| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to open something for discussion: are there any silly, counter-intuitive, or just plain bland rulesets that you'd like to see reworked? Something you'd be interested in if, say, a third-party product or amateur "fix" came along to address the rule.
*wink*
I know the Craft rules get a lot of flack, but I'll give you another example:
The sundering / damaging objects rules. It is entirely possible (very easy, even) to sunder a worn headband or circlet (with a large axe or hammer, even) without harming the wearer. It is also harder to sunder a longbow with a dagger (or a sturdy pair of scissors; snip!) than it is with a flail.
Corner-cases? Probably! But if you had the chance to decide which rules got a little extra love, what rulesets would you single out as "wonky?"
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
I think one of the most silly and dysfunctional things is how accuracy rolls are separated from damage rolls. Say someone has an AC of 12 and I roll a 13. I just barely managed to land a hit on him... then I roll max damage. Even worse would be if I crit on 18-20 and roll an 18 against their AC of 17. The possibility of just barely managing to nick them... for max damage crit... doesn't jive with me.
That's why you have to confirm a critical hit with another t-h roll against that high AC. And there are not differing degrees of hitting with an attack, either you do or you don't.
-Inappropriately Sized Weapons
-Reach rules for small or smaller weapons
-Shields as weapons
-"Enlargement" bonuses (typed or untyped, do they stack, etc)
I think one of the most silly and dysfunctional things is how accuracy rolls are separated from damage rolls. Say someone has an AC of 12 and I roll a 13. I just barely managed to land a hit on him... then I roll max damage. Even worse would be if I crit on 18-20 and roll an 18 against their AC of 17. The possibility of just barely managing to nick them... for max damage crit... doesn't jive with me.
This reminds me that what's disfunctional for one player may accepted by another if you look at the issue from a different angle. For some, the magnitude of the initial success roll should be important (like in Rolemaster or Celtic Legends) and it does have some advantages to it. Others are more willing to let the success roll simply be binary and determine the variability of the injury with a follow-up damage role (like D&D, Call of Cthulhu, and Champions). This too, has advantages to it.
In the former system, hitting an AC of 12 with a 13 truly is barely a hit. In the latter system, hitting an AC of 12 with any roll is barely a hit if minimum damage is rolled with the damage roll.
Eridan, what sort of rules and capabilities would you prefer to see with regards to "shields as weapons?"
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that an invisible, completely undetected creature can flank, and an illusion (that you fail the save for and absolutely believe is real) cannot flank.
(i know about threatening illusion feat, but just the fact that this can happen bugs me)
Rule clarifications for
- Two Shield Fighting
- Two Handed Shield fighting
- Rules for enchanting a shield as weapon and armor with spike and without spikes
These things are often discussed on the boards but maybe this is more for a FAQ.
|
Just a note: Spes Magna already did a very good job on fixing the craft rules.
My challenge: encumbrance and money. Can you come up with a fast, low-bureaucracy encumbrance system? Something that doesn't take a lot of work to execute?
And the other one: money. How much is a gold piece worth? Are any of the prices for goods consistent with each other? Is the amount of money you make with Profession/Craft in any way reasonable compared to the cost of living?
Another one: skinning dead beasts. How much is the pelt of a manticore worth? Can you sell a dead naga to a Potion-brewer? For how much? Just because it's not dangerous doesn't mean it's not rare and valuable; a small frog might be very potent alchemically...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, Spes Magna's Making Craft Work fixes the crafting rules pretty well as is.
I don't know if it qualifies as a "broken" or dysfunctional rule, but let's say I would like to run a campaign where the STR bonus to damage (and the extra damage from Power Attack, etc.) is NOT multiplied by 1.5 when wielding a two-handed weapon.
Yep, Spes Magna's Making Craft Work fixes the crafting rules pretty well as is.
Need to add that to my collection. Thanks for reminding me about it.
|
|
Yep, Spes Magna's Making Craft Work fixes the crafting rules pretty well as is.Need to add that to my collection. Thanks for reminding me about it.
