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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

501 to 550 of 1,707 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

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.

Police officers are not minimum 6th level and they have not spent a minimum of 7 feats on AoO and ranged stuff. A 6th level human fighter only gets 8 feats. Considering that most police officers in the US don't exactly get a lot of training with firearms or a lot of practice once they finish training, this is patently ridiculous.

I would expect that almost anyone who knows how to pull the trigger on a gun and is cool headed enough to not panic at a screaming knife wielding maniac could shoot someone given even a second, no matter how quick the reactions of the knife wielder are. This is not handled by the system.

EDIT:

hiiamtom wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:

...

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.
...

This has to stop.

Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos has a HD restriction on what it can detect.

See Alignment has no such caveat, clearly and unambiguously lights up any creature with a particular alignment, and can be done by a 1st level wizard. Three castings will let you determine if a creature is evil, and if it is you will also know where it sits on the law/chaos scale.

So yes, it is entirely possible to suss out an evil group consisting mostly of low level members with a 1st level spell, and you can even guess vaguely how it will operate based on the spread across the law-chaos scale - mafia style groups will probably have largely LE members, while cutthroat street gangs will be more on the CE side. In any case, being determined as evil is most certainly doable, regardless of level.


i agree - drawing the weapon is the rolling initiative action - because whoever is being drawn on, has the fight or flight instinct at that point.
"can i bull rush them before they get their weapon out?"

you roll initiative then.

If Cop wins initiative, the gun is drawn as part of a move action and he readies an action to shoot if the Perp 'actively disobey's the cop's verbal commands' (that way Cop doesn't shoot the perp for doing absolutely nothing) as a standard action. He then gives those verbal commands as free action.

If Perp wins initiative, he can either charge the cop before the gun is drawn, or he could put his hands up in the air as a show of surrender, or ready an action of his own (e.g. "if the cop fires his gun at me, i will jump 5' sideways and continue to run away in a zig-zag path" - this will result in the cop missing his first shot if he fires, and then likely taking range increment penalties in subsequent rounds as the perp runs away)

A proper standoff would occur if both parties use the "ready an action" action on their turn.


alexd1976 wrote:

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.

In early editions of D&D, poison was a one-shot encounter ender. Sure, it either worked or it didn't (Save vs. Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic), but when they worked, the encounter was done. They were relatively cheap and also easily harvested from monsters with poison (killing scorpions or wyverns, etc., gave you tools to end several of your next encounters).

My guess is that somewhere along the way, probably starting in the 3.x versions and getting even worse with Pathfinder, the various developers decided to make it more expensive and harder to obtain poisons, included risks that you poison yourself unless you had one specific class feature that only appears on a couple classes, and limited the effects to make it harder to end encounters with a single hit with a poisoned weapon.

The result is what you describe - worthless poisons that are ridiculously overpriced.

Now they really only serve as debuffs for monsters, with possible long-term consequences at low level (well, Dave, your fighter is going to have to deal with that big penalty on his Constitution for many days since you only get back one point each night) or resource drain at higher level (consuming Restoration spells to recover instantly).


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.

As an alternate idea inspired by this, what if you can freely sub out any class feature for the equivalent archetype feature.

Basically, every class gets Qinggong Monk.


DM_Blake wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

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.

In early editions of D&D, poison was a one-shot encounter ender. Sure, it either worked or it didn't (Save vs. Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic), but when they worked, the encounter was done. They were relatively cheap and also easily harvested from monsters with poison (killing scorpions or wyverns, etc., gave you tools to end several of your next encounters).

My guess is that somewhere along the way, probably starting in the 3.x versions and getting even worse with Pathfinder, the various developers decided to make it more expensive and harder to obtain poisons, included risks that you poison yourself unless you had one specific class feature that only appears on a couple classes, and limited the effects to make it harder to end encounters with a single hit with a poisoned weapon.

The result is what you describe - worthless poisons that are ridiculously overpriced.

Now they really only serve as debuffs for monsters, with possible long-term consequences at low level (well, Dave, your fighter is going to have to deal with that big penalty on his Constitution for many days since you only get back one point each night) or resource drain at higher level (consuming Restoration spells to recover instantly).

Even when it was save or die, we STILL rarely used them... I guess if it gets too accessible, it could muck things up but still... I see it as a martial boost, and they need boosting. :D


JAMRenaissance 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.

As an alternate idea inspired by this, what if you can freely sub out any class feature for the equivalent archetype feature.

