Pathfinder Rules You Don't Like


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Animation wrote:


I hate that humans get an extra feat. Ropes me into being human way too often. Would rather all races get 2 feats at level one. Extra skill points for being human is still enough to make humans desirable.

I guess if there was a feat without prerequesites that gave you lowlight vision, most humans would take it.

A fact that tells me that the bonus feat isn't so powerful.

At least most of my human PCs had that feat if there was one. And I'd play humans more often.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
Firearms I've never liked them in fantasy games i mean who would want carry several lbs of something that explodes when it comes into contact with fire

Crazy ass Bridgeburners...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's see here. . .

I've only seen this complaint thrown around a couple of times. I'm relatively new to the forums, though, so I can't really evaluate if people consider it a big deal or not.

I don't really care for the fact that a character's BAB is tied in with their HD. I understand that it provides internal consistency within each type of class, but there are instances in which this doesn't give a class enough to hit *COUGHMONKCOUGH*, and others in which it seems to be an unnecessary boon.

Ultimately, though, it's mostly a gripe against the monk.
Which I'm not going to bother getting into because this isn't one of the five oceans I should be spitting in on this matter.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like that the mechanical effect of the feat called "Combat Expertise" doesn't feel smart or tactical or anything I associate with having more expertise in combat than someone else. It would probably bother me less if it had a different name, like "Careful Defense" or something.

I think the line between what's an attack versus Touch AC and what's a DC for a reflex save is blurred a bit too much in some situations. I can see the value of two separate mechanics when you compare, say, ray of enfeeblement versus fireball or a pit trap. But the fact that if I shoot lightning at you via lightning bolt or a Lightning Arc, it will change which of us is using a scales-by-level statistic and which of us is using something static, but either way it's me shooting magical lightning at you and you trying to get out of the way...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread makes me very happy that I apparently play vastly different styles of games than many of the posters here.

-TimD

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've gone back and forth with the PF rules so many times... I consider most of PF a "side-grade" instead of an "upgrade" from 3.5. I like a lot of the changes, but I don't like the way a lot of other changes were made.

My biggest gripe is the 1,000+ little under the radar rules changes. I would have preferred a broad, sweeping change of troublesome sub-systems(like the addition of CMB/CMD) and rather they left little things like item weight and diagonal reach alone. I feel like they sort of went overboard trying to make PF "their own" and changed some things just for the sake of changing them. I treat PF as a separate game from 3.5 now.

One of my other gripes is the way they changed the way a lot of feats worked, but left the old name intact. When trying to use 3.5 material, this causes a lot of unnecessary back and forth page flipping. The way Cleave works now compared to the old, for example, it really should've just got a new name. I like how both versions work, and to me, they feel like different maneuvers.

I like the way the core classes were upgraded, but I'm not real fond of archetypes. A list of interchangeable class features would have been a lot more intuitive and allow for more customization. I like the idea of archetypes, but too often I feel like they went too far out of their way to replace prestige classes.

I really, really miss level adjustments for special races. Everything feels like a variant human now.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I remembered another big pet peeve: Using duplicate names for various feats, spells, class abilities, etc. That drive me crazy! It sometimes happens in other games as well, but there are so, so many examples in Pathfinder...


hogarth wrote:
Oh, I remembered another big pet peeve: Using duplicate names for various feats, spells, class abilities, etc. That drive me crazy! It sometimes happens in other games as well, but there are so, so many examples in Pathfinder...

Speaking of Dervish Dance, let's count the different ways it's used

Dervish Dancer: Bard Archetype
Dawnflower Dervish: Bard Archetype
Dawnflower Dervish: Fighter Archetype
Dervish Dance: Feat

While I agree the feat needs a kick in the balls, it really doesn't solve the problem since the same thing can be created with the agile enhancement.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Its not Pathfinder specific, but I don't like how everything about a character is tied into his level.

If I want to become a better underwater basket weaver, I must also become harder to kill (more hitpoints), become better at fighting (base attack bonus), become more stubborn (will save), healthier (fort), and developer faster reflexes (reflex save). And also becoming better in about half a dozen other areas of expertise (skill points besides the ones I use for underwater basketweaving), and possibly learning a random trick (feat) or becoming stronger/faster/smarter/etc (ability increase). If all I want is to become a better underwater basketweaver, thats what should happen. I shouldn't have to improve in every other area of my character as well.

