Pathfinder Rules You Don't Like


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

I also dislike alignment restrictions. My group tends to waive them, especially if your character concept is solid.

Beckett wrote:
I like that it made mosters more unique and versatile, gave a reason for players to seek out actual Enhacemnt bonuses rather than more properties as soon as possible, and because it made the game more gritty and threatening. What 3.5 did was exceptionally bland, and then how PF made that aspect even worse. The original intent (3.5) was because too many people complained that they couldn't invest all their monies into a single weapon and had to buy backup silver, cold iron, or whatever gear. This was the vocal minority that played organized play, for the most part, and actually very much was done because of WBL issues, further breaking them. The other side is that it actually enforces the lone wolf style of play rather than goups relying on each other, especially how PF made it so that spells do not grant this benefit.

I'm confused. How would you prefer DR to work? Like 3.0? I can understand some frustration with the flavour as it stands, where a +1 weapon is enough to hurt the oldest dragon and you can ignore silver and cold iron by investing in a +3 weapon. But I really think it's a better system than "Nope, that demon has DR/+4 and your sword is only +3, sorry."


A thought occurs: you could make half any given monster's DR X/-, if you want them to be tougher.


judas 147 wrote:
exotic weapon (now they buy an a proff. with skills)

In my book that's a fighter nerf. (Because it makes it hard for him to get weapon prof. and still do something skillwise)

The same with all those feats you give out for free. Makes the fighter's bonus feats worth less.

And on your dex buffs: Don't you think that if makes dex a little too strong and important?
Everyone gets weapon finesse and their dex mod to move range.
I'd never play a strength based char with those rules. Never ever.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Blue Star wrote:
A thought occurs: you could make half any given monster's DR X/-, if you want them to be tougher.

The fix I always heard was having magical weapons only bypass 5 points of magic DR per enhancement bonus. So a dragon with DR 20/magic is only completely vulnerable to a +4 weapon, but a +2 weapon will still help in some way.


I dont like that when you go diagonally its 5 feet then 10 feet then 5 etc. I houserulr it five feet per square thats normal terrain. I have to count the distancr diagonally like three times every time to make sure I didnt miscount which I usually do.


Weirdo wrote:
I'm confused. How would you prefer DR to work? Like 3.0? I can understand some frustration with the flavour as it stands, where a +1 weapon is enough to hurt the oldest dragon and you can ignore silver and cold iron by investing in a +3 weapon. But I really think it's a better system than "Nope, that demon has DR/+4 and your sword is only +3, sorry."

That last sentence harkens back to 1st Edition, when you needed the +4 to HIT the creature. That was nuts. I remember a game with 10th to 12th level PCs facing ONE Iron Golem. They were reduced to using a pair of +3 maces that the guest cleric was toting; otherwise, it would have been TPK or a rout--not the plan for the encounter....

Also, in 3.0 the DR numbers were really high, so all this fuss was necessary. But, in 3.5/PF I don't know of WotC/Paizo critter that has more than DR 15. With the DPR that people are always talking about for high level (not to mention PF Paladins); does chewing through an Ancient Red Dragon's DR 15 really cause that much consternation?

I dislike the current rule where certain enhancement bonuses cut through material DR. It's a flavor thing. But now I see (and agree with) some of the logic behind it. However, I HATE letting them cut through alignment DR, and I won't.

All in all, I think I would like to reinstate D&D 3.0's staged + DR. They needed to fix DR when they did 3.5, but instead of just lowering the skyrocketing numbers, they also made them meaningless.


Josh M. wrote:
Serum wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Quote:
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.
Only if you don't follow the guidelines, and allow said crafter to gain 43000gp.
I have to agree; where is this level 5 character getting 43000 gp from?

The king?

Picked off his friends' bodies after a near TPW?

Doesn't matter where it comes from. "I do not like it when" GMs have to plug rules holes by making gold evaporate.


beej67 wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Serum wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Quote:
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.
Only if you don't follow the guidelines, and allow said crafter to gain 43000gp.
I have to agree; where is this level 5 character getting 43000 gp from?

The king?

Picked off his friends' bodies after a near TPW?

Doesn't matter where it comes from. "I do not like it when" GMs have to plug rules holes by making gold evaporate.

But... It does matter.

Casting wish is far from the worst thing a 5th level PC can do with his 43k.

Hell, as a GM, I would thank the heavens if they decided to blow it all on a casting of wish instead of on some permanent out-of-scale item I'd have to concern myself with for the rest of the campaign.