Basically, every class gets Qinggong Monk.

many times, that is the problem with one ability or the other... the fact that the best ability to pair with the ability is gated/excluded from said ability, sometimes for non-sensical or flavor reasons... and then there are sub-par replacements made so because that archetype gets ability x which is otherwise free and amazing.


The rules for improvised weapons strike me as being a little wonky. I'm fine with the penalty, but is a -4 really necessary?
Also, I find it hard to believe that a fighter who's great with a staff wouldn't be able to pick up, say, a broom and not have the same kind of results in hitting someone over the head.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

The problem there isn't with the fighter, it's with the broom. You simply can't fight as competently with a broomstick as a heavier, stronger, more balanced piece of wood.

And then the Caught of Guard feat comes along and undermines that entire line of logic.


Crimeo wrote:


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.

Sure, and this is how PF does it, no?


N. Jolly wrote:

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.

But then they spend quite a bit of time in On The Job Training.


Snowblind wrote:

This has to stop.

Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos has a HD restriction on what it can detect.

See Alignment has no such caveat, clearly and unambiguously lights up any creature with a particular alignment, and can be done by a 1st level wizard. Three castings will let you determine if a creature is evil, and if it is you will also know where it sits on the law/chaos scale.

How long can you wander around, cast three spells, and then wander some more? See Alignment has never been a issue, it's Detect Evil which Paladins can cast all day and works with one shot. In any case, some criminals may be CN, not Evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Snowblind wrote:

This has to stop.

Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos has a HD restriction on what it can detect.

See Alignment has no such caveat, clearly and unambiguously lights up any creature with a particular alignment, and can be done by a 1st level wizard. Three castings will let you determine if a creature is evil, and if it is you will also know where it sits on the law/chaos scale.

How long can you wander around, cast three spells, and then wander some more? See Alignment has never been a issue, it's Detect Evil which Paladins can cast all day and works with one shot. In any case, some criminals may be CN, not Evil.

True. Just because you break the law does not mean you're evil. (Though some Paladins might disagree.)

Scarab Sages

Otherwhere wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Snowblind wrote:

This has to stop.

Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos has a HD restriction on what it can detect.

See Alignment has no such caveat, clearly and unambiguously lights up any creature with a particular alignment, and can be done by a 1st level wizard. Three castings will let you determine if a creature is evil, and if it is you will also know where it sits on the law/chaos scale.

How long can you wander around, cast three spells, and then wander some more? See Alignment has never been a issue, it's Detect Evil which Paladins can cast all day and works with one shot. In any case, some criminals may be CN, not Evil.
True. Just because you break the law does not mean you're evil. (Though some Paladins might disagree.)

Conversely, just because you are evil does not mean you are breaking the law, and simply attacking someone for being evil can be assault or murder.


Otherwhere wrote:
True. Just because you break the law does not mean you're evil. (Though some Paladins might disagree.)

Any Paladin who disagrees has dumped way too much INT.

Neutrals break the law all the time. Even Goods break the law. This is because following/breaking laws is a function of the Lawful/Chaotic axis of alignment, not the Good/Evil axis. So yes, chaotic good characters break the law whenever they want (see Robin Hood for the iconic example).

EVERY paladin should know this, even the stupid ones. (yes, I know, stupid paladin is redundant since they ALL use INT as a dump stat).

(yes, I know there are likely to be some exceptions)

(those are certainly rare)

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Snowblind wrote:

This has to stop.

Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos has a HD restriction on what it can detect.

See Alignment has no such caveat, clearly and unambiguously lights up any creature with a particular alignment, and can be done by a 1st level wizard. Three castings will let you determine if a creature is evil, and if it is you will also know where it sits on the law/chaos scale.

How long can you wander around, cast three spells, and then wander some more? See Alignment has never been a issue, it's Detect Evil which Paladins can cast all day and works with one shot. In any case, some criminals may be CN, not Evil.

And just because someone's evil doesn't mean they're a criminal deserving of death. I can think of at least 8 people I know on a personal basis who I would say solidly fit in the definitions of Lawful or Neutral Evil, but to my knowledge they haven't actually murdered anyone or overthrown any governments, and I would definitely be the one in the wrong if I decided to preemptively do them in.

I've also played in games where the king's advisor or sultan's vizier was Lawful Evil and pinged as such, leading to the paladin wasting huge amounts of time trying to prove that he's the real villain. The last time it happened, the Lawful Evil vizier was one of the few people actively working to maintain the strength and integrity of the kingdom and its government, and chasing him around only led to the paladin completely missing the CN anarchists who were the real threat (as well as drastically lowering his credibility in the eyes of the sultan).


DM_Blake wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
True. Just because you break the law does not mean you're evil. (Though some Paladins might disagree.)

