Pathfinder Rules You Don't Like


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Eragar wrote:
I've not really liked that spell resistance requires a standard action to turn off; it makes characters that have spell resistance (drow, monks, etc.) rather difficult to play when everyone in the party gets hasted except you because you didn't want to lose a round's worth of attacks.

Ditto to this one. Spell resistance is treated like a boon, but the way it works by the rules it hurts just as much as it helps. In some cases it's more of a hindrance than a help.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeraa wrote:
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.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it." Is not really a philosophy I'd like DnD to run on.

The Wizard was just too squishy, especially at low levels. In my latest campaign the Wizard classes have more often been in life or death situations than any other character, even WITH their D6.


princeimrahil wrote:

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.

Yes, that is something else I'd like to see changed--sorry, I thought a lot of this stuff was implied by my statements. Guess I need to work on my internet-talk-implications.


Why does the rogue talents for a combat feat list 3 times. One talent lets you pick a any combat feat, another lets you to take weapon focus also combat feat, and the another weapon finesse the 3rd. Why just leave the one and save some ink.

I don't care for reach weapon rules, There are so many feats that should work with them that don't because the feat requires to be next to target. I think alot of the Adjacent target rules I feel to be changed to threaten area. I end up house ruleing a lot of this in, but so you do what you got to do.

Getting rid of alignment would fix alot of issuse and open tons of flexablity. alignment based weapons would not be need so the +x weapon would make sense the even morse sense. becasue alignment based Dr would not exist. I get why the brought that back it was something nice from old school D&D and it make a player actual want to have a +5 weapon. in 3.5 I don't know a single person that had weapon greater then +1 because of that. for ablitys like holy they could just do extra damage to undead and demon/ devils certin subtype.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Trogdar wrote:
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.

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

It's a little hard to see everything at present (the link to SKRs actual post doesn't seem to be working), but from quoted passages further down the thread it seems to be specifically applicable to effects that are enabled by making an attack requiring the attack to be made using the weapon that grants the effect.

It does not, AFAICS, say that using the weapon in an attack is a requirement to be considered wielding the weapon. So a rogue can have a menacing dagger in her off-hand and still get the additional +2 bonus when flanking because that is tied to the weapon simply being wielded, not to it being used in an actual attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KainPen wrote:
Why does the rogue talents for a combat feat list 3 times. One talent lets you pick a any combat feat, another lets you to take weapon focus also combat feat, and the another weapon finesse the 3rd. Why just leave the one and save some ink.

I believe this is because you can only take a given Rogue Talent once.


KainPen wrote:

Why does the rogue talents for a combat feat list 3 times. One talent lets you pick a any combat feat, another lets you to take weapon focus also combat feat, and the another weapon finesse the 3rd. Why just leave the one and save some ink.

Because you can not take the same talent more then once.


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.

Ah, okay. So it is only for the defending weapons. I still think it is messed up, at least the way it's explained. It makes some sense if you treat it like Combat Expertise. But I'm fine with a character wielding a weapon instead of a shield, which costs half as much, and you don't lose one bonus point to be able to use it as a shield. Whatever.

However, to the point in this post then; you do NOT have to attack with a weapon to be "wielding" it. That would be ridiculous. Lol.


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.

I am pretty sure the recent ruling stated that you must be able to attack with the weapon to be considered wielding it, not that you must attack with it first to be considered wielding it.

AKA, the weapon must be drawn and in-hand to be considered wielding it. As long as your bound dagger is in-hand and you would be able to make an attack with it (mechanically), you are wielding it. This does not mean that a creature always has to be within your threatened area to be considered wielding the dagger.


I did not notice that. I think they could have writen that on as an expecption. I don't know why you would take any of the others more then once. They all discribe 1 time kind of ablity. there no reason to take Suprise attack twice, or any of the other they are non-flexable as is and static. The only one that is flexable is combat trick. If they where worried about rouge becomeing feat monkey like fighter. they could have put this talent limited just that one talent to only 3 selections.


KainPen wrote:
I did not notice that. I think they could have writen that on as an expecption. I don't know why you would take any of the others more then once. They all discribe 1 time kind of ablity. there no reason to take Suprise attack twice, or any of the other they are non-flexable as is and static. The only one that is flexable is combat trick. If they where worried about rouge becomeing feat monkey like fighter. they could have put this talent limited just that one talent to only 3 selections.

