Pathfinder Rules You Don't Like

[blue_the_wolf]

I though I had posted here a few pages back but I guess this is a NEW "what you dont like post" so to throw in my biggest peeve...

I hate the flat footed in the first round rule. I think its stupid that I can be standing 60 feet from some one looking right at him, both of us have weapons drawn and know the other is hostile and yet he can charge that 60 feet and catch me flat footed. it doesn't make sense.

I only give the benefit of this rule during the surprise round or to rogues during the first round as most rogues cry nerf if i don't.

[Josh M.]

After playing PF last night, I can honestly say I'm done with it after this campaign ends. Kept running into changes in the CRB from 3.5e that were changed for no other reason than to say "we fixed this!" when the actual results are identical to before.

Just enough changes to make 3.5e conversion enough of a headache that every single PF DM we play under bans 3.5e books, rather than bothering with the power-level disparity or mechanics conflicts. Which, is awesome since 3.5e compatibility was PF's, ya know, major selling point when it became a ruleset 3 years ago(3.5 Thrives! My @$$). Had I known then that I would still not get to use my collection of 3.5e material and have to start over with all new books from square one, I would've either moved on to a different genre(Star Wars Saga Edition is a lot of fun) and/or gave up fantasy gaming altogether.

I am aware that my experiences with non-compatibility are purely anecdotal, and that many players out there have had no problems with it. My mileage has varied, drastically.

[Emmit Svenson]

johnlocke90 wrote:

Scythia wrote:

Threeshades wrote:

Pendagast wrote:

I dont like the rule that doesn't prevent guys from playing chicks.

Sounds like you had some bad experience. And I understand there are players like that, but there are also people who do an admirble job at playing a character of the opposite gender. Some are better at it than playing their own gender.

Gender being a social construct rather than a physical description, it could be quite insulting to try to dictate what kind of characters a person might be allowed to make under such a rule.

Gender is a physical description. In general, females produce eggs. Males produce sperm. There are exceptions(although rare in mammals), but gender is heavily used in science to describe things.

In contemporary usage, “sex” is commonly used to describe whether an animal is male or female (or whatever), and “gender” commonly used to describe whether a person identifies as masculine or feminine (or whatever).

This terminology is very useful to make distinctions in discussions of sexual identity.

It’s not wrong to use the terms interchangeably, but it is arguably less useful.

[TriOmegaZero]

Josh M. wrote:

I am aware that my experiences with non-compatibility are purely anecdotal, and that many players out there have had no problems with it. My mileage has varied, drastically.

If we're ever in the same town, I'll be your DM. ;)

[Josh M.]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

I am aware that my experiences with non-compatibility are purely anecdotal, and that many players out there have had no problems with it. My mileage has varied, drastically.

If we're ever in the same town, I'll be your DM. ;)

I appreciate the offer, but I've been using PF rules since Beta. I think by now I've given it a fair shake. I'm done.

[TriOmegaZero]

I wasn't offering to run PF.

[Josh M.]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I wasn't offering to run PF.

Alrighty then! Heck, I was all set to run a big, sandboxy 3.5 game until players in my group started passing their "we'll only play PF, not touching 3.5 again" mandate and shot my plans all to hell. I've got a veritable mountain of material I've barely touched.

The PF game I'm involved in, I plan on riding it out for a while, since there's a couple of good friends playing that I haven't gamed with since the 3.5/4e split 4 years ago. Maybe I'll change my mind down the road about PF, hard to say.

[TriOmegaZero]

Now we just need to collect a few more of the 3.5 hold-outs around here. :)

[The Saltmarsh 6]

When and where's the game I'm up for it

[Drejk]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Now we just need to collect a few more of the 3.5 hold-outs around here. :)

Then we might take them to re-education centers!

Spoiler:

And learn them how to play real RPGs instead of any of that obsolete (A)D&D, Pathfinder, d20 and their derivatives!

Spoiler:

:P

Spoiler:

3 yard radius, 5d damage Fire Cloud with Delay set to trigger upon reading.

[Gorbacz]

Nuke them from the orbit, only way to be sure.

[TOZ]

Great, DA was right about the FEMA camps.

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I realize now that I forgot the absolute most disliked rule that I have been hating on since pretty much forever:

Your ability in a skill is more influenced by your choice of class than it is by your investment in the skill and natural ability.

You want to be good at picking locks? Better be a rogue - then 1 rank gets you a +4 (or 4 ranks gets you a +4), while just about every other class gets a +1 for 1 rank (or a +2 for 4 ranks).

I think that if two characters have the same relevant Ability score and invest the same amount of their resources, they should have the same competence.

Sure, Rogues are supposed to have "good at skills" as the benefit of their class... but I think that more skill points than anyone else is enough a benefit and "oh, and also they don't have to spend as many points to get to a useful level of competence as everyone else does."

Yes, I completely hate class skills... I even hated it when it was non-weapon proficiencies with weighted costs so that a Warrior type would have less versatile options if he were to take a Rogue type proficiency - but at least back then you at least were as good at that proficiency as a Rogue would have been given that both had the same relevant Ability score.

[Josh M.]

