| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Return the immunity to Sneak Attack, (not crits though),
Wait, you want to keep the change that 90% of classes care about when it comes to dealing with undead, and only restore the immunity that nobody except Rogues care about? Why is that? Surely the version that most characters notice is more important to the flavor?
and honestly think the more combat focused PF Rogue needs to drop to either 6 or 4+int Skill Points.
Oh, I get it, you just really despise Rogues.
|
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.
Can you point to where a dev clarified AoOs with reach weapons? I recently searched the rules forum on the topic and just found a wishy-washy, reversed opinion from a couple of years ago.
|
Return the immunity to Sneak Attack, (not crits though),
Wait, you want to keep the change that 90% of classes care about when it comes to dealing with undead, and only restore the immunity that nobody except Rogues care about? Why is that? Surely the version that most characters notice is more important to the flavor?
Sure. Makes perfect sense. Critical hits are random fun. But I'd rather have Undead be more unique as a monster type than what PF did to them. I would aso much rather keep undead hunter types almost completely in the divine perview, and an actual threat to grave robbers and tomb explorers.
and honestly think the more combat focused PF Rogue needs to drop to either 6 or 4+int Skill Points.
Oh, I get it, you just really despise Rogues.
Not really, but the consolidatin of Skills basically double pays off for the Rogue, which is also a fairly low attribute dependant class already. I do think that Rogues would be better served having to make more choices (and actually believe all classes should have a built in mechanic to choose between different options like the Ranger, Paladin, and Monk do), and forcing them to need to pick skills more carefully and/or to need to drop Dex a bit to pump Int would both be MORE flavorful for the class and also more fun for the player overall, not to mention the other layers in the typical party. On the other hand, my main focus in this point was to mostly raise the bar on Skill Points for most oter classes that have 2+Int, which honestly is not fun, and most already have trouble bumping Int (Cleric, Fighter, Paladin come to mind most here).
On the other hand, my main focus in this point was to mostly raise the bar on Skill Points for most oter classes that have 2+Int, which honestly is not fun, and most already have trouble bumping Int (Cleric, Fighter, Paladin come to mind most here).
Phew, for a minute there I thought you were serious. Didn't really recognize the joke until you made the really preposterous claim that Fighters are more MAD than Rogues.
Or to say it another way, if add non-combat abilities to the best combatants in the game (Cleric, Fighter, Paladin come to mind here) what do you propose to give the Rogue to make up the difference? You need to make them more combat effective, instead you propose to make them weaker by making them unable to damage some of the most popular enemies.
Can you point to where a dev clarified AoOs with reach weapons? I recently searched the rules forum on the topic and just found a wishy-washy, reversed opinion from a couple of years ago.
Here you go; by Sean K Reynolds about 2 weeks ago:
So just because the grid has a square for "15 feet away" and a square for "5 feet away," but no square for "10 feet away," using that corner path doesn't mean you're magically teleporting from 15 feet to 5 feet; you are passing through a 10-foot-radius band around the creature, and therefore you provoke an AOO.
Jason admits it's not clear, and obviously it doesn't have the diagram in the 3E book to provide a non-textual example, but it's supposed to work as I described above.
|
In my games, counterspelling is an immediate (not readied) action which makes you lose a standard action during your next turn. If you have Improved Counterspell, you don't lose the action.
Before I introduced that, I've never seen a counterspell attempt in any 3.5/PF game. Inefficient mechanic since day 1.
Also, this somewhat mitigates save-or-cry situations, because every caster worth his/her salt has dispel magic ready in case the party gets hit with something really fugly.
I like this. With your permission would like to use this in my games. I also agree that almost no one ever counterspelled anything in one of my games. I think it happened once.
I think the only time I saw counterspelling in one of my games (as player or DM) was when a character took the Forgotten Realms feat that allowed counterspelling without readying (instead, if you attempted to counterspell you lost your next turn).