Also, I don't like how a d20 is used for skill checks, saves, and attack rolls. You have an equal chance to roll a 1 as you do a 7, 10, 15, or 20. It shouldn't be that random. You should be more likely to roll an average result then a really bad one or a really good one. (It should be a 3d6 roll, not a 1d20 roll.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate the rules that a few of you got wrong and then posted in a thread about hating.

Please go re-read rules before you rant about hating them.


Invisible Fog wrote:

I hate the rules that a few of you got wrong and then posted in a thread about hating.

Please go re-read rules before you rant about hating them.

Such as?

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Choosing stuff that is only new in Pathfinder (not stuff true to most d20 systems...)

- I don't like that you can't sneak attack with thrown weapons (a change I only just realized thanks to a discussion here)

- I actually don't like the change to uncanny dodge, even though PF Uncanny Dodge is more powerful. You shouldn't be able to be immune to flatfootedness, period, especially at the low levels the Barb and Rogue can get the ability. While the restriction that you can't AOO while flatfooted is the only difference, it still bugs me for some reason.

- I don't like that they removed the clause that worn clothing does not count against encumbrance. While Dev posts have suggested they still play it that way, people have taken the omission to mean that you now must count it against encumbrance which is annoying (especially given the explorer's outfit is 8 whopping pounds).

- The whole confusing flurry of blows fiasco

Also this isn't rules but I felt like there's been a lot of feat bloat (even if it's still been better than in 3.x by far), with some feat trees that really don't need to be as complex as they are (I need 3 feats, a minimum ability score, AND a minimum BAB of +6 to just to be able to figure out how to trip someone with a long stick? Hell no.).

That's all I can think of right now.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I don't like the HD/BAB tie.

I don't like at-will cantrips/orisons.


DeathQuaker wrote:
- I don't like that they removed the clause that worn clothing does not count against encumbrance. While Dev posts have suggested they still play it that way, people have taken the omission to mean that you now must count it against encumbrance which is annoying (especially given the explorer's outfit is 8 whopping pounds).

Pathfinder actually did not remove that clause. That line from 3.5 is not actually Open Game Content, and so does not appear in the 3.5 SRD. As that is what was used to make Pathfiner, that line didn't appear in Pathfinder.

Many of the minor changes people complain about Pathfinder making are actually because of the same reason. The line that clarified or stated it was not Open content, while the rest of the section was.

Grand Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I don't like the HD/BAB tie.

I don't like at-will cantrips/orisons.

-HD/BAB: With regards to NPC/villains? I may be misunderstanding...

-Cantrips/orisons: Are they OP in your experience or is it the concept?

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Jeraa wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
- I don't like that they removed the clause that worn clothing does not count against encumbrance. While Dev posts have suggested they still play it that way, people have taken the omission to mean that you now must count it against encumbrance which is annoying (especially given the explorer's outfit is 8 whopping pounds).

Pathfinder actually did not remove that clause. That line from 3.5 is not actually Open Game Content, and so does not appear in the 3.5 SRD. As that is what was used to make Pathfiner, that line didn't appear in Pathfinder.

Many of the minor changes people complain about Pathfinder making are actually because of the same reason. The line that clarified or stated it was not Open content, while the rest of the section was.

Could have sworn I've seen it in the SRD, or indeed I would have not mentioned it. I am looking and can't find it now though so you may be right. (It would qualify I guess as rules about how to create a character, so would not be in the SRD by those standards.)

It still is a "change" from 3.5 to Pathfinder, however. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I kind of miss how powerful monster defensive abilities like DR and regeneration used to be back when 3.0 released. I certainly understand why they changed them, since a character who couldn't completely bypass them frequently ended up being able to do very little, but these days, I don't even see the point of tracking something like fast healing on a creature 90% of the time since it would take it 2-3 rounds to heal back the damage from a single attack. In my experience, once the party reaches about level 5, things like DR just seem to fall completely behind in terms of keeping monsters alive when compared to just having a high AC or extra hit points.

I'm also not a huge fan of spell resistance being applied to most spells. My first pathfinder character was a sorcerer, and I had to learn the hard way that if you are fighting lots of things with SR, you simply have to stack up your bonuses to penetrate it. Having a 50% chance of losing all spells to a d20 on what should be an easy fight was just frustrating, but minimizing that chance required valuable feats. Also, I think that being resistant to magic shouldn't make you resistant to fire just because the fire was made magically. I don't care where I got the fire. When I apply the fire to your body, you should burn.