Agreed, but I wasn't crazy about cross-class skills costing twice as much in 3.5 either. It'd be nice to find some sort of go-between, where actual proficiency in a skill isn't tied to class so strictly.

[Jiggy]

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

while just about every other class gets a +1 for 1 rank (or a +2 for 4 ranks).

That doesn't sound like a Pathfinder rule to me.

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Jiggy wrote:

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

while just about every other class gets a +1 for 1 rank (or a +2 for 4 ranks).

That doesn't sound like a Pathfinder rule to me.

Good, because it isn't - you must have missed the part of my post where I said I'd been hating on how skills worked "pretty much forever."

I meant pretty much forever - as in since there were such a thing as "skills" in fantasy RPGs.

[tonyz]

Minor silly inconveniences: needing a +1 BAB to draw a weapon during a move action. This affects some characters at 1st level, a very few multiclassers at 2nd ir 3rdlevel, and nobody else ever. Just cut it out....

[Jiggy]

tonyz wrote:

Minor silly inconveniences: needing a +1 BAB to draw a weapon during a move action. This affects some characters at 1st level, a very few multiclassers at 2nd ir 3rdlevel, and nobody else ever. Just cut it out....

Gotta agree with this. If I were running a home game, I'd probably waive every BAB+1 prereq.

[bugleyman]

tonyz wrote:

Minor silly inconveniences: needing a +1 BAB to draw a weapon during a move action. This affects some characters at 1st level, a very few multiclassers at 2nd ir 3rdlevel, and nobody else ever. Just cut it out....

Yup. Lots of little fiddly bits like that. Just not worth it, imo.

[Roberta Yang]

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

Sure, Rogues are supposed to have "good at skills" as the benefit of their class... but I think that more skill points than anyone else is enough a benefit

Yeah, Rogues in Pathfinder really have it too easy and have far too much going for them. If only a high-Int class like Wizards could literally do everything a Rogue can without even casting a spell, the game would be much better.

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Roberta Yang wrote:

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

Sure, Rogues are supposed to have "good at skills" as the benefit of their class... but I think that more skill points than anyone else is enough a benefit

Yeah, Rogues in Pathfinder really have it too easy and have far too much going for them. If only a high-Int class like Wizards could literally do everything a Rogue can without even casting a spell, the game would be much better.

In all fairness to myself, a pair of counter points:

1) Wizard spells that "do what [other class] can do" as their chief effect are the most boring, poorly thought out half of the magic system... which itself is somewhere on my list of dislikes.

I discount wizard's having a whole slew of prep-slots or scrolls dedicated to "I cast rogue" as quickly as I discount prestige classes... which is to say, no one I have ever met and gamed with even bothers with them.

2) I desire a system in which skill-related things are not one of the "balancing factors" between classes beyond that everyone has equal opportunity for a wide variety of them, and those classes that are supposed to be "especially skill heavy" get the skills they are expected to have on top of what everyone gets...

example being that any character has roughly equal chance to have been a locksmith and has equal chance at competence in the related skills... but a rogue happens to also get to be skilled at picking locks even if he was a farmer, rather than a locksmith.

Full disclosure: I rarely actually play Pathfinder these days, and instead favor a game where character classes have much more parity with each other because they are held equal in most regards like feats (there are none), skills (background occupation + some "freebies" depending on your class), and then are each given their own "thing" that sets them apart... and it is just that one "thing" from each class that needs to feel is balanced against other class options.

Warriors can perform any sort of maneuver or stunt while still devastating their opponents, Thieves are rewarded with guaranteed critical hits if they use stealth and planning, Clerics channel the powers granted them by their god all day every day (for any quantity of "day" that does not involve angering their god with abuse or misuse of power), and Wizards deal in dark, unpredictable magic that doesn't include any 'I cast Rogue' type spells.

As such, I frequently forget that others reading my posts will not necessarily know how things work in that game and therefor will not inherently be able to fill in the gaps between me saying what I don't like and what it is that I do like.

[Delthyn]

To be honest, I think that most everything that Pathfinder did was for the better. Nerfing a few spells was a great idea, but it could have been done better. Making the melee classes more powerful without making them superhuman (ala 4.0)was another thing I liked. The CMB is a great improvement over the draconian 3.5 rules. The combined skills are awesome.

The place where they went wrong though, imho, was making the numbers go up again. Although it is fun to roll 40d6, to yell "I shoot my crossbow at +41/+41/+41/+36/+31/+26 on attack!", etc., it gets really boring after a few sessions. The length of time it takes to resolve actions, the high hit points, etc., make for a very unwieldy feel.

This is why I detest 4 rules, combat took forever, even at 1st level. And I had a decent comprehension of the system, enough to be able to play through an encounter (which took a bloody hour) without having to look at anything but powers. All the numbers in 4 rules went up again.

To put it quite simply, Pathfinder should have made the system less high in numerical value, not to an AD&D extent, but at least reducing the 6 attacks and 40d6 syndrome.

[TriOmegaZero]

If I were a step-child I might be offended. :P

[Beckett]

No you wouldnt. :)

Sides, Im going to delete that as it comes of a bit mean.