It was fairly efficient, but only due to action economy (party caster ties down enemy caster, party brawlers destroy enemy caster).
Here you go; by Sean K Reynolds about 2 weeks ago:....
Thanks for posting this. While I play it that way anyway, it was nice to see the development team agreed.
Not really, but the consolidatin of Skills basically double pays off for the Rogue, which is also a fairly low attribute dependant class already. I do think that Rogues would be better served having to make more choices (and actually believe all classes should have a built in mechanic to choose between different options like the Ranger, Paladin, and Monk do), and forcing them to need to pick skills more carefully and/or to need to drop Dex a bit to pump Int would both be MORE flavorful for the class and also more fun for the player overall, not to mention the other layers in the typical party. On the other hand, my main focus in this point was to mostly raise the bar on Skill Points for most oter classes that have 2+Int, which honestly is not fun, and most already have trouble bumping Int (Cleric, Fighter, Paladin come to mind most here).
So if Rogues get 4+INT skill points per level (same as Fighters in your rules!), and none of their class features provide serious bonuses to skills or key off Int, then in what sense are they still skill monkeys in any way and why would I ever even dream of playing one?
But I don't want to derail. Might be best to split this off into a new thread, titled something like "Why Rogues need to be nerfed". ;)
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.
It's not hyperbole at all. There was a whole thread on this a while back, where someone laid out how to do it. Luck blade is only a +1 sword, and according to the Paizo guys you can "bypass" the requisite Wish spell with a check. You get it with Master Craftsman feat and some other cheese, can't remember the details. Without the other cheese, you can still do it at level 5. And the checks are too easy to make for a properly built and geared character. In the end, the only thing holding people back from crafting stuff way outside the scope of their campaign is cash and GM fiat. That's sloppy game design. Very sloppy.
But the rest of the system is pretty dang good. That's the only major part of Pathfinder where a GM has to house-rule to keep from getting nutty.
Well, there are some minor things that they haven't gotten around to errataing yet. Like Beast Bonded Witches with 20HD Homunculus familiars who don't bother to leave the fam's body.
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.
There's no easy fix. It would have to be rebuilt from the ground up, and in doing so it would lose a lot of what I'd call the 'legacy flavor' of the game - familiar items for familiar prices, etc. But it's certainly possible to do. When the shift happened from DND2ed to DND3.0, they threw out a lot of legacy stuff in favor for a more straight forward system that worked universally. The same sort of mind set could be applied to item crafting. And by the time you were done, there'd be no need for a book two inches thick full of magic items, you'd just have creation rules and tables for creating (anything), and you could randomize (anything) out of the tables instead of off some kind of mega list.
But then again, I guess you wouldn't have as much opportunity to sell crunchy books to nerds, so that's a lost business opportunity. /shrug.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
It's not hyperbole at all. There was a whole thread on this a while back, where someone laid out how to do it. Luck blade is only a +1 sword, and according to the Paizo guys you can "bypass" the requisite Wish spell with a check. You get it with Master Craftsman feat and some other cheese, can't remember the details. Without the other cheese, you can still do it at level 5. And the checks are too easy to make for a properly built and geared character. In the end, the only thing holding people back from crafting stuff way outside the scope of their campaign is cash and GM fiat. That's sloppy game design. Very sloppy.But the rest of the system is pretty dang good. That's the only major part of Pathfinder where a GM has to house-rule to keep from getting nutty.
Only in the same way that a GM has to house-rule that 2nd level PCs can't just walk into the average kingdom and kill everyone to take over. "It's broken because bad things happen if the GM explicitly allows it" isn't really an argument against the system to me. I still don't see how a dwarf can have 5 ranks in a craft skill at level 2, or be a 5th level caster at level 2. I'm still willing to bet that you grabbed something from the middle of a thread that was later shot down.
But yes, a level 5 item crafter who happens to have 43000 gp can spend over a month making an item that will cast wish exactly once. He must make a DC27 skill check to do so, so either he is rolling with at least a +7(not tough) or taking 10 with a +17(requires even more feats and such) at level 5, so basically his entire being is intended to make items. This is not an issue I worry about as a GM.