It does exactly what it promises. A dollar well spent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see perception reworked to better define searching and passive. Also a higher score in some skills increases speed. Ex. You can only climb at 1/4th your speed even with a +40 to climb. Maybe beating the check by 5 or more gives you half your speed. Better falling rules would be nice.
It has always bugged me that so much of damage is dependent on bonus damage. At higher levels you roll 1d8+45. Your d8 roll really doesn't matter at that point, maybe rolling below half on a damage roll also cuts your bonus damage in half.
Poisons have bugged me as well, I've seen some good poison rework rules though, also I would love to see some magic reworks that give lower level spell caters to cast spells above their level with rituals. Like you can cast spells one level higher of you do studying and a ritual of ten or twenty minutes per standard action that it would normally take
I don't know if it qualifies as a "broken" or dysfunctional rule, but let's say I would like to run a campaign where the STR bonus to damage (and the extra damage from Power Attack, etc.) is NOT multiplied by 1.5 when wielding a two-handed weapon.
Then why would you wield a Two Handed weapon?
I would like to see perception reworked to better define searching and passive. Also a higher score in some skills increases speed. Ex. You can only climb at 1/4th your speed even with a +40 to climb. Maybe beating the check by 5 or more gives you half your speed. Better falling rules would be nice.
have you read the climb skill? it lets you do exactly that
look at the part about accelerated climbing.
Hmmm. In what way are people unhappy with falling?
And ... I think I just got an idea regarding poisons. Hmmmmm, now that's interesting.
Then why would you wield a Two Handed weapon?I don't know if it qualifies as a "broken" or dysfunctional rule, but let's say I would like to run a campaign where the STR bonus to damage (and the extra damage from Power Attack, etc.) is NOT multiplied by 1.5 when wielding a two-handed weapon.
I can't speak for Mahtobedis, but 1.5x Strength bonus, I think, skews too far when you move up the strength bonus. And it doesn't provide any help for characters whose strength is average or below. I would consider a flat bonus of +2 damage pretty good. All strength levels can get it (for low strength, it would offset the strength penalty) and it would reduce the tendency for two-handed weapons to be a dominating strategy.
Ah sorry, bad example then. Its been a while since I glanced at climb. That was my major complaint. Also I would define when you can and can't take ten. Personally I think taking ten on knowledge is silly but others don't.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of these things have been done already though. The "Rogue Glory" book does a good job on fixing stealth and rogues.
What I'm still looking for though is new Summon Monster tables. Maybe with themed lists ("elemental", "cthulhoid", "evil", "fey", "borg")?
The current lists are based on only Bestiary I. While it's not kosher in power-level terms to have total freedom, we're just leaving cool stuff off the table here. Some excellent new monsters (outsiders and other) have been published that could replace the Entropic Orca...
Another peeve of mine is that Sacred Summons isn't very fair towards the Neutral alignments; there's no Chaotic Neutral creature anywhere on that list. Obviously the Bestiary 1 had no convenient CN outsiders, but a 3PP product could fix that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The silliest and most dysfunctional rule I've come across is RAW trumps RAI
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then why would you wield a Two Handed weapon?I don't know if it qualifies as a "broken" or dysfunctional rule, but let's say I would like to run a campaign where the STR bonus to damage (and the extra damage from Power Attack, etc.) is NOT multiplied by 1.5 when wielding a two-handed weapon.
I can't speak for Mahtobedis, but 1.5x Strength bonus, I think, skews too far when you move up the strength bonus. And it doesn't provide any help for characters whose strength is average or below. I would consider a flat bonus of +2 damage pretty good. All strength levels can get it (for low strength, it would offset the strength penalty) and it would reduce the tendency for two-handed weapons to be a dominating strategy.
Without incentive, everyone will just use a shield. A flat +2 bonus might seem attractive at extremely low levels but at higher levels folks will just go 1h/shield and be done with it.
at 8-10 and above (maybe sooner), +2 damage is just not gonna do it.
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The silliest and most dysfunctional rule I've come across is RAW trumps RAI
Sez who?
Rules for Double-shield wielding belong in a Toon supplement.