I don't know, to me, this seems like a silly and rather extreme case that can be laid at the feat of whichever GM is foolish enough to make a low level party that rich.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Serum wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Quote:
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.
Only if you don't follow the guidelines, and allow said crafter to gain 43000gp.
I have to agree; where is this level 5 character getting 43000 gp from?

The king?

Picked off his friends' bodies after a near TPW?

Doesn't matter where it comes from. "I do not like it when" GMs have to plug rules holes by making gold evaporate.

But... It does matter.

Casting wish is far from the worst thing a 5th level PC can do with his 43k.

Hell, as a GM, I would thank the heavens if they decided to blow it all on a casting of wish instead of on some permanent out-of-scale item I'd have to concern myself with for the rest of the campaign.

I don't know, to me, this seems like a silly and rather extreme case that can be laid at the feat of whichever GM is foolish enough to make a low level party that rich.

It seems to me the complaint against this possibility is not that PCs can do it. It is that someone can do it. It speaks to the structure of the Campaign Setting. It strikes me like complaints about the availability of revivification magics, and the impact implied on the campaign world.

Having said that, the thing keeping NPCs from abusing these is....the GM. I don't see an issue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The general impression I get is people have issues with anything that requires GM moderation. Leadership, Magic crafting, all require the GM and people seem to hate that. I wonder if this comes from a lack of trust in the GM?


Evil Lincoln wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Serum wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Quote:
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.
Only if you don't follow the guidelines, and allow said crafter to gain 43000gp.
I have to agree; where is this level 5 character getting 43000 gp from?

The king?

Picked off his friends' bodies after a near TPW?

Doesn't matter where it comes from. "I do not like it when" GMs have to plug rules holes by making gold evaporate.

But... It does matter.

Casting wish is far from the worst thing a 5th level PC can do with his 43k.

Hell, as a GM, I would thank the heavens if they decided to blow it all on a casting of wish instead of on some permanent out-of-scale item I'd have to concern myself with for the rest of the campaign.

I don't know, to me, this seems like a silly and rather extreme case that can be laid at the feat of whichever GM is foolish enough to make a low level party that rich.

What,you mean like crafting 8 candles of invocation and using them all to Gate in Baylor demons?

(A 3rd level guy can do that btw)

"I do not like it when" the GM has to oversee simple elements of the system to prevent wacky things from happening. You may love that. If so, congratulations. You can't make me like something I don't like in the "Pathfinder rules you don't like" thread.


beej67 wrote:

What,you mean like crafting 8 candles of invocation and using them all to Gate in Baylor demons?

(A 3rd level guy can do that btw)

"I do not like it when" the GM has to oversee simple elements of the system to prevent wacky things from happening. You may love that. If so, congratulations. You can't make me like something I don't like in the "Pathfinder rules you don't like" thread.

My point is not that your dislike is somehow "wrong", but rather that there is a very very long list of potential badness when the party is overrich. So long, in fact, that I wonder why you choose to consider these things at all... controlling party wealth is in the GM's mandate for a reason.

Carry on hating those things, if it suits you.


Jodokai wrote:
The general impression I get is people have issues with anything that requires GM moderation. Leadership, Magic crafting, all require the GM and people seem to hate that. I wonder if this comes from a lack of trust in the GM?

The sign of a good system is that it works on its own without the GM micromanaging it. If this wasn't true, we wouldn't need rules at all, we could all just have the GM make up everything.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Also, in 3.0 the DR numbers were really high, so all this fuss was necessary. But, in 3.5/PF I don't know of WotC/Paizo critter that has more than DR 15. With the DPR that people are always talking about for high level (not to mention PF Paladins); does chewing through an Ancient Red Dragon's DR 15 really cause that much consternation?

Steel Predator's had DR 20/+3 and Adamantine, I think.

******* HATED THOSE THING! My DM had us run through a module where Steel Predators were kidnapping or killing smiths that were able to forge Adamantine. We ran into tons of those things. It was a pain in the ass because it took nearly the whole party just to take one of the damned things down.

We ended up retreating and having to make some quick deals with a bunch of the party wealth to purchase my half-orc ranger a weapon to overcome the DR. Then we had to adopt new tactics.