What it sounds like you want is something akin to Words of Power, but with magic items. I'd be okay with that as an optional system, but I like the large variety of items we have now and the creativity involved in their function. GM oversight is not a houserule.
Oh, I left off my dislike for the size system. Actually, it's mainly a dislike with the Colossal size category. It's a catchall for anything bigger than gargantuan (which is fine) but it puts everything in a 30 foot by 30 foot box (which I don't like). Things over 100 feet in length are space 30 ft.
I also get bothered by tall things (such as giants) that are 14-15 feet tall yet only occupy a 10 x 10 space (large) and can only reach out 2 squares around them. It only comes into play when in 3-D combat, but that happens fairly frequently by the time PCs start encountering giants. It's just a pet peeve of mine.
Weapon Enchantment that removes certain DR.
Houseruled that immediately, however, I agree that +5 should remove certain DRs. But not alignment based.
|
I don't like that Gunslingers get all martial weapons.
The whole point of the Gunslinger was to capture the experience of playing an Old West maverick, right? When have you ever seen a cowboy in a Western draw a sword on someone?
The only non-gun weapons I've ever seen used by cowboys in fiction were: knives, whips, lassos, and their fists. Occasionally improvised weapons in bar fights, and maybe dynamite.
If knives count as daggers, nothing on that list is a martial weapon. And Gunslingers don't even get whip or lasso proficiency. You could stretch and say a Bowie knife is actually a kukri or a short sword, but still.
The only reason that Gunslingers get martial weapons is that they're a full-BAB class, and I don't like basing weapon proficiencies based on BAB like that. I'd give Gunslingers simple weapons, firearms, plus a few other weapons-- the whip, the lasso, and maybe the short sword and rapier if you want a Musketeer-style character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A gunslinger image could also be a pirate who used both firearms and swords... just saying
Devils Advocate you cannot have 3 good stats with a 20 point buy its imposible.
Just curious, what do you define as a "good stat"?
|
|
It's called MAD (Multiple Attribute Dependency). Some classes (as is) need to have more, igher end attributes to function in their general role. Other classes only need 1 high and one or two medium, like for example the Wizard. Needs a high Int, and wants at least a 14 in Dex and Con, but can otherwise dump Str, Wis, and Cha, (having them is nice but does not realy drop their ability to function as a decent Wizard). Rogues need a high Dex, and want a decent Con, and maybe one more ability according to their focus. Point Buy favors those types of SAD (Single Attribute Dependant) classes, and is not a fair/balanced system. Additionally, a lot of these class's strengths also synergize well with their natural attribut tendencies, for example Wizards already have a high Int & generally Dex, so also get a lot os Skill points, have good touch AC's, Init, and Ranged Touch attack bonuses, but do not need to pick and choose as much what they want.
Other Classes, Cleric, Monk, Fighter, etc. . . really need more and higher attributes to work at what they do/suppossed to do. A Monk, needs a 14+ in Str, Dex, Con, and Wis, for example. Clerics need a Str, Con, Wis, and Cha. In both cases, kind of as high as they can get them, but obviously one or two of those need to take a hit, and that doesn't leave much room for the other 2 stats. Paladins would need a good Str, Dex, Con, and Cha, (and also a Wis in 3.5), but because they get so much extra from Cha, can reasonably dump Dex and possibly a bit more Str than other martial classes.
So, I'm not arguing that you can/can not have 3 good stats with a 20 PB. What I am suggesting is that they rework all the classes to be either directly tied to more or less Attributes more equally. Secondly, maybe rework the Point Buy system so that it is not so easy for the classes with less "needed" high ability scores to get off as easy, but I can't think of a way to really do this.