I would give an alternative to perception for spotting enemies for combat, similar to the Sense Motive alternative for feints. It would be something like BAB+Wisdom bonus or Character Level+Wisdom bonus if it is higher than your perception skill. This would mean that not having perception doesn't screw over the character.
I still don't like that invisibility is a +20 stealth for a level 2 spell. It is out of line with spells of similar level(Glibness is a level 3 bard spell for example), and it basically makes a level 3 wizard better than a level 10 rogue at sneaking. When they merged hide and move silently into stealth, they should have cut the bonus for being invisible in half.
This is true, PCs moving other PCs. A reposition is very powerful on an ally if they are in a bad spot. Also, how we okay in our campaign, invisibility only gives +4, what's the difference between standing behind a giant wall and being invisible if the enemy doesn't know you're there? Nothing other than being invisible gives you an arbitrary buff
I'd like to open something for discussion: are there any silly, counter-intuitive, or just plain bland rulesets that you'd like to see reworked? Something you'd be interested in if, say, a third-party product or amateur "fix" came along to address the rule.
*wink*
I know the Craft rules get a lot of flack, but I'll give you another example:
The sundering / damaging objects rules. It is entirely possible (very easy, even) to sunder a worn headband or circlet (with a large axe or hammer, even) without harming the wearer. It is also harder to sunder a longbow with a dagger (or a sturdy pair of scissors; snip!) than it is with a flail.
Corner-cases? Probably! But if you had the chance to decide which rules got a little extra love, what rulesets would you single out as "wonky?"
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
:) Quite clever.....and almost subtle.
The silliest and most dysfunctional rule I've come across is RAW trumps RAISez who?
Rules for Double-shield wielding belong in a Toon supplement.
That's my point, RAW allows it but it's silly and not really what was intended with the rules around allowing a shield to be used as a weapon.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I figured Shield hate would creep in here.
Shield hate is silly, and infuriates me.
For some, if that shield is not some kind of crippling weight around your leg, then it is all wrong, and you are a bad person.
Oh, and there is a real world two-shield fighting style, from Africa.
I love shields, and one of my favorite heroes, Captain America, fights with one.
Hate shields, and hate America.
To me the whole way movement is done and attacks of opportunity get fubared.
If I run in a straight line in a diagonal its not the same as running in a cardinal direction. This gets annoying to measure and doesn't make sense.
Well, the diagonals physically cover more distance. I don't see the problem here. If you actually chart at the distance on a grid, it comes out to roughly a circle of distance you can move.
Illusions of the [shadow] subschool, with their percental reality.
Dual Wielding Shields would best fit in with a build ignoring Shield Bash or Facing Rules with the Shield Add-On.
Facing and Hex-Map combat rules covered in detail is actually something I am working on covering in detail. Alongside clearing up some of the Variant Rules already in PFRPG.
BTW: Shield and Weapon is superior to 2H fighting IRL. There is a reason why the Sword/Spear and Shield were more common.
Sword/board is better IRL because getting cut repeatedly actually makes you weaker in combat instead of being as strong at full as you are unconscious+1.
Changing -that- is going to require a complete revamp of the entire HP system.
But until it Is revamped, just neutering the damage of 2h isn't going to make sword/board better- its just going to be neutering damage overall.
Personally I prefer the model of "use a shield for more defense, use a 2h'er for more offense".
-S
...
Knowledge skills.Identifying spells with Spellcraft.
...
Same here, I just dropped out Spellcraft with Knw. Arcana or Religion depending on spell type, if it's in the other type you can roll at +5 DC. I also allow Use Magical Device rolls and Languages rolls at +10 DC.
Not exactly. The highest development of melee infantry was pikes wielded two handed. The last melee counter to pikes was the greatsword, not anything involving a shield and polearms lasted into the gunpowder era. Sabers and related one handed swords remained in use by cavalry and in boarding actions, but not with shields. Short swords came back in WWI as trench knives, but not shields. And pretty much no shield that wasn't a tower shield was ever dominant for infantry. The Greeks used tower shields. The Romans used tower shields. The large round shields used by the Saxons were functionally tower shields.