Any Paladin who disagrees has dumped way too much INT.

Neutrals break the law all the time. Even Goods break the law. This is because following/breaking laws is a function of the Lawful/Chaotic axis of alignment, not the Good/Evil axis. So yes, chaotic good characters break the law whenever they want (see Robin Hood for the iconic example).

EVERY paladin should know this, even the stupid ones. (yes, I know, stupid paladin is redundant since they ALL use INT as a dump stat).

(yes, I know there are likely to be some exceptions)

(those are certainly rare)

Totally agree! And there are those out there who glom onto the LAWFUL aspect of their calling as fiercely - or more so - than the GOOD aspect and treat everyone like scum who are not "toeing the line!"

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
This is because following/breaking laws is a function of the Lawful/Chaotic axis of alignment, not the Good/Evil axis. So yes, chaotic good characters break the law whenever they want (see Robin Hood for the iconic example).

This is also not true - Law is not Legal. Law is 'Order'.


Otherwhere wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
True. Just because you break the law does not mean you're evil. (Though some Paladins might disagree.)

Any Paladin who disagrees has dumped way too much INT.

Neutrals break the law all the time. Even Goods break the law. This is because following/breaking laws is a function of the Lawful/Chaotic axis of alignment, not the Good/Evil axis. So yes, chaotic good characters break the law whenever they want (see Robin Hood for the iconic example).

EVERY paladin should know this, even the stupid ones. (yes, I know, stupid paladin is redundant since they ALL use INT as a dump stat).

(yes, I know there are likely to be some exceptions)

(those are certainly rare)

Totally agree! And there are those out there who glom onto the LAWFUL aspect of their calling as fiercely - or more so - than the GOOD aspect and treat everyone like scum who are not "toeing the line!"

That's all well and good, and I think a paladin should do that.

But for the most part, the paladin mandate is to smite evil (usually to death) but not necessarily to smite chaos (usually just bring them to justice - legal courts, etc. - for their crimes).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just going to go out and say "alignment". I hate, hate, hate how buried into the rules it is.


DM_Blake wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
True. Just because you break the law does not mean you're evil. (Though some Paladins might disagree.)

EVERY paladin should know this, even the stupid ones. (yes, I know, stupid paladin is redundant since they ALL use INT as a dump stat).

(yes, I know there are likely to be some exceptions)

(those are certainly rare)

Just had to chime in with my favorite personal exception.

I like dumping Wisdom on a Paladin. I play him like Dudley Dooright. He's super trusting, incredibly heroic and loyal, but his tragic flaw is an almost fatal dose of gullibility.


JAMRenaissance 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.

As an alternate idea inspired by this, what if you can freely sub out any class feature for the equivalent archetype feature.

Basically, every class gets Qinggong Monk.

It really depends on how far one wants to go, I suppose. Making the best archetype abilities accessible as simple feats/talents is still not going to give you martial/caster parity, imo, nevermind usher in the age of our new martial overlords...so I really don't see the problem with just cracking open the system and letting martials pick whatever cool stuff they want. It's a simple fix and it makes the game much more enjoyable for some of the most downtrodden classes. It also has the virtue of making PCs more customizeable and less cookie-cutter, as the potential combinations become pretty diverse once you've put everything into one pot without the meaningless railroading of the archetype system.


2E changed poison from the straight save or die to a bunch of different "classes", one of which was save or die and the rest of which had other effects, like flat damage. So poison got nerfed well before 3.X, I suppose.

Hmm. I guess things I don't care for --

1) DCs that don't scale, like with poisons, alchemical items, and most magic items. A 95,000 gp item that imposes a measly DC 19 saving throw (mindmaster's eyes, for example) just sort of makes me cringe.

2) Magic weapons are overpriced. They really shouldn't cost any more than armor does.

Hmmm. I can think of things that could be done better, but I can't think of many things I actually want gone.


the secret fire wrote:
It really depends on how far one wants to go, I suppose. Making the best archetype abilities accessible as simple feats/talents is still not going to give you martial/caster parity, imo, nevermind usher in the age of our new martial overlords...so I really don't see the problem with just cracking open the system and letting martials pick whatever cool stuff they want. It's a simple fix and it makes the game much more enjoyable for some of the most downtrodden classes. It also has the virtue of making PCs more customizeable and less cookie-cutter, as the potential combinations become pretty diverse once you've put everything into one pot without the meaningless railroading of the archetype system.

I have always liked the Qinggong model (if not the execution; the levels you take stuff seems arbitrary) as it does apply a certain sense of balance and removes some of the "Feat Tax". Why pay a Feat if you want Trick Shot? Just remove the Armor Training, take Trick Shot, and you have the Feats.

