Name one Pathfinder rule or subsystem that you dislike, and say why:


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 1,707 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:
In any scenario other than extreme ineptitude, the cops would fire the moment the perp took a step in their direction. The in-game representation of that is a readied action which you can't do, at all, outside of active combat.

I don't agree that a readied action is the only representation of that situation.


Inefficiency of the alchemical item/poison subsytem. They don't fulfil the role they say they are intended for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:
Inefficiency of the alchemical item/poison subsytem. They don't fulfil the role they say they are intended for.

How about the nonmagical crafting system in general?


Crimeo wrote:
Diffan wrote:

Combat

I hate the full-attack action. With a blinding hot passion. I find it unfathomable that a highly trained warrior that can survive dragon fire, liches spells, takes on giants and trolls, and can be an overall awesome warrior cannot move and swing his weapon 2, 3, 4 times. Completely ridiculous.

Simply roleplay at your table that one attack is 2 or 3 swings. A full attack with "3 attacks" = 6-9 full flourishy combo

Its not just the narrative, its because it significantly reduces weapon-based characters usefulness.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I don't agree that a readied action is the only representation of that situation.

Please, enlighten me. What options do they have?

Scenario: two police, guns drawn on perp 30 feet away who has a knife and steps out of his square toward them meaning to attack them. Consider the perp wins initiative because he's clearly acting first (stepping out of his square).

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:
Please, enlighten me.

No, I think not. Nothing about your attitude suggests you are interested in anything I have to say. I've simply expressed my disagreement.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Please, enlighten me.
No, I think not. Nothing about your attitude suggests you are interested in anything I have to say. I've simply expressed my disagreement.

Mind explaining it to me? I'm curious about how you'd play this, since the 'hold action' rules only apply to combat.

Yeah, it's kind of silly how flat footed works, or at least how action triggers work. I think if something like being able to hold action out of combat (a pretty common houserule) were in effect, we wouldn't have someone being able to full attack before people who were completely prepared for it were being slashed to ribbons.


N. Jolly wrote:

Mind explaining it to me? I'm curious about how you'd play this, since the 'hold action' rules only apply to combat.

Yeah, it's kind of silly how flat footed works, or at least how action triggers work. I think if something like being able to hold action out of combat (a pretty common houserule) were in effect, we wouldn't have someone being able to full attack before people who were completely prepared for it were being slashed to ribbons.

This is what I'm saying. It's the one system in the game that infuriates me (obviously). Maybe the OP shouldn't have asked for things people hate. I do hate, nay, loathe, this particular set of mechanics.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I suppose cops, with their training, likely have Improved Initiative and a decent Dexterity score, whereas perps likely don't. And that's all I'm going to say on the matter.


Buri Reborn wrote:

Imagine you're talking to someone you strongly suspect of being a grade A bad guy. You're talking to him and sensing his motives and s&&%. You get the sense he's about to strike or act out violently. You can do NOTHING per RAW. You can't ready, you can't take immediate actions if he tries something... nothing. No, it's a dumb straight-jacket on common sense scenarios.

I disagree. Initiative is technically supposed to start when enemies become aware of one another, with a surprise round if only one is aware. If you walked into the scene knowing he was the BBEG and thus your enemy/a threat, then technically by rules I think you should have rolled initiative WAY back then.

If now, 50 rounds into initiative, he is still spending every single one of his turns talking, then to attack without issue, all you have to do at any point is just wait your turn during this (every 6 seconds of speech), and as long as he decided to spend his whole previous turn talking and not attacking, you can now decide to just shoot him or whatever, and you should just get to immediately since it's your turn.

I would not actually run the scene saying "okay your turn" "I listen" "Okay BBEG's turn. He says [blah, 6 seconds of speech]. Okay your turn" ... obviously. But by RAW, I'd say, if/when you actually want to act, you can assume that's been going on implicitly.


Crimeo wrote:

I disagree. Initiative is technically supposed to start when enemies become aware of one another, with a surprise round if only one is aware. If you walked into the scene knowing he was the BBEG and thus your enemy/a threat, then technically by rules I think you should have rolled initiative WAY back then.