I think one thing our group overlooks (or just plain refuses to enforce) is the long casting time of Lesser Restoration and it's cousins. Although that issue is more of a 3.5 thing, not Pathfinder.

Also, the particular clause about adding other bonuses to CMB/CMD. I felt that this system was trying to be simple towards special maneuvers. But I forget every now and then to add a Dwarf's AC bonus vs. Giants when an ogre comes to sunder his weapon...

Edit: (And on that note, the +20 from True Strike to trip my opponent just feels... dirty)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Jeraa wrote:
Many of the minor changes people complain about Pathfinder making are actually because of the same reason. The line that clarified or stated it was not Open content, while the rest of the section was.

However, if Paizo had chosen to explain that in words of their own choosing, rather than using the original text, I believe they could have included such a rule.


I'm still not really sure how the monster difficulty class mechanic even works. So I basically play a deep gnome or half dragon or whatever and there's no real penalty despite my having a ton of extra powerful abilities?


Sloanzilla wrote:
I'm still not really sure how the monster difficulty class mechanic even works. So I basically play a deep gnome or half dragon or whatever and there's no real penalty despite my having a ton of extra powerful abilities?

Well, no. Those things don't exist in PF, so technically you should handle them as they would be handled in 3.5; yay backwards compatibility! Not.

I guess the Advanced Race Guide helps with this somewhat, haven't got that far in that book yet to know for sure.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
Invisible Fog wrote:

I hate the rules that a few of you got wrong and then posted in a thread about hating.

Please go re-read rules before you rant about hating them.

Such as?

"Restrictions on who can use what--if I can read a scroll, the spell should cast from it. If I can point a wand and I know the command word, it should work. It should not matter whether or not I am a spellcaster or not."

This is covered by UMD. Strictly speaking, any non-caster class CAN use scrolls and wands.

"The lack of the 3.5 reach template. Taking away diagonal reach makes polearms pretty terrible against smart opponents."

As far as I know, this hasn't been changed.

"the 5 million deterrents for multiclassing, if a character is actually going to dip, don't penalize them for dipping. favored class is just yet another deterrent."

There is no penalty for multiclassing. The favored class bonus provides a small incentive to remain in a single (or two, if you're a half-elf) class, but you are no longer penalized in xp (as you were back in 3.0/3.5). Moreover, if you're just "dipping" one or two levels, losing the 1-2 hp or skill points can hardly be called a penalty.

"5. the lack of multiclass assitance"
Removing the xp penalties from the "old days" seems to belie this. Also, half-elves were given an ability that essentially makes them perfect for multiclassing. Also, unless I'm mistaken, a number of abilities/feats that were traditionally expected to belong to a particular class have been reworked as being available as feats to other classes (albeit without quite the same "punch" as if they were part of the original class's skillset).

"I am not a fan of the rule allowing one to use 2 hands to attack with a one handed or light weapon for the extra strop bonus to damage."

You cannot use a light weapon with both hands in order to gain extra strength damage. You may do this with one-handed weapons, however.

"I think that some of the feat chains are utterly needless. Two-weapon fighting and vital strike in particular. Two weapon fighting should just be a -2 hit when using it. Vital Strike should just be a single feat."

Vital Strike IS a single feat (w/o feat pre-reqs), and TWF DOES apply a -2 penalty to use it. I assume the poster here meant something different (based on his lead-in sentence), but I admit that his subsequent sentences confuse me - does he mean that Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, and Greater Vital Strike should all be rolled into a single feat? That seems... a bit unbalanced.

"If I want to become a better underwater basket weaver, I must also become harder to kill (more hitpoints), become better at fighting (base attack bonus), become more stubborn (will save), healthier (fort), and developer faster reflexes (reflex save). And also becoming better in about half a dozen other areas of expertise (skill points besides the ones I use for underwater basketweaving), and possibly learning a random trick (feat) or becoming stronger/faster/smarter/etc (ability increase). If all I want is to become a better underwater basketweaver, thats what should happen. I shouldn't have to improve in every other area of my character as well."

One can select any number of feats to boost saves, skills, attack bonuses, or hit points. Granted, feats are only granted upon attaining certain levels, but this overstates the case a little bit (though the broader point is a fair expression of desiring a system that's based more on buying attributes than "leveling up").