[Pendagast]

I don't like that ALL full BAB classes get all martial weapons.

I think that should be a fighter schtick, maybe cavalier too.

Barbarian should pick three weapon groups, Paladin and Ranger maybe two or three.

Classes like magus should get to pick one or two weapon groups.

Weapon proficiency is handed out too freely, IMHO

[Drejk]

They should be bought for skill points!

[Pendagast]

Drejk wrote:

They should be bought for skill points!

well I like that, but the full BAB classes 'should' get some free groups, otherwise rogues and bards would have more weapon choice than fighters and rangers, and that would be a little weird.

[Aarontendo]

I love the mechanic in 4e where healing is more a percentage of total hit points, I'd love to see something like that when they do a major revision or new pathfinder

[Lazurin Arborlon]

This is going to sound silly, but I despise that it costs an action to open a door. You have no idea how often ths come up for some reason in our games.

[Tels]

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

This is going to sound silly, but I despise that it costs an action to open a door. You have no idea how often ths come up for some reason in our games.

It may be annoying, but time how long it takes for you to walk (briskly) 30 ft, and then open a door. If you can do it under 6 seconds, congrats! You're frickin' fast!

[Lazurin Arborlon]

Except that it takes nothing to close one...

[Mistah J]

I'm not really a fan of 'prohibited schools' for specialist wizards being more like 'worst subjects'.

I like the idea of actually giving up one school to be better in another. The two spell slot system really doesn't appeal to me.

[Ravingdork]

There are no more prohibited schools, not unless you are a Thassilonian specialist. There are only opposition schools, which are limited, not prohibited.

[Tels]

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

Except that it takes nothing to close one...

Action Types

Look under move actions, it takes a move action to open a door, and a move action to close a door.

[Atarlost]

Tels wrote:

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

This is going to sound silly, but I despise that it costs an action to open a door. You have no idea how often ths come up for some reason in our games.

It may be annoying, but time how long it takes for you to walk (briskly) 30 ft, and then open a door. If you can do it under 6 seconds, congrats! You're frickin' fast!

It may be movement rates that are inflated then because I know I can open and close a door more than twice in six seconds.

[Pendagast]

not and not get stuffed in the face by anything standing on the other side.

Most people dont open and close a door to see how fast they can do it. That would be focusing on that one task, putting aside all others, like not noticing the naked lady in the room, while dodging in and out of the door as fast as you can.

That isn't a really good pace of how doors would be normally passed through.

not to mention most modern doors are hollow core on flimsy hinges, were as doors in this genre would be 50-100 lb doors on iron hinges scraping on the stone floor, unless of course they were magical kirk swish swish doors?

[Roberta Yang]

Pendagast wrote:

Most people dont open and close a door to see how fast they can do it. That would be focusing on that one task, putting aside all others, like not noticing the naked lady in the room, while dodging in and out of the door as fast as you can.

If that's the level of concentration it takes for you to be able to open a door, walk through it, and close it within six seconds, then you might want to see a doctor.

[Pendagast]

he said MORE than TWICE in six seconds.

[blue_the_wolf]

Quote:

This is going to sound silly, but I despise that it costs an action to open a door. You have no idea how often ths come up for some reason in our games.

Agreed.

the fact that it takes a move to open or close a door basically means that from a starting position of standing next to the door you cannot open it, step through and close it in the time it takes to hustle 60 feet or RUN 120 feet (150 with feat)

I think it would be OK to say that opening or closing a door takes 10 feet of movement. or something.

but the entire move action is kind of silly.

to be honest almost everything about the move/standard action dynamic is generally pretty messy.

for example...

for a person with a move of 30 feet. moving 10 feet and opening the door takes as long as moving 30 feet and opening the door... why cant i move 10 feet open the door and move 20 more feet?

or

I can charge any distance from a minimum of 10 feet to a maximum of a double move... but for some reason i cant take a 5 foot step around a corner then charge any distance what-so-ever.

[blue_the_wolf]

Tels wrote:

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

Except that it takes nothing to close one...

Action Types

Look under move actions, it takes a move action to open a door, and a move action to close a door.

he knows Tels... which is exactly the point. IRL it does not take any time to close a door but in game action time it takes the same amount of effort/time as casting a spell, moving 30 feet, making an attack, etc.

[Werebat]

Pendagast wrote:

You don't have those experiences?

I once sat at the table at a convention with a half-ogre. I mean, seriously. Funny thing was, he ended up playing the pregenerated half-ogre barbarian. And he was perfect for it. Big guy, disheveled red hair, vacant stare, didn't seem to know what was going on around him. He mostly did whatever his buddy (also at the table) told him to do. He was big on making gutteral shouts and slapping his hands on the table announcing his intent to "smash" things.

After the event, we noticed his dice bag had been left behind, and picked it up (hoping to find him or bring it to an official lost and found). We DID find him, walking with his friend, and asked him if it was HIS dice bag. He did this amazing slack-jawed stare at his dice bag for an uncomfortable ten seconds or so before his buddy assured him that yes, it was his dice bag, and he should take it.

Amazing.