If now, 50 rounds into initiative, he is still spending every single one of his turns talking, then to attack without issue, all you have to do at any point is just wait your turn during this (every 6 seconds of speech), and as long as he decided to spend his whole previous turn talking and not attacking, you can now decide to just shoot him or whatever, and you should just get to immediately since it's your turn.

I would not actually run the scene saying "okay your turn" "I listen" "Okay BBEG's turn. He says [blah, 6 seconds of speech]. Okay your turn" ... obviously. But by RAW, I'd say, if/when you actually want to act, you can assume that's been going on implicitly.

I wish it played out like that. It's hard to argue that you should be in initiative order when you're not actually in combat because:

CRB, Combat, Initiative wrote:
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check.

The retort I've heard basically comes down to "not making attacks, it's not battle" logic.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Doesn't matter. The luck of the initiative roll could give the perp a higher initiative. In no game system should that be allowed in that scenario. It makes zero sense. The entire transition from noncombat to combat makes zero sense in all but the most uncommon scenarios.
You're describing the classic gunslinger duel as making no sense. Which I don't see as being too different from your cop example.

In the classic gunslinger duel one of two things is occurring [assuming both participants are honest.]

Thing A: Combat Begins the instant it's time to draw and both roll initiative

Thing B: Combat Begins when the duel begins with each member readying an action to draw and shoot once it's time to draw.

In neither of these scenarios do we have someone who is prepared for combat but not engaged in it having their initiative beaten by someone who was comparatively unprepared.

Being able to randomly beat someone prepared with initiative from a state of unpreparedness is bad design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
"not making attacks, it's not battle"

This is dumb, but whatever, if so just at any random point interrupt your GM and say "Hold on. During this, I ready an action to shoot an arrow at the BBEG if he does anything whatsoever."

Three possibilities:

A) He says you can't do that because that's an action listed in the combat rules and it's not combat. To this you respond "Well if any action listed in the combat chapter means combat, then we are already in combat, since talking is listed as a free action in the combat chapter, and BBEG has been talking for 5 minutes." Proceed to my way of handling monologues in my previous post.

B) Readying is interpreted as not an attack action, and allowed to be done freeform. So the attack triggers just the next instant when he says his next word. Now this is the first event of combat. Stop and roll initiative. He wins initiative. So what? the trigger still must resolve before whatever triggered it, or your GM is very clearly breaking readied action rules. So your arrow still hits him right before his turn.

C) Readying an attack itself is interpreted as an attack. But since readying something is purely a mental activity, the BBEG doesn't know you're doing it. Thus, you are now aware of him as a combatant, and he isn't aware of you, so you get a surprise round unambiguously by RAW. And your action in that surprise is readying your attack. Again, that is going to trigger now before he does anything no matter what.

Edit: fourth one D) "Monologues are just an exception dammit, no attacking during monologues." Okay, now wait until the next time you need to get past an enemy defended bridge, and say "I begin a monologue which I maintain while walking slowly across the bridge until a mile away." Begin reading some longwinded, rambling, sarcastic monologue you prepared in the intervening time. Proceed to designing a character later who specializes as a combat monologue giver, with 20 constitution at character creation so that he can keep monologuing until everyone else passes out from exhaustion, then coup de grace them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This conversation reminds me of something


Crimeo wrote:
This is dumb...

Oh, do ever I agree. I tend to play with PFS GMs and got unanimously overruled when trying to actually talk it out. That doesn't make them right, per se. But, reading the RAW, their arguments actually have a leg to stand on. Maybe it's a PFS thing, but I've yet to have a GM or session where I could successfully argue it, with and without rules, with and without logic, at any point, ever, even with different gaming groups. There is no question that fuels my hatred of those mechanics.


Buri Reborn wrote:
My Self wrote:
I think that would count as having made your perception check to avoid a surprise round, as they're very clearly in front of you and still there.
Doesn't matter. The luck of the initiative roll could give the perp a higher initiative. In no game system should that be allowed in that scenario. It makes zero sense. The entire transition from noncombat to combat makes zero sense in all but the most uncommon scenarios.

Umm, yeah, in Champions if you go first, you go first. In Runequest, if you go first you go first. Of course in Champions/hero it more having higher stats, but still, altho you can say "I take out my gun and cover him" that would start combat and the guy with the faster speed would go first.