"I don't like that you can't sneak attack with thrown weapons (a change I only just realized thanks to a discussion here)"

I would definitely need to see a link to the thread mentioned here, because I see no reason why thrown weapons can't be used for SA according to the RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
princeimrahil wrote:


"5. the lack of multiclass assitance"
Removing the xp penalties from the "old days" seems to belie this. Also, half-elves were given an ability that essentially makes them perfect for multiclassing. Also, unless I'm mistaken, a number of abilities/feats that were traditionally expected to belong to a particular class have been reworked as being available as feats to other classes (albeit without quite the same "punch" as if they were part of the original class's skillset).

I'm going to go out on a limb here, because I'm not innately familiar with every feat in PF, but I know 3.5 had lots of multiclass assistance, in the form of a plethora of prestige classes that combined abilities of multiple classes, and many feats which granted bonuses for having class features belonging to multiple classes. It at least felt like multiclassing was heavily encouraged.

Dark Archive

-Don't like Channel Energy - feels very MMOish and was a move away from the classic "Turn Undead"

-Don't like at will orisons/cantrips/0-level spells. I changed it to 4/day of any of your 0-level class spells as you need them. Limits the use per day but gives the player immense utility in being able to pick whatever minor spell you need at the time (stabilize, detect poison, etc).

-Don't like static initiative cycles (wait, I hated that from 3.5)

-I like the way skills were re-managed on the point allocation side, but combining some skills was a mistake (and creates a slew of problems).

-magic item creation way too easy (was too easy in 3.5, but now even more so)

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Most of the more serious offenses come from the core 3.5 rules that got transferred to PFRPG.


Josh M. wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here, because I'm not innately familiar with every feat in PF, but I know 3.5 had lots of multiclass assistance, in the form of a plethora of prestige classes that combined abilities of multiple classes, and many feats which granted bonuses for having class features belonging to multiple classes. It at least felt like multiclassing was heavily encouraged.

Multiclassing was definitely more encouraged in 3.5. That said, multiclassing xp penalties always struck me as being a major impediment to "dipping" (which the poster I quoted mentioned). The removal of that seems like a really significant move to aid multiclassing to me.

But I see your point.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I really don't get all the hate about "magic item creation being way too easy". Do you prefer magic marts in that case?


I dislike the recent ruling that a weapon needs to be used (as in attack with) to be considered wielding.

Why? Because a wizard with a bonded dagger is now the worst class in the game.


I agree that non static init. makes the game more fun in many ways.


Trogdar wrote:

I dislike the recent ruling that a weapon needs to be used (as in attack with) to be considered wielding.

Why? Because a wizard with a bonded dagger is now the worst class in the game.

Yeah, I can see how a full casting class is way worse than a rogue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pre-requisites that are not mechanically linked to the feat they are needed to get.

Double points if the pre-requisite actually makes it harder to use the later feat, as with Combat Expertise and Cleave.


princeimrahil wrote:

"If I want to become a better underwater basket weaver, I must also become harder to kill (more hitpoints), become better at fighting (base attack bonus), become more stubborn (will save), healthier (fort), and developer faster reflexes (reflex save). And also becoming better in about half a dozen other areas of expertise (skill points besides the ones I use for underwater basketweaving), and possibly learning a random trick (feat) or becoming stronger/faster/smarter/etc (ability increase). If all I want is to become a better underwater basketweaver, thats what should happen. I shouldn't have to improve in every other area of my character as well."

One can select any number of feats to boost saves, skills, attack bonuses, or hit points. Granted, feats are only granted upon attaining certain levels, but this overstates the case a little bit (though the broader point is a fair expression of desiring a system that's based more on buying attributes than "leveling up").

I think the complaint is rather that they don't want gaining any of those attributes to be tied to gaining in a skill. Probably aimed more at NPCs, so that, in order to be the greatest tailor in history, the NPC must be a 12th (or higher) level character.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Attack actions. Hate em'. As a term it should be removed from the game entirely and replaced with "standard action" or something more readily understood.


princeimrahil wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I dislike the recent ruling that a weapon needs to be used (as in attack with) to be considered wielding.

Why? Because a wizard with a bonded dagger is now the worst class in the game.

Yeah, I can see how a full casting class is way worse than a rogue.

Good luck with that full casting when you have to make a concentration check every time you want to cast a spell. Unless you do a standard action melee attack with your bonded weapon and then cast a quickened spell, because that's what it would take to count as 'wielding' your bonded item that round while spellcasting.

This is why I tend to ignore half of the bonded item restrictions.