Paladins get full plate and don't get armor training to raise its max Dex bonus. I can't think of a single other class that gets less out of having a high Dex score than a Paladin (except maybe a Synthesist).
|
|
You can build alternatively. I had a gnoll wizard transmuter with 15 base int. He would buff up and wade into the melee as the party's front line.
When I say Good, High, Decent, I generally mean (depending on Point Buy) Decent = 12+, Good = 14ish, and High = 15+, but wanting as high as reasonibly possible. A Fighter with 12 Str, Dex, and Con will work, but not very effectively at being able to absorb damage and dish it out. Can not qualify for a lot of Fighter-type Feats, etc. . .
Paladins get full plate and don't get armor training to raise its max Dex bonus. I can't think of a single other class that gets less out of having a high Dex score than a Paladin (except maybe a Synthesist).
Hence why I said that they can afford to dump Dex more than the other martial types.
:)
Paladins get full plate and don't get armor training to raise its max Dex bonus. I can't think of a single other class that gets less out of having a high Dex score than a Paladin (except maybe a Synthesist).
Cavalier. Same as the paladin.
|
|
I don't like the point buy system, though I understand the need for it in things like PFS.
For years I haven't rolled my stats but chosen them. Why don't I choose to have all 18s? It's like choosing your own switch! If you choose too small a switch your dad will choose the biggest switch in the meadow! If you choose stats that are too high the DM will start to enforce stricter conditions on character stats.
So I choose stats which match the character concept. I get fairly good stats if you were to measure them by the point buy system, but I feel no need to have max in the class's prime stat; I've had plenty of fighters with 13 or 14 Str.
But for some reason, when presented with the point buy system, I subconsciously take it as some kind of optimisation challenge! I've made two PFS characters so far:-
• Human Paladin: Str 18 Dex 12 Con 13 Int 7 Wis 7 Cha 17
(+2 to Str as human)
• Halfling Bard: Str 5 Dex 20 Con 8 Int 7 Wis 7 Cha 20
(Dawnflower Dervish)
I then have to role-play those stats, which is fun in itself!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.).
I agree, and I'd use just two fixes to get rid of a huge number of feats.
First, Skill focus should allow a character to take +3/+6 to any one skill, or +2/+4 to any two skills.Second, most feat "chains" should be collapsed into a single feat that improves with level or BAB.
- Power Attack
- Improved Bull Rush
- Greater Bull Rush
- Bull Rush Strike
There are three benefits to this change.
1) The list of feats shrinks significantly. As a DM who just started a campaign for a group of five players with varying levels of RPG experience, it's an extremely daunting list!
2) Character planning gets much easier. As it stands, planning feats and traits takes more time than any other part of character creation, and much of that is because getting the ability you want (in this example, the ability to push enemies around in combat) takes a lot of planning ahead into higher levels.
3) A character who chooses a strategy is good at executing that strategy. We're playing heroes, the main characters of stories. It's much better storytelling that a character who uses a signature tactic keeps that signature from beginning to end. The statements "I'm playing a finesse build, but not until 2nd level," or "I'm playing a tripper, but not until 6th level," or even, "I'm playing an X, but not after level Y," should never be heard. They make baby goblins cry, and ain't nobody want to hear that ruckus.
Druids.
Basically any page with the word "druid" on it.
|
|
I about reducing the Feat Chains, though I would like if they where broken into just 2. a Normal and Improved version, both of which get better with BaB, and work with each other.
I'v done a similar thing with Skill Focus since 3E, but really don't get much opportuniy any more with PFS rules.
But I still feel weird when I hear people refere to Point Buy as "the normal way of rolling stats".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-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)
Here's an interesting feature of threads like this one. The five things you dislike are five of my favorite changes from 3.5!
- I like that not all clerics focus on the undead. Clerics of freedom should hate tyrants, and clerics of darkness should hate sunlight, and they shouldn't necessarily gang up with the clerics of life against undead in particular. Second, I like that all clerics get a healing ability that doesn't detract from their spell/day.