How else ya gonna do it? Whichever side or player talks first goes first?

And in PF if you have Combat reflexes or a few other things, you can still do some stuff before your Init.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
My Self wrote:
I think that would count as having made your perception check to avoid a surprise round, as they're very clearly in front of you and still there.
Doesn't matter. The luck of the initiative roll could give the perp a higher initiative. In no game system should that be allowed in that scenario. It makes zero sense. The entire transition from noncombat to combat makes zero sense in all but the most uncommon scenarios.

Umm, yeah, in Champions if you go first, you go first. In Runequest, if you go first you go first. Of course in Champions/hero it more having higher stats, but still, altho you can say "I take out my gun and cover him" that would start combat and the guy with the faster speed would go first.

How else ya gonna do it? Whichever side or player talks first goes first?

And in PF if you have Combat reflexes or a few other things, you can still do some stuff before your Init.

Technically in HERO you have the Abort to Hurry mechanic as well. Which changes up that do or don't wall if player desires.


Quote:
How else ya gonna do it? Whichever side or player talks first goes first?

Easy, two rules:

--------------------------------

1) If one guy knows an enemy is there (and that it IS an enemy) before the other one knows he is there (and that he IS an enemy), then the one with advance knowledge gets higher initiative.

2) If two or more people tie on the first rule, i.e., become aware of the presence of an enemy at the same time, then roll for order within that subset of people who tied.

--------------------------------

That's it. This is as soon as you realize your enemies' presence. Not only once attacks start occurring.

In this formulation, a gunslinger situation would likely only occur if neither person was sure the other was an enemy, until one decides he has made up his mind. If you like, you can roll bluff (bluffing that he hasn't made up his mind) vs. sense motive to determine whether the one acting gets initiative vs. if you roll for it. Still a huge advantage to the one who decides, because he get TWO chances to win the roll.

But there would be no situation under these rules where two people know for sure they are enemies, yet they delay, and also still get equal chances. If the BBEG knows I'm the enemy and vice versa, and decides to talk or stand there, then that = him giving up any chance at initiative, plain and simple. if he wanted tactical advantage, he shouldn't have started blathering.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Imagine you are a rebel soldier in the opening scene of Star Wars. You know you are about the be boarded. You have prepared an ambush at the breach point. You know they are about to blow the door. You are nervous, maybe you blink as you ready your weapon. You wonder when are they finally going to come? Suddenly the door explodes and you can't see through the smoke, and it take a few second to adjust. In that time you are flat-footed. Even though you knew they were coming, you didn't know exactly when they were coming, and the second or two that it takes you to react is your initiative roll.

Imagine you're talking to someone you strongly suspect of being a grade A bad guy. You're talking to him and sensing his motives and s*@*. You get the sense he's about to strike or act out violently. You can do NOTHING per RAW. You can't ready, you can't take immediate actions if he tries something... nothing. No, it's a dumb straight-jacket on common sense scenarios.

The real life analogy would be cops with weapons drawn taking down a suspect. Suspect draws a knife and charges. If it were Pathfinder, they'd be f!#&ed. At least one cop would have a mortal wound. What would really happen? We'd have another headline to read about and a couple cops get to go home to their families.

As much as this stinks you need to think of this from an IRL perspective. Him winning initiative means he is about to attack you, you sensing he will is your turn, if he actually attacks you within the next 6 seconds it means you sensed this too late, cops can and have been ambushed, the cops have not drawn yet because they did not perceive him to be a threat.(in fact the "weapons drawn" in your scenario should be the start of combat rounds, and not the moment the suspect is suspected of violence.)

This does not mean situations in your games are happening correctly in this situation, If you sense he will attack this should begin combat, however this does not mean your opponent should automatically attack you on his turn, however it does mean that if attacking you was his intention for this turn he will attack you... which also can technically be interpreted as the GM failing to ask for initiative last turn for the surprise round.

in other words, the logic is clunky, but it still works.


The mass combat rules. Because they don't feel like mass combat so much as each army oozes together to form Mecha-Shiva and they each go at it as massive single creatures. I get that they were trying to simplify and not have a role-playing game transform into a tabletop wargame, but it just doesn't feel like armies fighting. Just about to start module 5 of Kingmaker, and half my players are hardcore Warhammer fans, and I know they are going to be grinding their teeth over these mechanics.