Trogdar wrote:

I dislike the recent ruling that a weapon needs to be used (as in attack with) to be considered wielding.

Why? Because a wizard with a bonded dagger is now the worst class in the game.

Where is this "ruling".

The term wielding has always, and should, refer to "holding in your hand, ready to use". As opposed to carrying, or wearing. So a fighter is wielding his drawn sword, but he needn't attack with it to be doing so.

If they have ruled otherwise, then I disagree vehemently.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Sloanzilla wrote:
I agree that non static init. makes the game more fun in many ways.

And less fun in many ways. I have a character in such a game and have resolved to have him 'take 0' from now on. (I.e. always go last.)

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Trogdar wrote:
I dislike the recent ruling that a weapon needs to be used (as in attack with) to be considered wielding.

Anyone got a link for that ruling? I've got at least one character that would have a problem if that's really the case. For a weapon to be usable is one thing; to actually be used is very different.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Pre-requisites that are not mechanically linked to the feat they are needed to get.

Double points if the pre-requisite actually makes it harder to use the later feat, as with Combat Expertise and Cleave.

I beg your pardon?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Things in Pathfinder that I don't like? I don't even know why you would start a thread like this Werebat. Seems to be asking for trouble when Pathfinder is such a fun way to spend time with your friends.

I'm a bit annoyed we don't have more older style campaign rules so far other then Kingmaker's for higher level play. Waging war with armies is always quite a lot of epic fun. Though I think there is a book coming that will fix all that. :)

The Living Campaign could have been a bit more fun if it had been something like Living Greyhawk with sweeping regions and real world locations for adventures and more record tracking. A man can dream at least.

The Advanced Race Guide totally lacked a pre-build Pony race or options for building one from points. Can't seem to give up my arms for it.

I've never been a fan of the Monk class being included in the core rules. Really should have been held back for the Eastern books like in 2nd edition AD&D, but you have to bow to public opinion now and then.

Other then that I really like...well almost everything everyone is complaining about that's actually an issue. :/

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talynonyx wrote:
I really don't get all the hate about "magic item creation being way too easy". Do you prefer magic marts in that case?

No, I would have much preferred a fix to the Xmas tree effect and the numerical in-game assumption and need to have x item/bounus at a given level.

They had a chance to fix that - they didn't.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I dislike the recent ruling that a weapon needs to be used (as in attack with) to be considered wielding.

Why? Because a wizard with a bonded dagger is now the worst class in the game.

Where is this "ruling".

The term wielding has always, and should, refer to "holding in your hand, ready to use". As opposed to carrying, or wearing. So a fighter is wielding his drawn sword, but he needn't attack with it to be doing so.

If they have ruled otherwise, then I disagree vehemently.

I think it was here on the forums somewhere in a discussion about defending weapons. The ruling in question was that you didn't get the defending bonus unless you made an attack with the weapon.

The designer may or may not have alluded to the idea that simply holding the weapon wasn't sufficient enough to be considered wielding it (I don't recall). The intent, I think, was to prevent you from wielding a normal weapon in one hand, making all your un-penalized attacks with it, and holding/wielding a defending weapon in your offhand and getting its full AC bonuses without ever actually attacking with it.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Morgen wrote:
Things in Pathfinder that I don't like? I don't even know why you would start a thread like this Werebat. Seems to be asking for trouble when Pathfinder is such a fun way to spend time with your friends.

If you don't share your views, you can't have opposing viewpoints show you errors in your thoughts. Nor can you show the errors in those opposing viewpoints. And nothing gets fixed.


Mounts don't get more hit dice as players level. Therefor its impossible for any non-animal companion class to stay mounted period at the later levels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Pre-requisites that are not mechanically linked to the feat they are needed to get.

Double points if the pre-requisite actually makes it harder to use the later feat, as with Combat Expertise and Cleave.

I beg your pardon?

Combat Expertise lowers your CMB rolls, but is required for many maneuver feats.

Cleave requires only that you hit (not kill, as in previous editions), but requires Power Attack that makes you less likely to hit if you are using it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
princeimrahil wrote:

"Restrictions on who can use what--if I can read a scroll, the spell should cast from it. If I can point a wand and I know the command word, it should work. It should not matter whether or not I am a spellcaster or not."

This is covered by UMD. Strictly speaking, any non-caster class CAN use scrolls and wands.

