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.
That is when you end up with a 3PP Book akin to 3.5's Unearthed Arcana.
Actually the Hoplite's usage is better represented through this feat. The amount of defense is minor not enough to amount to Cover.
Actually there is a Rules interaction that does prevent that. Though Paizo might not have carried that Errata over into Pathfinder from 3.5...
To the folks talking about "environmental rules," which areas come to mind? Are there existing rules that you consider wonky? Are there any specific environmental factors that you'd like to see new rules for?
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW: Dead condition doesn't stop any actions. You just can't receive normal or magical healing. Completely nonsensical. You can die, get up, and keep adventuring.
Congratulations, you've failed a Turing test. :)
Congratulations, you've failed a Turing test. :)Hey, he asked for nonsensical rules, not if we actually used them :P I'd never allow it in one of my games but by raw what I said is 100% true.
I dig.
But if they ever actually wasted the ink in a rulebook on "a dead creature takes no actions" I think that would be crossing a point of no return.
In a sense, rules like that actually represent the last redoubt of GM authority.
Actually came across a thread advising to use it yesterday cause a girls GM (her BF) was being a dick and requiring a wisdom check and concentration check to cast featherfall while falling (despite JJ's post saying that the RAW was not intended for a concentration check and there is no basis for the wisdom)
It ended up killing her, and the GM said JJ had no basis, so she was advised to show him the raw for the dead condition :P
I respect James' opinion on the rules, but I actually am OK with a GM reading the rules as requiring a concentration check. Vigorous motion and whatnot. Even with the check (which is often very doable as a 1st level spell...) featherfall is a phenomenal spell.
The rules are ambiguous enough in that case that you should do as the GM says during the game and take it up with her later if you are upset. That's actually always a good idea; escalating pedantry doesn't usually solve table disputes.
The concentration check becomes doable. But it's a first level spell, and if you get it at first level, you're going to find it really hard to use on yourself if the GM requires you to make the concentration check. You're aiming for a DC of 21 and you're going to have ... what? +1 from caster level, +5 from stats if you're in a game where you rolled well or had a generous point buy and could afford to optimize your casting stat. Maybe even +4 for the feat and +2 from a trait. So a reasonably optimized character's +12 can allow him to use it on himself successfully 60% of the time. That low, under pretty much ideal circumstances.
Spells that are extremely narrow should be really rather good at what they do, and while I may not allow an extremely narrow attack spell to hit automatically, I think I have a little mercy when it comes to a spell that prevents you from receiving up to 20d6 damage anywhere between level 20 and level 1.
I actually don't require a concentration check for featherfall when I am GMing. All I said was that it seemed a reasonable enough interpretation of the RAW to me. Party on dudes.
Nobody is arguing that it's a good idea or that it didn't go badly wrong, just that we can see why he did it that way. I think the concentration check qualifies as an interpretation that's not very fun and killed somebody, not a house rule.
Right on Mort, either way I'm done with the derail, sorry!
|
The uselessness of half plate bugs me, and I think the change in wild shape from 3.5 makes the ability worthless (not that the 3.5 version was good, I would have preferred a little text block in each animal description telling you what you get for that animal. That way when new animals are introduced, nea abilities like hippo's sweat are available)
How is Wild Shape worthless?
That's a really good way to flavor it. Crafting magical weapons certainly does fit well with dwarves - its something they can just do in Tolkien and even in Norse myth.
Or blacksmiths in Celtic myth. Working iron was considered pretty arcane and powerful compared to bronze. One of the many reasons I have absolutely no problem with magic items being able to be created off of craft skills.
A silly rule: A flying character is 10' over the head of an enemy firing down at the top of his head. By the rules there's no penalty to attack because of the reduced profile, he's got just as easy of a time hitting as the archer standing 10 feet to the left of the enemy.
That enemy gets tripped, he's now flat on his back and should be providing a larger target area to the flying archer, the enemy now gets a +4 AC because he's prone.
Environment rules.
I agree on this one. The weather/temperature rules need an in depth re-work to make sense. i know heat or cold can be deadly but the rules for them are outright insane, I should of died in the air force solely because it was 120 outside. hell I've worked in 140 before, sure it sucked but i wouldn't say i started taking lethal damage from it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another silly rule, the ability check combined with the swingyness of the d20.
Hercules the Barbarian with 20 Strength flies into a rage (STR 24) tries to break down a locked good wooden door (DC 18), he rolls a 10 for a total of 17, he fails to knock down the door.
Poindexter the wizard with 8 STR tells him to stand aside, he strolls up to the door and rolls a 19, the door splinters under his mighty push.
Everyone points and laughs at Hercules.
It is also harder to sunder a longbow with a dagger (or a sturdy pair of scissors; snip!) than it is with a flail.
Actually, this makes sense.
You seem to be thinking: "Well, I guess the easiest way to destroy a bow would be to cut the bow string. So, given that I'm trying to cut the bow string, with which weapon is that easier to accomplish - the dagger, or the flail? Obviously the dagger!"
But that's not the right way to look at it. You shouldn't first decide that you'll proceed by attacking the bow string, and then argue that it should be as easy, or easier, to do it with the dagger.