Quote:
Him winning initiative means he is about to attack you

He just won an opportunity to attack you if so. Simply having an opportunity does not somehow rob you of free will and force you to do anything with it.

No character, PC or otherwise, is obligated to do anything at all in particular the turn after initiative. I could read the newspaper if I want on the first round of combat. And he could whip out a pipe.

Therefore how can the roll possibly be based causally on attacks? Things cannot cause things that happened before them. But it makes perfect sense suddenly, if the roll is instead based on mere recognition of threat. After which you can choose to use the opportunity won by your recognition or not, without contradiction.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
Him winning initiative means he is about to attack you

He just won an opportunity to attack you if so. Simply having an opportunity does not somehow rob you of free will and force you to do anything with it.

No character, PC or otherwise, is obligated to do anything at all in particular the turn after initiative. I could read the newspaper if I want on the first round of combat. And he could whip out a pipe.

Therefore how can the roll possibly be based causally on attacks? Things cannot cause things that happened before them. But it makes perfect sense suddenly, if the roll is instead based on mere recognition of threat. After which you can choose to use the opportunity won by your recognition or not, without contradiction.

read the entire explanation, the PC sensed he was going to attack because he was going to attack, that means he failed initiative but succeeded in preventing a surprise round, I just stated that the NPC actually attacking on his turn must then mean he intended to attack on that turn, if he did not, then he should still be talking throughout his turn, making it the players turn to draw and "ready"/attack, at which point the npc should definitely attack/draw/run.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Balgin wrote:

"Armour makes you harder to hit."

No it doesn't. Armour makes you harder to hurt. Armour should reduce damage. Not reduce the chance of taking damage at all in some all or nothing roll. Unfortunately it's so ingrained into the system that rejigging it would involve changing so many other things (like attack bonuses) that it would prove a plain nightmare.

As a system it works.

As a concept it's simply aberrant.

Actually, a lot of armor was angled so that blows that landed against it were deflected off. Armor, in truth, really never reduced damage a whole lot, it just kept glancing blows from doing any real harm. In that regard the armor system actually does make sense.


So then what happens if he wasn't going to attack, and the player rolls sense motive, muffs it horribly, and incorrectly thinks he is?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As far as it goes, I gather there an axiom for those trained in gun-fighting that, within a certain distance, a man with a knife will be able to choose and staff you before you can shoot him. So a criminal with a knife winning initiative and charging a cop isn't so unrealistic.


Alignment.

A moment of thought makes you realize that nothing about it makes any sense. You can sit and spend hours thinking about everything wrong with it, and as you ponder how to fix it, you slowly realize that the whole thing was just a mistake to begin with. Kind of like the Star Wars prequels.

Revan wrote:
As far as it goes, I gather there an axiom for those trained in gun-fighting that, within a certain distance, a man with a knife will be able to choose and staff you before you can shoot him. So a criminal with a knife winning initiative and charging a cop isn't so unrealistic.

I think the rule-of-thumb distance is 20 feet. If the attacker is within 20 feet, you will not be able to draw a pistol, rack the slide to chamber a round, and shoot before he's upon you. There are many other variables, of course: Keeping the chamber loaded and/or using a pistol without external safeties will obviously make the process go faster. Drawing from concealment, or from an enclosed retention holster will take longer than drawing from a more open tactical or competition holster. And that's to say nothing of the user-related variables (reaction time, training, hesitation, and so on).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Revan wrote:
As far as it goes, I gather there an axiom for those trained in gun-fighting that, within a certain distance, a man with a knife will be able to choose and staff you before you can shoot him. So a criminal with a knife winning initiative and charging a cop isn't so unrealistic.

That includes the time to unholster the weapon, which takes up almost all the time. If their gun is trained on the target, the perp should be able to make it a couple of steps at most. Here, the mythbusters did part of an episode on it. Note that Adam, someone who probably doesn't have self defense training with a firearm, took a while to unhoster, cock and fire his weapon on the first go and still managed to fire his weapon in about the time Jamie made it 30ft(surprise round charge speed). With the gun cocked, drawn, and leveled at the target, a charging knife wielder doesn't stand a chance.