  • Buff the Ranger.
  • Hide
  • Keep Ranger alive

The one exception was one of the party wizards (we had 2) had a metamagic feat that allowed him to prepare energy spells (like fireball) and change their energy type to Acid, which Steel Predators were vulnerable to. If I recall, they had DR 20/+3 and Adamantine, Immune to Sonic, Immune to Shock, Resist Cold 15, Resist Fire 15 and SR 27.

We were ~13th level when we first encountered them and we weren't too happy about it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
A thought occurs: you could make half any given monster's DR X/-, if you want them to be tougher.
The fix I always heard was having magical weapons only bypass 5 points of magic DR per enhancement bonus. So a dragon with DR 20/magic is only completely vulnerable to a +4 weapon, but a +2 weapon will still help in some way.

That would also work.


Tels wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Also, in 3.0 the DR numbers were really high, so all this fuss was necessary. But, in 3.5/PF I don't know of WotC/Paizo critter that has more than DR 15. With the DPR that people are always talking about for high level (not to mention PF Paladins); does chewing through an Ancient Red Dragon's DR 15 really cause that much consternation?

Steel Predator's had DR 20/+3 and Adamantine, I think.

******* HATED THOSE THING! My DM had us run through a module where Steel Predators were kidnapping or killing smiths that were able to forge Adamantine. We ran into tons of those things. It was a pain in the ass because it took nearly the whole party just to take one of the damned things down.

We ended up retreating and having to make some quick deals with a bunch of the party wealth to purchase my half-orc ranger a weapon to overcome the DR. Then we had to adopt new tactics.

  • Buff the Ranger.
  • Hide
  • Keep Ranger alive

The one exception was one of the party wizards (we had 2) had a metamagic feat that allowed him to prepare energy spells (like fireball) and change their energy type to Acid, which Steel Predators were vulnerable to. If I recall, they had DR 20/+3 and Adamantine, Immune to Sonic, Immune to Shock, Resist Cold 15, Resist Fire 15 and SR 27.

We were ~13th level when we first encountered them and we weren't too happy about it.

That sounds kinda neat for 13th level encounter being honest. Most PF monster die to focused fire in a round or 2 even excluding spellcaser abuse. DR had to mean somehting to be effective. Paladins smite ability cpould halve the DR for example and power attack more or less mitigates it anyway.


Can'tFindthePath lol that becasue 1st edtion iron golems where ment to be run from and teach you can't beat every monster. The game as goten to sweet and friendly allowing the pcs to pass every challange. Remember the tomb of horrors. Not every adventure is ment to be won. Some of them are ment to scare the crap out of pcs lol. there was no need for X matrial golems back then becasue the Iron Golem was a challangle for even 20th level characters. I remember be scare of a Bulette even at level 15 because of the damage they did. now 6 or 7th level PC laugh at the monster that used to give us nightmares.

No more save or Die poisons. Because of this wyvern and giant spiders where a threat at any level. now not so much. a huge spider does want maybe some str or dex loss from posion. The dc for the poisons farily easy to make. not to mention quickly taken care of cleric of good level. It is hard to try and convert old adventures because of this. where there should haven high level threat, mid level character can take with out issuse. I think the numbers need to be brought lower but that will never happen. It is our nature to like bigger numbers it make us feel better and stronger.

Sovereign Court

Not sure it's been mentioned, but I miss the Rapid Spell feat from 3.5. It basically allowed you to turn a full-round spell into a standard action casting time for the cost of 1 level higher. Was great for druids - use 4th level spell slot to get a summon nature's ally 3, for example, or cast a normal SNA and then when you're done casting, bring in a beastie 1 level lower with the same spell slot that same round.

Silver Crusade

chaoseffect wrote:

That said, I disagree with alignment restrictions and alignment mechanics in general, especially those concerning Paladin. "Ha ha, you did something morally ambiguous so now you get to lose your class features!"

Can't fault a particular mechanic because of a dick DM.

If you play with a DM that does this then I could almost promise you that he/she gets you in many other ways as well.

Assistant Software Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I removed a post. Don't use the word 'retarded' in that way.


Zardnaar wrote:

Not overly happy with PF weapons and armor. One handed wepaons suck outside of a few exotics like the falcata and dervish dancer feat. Schimitars, Falcata, Falchions, Greatswords, and longbows seem to be the only weapons PCs choose for some reason.

Same thing with armor. Chain shirts, breastplates and full plate with mithril versions are the only armors that seem to exist beyond level 2.