Don't assume that attacking the bow string is the way to go. Given only that you're trying to destroy the bow string, what's easier to do it with - the dagger or the flail? Well, sure, you could use the dagger, and try to get in close to the archer, past their defenses, and snip the string... or you could swing your flail, and just smash the bow itself. The latter might well have a higher overall chance of success.
After all, the sunder combat maneuver is meant to describe an attempt to destroy an opponent's worn or wielded item, in the middle of combat! While they're dodging your attacks, trying to prevent you from sundering the item.
If the bow's just sitting there on your table, a sunder combat maneuver is not the resolution mechanic you'd use; that's what break DCs are for. (And if the bow is unattended and you have a dagger or scissors or whatever, most GMs would just let you autosucceed.)
Detect magic as a cantrip which you can just spam endlessly is annoying.
Magical traps, magically hidden secret doors, illusions, magical disguises and hidden magical items become detectable at will at any level with little effort and at no cost.
I don't have a problem with that, the ability to "see" magic is quite common in fantasy fiction.
I have a bigger problem with Acid Splash and the others that allow unending ability to do damage.
Halfling slings- 1d8+str x3crit. (go Tasslehoff)
I liked the whole "lift with the legs not the back" comment. And I could see a weak Hunter besting a Warrior though not the Tusken Raider Laugh or the chucking but maybe raising a Portcullis or dislodging a gate. That is if they happened to move it just right.
Detect magic as a cantrip which you can just spam endlessly is annoying.
Magical traps, magically hidden secret doors, illusions, magical disguises and hidden magical items become detectable at will at any level with little effort and at no cost.
In my campaign, actively detecting magic just gives you a +5 on perception checks to notice magic traps and invisible creatures. Even so, you need the full 3 rounds/18 seconds to get that bonus, which means that if you're sweeping the whole dungeon that way you are going very slowly indeed.
In my campaign, actively detecting magic just gives you a +5 on perception checks to notice magic traps and invisible creatures. Even so, you need the full 3 rounds/18 seconds to get that bonus, which means that if you're sweeping the whole dungeon that way you are going very slowly indeed.Detect magic as a cantrip which you can just spam endlessly is annoying.
Magical traps, magically hidden secret doors, illusions, magical disguises and hidden magical items become detectable at will at any level with little effort and at no cost.
I just litter the dungeon with false positives and use lead or thick walls to block parts of it. The people designing he dungeon obviously know about that little detect magic trick.
Player: Hey I found something. I go check it out.
DM: While walking over to check out the ring with magic aura on it, you step past the end of the wall, and the fireball trap that was around the corner goes off...
In my campaign, actively detecting magic just gives you a +5 on perception checks to notice magic traps and invisible creatures. Even so, you need the full 3 rounds/18 seconds to get that bonus, which means that if you're sweeping the whole dungeon that way you are going very slowly indeed.Detect magic as a cantrip which you can just spam endlessly is annoying.
Magical traps, magically hidden secret doors, illusions, magical disguises and hidden magical items become detectable at will at any level with little effort and at no cost.
So then let me ask you this, - if the players then walk by the critical hidden macguffin, do you just declare the campaign over?
I just litter the dungeon with false positives and use lead or thick walls to block parts of it. The people designing he dungeon obviously know about that little detect magic trick.
Player: Hey I found something. I go check it out.
DM: While walking over to check out the ring with magic aura on it, you step past the end of the wall, and the fireball trap that was around the corner goes off...
The PC would have spotted the trap TRIGGER. You can't have them triggering a trap that they can’t spot the trigger of. That’s not how Trapfinding/Perception works. If the trap is a fireball wand 200 feet away, the rogue will spot the trigger for that wand 5’ away.
Thus your idea doesn’t work.
So then let me ask you this, - if the players then walk by the critical hidden macguffin, do you just declare the campaign over?
Why would the critical macguffin be hidden without additional clues or backup ways to find it, rendering the campaign vulnerable to the players missing it?!?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got rid of spammable spell entirely, just too moronic IMO.
So 0 level spells are 3/day + casting stat modifier in uses - you get to cast anything you want from your orison or cantrip list without prep long as you do not go over the limit. makes them utility spells and you get to see more of them put into play.
Also removed mending (and a few others) from the 0 list. Works good so far.
I still find it funny that in most Legends the Critical Macguffin was usually a Missable Artifact.
What if the Fireball Traps trigger was breaking a significant portion of the Hall from the ends. So maybe a Medium Creature will set it off but not a Halfling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So then let me ask you this, - if the players then walk by the critical hidden macguffin, do you just declare the campaign over?In my campaign, actively detecting magic just gives you a +5 on perception checks to notice magic traps and invisible creatures. Even so, you need the full 3 rounds/18 seconds to get that bonus, which means that if you're sweeping the whole dungeon that way you are going very slowly indeed.Detect magic as a cantrip which you can just spam endlessly is annoying.
Magical traps, magically hidden secret doors, illusions, magical disguises and hidden magical items become detectable at will at any level with little effort and at no cost.
If I was relying on a player to cast Detect Magic in a timely fashion to find a critical hidden macguffin, I was already screwed. Let's not forget that detect magic is not only easily foiled through mundane means (such as a metal chest), but easily foiled through magical means as well.
The +5 perception method is my way of acknowledging that someone who makes a magic trap probably takes a minimum of effort to conceal it with those mundane and magical means.