On a less anecdotal note, a human being has a reaction speed of less than a third of a second. Shooting a gun takes a fraction of a second. Charging a target from 30ft away will take about half a round, or three seconds(assuming 30ft move speed). It is ridiculous that someone could ever manage to make it to a trained firearm wielder from 30ft away when the firearm wielder is prepared to fire, regardless of what the charger's initiative is.


Pathfinder is not a narrative game there are literally hundreds of rules that make little sense to the story, and the 3.5 minatures combat rules might be the most gamist section of rules there are. You have a full 6 seconds of actions, and then characters in the iniative slots below you act their entire turns.

It's an abstraction, but GMs should still allow the police the "ready action scenario" to fire some shots at a knife wielding man. The real issue you have is the rules deteining the beginning of combat that are not very strong and could use more detail. The police with guns drawn should get a surprise round on the perp, and the chance to ready actions - unless the perp was already aware of them, was never going to talk to them, and they decided to teleport inside his charge range instead of starting combat before they moved into range.


Quote:
Alignment.

Yes. Along with experience, this is the very top of the list of house rules I suggest to anybody I'm playing with, not even just my own games. Cut both out entirely.

Level up when the story naturally calls for it and save everybody arbitrary angst, alienation over level disparities, suspicions of favoritism, a whole lot of needless math, and all manner of nastiness by simply having no XP.

And by removing alignment entirely, make roleplaying way more intuitive and nuanced as long as you're not playing with 12 year olds hopped up on redbull.

It's surprisingly easy, even. All you really need to do is just say "Gods and mortals both still expect ethical behavior by their views, and may punish the opposite, but this judgment is simply subjective like in real life."

You can even still use smite evil. You're just allowed to use it on anybody, and you get punished variably based on just how ineptly you screwed it up if you smote some decent creature with like, no evidence or effort.


Oh god... Experience... I did leave that out of my list. Speaking of ridiculous gamist rules.

I don't have the biggest hate for alignment, but I do have detect/protect/smite/etc abilities. Alignment shouldn't have the cartoony presentation it is given in Pathfinder where good is flawless and evil cannot exist within a society without being deranged. Alignment is a quick way to guide role play loosely, but trying to give it mechanical implications ends up with Paladins making no sense in Golarion. You could literally Minority Report all crime in game, but the story always requires a massive network of bandits and thieves operating secretly when they can be spotted by a huge portion of PC classes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crimeo wrote:
So then what happens if he wasn't going to attack, and the player rolls sense motive, muffs it horribly, and incorrectly thinks he is?

"Tonight's top story, an adventurer cutting down an unarmed shopkeeper has sparked off a wave of protests across Magnimar. Local leaders of the NPC Lives Matter movement declared that..."

Scarab Sages

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Crimeo wrote:
So then what happens if he wasn't going to attack, and the player rolls sense motive, muffs it horribly, and incorrectly thinks he is?
"Tonight's top story, an adventurer cutting down an unarmed shopkeeper has sparked off a wave of protests across Magnimar. Local leaders of the NPC Lives Matter movement declared that..."

Nevermind that the "unarmed" shopkeeper was a monk/rogue and the leader of the local assassins guild...

Hmmm... Idea for a urban adventure forming...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Archetypes.

I hate the fact that so many of the best options for martials are hidden in the straight jacket Paizo calls archetypes. The first thing I did when putting together my house rules was strip all the best abilities out of the martial archetypes and make them available as either Rogue talents or Fighter-only feats.


the secret fire wrote:

Archetypes.

I hate the fact that so many of the best options for martials are hidden in the straight jacket Paizo calls archetypes. The first thing I did when putting together my house rules was strip all the best abilities out of the martial archetypes and make them available as either Rogue talents or Fighter-only feats.

I don't mind Archetypes so much, but - yeah - the fact that new mechanics that allow for some pretty cool things are locked behind them can kind of suck.

The Daring Infiltrator has a feature called "Silence is Golden" that would be a great Feat for many builds. Rather than make it a Feat, it is one of the "distinctive" class features of that archetype. So to use it on any other build requires house-ruling/GM fiat.