Well, the Spanish sword and bucker man was designed to defeat pikes, and it did. I wouldn't call the Roman shield aka Scuta a Tower shield, but it's close. A Scuta is only about meter high, one surviving example is 42". A Tower is "nearly as tall as you are". The average Roman legionnaire was maybe 66": (5'6") so a true tower for him would be at least 54".
The large round shields used by Saxons were barely Large shields, most would be a medium shield. I know, I am a SCA heavy weapons fighter and specialized in Anglo-Saxon weapons. I am looking at one now. Per "The Anglo-Saxon Thegn" from Osprey, the ones we have found are 18" to 30" in diameter.
They are right that for 4000 years or more sword (more likely spear) and board was the top style. Pikes lost to the Romans, pikes only came back due to Superheavy Cavalry, aka Knights on Destriers. This was a rather brief period, from 1100 to 1400.
And see that's the problem with two shield wielding. I have wielded both a heavy and a medium shield. Heavy's protect your body from knees to shoulder, from shoulder to shoulder. What would be the use of two? They would only cover the same area twice, which is no good. And, you really can't punch well with them, but they are excellent for bull rushes.
Now, yes, you can get a darn good hit with the edge of a medium. And since one of them only covers shoulder to gut, the other could cover gut to knees. But you'd look like a fan dancer. And would be about as useful in battle.
There may well have been isolated instances of some style using two shields. But not in any army that ever marched. Even the Romans who had weird styles in the arena never did dual shield.
That being said, there have been styles that look a look like double-weapon, dual buckler, so that's not silly. I saw a guy duel with twin main-gauche, which are basically a long dagger combined with a buckler, so yes, it can be done. (he lost, poor reach, but it did look cool)
But dual mediums or heavies is not only not reality it's not fantasy either.
Mind you, nothing wrong with a little silliness now and then, it's certainly not "badwrongfun". But we don't need a codified set of rules for it. Just talk with your DM and wing it. Have fun.
Environment rules.
@Atarlost: Actually I have done research numerously on this. The Pike was effective because it allowed them to hold back the enemy at a distance.
The fact is a Tower Shield goes from Mid-Calf to Above Eye Level. The Praetorian Guard used Tower Shields. Your standard Legionary used what is closer to a Heavy Shield.
And saying the Circular Greek Shield is a Tower Shield is Asinine in Pathfinder as you can't shield bash with it. And even saying it is that in real life is asinine as in reality the shield protected less than a Roman Shield when you look height-wise. The reason was the Shield was designed to provide defense to the Hoplite to your Left.
IN FACT: The Hoplite main weapon was their Shield not their Spear! Hence, the common idiom of "Come back carrying your shield or carried on it!" The Roman Legions were trained to alternate between a Shield Bash, stepping up, and then stabbing with their Gladius. So really they TWF with the Shield as their Main-Hand Weapon and the Gladius as their Off-Hand. They would have the Shield Slam Feat.
EDIT: A Heavy Cavalry Soldier was commonly referred to as Cataphract. Which is also why early WWI/WWII Armoured Units(Tanks, Armoured Cars, and some Armoured Infantry) were referred to as Cataphract Troops.
EDIT2: There was a Roman Gladiator who was promoted to the Praetorian Guard who was famed for fighting with 2 Shields and was used to fighting against multiple foes. That is why I mentioned the Facing System with Shields only protecting a small section. Now this Gladiator also used 2 different shields. It should also be noted that he was an Eastern Man who fought alongside an African Slave who used a somewhat similar configuration. Until his foe was on the ground then he would switch to Pugilism with Twin Cestus.
I agree. Though they have gone against legacy on at least multiple occasions.
The question is, how many of these really need a book for them? You don't need a book to say "Shadow Evocations now have a 20% chance of being real even if they don't do damage." You don't even need a paragraph for that.
Alternate summoning lists, new environmental rules -- now that's something a third-party publisher can write and get paid for.
I dislike how Paizo rules differently than 3.5 regarding reach attacking two diagonals away.Ewwwwwww, I hadn't even realized they screwed that up.
Another one for the houserules I suppose.
I just keep forgetting it exists at all, and just rule as I'm used to.