archetypes from other classes that steal from the Rogue's trademark abilities such as trapfinding and even sneak attack. I particularly hate the Ranger's trapper archetype and the Ranger traps. The idea that a Ranger could use traps was excellent. But the rules accompanying it are so inefficient/cumbersome that I have not yet seen a Trapper Ranger PC (apart from the 1-level dip for Trapfinding of course).
I dislike archetypes that make archetypical abilities of a class (such as sneak attack or rage) available to another class.
I hate archetypes (and more generally class features) that encourage 1-level dip but discourage you from taking further levels. I have a particular dislike for the crossblooded sorcerer because it hurts a full sorcerer too much to be taken by a PC, but it is nigh perfect for a 1-level dip.
I dislike the favored class option for Human Sorcerers (and other spontaneous spellcasters, I believe) : clearly above other favored class options which often need you to take them twice to get any mechanical effect.
I strongly dislike magic items that fit no useful role or that try to fit a role already taken by a better already existing magic item (such as Muleback Cords vs Handy Haversack).
I dislike the fact that the rules system tries to make a general rule for comparative creature sizes then adds a lot of exceptions (such as treating the reach of Small characters like that of Medium ones, or deciding that Tiny creatures or lower use DEX instead of STR for some stats/rolls). In other words, the impact of differing sizes should depend on the difference between the sizes (ie, 2-steps larger) and not on what the sizes are.
I wish that the Sorcerer followed the same rules as the Oracle concerning the levels when you can "retrain" a Known Spell.
I am amazed that no one mentioned Gunslingers yet ;-)
Please dont feed them.
I dislike archetypes that make archetypical abilities of a class (such as sneak attack or rage) available to another class.
This is part of the purpose of archetypes; to allow a character to cross class boundaries without multiclassing, which is heavily discouraged by the design of PF. Honestly, even the worst archetypes are light years better than the muticlassing madness that was 3.5.
I strongly dislike magic items that fit no useful role or that try to fit a role already taken by a better already existing magic item (such as Muleback Cords vs Handy Haversack).
These don't completely overlap. Muleback Cords are useful for carrying heavy objects that are too large to fit in a Handy Haversack or Bag of Holding, since anything going into the container still has to pass through the normal sized opening. So while there is some overlap in their utility, there is still enough difference to justify there being both. Not every item has to be "optimal". The best treasure is a wacky wondrous item that you have to think to find a use for.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I really dislike is the notion that archetypes are the new prestige classes. I really liked the fluff of most 3.5e prestige classes and absolutely love some of the ones I've seen in Pathfinder (Hellknights for the win!!), but the current design discourages prestige classes even more than it discourages multi-classing, and that makes me sad. Just because some people did stupid things in 3.5e with prestige classes or multi-classing (read, munchkins) doesn't mean that there weren't people who just wanted to have fun RPing characters with the right prestige classes!!
I want the Archmage and Blackguard back. The latter especially because Anti-Paladin is just a silly/stupid name for a class.
(I actually should house-rule that the Anti-Paladin class' name is switched to Blackguard or something similar)
Think thats the direction Factions and stuff are headed and some PrCs will seen for stuff there isn't a way to do otherwise.
Anti-paladin is a throwback to the old school evil paladin class, isn't it? The thing that I hate, like many others, is that anti-paladins have to be chaotic evil. They should be able to be any evil alignment, to represent wherever a paladin might land on the alignment chart when they fall.
@Icyshadow:
I disliked the substitution of archetypes for prestige classes at first, but then I came around, because archetypes allow players to start differentiating their characters earlier than the 5-6 levels it takes to qualify for a PrC, and allow a greater variety of builds to leverage a particular concept, as opposed to the PrC's which generally came with fairly locked down fluff, which I personally disliked. Prestige Classes are still perfectly viable if you know what you are doing, and if you ignore the shrill voices coming from the optimization threads.
|
I dislike that so many Rogue archetypes do away with trapfinding. Doubly so because it means that there is almost zero archetype for the Ninja, even though some of the Rogue archetypes would fit the class perfectly.
I dislike that at the same time there are so many archetypes from other classes that steal from the Rogue's trademark abilities such as trapfinding and even sneak attack.
I dislike archetypes that make archetypical abilities of a class (such as sneak attack or rage) available to another class.
To be perfectly honest, I would much rather completely drop both trapfinding and the Rogue completely , <whoosh, gone. . .> and actually incorporate traps into all classes and make them fun. Similar to Haunts, which beats the crappolla out of traps, but are both more thematically appropriate as a threat and open to a variety of ways to deal with them besides lets waste time waiting on the Rogue, summon creature to die, or just bash it.
That would also open up all the other classes to getting more skill points, and end the debate about Rogues being over/underpowered.
This is part of the purpose of archetypes; to allow a character to cross class boundaries without multiclassing, which is heavily discouraged by the design of PF. Honestly, even the worst archetypes are light years better than the muticlassing madness that was 3.5.
I disagree, but that Archtypes are comparible to PCs and that they cover the gap of allowing multiclassing without multiclassing. Archtypes are okay, but not equal too prestige classes in so many ways. Heck, Archtypes are even more problematic as far as "balance" issues than Prestige Classes, I think. Less fun, less customizable, don't have to work towards or invest anything, not much RPing, and really often fail to do what they are intended to (or at least seem intended) to do. That's just my opinion, but Archtypes are not that great, though they did seem kind of cool early on, they just really don't do what even a decent PC could, but can do a lot more damage to the game, I think.