Archetypes are nice expansions on the vision of what a class is like, but it should be so restrictive. It should say: "This is what you can do in Pathfinder!", not: "Until Paizo designs it, you can't play it!"


hiiamtom wrote:

Oh god... Experience... I did leave that out of my list. Speaking of ridiculous gamist rules.

I don't have the biggest hate for alignment, but I do have detect/protect/smite/etc abilities. Alignment shouldn't have the cartoony presentation it is given in Pathfinder where good is flawless and evil cannot exist within a society without being deranged. Alignment is a quick way to guide role play loosely, but trying to give it mechanical implications ends up with Paladins making no sense in Golarion. You could literally Minority Report all crime in game, but the story always requires a massive network of bandits and thieves operating secretly when they can be spotted by a huge portion of PC classes.

Nondetection and misdirection aren't a thing now?

Also, unless it's a subtyped outsider, undead, or have a cleric aura, a creature with less than 5 HD cannot be detected, so your average bandit that is a level 3-4 Rogue cannot be detected so easily.

On top of that unless you're malignant from birth like Fiends, the change of alignment happens after some misdeeds, so Minority Report doesn't really apply


Bloodreader. Since HPs are an abstraction (and because I do fudge HPs when necessary - which, yes, I know some people strongly disagree with), I hate being pinned down by a spell or ability that would force me to disclose something as specific as "exactly how many hit points they have"!

I'm fine with something more general, like "terribly wounded" or "still over 50%".


Crimeo wrote:


This is dumb, but whatever, if so just at any random point interrupt your GM and say "Hold on. During this, I ready an action to shoot an arrow at the BBEG if he does anything whatsoever."

Three possibilities:

A) He says you can't do that because that's an action listed in the combat rules and it's not combat. To this you respond "Well if any action listed in the combat chapter means combat, then we are already in combat, since talking is listed as a free action in the combat chapter, and BBEG has been talking for 5 minutes." Proceed to my way of handling monologues in my previous post.

To which an educated GM would reply, "Sorry, but that's a poor interpretation of how the rules are written."

"Talk" appears in the combat action section, but is nowhere defined as being a combat action. It is merely an action that might be taken during combat (drawing a weapon or pulling out a potion are the same thing).

Readying an action is specified as being one of the "ways to change when you act during combat by altering your place in the initiative order." Additionally, "ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun." These are the straight rules. It doesn't have anything to do with Ready Action being in the combat section; it has to do with the rules for Ready Action specifying when and how they can be used.


the secret fire wrote:

Archetypes.

I hate the fact that so many of the best options for martials are hidden in the straight jacket Paizo calls archetypes. The first thing I did when putting together my house rules was strip all the best abilities out of the martial archetypes and make them available as either Rogue talents or Fighter-only feats.

I LOVE this idea!


Crimeo wrote:
So then what happens if he wasn't going to attack, and the player rolls sense motive, muffs it horribly, and incorrectly thinks he is?

That is why I included the option of "ready" after drawing your weapon... though going murder-hobo on a failed sense motive is rather par for the course in fantasy games/fiction in general.

as for what happens specifically, you roll initiative, one person wins, and if he wasn't going to attack you get first strike regardless.


HeHateMe wrote:
the secret fire wrote:

Archetypes.

I hate the fact that so many of the best options for martials are hidden in the straight jacket Paizo calls archetypes. The first thing I did when putting together my house rules was strip all the best abilities out of the martial archetypes and make them available as either Rogue talents or Fighter-only feats.

I LOVE this idea!

Even though I have misgivings about certain combinations with straight up feats, it would be far better if we could get at least most if not all of these martial class abilities on some kind of point system to mix and match beneficial and drawback features to create unique options, like the Race generator, rather than just having to either gestalt to taste or multiclass.


Entryhazard wrote:

Nondetection and misdirection aren't a thing now?

Also, unless it's a subtyped outsider, undead, or have a cleric aura, a creature with less than 5 HD cannot be detected, so your average bandit that is a level 3-4 Rogue cannot be detected so easily.

On top of that unless you're malignant from birth like Fiends, the change of alignment happens after some misdeeds, so Minority Report doesn't really apply

Not only is non-detection rarer, it's a higher cost with a gold coin cost on top of it. The system makes it harder to hide an evil alignment than detect or protect from it.