- I love unlimited cantrips! Since 1st edition AD&D I've always been annoyed that powerful magic users had to use flint & steel to light a fire to heat their tea. If you can throw giant fireballs that kill villages, you should be able to snap your fingers and have your tea warmed.
- I hate re-rolling initiative every round. It was one of the most annoying and swingy mechanics in older game systems, and I'm glad that it's basically gone from the genre. I've seen so many TPKs due to a monster who takes two turns in a row. . .
- I love that 3.5, and then Pathfinder, each reduced the number of skills. Jump as a skill? There were so many skills that each one of the bad ones was unlikely to come up more than once in a campaign.
- While I think the handling of magic items in 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder has some persistent annoying characteristics, I vastly prefer Pathfinder's system of making magic items to the XP based version. XP is a metagame quantity that, when micromanaged by players, interferes with good storytelling and campaign design. (I could go into more detail, but just imagine running a campaign in which one character is clearly more powerful than any of the others, yet is also always one level lower than the rest of the party.)
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.
Amen.
Amen, amen, amen!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This is the kind of fix that is so simple, it should just get written into a publication somewhere as a sidebar. Here, I'll write it for you.
+1 HD 1,000 gp
+2 HD 4,000 gp
+3 HD 9,000 gp
+4 HD 16,000 gp
+5 HD 25,000 gp
+6 HD 36,000 gp
+8 HD 64,000 gp
+10 HD 100,000 gp
This is the chart for magic armor, by the way. Use the same rules for availability of advanced mounts that you would for the availability of an equivalent magic item. Also, while an animal may gain experience through adventuring with the party, this should be handled like a cohort (see Leadership) and should never allow an animal to be higher than the average party level -2.
|
|
I don't like that you (and your ally) need a feat to do this.
You think thats bad check out the Medic one. . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like that you (and your ally) need a feat to do this.You think thats bad check out the Medic one. . .
Turrible. Just turrible.
|
|
Now that druids has come up I will say also that I hate HATE HATE the new wild-shape. The inability to get neat abilities except the limited selection in the CRB means there's only ever gonna be two or three animals you'll want to wild-shape into, and once you get elemental shape you'll never want to be an animal again.
We houseruled that away (a hippo's sweat ability is hardly overpowering), but I would never play a druid in a RAW game unless they ever come out with an archetype that ditches wildshape.
...most feat "chains" should be collapsed into a single feat that improves with level or BAB.
I would love to see this done. I really dislike the glut of feats that seems to show up over time.
"It's broken because bad things happen if the GM explicitly allows it" isn't really an argument against the system to me.
I'm not going to have this argument again. Suffice to say that your 'defense' of the magic item crafting system in Pathfinder could just as easily be applied to every other broken thing from 3.5 that Pathfinder fixed. Magic item creation was the only thing that went 'backwards' from 3.5 to PF, because at least in 3.5 you still had to have access to the spell prereqs.
But yes, a level 5 item crafter who happens to have 43000 gp can spend over a month making an item that will cast wish exactly once.
This is broken.
He must make a DC27 skill check to do so, so either he is rolling with at least a +7(not tough) or taking 10 with a +17(requires even more feats and such) at level 5, so basically his entire being is intended to make items. This is not an issue I worry about as a GM.
It's a very easy check if you bend your will to being good at what you do. And besides, it's not like the PC has to be the one to burn the feats. Leadership cohort will do nicely.
Oh, which brings up the only other majorly broken thing I forgot about. Leadership. Way too easy to get way too many benefits. The cohort should be stricken from the feat.
What it sounds like you want is something akin to Words of Power, but with magic items.
That could work, but the system wouldn't need to necessarily be that generic. I'd probably set it up something like that, though, yes.
GM oversight is not a houserule.
Good rules stay good rules even in a vacuum. It is true that a good GM can do great things even with crappy rules, purely via 'oversight.' But that does not make bad rules good. If it did, there would have never been a reason to abandon 1st edition.