Personally, and I've felt the same way about certain editions of D&D, I prefer an armory that lends itself toward more variety of weapons being chosen by players. I think the best way to do that is to make different looking weapons that have the same stats.

For example, Greataxe and Greatsword. While I think it's appropriate to have a different weight, price, and build material, I think that their combat mechanics should be the same. It's cool to have a barbarian with a giant axe, but the reduction in DPR keeps people from using the weapon they would prefer.


Jodokai wrote:
The general impression I get is people have issues with anything that requires GM moderation. Leadership, Magic crafting, all require the GM and people seem to hate that. I wonder if this comes from a lack of trust in the GM?

Yep. The game needs a GM for a reason.


I don't like how combat maneuvers provoke an attack of opportunity, or how you need "Combat Expertise" to access half of the "Improved" feats.

All this does is limit players, burdening them with a feat-tax if they want to do anything cool in combat (rather than just stand there and full-attack).

Same goes for other things like "Cleave." Why does it require a feat? I will never know... but then again, I can see where this attitude might lead (basically every feat would dissolve into nothingness). Might not a be that bad of an idea, though. For every feat effectively given to players for free, there could be a new one created which improves upon the previous feat (the "Improved" line of combat maneuver feats already do this, so they would be a model to work off).


Detect Magic wrote:

I don't like how combat maneuvers provoke an attack of opportunity, or how you need "Combat Expertise" to access half of the "Improved" feats.

All this does is limit players, burdening them with a feat-tax if they want to do anything cool in combat (rather than just stand there and full-attack).

Same goes for other things like "Cleave." Why does it require a feat? I will never know... but then again, I can see where this attitude might lead (basically every feat would dissolve into nothingness). Might not a be that bad of an idea, though. For every feat effectively given to players for free, there could be a new one created which improves upon the previous feat (the "Improved" line of combat maneuver feats already do this, so they would be a model to work off).

I agree with all of this, and I also dislike how weak Combat Maneuvers become at later levels.

Thankfully, I know a good homebrew version of 3.5e that takes care of all that, which one of my players already knows about.


Even at low levels. Disarm is virtually defeated by a locked gauntlet (8 gold). At high levels, definitely. Good luck trying to trip massive, four-legged beasts.


Detect Magic wrote:

I don't like how combat maneuvers provoke an attack of opportunity, or how you need "Combat Expertise" to access half of the "Improved" feats.

All this does is limit players, burdening them with a feat-tax if they want to do anything cool in combat (rather than just stand there and full-attack).

Same goes for other things like "Cleave." Why does it require a feat? I will never know... but then again, I can see where this attitude might lead (basically every feat would dissolve into nothingness). Might not a be that bad of an idea, though. For every feat effectively given to players for free, there could be a new one created which improves upon the previous feat (the "Improved" line of combat maneuver feats already do this, so they would be a model to work off).

Even if I keep repeating myself, I would consider giving out free feats a fighter nerf, as every feat you give out for free makes the fact that the fighter gets more feats worth less.

Right now everyone gets 10 feats and the fighter gets 11 bonus feats.
So he gets roughly double the feats that most other classes get.
Now if you give out 5 feats for free to everyone then everyone gets 15 feats compared to 11 fighter bonus feats.
So the fighters class ability is suddenly only worth about two thirds of what other classes get.


That is simply showing that giving the fighter more feats is a lame class ability to begin with...


@Umbranus (suggested rules change in regards to combat maneuvers):
Did you miss the part about inventing new feats to replace those given out? Everyone would be able to perform maneuvers, but those with the feats to spare would become better at performing them. Thus, the fighter would still have an advantage.

I'm confident people would still play fighters. Besides, they receive more than just bonus feats. Have you seen the Two-handed Fighter archetype? That thing's deadly (and very popular at my table).


DracoDruid wrote:
That is simply showing that giving the fighter more feats is a lame class ability to begin with...

...especially when you consider that most feats in 3.5e are stronger compared to their Pathfinder counterparts.


3.5 Power Attack was insane! Just INSANE! Especially when combined with Leap Attack. I wonder how many people still play with it... that thing, I mean... just "wow!"

I hope I don't have nightmares tonight just thinking about it.


And I believe PF Power Attack is too good, too.
Any feat that is a "must" is simply too good or should rather be a standard rule IMO.