You are right about the 5HD, but this Golarion. There are thousands of evil NPCs with 5HD or more, and there are thousands of Paladins how can scan crowds of them easily. The levels of evil aura just makes it easier to separate leaders from the grunts.

And since Minority Report was based on thought crime, not people born evil or not, it definitely applies when a country can just round up all evil or good people. Why would Hell's Rebels not have the PCs squashed as soon as the Tyrant hears about some powerful good PCs? Because the plot would be boring, even if people generally use the most effective methods over the most cinematic.


I know it's already been said, but the poison rules...

Why so expensive? I mean, at one TENTH the cost they are still pretty pricy.

Also, the DCs aren't great.

I would LOVE to see rules on custom making poisons/increasing DCs etc.

You know, for research purposes. *tenting fingers*

Scarab Sages

Buri Reborn wrote:
My Self wrote:
I think that would count as having made your perception check to avoid a surprise round, as they're very clearly in front of you and still there.
Doesn't matter. The luck of the initiative roll could give the perp a higher initiative. In no game system should that be allowed in that scenario. It makes zero sense. The entire transition from noncombat to combat makes zero sense in all but the most uncommon scenarios.

Consider that barring specific training, someone can get 15-20 feet in the time it takes to aim and shoot. Already having the gun drawn and ready would make that less. I would say that a the training a police officer goes through would give them the use of the snap shot feat, and combat reflexes. When they were drawing and ready, they actually set up a Combat Patrol. Thus even if they lost initative, the movement of being rushed would have triggered an AoO, allowing them to shoot.

This situation works in the rules, you just need the appropriate feats.


The problem is that a lot of feats can be benefits tied in the BAB, not some option to have. Power Attack, Combat Expertise and much, much others I think are in this category.


Imbicatus wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
My Self wrote:
I think that would count as having made your perception check to avoid a surprise round, as they're very clearly in front of you and still there.
Doesn't matter. The luck of the initiative roll could give the perp a higher initiative. In no game system should that be allowed in that scenario. It makes zero sense. The entire transition from noncombat to combat makes zero sense in all but the most uncommon scenarios.

Consider that barring specific training, someone can get 15-20 feet in the time it takes to aim and shoot. Already having the gun drawn and ready would make that less. I would say that a the training a police officer goes through would give them the use of the snap shot feat, and combat reflexes. When they were drawing and ready, they actually set up a Combat Patrol. Thus even if they lost initative, the movement of being rushed would have triggered an AoO, allowing them to shoot.

This situation works in the rules, you just need the appropriate feats.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the moment the cops draw their weapons is the time initiative should be rolled, thus allowing them to "ready", the "weapons drawn" may not mean initiative in game, but if a cop draws their weapon, they are supposed to be ready to follow through on the threat implied by the weapon per their training... which is generally lethal force, essentially making that their "readied action".

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
My Self wrote:
I think that would count as having made your perception check to avoid a surprise round, as they're very clearly in front of you and still there.
Doesn't matter. The luck of the initiative roll could give the perp a higher initiative. In no game system should that be allowed in that scenario. It makes zero sense. The entire transition from noncombat to combat makes zero sense in all but the most uncommon scenarios.

Consider that barring specific training, someone can get 15-20 feet in the time it takes to aim and shoot. Already having the gun drawn and ready would make that less. I would say that a the training a police officer goes through would give them the use of the snap shot feat, and combat reflexes. When they were drawing and ready, they actually set up a Combat Patrol. Thus even if they lost initative, the movement of being rushed would have triggered an AoO, allowing them to shoot.

This situation works in the rules, you just need the appropriate feats.

People keep giving cops feats for this due to their training, but the amount of time needed in police academy is generally 6 months. It takes longer to become a massage therapist, so I don't know why people are giving them feats via training. They're warrior 1 at best, and that doesn't give any feats.

I do agree that the assertion of "weapons drawn is when initiative is rolled" would be the situation there, but it's still not a great system for how initiative is done.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The best cops are gunslingers and draw their weapon as they roll initiative.

451 to 500 of 1,707 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Name one Pathfinder rule or subsystem that you dislike, and say why: All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.