They can, but clearly the spirit of my complaint was that I did not want it to require a skill. If there are wands (and I'm ok with there not being any), they should be point and shoot. You say the command and the spell goes off. No skill roll--nothing. A Rogue, a Barbarian, and a Wizard should have equal trouble using one.

Same for a scroll--if you can read the language it's in, you should be able to cast the spell off of it.

princeimrahil wrote:
Removing the xp penalties from the "old days" seems to belie this. Also, half-elves were given an ability that essentially makes them perfect for multiclassing. Also, unless I'm mistaken, a number of abilities/feats that were traditionally expected to belong to a particular class have been reworked as being available as feats to other classes (albeit without quite the same "punch" as if they were part of the original class's skillset).

I still miss feats like Ascetic Mage and others like it that combined the progression of a few specific abilities for pairs of classes.

Talynonyx wrote:
I really don't get all the hate about "magic item creation being way too easy". Do you prefer magic marts in that case?

No, I don't want a magic mart, either. I want fewer magic items in the game in general. I am more than happy running/playing with absolutley no magic items, actually, but any that are there should be totally in the hands of the GM, and they should be the sort of magic items that make sense in context (the tombs of an ancient, sword wielding culture should have magic swords in them, not magic warhammers just because there's a dwarf in the party).


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
princeimrahil wrote:

"I don't like that you can't sneak attack with thrown weapons (a change I only just realized thanks to a discussion here)"

I would definitely need to see a link to the thread mentioned here, because I see no reason why thrown weapons can't be used for SA according to the RAW.

I think maybe she means splash weapons? Otherwise, yeah, I'd have to see that discussion. I see no exclusion of thrown weapons in the sneak attack rules.


My problems (mostly) aren't with Pathfinder in particular - its problems with the base system that Pathfinder (and 3.0 and 3.5) use.

The only real problem I have that is actually Pathfinders are how they handle skill points. I like how they removed cross class skills, but I don't like that the removed the x4 skill points at first level. It removed the ability to spread your skill points out across many skills at 1st level, instead of having to focus on a few.

I also have a problem with them boosting wizard hit die to d6. They worked just fine with a d4 hit die for 30 years. Pathfinder didn't need to change that. It was unnecessary.


Ravingdork wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I dislike the recent ruling that a weapon needs to be used (as in attack with) to be considered wielding.

Why? Because a wizard with a bonded dagger is now the worst class in the game.

Where is this "ruling".

The term wielding has always, and should, refer to "holding in your hand, ready to use". As opposed to carrying, or wearing. So a fighter is wielding his drawn sword, but he needn't attack with it to be doing so.

If they have ruled otherwise, then I disagree vehemently.

I think it was here on the forums somewhere in a discussion about defending weapons. The ruling in question was that you didn't get the defending bonus unless you made an attack with the weapon.

The designer may or may not have alluded to the idea that simply holding the weapon wasn't sufficient enough to be considered wielding it (I don't recall). The intent, I think, was to prevent you from wielding a normal weapon in one hand, making all your un-penalized attacks with it, and holding/wielding a defending weapon in your offhand and getting its full AC bonuses without ever actually attacking with it.

Yep, here is the link http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mczg&page=1?Defending-Weapons


mplindustries wrote:

They can, but clearly the spirit of my complaint was that I did not want it to require a skill. If there are wands (and I'm ok with there not being any), they should be point and shoot. You say the command and the spell goes off. No skill roll--nothing. A Rogue, a Barbarian, and a Wizard should have equal trouble using one.

Same for a scroll--if you can read the language it's in, you should be able to cast the spell off of it.

Magical writings are not written in standard languages, are they? I always understood them to be a complex series of symbols and diagrams (with maybe some draconic mixed in). Otherwise, Read Magic makes no sense as a spell.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Pre-requisites that are not mechanically linked to the feat they are needed to get.

Double points if the pre-requisite actually makes it harder to use the later feat, as with Combat Expertise and Cleave.

I beg your pardon?

Combat Expertise lowers your CMB rolls, but is required for many maneuver feats.

Cleave requires only that you hit (not kill, as in previous editions), but requires Power Attack that makes you less likely to hit if you are using it.

Oh! I thought you meant "Combat Expertise and Cleave" to be a single example, rather than "Combat Expertise [and feats which require it]" as one example and then "Cleave [and its prerequisite]" as another example.

Your post makes a lot more sense now. :)

51 to 100 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder Rules You Don't Like All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.