...yeah...that seems much simpler than a blanket rule that covers all current and future Rogue Talents, and is used in all the other options list in the game.

"Unless otherwise stated, _____ can be taken only once."


Examples:

The guy that complained about reach weapons.

Every other diagonal being double movement.

These aren't new concepts and if people don't get them they need to go back to math class. They existed in 3.5, 3.0 and other games as well.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Alignments.

For my part, it isn't that I hate the nine-point alignment system. What I hate is that they are all consuming forces of the cosmos that will back-hand your character for even looking at them cross, especially if you are a Paladin. Also, I find them poorly written and with a penchant slant towards good, especially lawful good, in their fluff while the mechanics actually end up making neutral the best alignment overall due to its lack of restrictions, especially for casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Invisible Fog wrote:

Examples:

The guy that complained about reach weapons.

Every other diagonal being double movement.

These aren't new concepts and if people don't get them they need to go back to math class. They existed in 3.5, 3.0 and other games as well.

Both concepts existed in 3.5, true. However, 3.5 had a clause specifying that "for purposes of reach, treat the second diagonal as 5 ft instead of 10 ft". That clause is missing in Pathfinder.

Since the developers have stated that a character with reach still gets an AoO when someone moves diagonally towards them, it's pretty much a moot point now, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

See, I like having a squishy wizard or a non observant fighter or whatever.

It just sometimes seems like a decent percentage of the people here want a power creep up to where everyone gets 20 skill points and 40 hit points a level and two free magic items a level. And then yay because we're all super duper awesome and stuff.

Weaknesses define classes as much as strengths. Levelling off each perceived weakness of each class still feels like an outlook that just got out of hand due to the popularity of MMOs.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Joana wrote:
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.

Yes, I meant splash weapons, not thrown weapons. I was typing on my lunchbreak which was about to end, and going too fast as a result. My apologies.


Never played 3.5, but I'll add to the fire:
- The ability to 'just walk away' from your opponent via a 5' step. Makes it a LOT harder to take down that wizard when he can just step back 5' and nuke you without provoking an AoO.
- Similarly, the withdraw action. Having a few years' experience in full-contact martial arts does not make me an expert by any means, but I've never seen anyone able to just walk (or run) away from close combat without the other combatant(s) taking a parting shot
- As someone else mentioned, the absolute pathetic weakness of mounts. Warhorses are dirt cheap, and they have to be, because once you're 7th or 8th level every area effect attack is going to render it dinner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elamdri wrote:

I dislike that moving diagonally isn't always 5ft of movement. I houserule that in my games.

I also wish I could have back the HOURS of my life lost waiting for people to calculate their movement using the standard rules for diagonals.

It's based in math though. The diagonal of a 1 inch square is 1.5 inch. Since there isn't a feasible way to calculate a half-inch is d20 then every other square is worth 2.

What you're allowing is for someone to move 9 squares (distance equivalent) with a 6 square movement speed. In your game I would never move straight.


mrofmist wrote:

It's based in math though. The diagonal of a 1 inch square is 1.5 inch. Since there isn't a feasible way to calculate a half-inch is d20 then every other square is worth 2.

What you're allowing is for someone to move 9 squares (distance equivalent) with a 6 square movement speed. In your game I would never move straight.

It's actually closer to 1.4 inches, which means that under the official Pathfinder rules, it's "slower" in the long run to move diagonally than to move straight.

But generally your objective isn't "cover as much Euclidean distance in as little time as possible", and it's not like you can re-orient the grid at will to spontaneously treat the direction you want to go as diagonal. In a game where each diagonal move only costs a single move, you still wouldn't always move diagonally because diagonally wouldn't always take you where you want to go.


Roberta Yang wrote:
mrofmist wrote:

It's based in math though. The diagonal of a 1 inch square is 1.5 inch. Since there isn't a feasible way to calculate a half-inch is d20 then every other square is worth 2.

What you're allowing is for someone to move 9 squares (distance equivalent) with a 6 square movement speed. In your game I would never move straight.

It's actually closer to 1.4 inches, which means that under the official Pathfinder rules, it's "slower" in the long run to move diagonally than to move straight.