The one trade off, (that you mentioned later too), is that archtypes allow you minor custimization from lower levels, (well occasionally) while few PC did, but I'm still not seeing that as too great. It's nice, esecially since almost all games cover at least 1st-4th while fewer (in theory) cover say 17th - 20th levels. It's ok, but not all that.I guess my point is that Archtypes get a lot more hype than they probably really deserve, as they have all the same issues with "balance" and "power creep" that PCs do, (and actually seem to have invented something worse "power seep" or opposite of power creep), and sometimes worse than many of the worst examples of the "bad" prestige classes in 3E.
I strongly dislike magic items that fit no useful role or that try to fit a role already taken by a better already existing magic item (such as Muleback Cords vs Handy Haversack).
I'm confused by this. Muleback Cords work to increase the amount of everything you can carry. This includes things like armor, weapons, etc. All of those things that don't fit in a Handy Haversack. Not to mention that they cost a good deal less than the Haversack, and don't really take up a useful slot.
Things that bother me:
A: Summoners (I hates them)
B: 40 foot radius effects. Entangle and whatnot. Drawing them out is annoying.
C: Taking 20 on certain skill checks. Mostly on searching for traps.
I hate that almost every paladin archetype is really terrible, when they all have such great potential
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike that so many Rogue archetypes do away with trapfinding. Doubly so because it means that there is almost zero archetype for the Ninja, even though some of the Rogue archetypes would fit the class perfectly.Considering the ninja really is just a rogue archetype...
See someone other then me said that this time.
Anyone wanna make a thread asking for more Prestige Classes, by any chance?
And I also dislike racial favored class bonuses, because I still don't have any for my Kobold Alchemist from Mediogalti.
grapple its a pain in the ass, it slows horriby the combat and has too many rules
|
Just dig up one of the existing ones. I'll be more than happy to copy-paste my arguments about how PrCs suck for the 342nd time. :)Anyone wanna make a thread asking for more Prestige Classes, by any chance?
Agreed, they are probably the worst mechanic in the whole d20 system. I've banned PrC since probably the second game i ran. And they are still banned in my games even in the Pathfinder versions. I HATE Prestige Classes.....
I ask for support, and the haters respond? Highly amusing.
Well, to each his own. And do distruptive players count as irritating options? :U
|
|
i would have to say my personal beef is not necessarily with any particular option, BUT when a lower level PC (ie below 5th) has mutil-classed already with multiple archetypes slapped on top as well and then won't go into combat without boosting their characters with potions, aargh. talk about slowing down and complicating combat.
i guess my philosophy is -that is what a party is for. when you have so many options piled on a single low level character you seldom do ANY of them well and are in essence attempting to be a party unto yourself. i say go ahead and play solitaire wow or something, but while working with a party of other classes sitting around a table let each class have its own strengths and weaknesses. trusting your place within the combination of other characters and relying on each other is what makes a party strong and makes the adventure fun.
i would have to say my personal beef is not necessarily with any particular option, BUT when a lower level PC (ie below 5th) has mutil-classed already with multiple archetypes slapped on top as well and then won't go into combat without boosting their characters with potions, aargh. talk about slowing down and complicating combat.
Won't go into combat...what if combat comes to them? An adventurer's life is full of peril--certainly he shouldn't be able to casually decide, "Gee, I guess I'll enter combat now that I can do it on my own terms." Sometimes (read: usually) sh*t happens. What about ambushes? What about Archers or Arcanists? The party's opponents aren't pawns on a chess board--they can think for themselves. If I were GM, many of their opponents--even the lower intelligence ones--would think, "What's that one doing? Just standing there drinking potions? Easy prey!!! Let's take him out first and thin their numbers!!! C'mon everyone!! Get him!!!" And then I'd have them dog-pile on him. Painfully and with much enthusiasm. Guess what? The very next time he tried that--same thing, baby. Wash, rinse, repeat until he gets the message that battle is f*cking battle--it is messy and chaotic, not casual or (usually) optional. What kind of support is he giving his "allies" while they risk their necks as he quaffs his potions? I'd nip that in the bud.
To answer the original question, though, *Options* never bother me. That's why they're called "Options." If anything, what I don't like is the *absence* of options. But that's why I steal wholsale ideas and classes from my 3.5 books. They were around for years, with a metric buttload of options. So if I feel constrained, I look no farther than my own bookshelf.
|
|
If I were GM, many of their opponents--even the lower intelligence ones--would think, "What's that one doing? Just standing there drinking potions? Easy prey!!! Let's take him out first and thin their numbers!!! C'mon everyone!! Get him!!!" And then I'd have them dog-pile on him. Painfully and with much enthusiasm. Guess what? The very next time he tried that--same thing, baby. Wash, rinse, repeat until he gets the message that battle is f*cking battle--it is messy and chaotic, not casual or (usually) optional. What kind of support is he giving his "allies" while they risk their necks as he quaffs his potions? I'd nip that in the bud.
fair point, fair point. were i gm in that situation, i would take up that strategy to be sure. as a fellow player it is irritating though. we have a few such individuals in our local PF Society scenario days that rotate around. mostly i dodge those tables and sympathize with their gms. but i think the real issue is one of perspective. i simply wanted to state the point that coming at gaming from a cooperative standpoint and faced with those that view said options as a way to be "the winner" is seriously fun-sucking.
|
|
I'm confused by this. Muleback Cords work to increase the amount of everything you can carry. This includes things like armor, weapons, etc. All of those things that don't fit in a Handy Haversack. Not to mention that they cost a good deal less than the Haversack, and don't really take up a useful slot.
I strongly dislike magic items that fit no useful role or that try to fit a role already taken by a better already existing magic item (such as Muleback Cords vs Handy Haversack).
Cloaks are not useful?
Poison as equipment ($$$)
Crafting
TWF feat chain (too many for a sub-optimal and expensive combat style)
Rogues having nothing unique to contribute - they should
Monks with 3/4 BAB - don't look down on martial arts
Wizard abilities for Universal ... it's just lame.