But BTT:

Thinks I don't like in 3E and still don't like in PF:

- Everything and everyone aimed at combat
- Spell slots
- Too many (useless) feats & spells
- BAB & Saves dictated by HD
- HD

... Hmm.. come to think of it, d20 obviously is not my type of game...
... But I still haven't found one I actually like better...


I don't like the rule that says if I roll lower than my targets AC I miss. I mean, Come on, I'm playing a frickin hero I should hit, lethally, every time I attack just like in the movies.


No, you're playing this guy.


Sorry didn't use the sarcasm symbol. *s


Xabulba wrote:
Sorry didn't use the sarcasm symbol. *s

Wasn't that obvious?


Detect Magic wrote:
Did you miss the part about inventing new feats to replace those given out?

No, I didn't miss it.

I'm just of the opinion that it offsets getting less in comparison.

The fighter's main class feature is getting more feats.
If you give everyone more feats then what makes the fighter special becomes less.

In the same way I see giving out free skillpoints to everyone as a rogue nerf.


Umbranus wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:
Did you miss the part about inventing new feats to replace those given out?

No, I didn't miss it.

I'm just of the opinion that it offsets getting less in comparison.

The fighter's main class feature is getting more feats.
If you give everyone more feats then what makes the fighter special becomes less.

In the same way I see giving out free skillpoints to everyone as a rogue nerf.

I'd say a better alternative is making existing feats stronger instead.

Also, it's hardly a Rogue nerf if the Paladin and Fighter get 4+Int skill points rather than 2+Int.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fnipernackle wrote:
I dont like that when you go diagonally its 5 feet then 10 feet then 5 etc. I houserulr it five feet per square thats normal terrain. I have to count the distancr diagonally like three times every time to make sure I didnt miscount which I usually do.

Do you also houserule that circles have corners and that all triangles are automatically equilateral?

I really don't understand the hate so many people have for this simple expression of middle school geometry. Squares are longer corner-to-corner than they are side-to-side. Yes, your character sees no grid and is moving "straight ahead" from his perspective. But if you move him six squares along a diagonal through corners, he has traveled 1.414 times as far as if he'd moved six squares passing through sides. Rounding up from 1.414 to 1.5 just simplifies it.

This isn't rocket science. Recognizing the basic characteristics of simple shapes doesn't impose a heavy "game realism" requirement that people might complain about if asked to calculate precise falling speeds due to gravity, or the exact volume of a standard gold piece.


Xabulba wrote:
I don't like the rule that says if I roll lower than my targets AC I miss. I mean, Come on, I'm playing a frickin hero I should hit, lethally, every time I attack just like in the movies.

Miss is just a game term, it does not mean you actual miss. It really means you just did no damage. Or the enemey parried the blow out the way or it bonuce off his armor. you are supposed to use your imagation for combat. I notice most people that have not played old school D&D have aproblems with this. They take the terms and actions to literal. Also the round time frame see to also makes it seem as it has to be literal. When a round used to be a full 60 seconds it made more sense to image you attack 10 times but only had two effective attacks. If you want really movie play you should be playing world of darkness that whole system was designed to siumalte movie style play. If you did hit every time there would be no challange to the game at all.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Damon Griffin wrote:
I really don't understand the hate so many people have for this simple expression of middle school geometry. Squares are longer corner-to-corner than they are side-to-side.

I don't think anyone disputes that squares are longer on the diagonal, rather the dislike is based on whether people feel the 5 feet / 10 feet rule provides more of a benefit than a hindrance.

Counting each square as 5 feet is just simpler and quicker than using the 5 feet / 10 feet rule - especially if your move gets interrupted (for example by an AoO) and then you have to try to remember whether you had moved two diagonals or just one.

As for the benefit? If in your game you are rarely seeing a character double move completely diagonally, but rather just see a single move and then a spell or attack with the movement only having one or two diagonals in it, then most of the time ignoring the rule means someone might move 5 feet more than they should - not a big deal to many.

TL;DR - it's a cost / benefit thing, to many people the rule is more of a hassle than any benefit it might bring - in which case why bother with the rule?


DigitalMage wrote:

If in your game you are rarely seeing a character double move completely diagonally, but rather just see a single move and then a spell or attack with the movement only having one or two diagonals in it, then most of the time ignoring the rule means someone might move 5 feet more than they should - not a big deal to many.

TL;DR - it's a cost / benefit thing, to many people the rule is more of a hassle than any benefit it might bring - in which case why bother with the rule?