But generally your objective isn't "cover as much Euclidean distance in as little time as possible", and it's not like you can re-orient the grid at will to spontaneously treat the direction you want to go as diagonal. In a game where each diagonal move only costs a single move, you still wouldn't always move diagonally because diagonally wouldn't always take you where you want to go.

I find this irrelevant to the point I was displaying.

You could just play a rogue that would focus on indirect movement, like a scout.


mrofmist wrote:

I find this irrelevant to the point I was displaying.

You could just play a rogue that would focus on indirect movement, like a scout.

So? Moving diagonally doesn't actually make it harder for anyone to catch you. Or provide you any real benefit, really. Surely you've taken orthogonal five-foot steps at some point? You didn't feel compelled to instead take diagonal five-foot steps because they make you go "faster"?

That style of diagonal movement basically makes the game physics use the L_{\infinity} norm to determine distance. The official rules' version is something like an L_{1.8} norm. Neither form of physics is broken. Neither form of physics directly matches reality (which by Euclidean geometry is an L_2 norm).


mrofmist wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

I dislike that moving diagonally isn't always 5ft of movement. I houserule that in my games.

I also wish I could have back the HOURS of my life lost waiting for people to calculate their movement using the standard rules for diagonals.

It's based in math though. The diagonal of a 1 inch square is 1.5 inch. Since there isn't a feasible way to calculate a half-inch is d20 then every other square is worth 2.

What you're allowing is for someone to move 9 squares (distance equivalent) with a 6 square movement speed. In your game I would never move straight.

Bring back Hex mats, all is forgiven :-).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
mrofmist wrote:
It's based in math though. The diagonal of a 1 inch square is 1.5 inch. Since there isn't a feasible way to calculate a half-inch is d20 then every other square is worth 2.

You also don't take up the entire 5 foot square. You could be moving from the far corner to the far corner, the near corner to the near corner, or any such combination. So you're never actually moving your speed, but an approximation of it.


NobodysHome wrote:

Never played 3.5, but I'll add to the fire:

- The ability to 'just walk away' from your opponent via a 5' step. Makes it a LOT harder to take down that wizard when he can just step back 5' and nuke you without provoking an AoO.
- Similarly, the withdraw action. Having a few years' experience in full-contact martial arts does not make me an expert by any means, but I've never seen anyone able to just walk (or run) away from close combat without the other combatant(s) taking a parting shot
- As someone else mentioned, the absolute pathetic weakness of mounts. Warhorses are dirt cheap, and they have to be, because once you're 7th or 8th level every area effect attack is going to render it dinner.

I remember a poster on here a while abck saying he removed AoOs and 5 foot steps from his game and it was fine, made combat faster too. I couldn't tell you who it was though.

@Torquar, we only use hex mats, I love them. Makes it easier imo.


Borthos Brewhammer wrote:
I remember a poster on here a while abck saying he removed AoOs and 5 foot steps from his game and it was fine, made combat faster too. I couldn't tell you who it was though.

When I run, I don't use a map at all, so AoOs and 5' steps pretty much don't happen anymore anyway. It speeds combat up tremendously.


After reading through this thread I can say I kind of like many of the rules that other people on here dislike.

One thing that does come to mind that I don't like is how positive and negative energy don't do what it has always done anymore when channeling.Channel energy was fine the way it worked in the pathfinder playtest.


I hate the Two Weapon Fighting rules!

Take a tone of feats, and still do less damage than someone using a two-handed weapon, which takes zero feats to use. TWF is basically take a bunch of feats, be less effective.

Other than that it's mostly other ineffective things, like exotic weapons which not being worth a feat etc...

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Roberta Yang wrote:
But generally your objective isn't "cover as much Euclidean distance in as little time as possible", and it's not like you can re-orient the grid at will to spontaneously treat the direction you want to go as diagonal. In a game where each diagonal move only costs a single move, you still wouldn't always move diagonally because diagonally wouldn't always take you where you want to go.

I don't see why you couldn't reorient the grid at will. It's just a change of coordiante frame - simply perform the desired coordinate rotation, move your extra distance, then rotate it back at the end of your move to match the model representation. Easy as multiplying by cos(pi/4). Unless the squares themselves actually exist within the world itself, they are an abstraction, one imposed for our benefit I may add. Why not exploit them for maximum benefit? [/snark]

The only disliked rules that really come to mind are ones I think are developer oversights/mistakes. Things like environmental cold affecting white dragons or frost giants. Or the current discussion about haste not affecting unarmed strikes.