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that people didn't know the diagonal is longer, just that by ignoring that very simple fact the practical effect is "I can move faster/farther if I don't move in a straight line" which makes no sense. Ignoring complex considerations of reality in favor of speedy game play I absolutely get. But this isn't complex.

You're right in that if only one or two squares are crossed diagonally the effect will be minimal (zero effect for a single diagonal and an extra 5' for two diagonals) but it's not uncommon for a character to want to make a complete single move along a diagonal and then attack or use a spell -- and in that case you typically gain a much more significant 15' from the movement (45' instead of 30') if you ignore the diagonal.

Sovereign Court

If you make the diagonals 5ft, doesn't that also mean that spells with circular areas suddenly affect square areas? Or do you think it's simpler to count diagonals as 5ft for movement, but 5/10ft for area effects? How about spell/archery range?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Thankfully, I have Gamemastery wire spell templates to help me count spell ranges.


Xabulba wrote:
I don't like the rule that says if I roll lower than my targets AC I miss. I mean, Come on, I'm playing a frickin hero I should hit, lethally, every time I attack just like in the movies.

Lol


KainPen wrote:
Xabulba wrote:
I don't like the rule that says if I roll lower than my targets AC I miss. I mean, Come on, I'm playing a frickin hero I should hit, lethally, every time I attack just like in the movies.
Miss is just a game term, it does not mean you actual miss. It really means you just did no damage. Or the enemey parried the blow out the way or it bonuce off his armor. you are supposed to use your imagation for combat. I notice most people that have not played old school D&D have aproblems with this. They take the terms and actions to literal. Also the round time frame see to also makes it seem as it has to be literal. When a round used to be a full 60 seconds it made more sense to image you attack 10 times but only had two effective attacks. If you want really movie play you should be playing world of darkness that whole system was designed to siumalte movie style play. If you did hit every time there would be no challange to the game at all.

ROFL

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Damon Griffin wrote:
Ignoring complex considerations of reality in favor of speedy game play I absolutely get. But this isn't complex.

Its not complex as such, but that doesn't mean its speedy, people find the rule noticeably slows down play, especially if the first of those diagonals is difficult terrain in which case it counts as 15 feet and the second diagonal is actually then only 5 feet and the third diagonal is the one that is counted as ten feet.

Damon Griffin wrote:
but it's not uncommon for a character to want to make a complete single move along a diagonal and then attack or use a spell -- and in that case you typically gain a much more significant 15' from the movement (45' instead of 30') if you ignore the diagonal.

Perhaps in some games its not uncommon, I guess in combats in wide open areas, but in dungeons with foes, obstacles and difficult terrain dotted about, I can't remember seeing that. And even then, they moved an extra 2 squares for maybe one turn in the combat, not a massive deal for some.

Ascalaphus wrote:
If you make the diagonals 5ft, doesn't that also mean that spells with circular areas suddenly affect square areas? Or do you think it's simpler to count diagonals as 5ft for movement, but 5/10ft for area effects? How about spell/archery range?

Me personally, if I were using the house rule I would likely just count the area using the all diagonals are 5 feet rule as well. But unless you have extremely tightly packed foes I probably wouldn't notice that the fireball was square but just that it was big enough to engulf those 3 foes who were all within about X feet of the centre.

In reality I tend to play RAW, and so use the 5/10 rule for 3.5 and the all diagonals are 5 feet for 4e.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Jodokai wrote:
I wonder if this comes from a lack of trust in the GM?

The next question being, where does the lack of trust in the GM come from?


Jiggy wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
I wonder if this comes from a lack of trust in the GM?
The next question being, where does the lack of trust in the GM come from?

I would bet there is no one single source for this. But I will say I people not trusting the GM is nothing new. I saw it in the 80's, 90's and now. I saw a lot of games with different GMs and I do not really see much difference now except these kinds of forums allow us to vent to a much larger group of people.

As to listing the causes, I will leave that to people smarter then I am.


Jiggy wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
I wonder if this comes from a lack of trust in the GM?
The next question being, where does the lack of trust in the GM come from?

Because some GMs are untrustworthy?

How many of us have stories about bad GMs? You want to do something, something you built your character to do, and the GM says no for no reason. The GM says it's going to be a low magic game, so you have no magic characters, yet everything you encounter has magic. The GM's adventure is the worst railroad, and woe betide you if you try to jump off or do something that derails the ride.

It's why I prefer playing either behind the screen or with GMs I know I can trust.

251 to 300 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.