I think there should be more ranged touch spells that do damage.

As you can see these are fairly niche things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like the crafting rules. I think they need to be reworked or modified to be more friendly (there are a few good options already available via third parties or houserules).

I don't like how certain feats are fighter only (requiring fighter levels or fighter-only abilities).

The grappling rules always slow down our game whenever they come up, which is probably why we try to avoid those types of situations in our group.

The disparity in rolling for hps. Why not roll a d6 for all classes and add static bonuses based on class? Because players have loved/hated rolling for hps since the '70s. I know, I know. Still, our table complains about it all the time but hasn't really done much about it.

Those are the bigger issues that come to mind for now.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I see that the "I want it videogame" flows strong in this thread.


JohnF wrote:
It's a little hard to see everything at present (the link to SKRs actual post doesn't seem to be working), but from quoted passages further down the thread it seems to be specifically applicable to effects that are enabled by making an attack requiring the attack to be made using the weapon that grants the effect.

Nope. The ruling is in the FAQ, only applies to defending weapons, and it's as asinine and wrongheaded a ruling as I've seen.

From the FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Defending Weapon Property: Do I have to make attack rolls with the weapon to gain its AC bonus?

Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.

Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.

As ruled in the FAQ, you can't really cast spells while using a defending weapon. Or use the "total defense" action. Or, apparently, benefit from it without attacking first.


Astral Wanderer wrote:
I see that the "I want it videogame" flows strong in this thread.

How so? And if so, how would it be a problem?


That's perhaps the strangest ruling I've seen for 3.X/PF.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CNB wrote:
As ruled in the FAQ, you can't really cast spells while using a defending weapon. Or use the "total defense" action. Or, apparently, benefit from it without attacking first.

I'm trying to see why that's a problem. The intent seems to be that you trade away attack bonus and damage bonus to gain AC bonus, not that you get "free AC bonus" whenever you wouldn't use the attack/damage bonuses anyway.

If you're not making an attack, what are you trading away for the AC bonus?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I hate that Vital Strike can't be used with Spring Attack and similar "mobile" feats and abilities.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Are wrote:

That's perhaps the strangest ruling I've seen for 3.X/PF.

It is meant to be consistent with the Fighting Defensively and Combat Expertise rules, which also cannot be used without making an attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Pathfinder Rules You Don't Like

Creatures Size Rules. An enlarged creature doesn't even have an increased speed. Also 5ft steps are the same for every size. The bonuses and penalties...

We pretty much houserule all, for those interested:

Spoiler:

-larger creatures than medium get Basic step (which was once upon a time the 5ft step) equal to their space (actually the shortest of the two dimensions), a +2 sq increment for every size larger than medium if the creature is enlarging or a penalty if reducing, to a minimum of 2 sq movement (10 foot)
-larger creatures have area attacks while attacking with manufactured or natural weapons (which is equal to its space)
-difference between tall and long creatures: long creatures have the Slight build special ability, while tall creatures have extra reach, increased basic step and area weapon attacks (they count as one extra size)
Many more I don't remember...


ryric wrote:
If you're not making an attack, what are you trading away for the AC bonus?

You're not trading anything away. You've got a magic sword. Most magic swords give you a bonus to hit and a bonus to damage. A defending weapon gives you a choice between + to hit and + to damage, or + to armor class.

No trading involved. You're making a choice how to allocate the inherent magic in the weapon.


Astral Wanderer wrote:
I see that the "I want it videogame" flows strong in this thread.

I personally enjoy videogames. If making Pathfinder more like a videogame makes it more fun for me and my group, then I will do what I can to apply those changes. Honestly, I'll never understand this sentiment that those who choose a different style of game are somehow "doing it wrong".


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Are wrote:

That's perhaps the strangest ruling I've seen for 3.X/PF.

It is meant to be consistent with the Fighting Defensively and Combat Expertise rules, which also cannot be used without making an attack.

I get that, and that's not the reason it's a strange ruling. It would be far better to give the defending property errata to work the same way as those two options, rather than issue a ruling that means several other things that work off things being "wielded" won't function as they should (such as an arcane bonded weapon, which must specifically be wielded).


You could make the defending sword animated, right?

Silver Crusade

I don't like the rule that makes it easier for spellcasters to cast their spells while taking a beating.


The clearest thing that needs to be completely reworked from the ground up is magic item creation, particularly custom item creation and how they dumped the spell prereqs. It's completely borked that a properly built 2nd level dwarf can craft a Wish item, even if there are no mages in the entire campaign capable of casting Wish.

Other than that, the system really isn't too bad. A little too complex for people new to RPGs, though, I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
I don't like the rule that makes it easier for spellcasters to cast their spells while taking a beating.

try saying that when you are the caster and all your spells fail because some guy keeps hitting you with arrows from 100 feet away. eventually, you are going to want to bring in concentration checks again.

it is no fun for the caster to automatically lose the spell he was trying to cast, just because you got shot by a 1d8 crossbow bolt. try seeing it from the perspective of the guy whose sole purpose is to cast spells.

Silver Crusade

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I don't like the rule that makes it easier for spellcasters to cast their spells while taking a beating.

try saying that when you are the caster and all your spells fail because some guy keeps hitting you with arrows from 100 feet away. eventually, you are going to want to bring in concentration checks again.

it is no fun for the caster to automatically lose the spell he was trying to cast, just because you got shot by a 1d8 crossbow bolt. try seeing it from the perspective of the guy whose sole purpose is to cast spells.

I didn't say let's go back to 2nd edition but I do want it to be hard as hell to cast a spell while someone or something is kicking your ass.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

beej67 wrote:
The clearest thing that needs to be completely reworked from the ground up is magic item creation, particularly custom item creation and how they dumped the spell prereqs. It's completely borked that a properly built 2nd level dwarf can craft a Wish item, even if there are no mages in the entire campaign capable of casting Wish.

I admit to intense curiousity as to how said dwarf even has the item creation feats necessary to build said item.

I'm all for reducing the magic item Xmas tree and MagicMart effects, but I don't think hyperbole serves its purpose very well in a thread of this type.

I'm not sure how they can "fix" custom item creation - it already requires GM oversight. No universal system is going to function perfectly just using formulae; either the breadth of possible items is restricted and the formulae work well, or there is a large variety of possible items and the formulae are guidelines.

Shadow Lodge

I do not like the BaB/HD connection, and honestly am not a fan of the general HD bumps that Wizards and other classes got (from 3E).

I do nt like that Magical Weapons overcome DR of any type except for DR/Magic, and honestly would actually rather go back to the 3.0 DR/+1, DR/+4, et. . .

I would rather have 1 square = 1 square regardless of directions, for movement and threatening distance.

I hate the PF Cleric, pretty much in all senses. I hate Channel Energy, both because it fails at turning and because I do not like the prevailence of healing in the game.

Not a fan of Guns, Alchemists, or Summoners for flavor or mechanics.

3.5 Spiked Chain.

I do not like that Undead in PF are basically humanoids without a heartbeat. Return the immunity to Sneak Attack, (not crits though), and no Con with d12 vs d8 +Cha HP.

I do not like that some classes (anyone but Int based classes like Witch and Wizard) has 2+Int, and honestly think the more combat focused PF Rogue needs to drop to either 6 or 4+int Skill Points.

I do not like that some skills are still clearly better and more useful than others, (Perception, Know Arcana, etc. . .) and think the Skill System needs another good looking at.

I do not like that PF tends to put a lot of restrictions into solid mechanics for flavor reasons only, (dervish scimitar-only dance), or neglect to offer ways for similar builds to use something that otherwise makes perfect sense.

I do not like that Ranged (particularly w/ bows) combat is both so superior to other styles, but also that it is offered so many options like candy being handedeth out.

I do not like the gazillion Monk not-fixes, but actually I do not like the complaining about Monks even less. :)

Shadow Lodge

Also, do not like that some classes are so MAD while others are obviously not. Really really wish they would rebalance all classes around at least 3 good stats, if not 4, or no class.

And while Archtypes are ok, they tend to fail and seem cooler than they actually are. I wish there where more a system for just straight up trading cass features for others, or more Prestige Classes NOT tied to flavor Golarion stuff, but rather strong general concpts.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
...rather go back to the 3.5 DR/+1, DR/+4 et. . .

That was a 3.0 rule, not 3.5.

Shadow Lodge

I fixed that when I was back in editing the first post. Thanks for the spot check though :)

101 to 150 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.