(Disclaimer: I actually really like the archetype system and would probably never dump it. However, if one does want to dump it, there appears to be a lot of fun options).

I don't think anything will ever "remove" martial/caster the difference in parity between mundane classes and magical classes. Mundanes will never be equal to Magicals because Magic. I think a better goal is for the Mundane to be better at doing Mundane things than a Magical is at doing the Mundane thing without Magic. I wholly embrace both Combat Stamina (for Mundane Martials only) and Signature Skills (for Mundane Utility Types only) to help ensure that mundanes have more and better options at doing Mundane things than Magicals.


Ross Byers wrote:

The problem there isn't with the fighter, it's with the broom. You simply can't fight as competently with a broomstick as a heavier, stronger, more balanced piece of wood.

And then the Caught of Guard feat comes along and undermines that entire line of logic.

This is only a problem if you're viewing feats as a requirement for basic competence at something like the Two-Weapon Fighting chain rather than an extraordinary ability a character achieves through leveling and becoming more heroic than the ordinary schmuck they once were.

I can't fight with a shovel and have it be as effective as a spear, but I'm pretty sure someone who's gotten good enough at fighting that even with a simple stick or rock they are quite capable of busting some heads as effectively as if they were using a real weapon is well-known enough in fiction to justify someone with the special training a feat implies is quite deadly with an improvised weapon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:
1) DCs that don't scale, like with poisons, alchemical items, and most magic items. A 95,000 gp item that imposes a measly DC 19 saving throw (mindmaster's eyes, for example) just sort of makes me cringe.

Good lord, this. So much this. And DC 19 is actually on the high end for those saving throws. I swear, I see way too many endgame level items with DC 14 saves.


Revan wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
1) DCs that don't scale, like with poisons, alchemical items, and most magic items. A 95,000 gp item that imposes a measly DC 19 saving throw (mindmaster's eyes, for example) just sort of makes me cringe.
Good lord, this. So much this. And DC 19 is actually on the high end for those saving throws. I swear, I see way too many endgame level items with DC 14 saves.

The biggest problem, though, is you've got characters with poor saves and a dump stat so that at 20th level they only get a +6 or +7 to a will save alongside the cleric with the 34 Wisdom who has a +19 or so.

Scarab Sages

MeanMutton wrote:
Revan wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
1) DCs that don't scale, like with poisons, alchemical items, and most magic items. A 95,000 gp item that imposes a measly DC 19 saving throw (mindmaster's eyes, for example) just sort of makes me cringe.
Good lord, this. So much this. And DC 19 is actually on the high end for those saving throws. I swear, I see way too many endgame level items with DC 14 saves.
The biggest problem, though, is you've got characters with poor saves and a dump stat so that at 20th level they only get a +6 or +7 to a will save alongside the cleric with the 34 Wisdom who has a +19 or so.

How did they ever survive to 20th level without being dominated into murdering their party?


I don't think poison/alchemical/magic item save DCs should be balanced around people who didn't bother to get saving throw items.

And that L20 cleric with a 34 wisdom should have at least a +29, not a +19 =P

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Revan wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
1) DCs that don't scale, like with poisons, alchemical items, and most magic items. A 95,000 gp item that imposes a measly DC 19 saving throw (mindmaster's eyes, for example) just sort of makes me cringe.
Good lord, this. So much this. And DC 19 is actually on the high end for those saving throws. I swear, I see way too many endgame level items with DC 14 saves.
The biggest problem, though, is you've got characters with poor saves and a dump stat so that at 20th level they only get a +6 or +7 to a will save alongside the cleric with the 34 Wisdom who has a +19 or so.
How did they ever survive to 20th level without being dominated into murdering their party?

They survived, it was just the rest of their party who kept being killed and replaced. All of the enemies who use mind control and possession powers have a vested interest in keeping WIS-dumped murder machines alive and functioning in every population of adventurers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
This is because following/breaking laws is a function of the Lawful/Chaotic axis of alignment, not the Good/Evil axis. So yes, chaotic good characters break the law whenever they want (see Robin Hood for the iconic example).
This is also not true - Law is not Legal. Law is 'Order'.

It can be argued quite strongly that Law can be interpreted equally as self-discipline - which is why Monks have to be Lawful, because they're committed to discipline of the self. And still support rebellions against a government they disapprove of, which is certainly not helpful to Order.


Imbicatus wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Revan wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
1) DCs that don't scale, like with poisons, alchemical items, and most magic items. A 95,000 gp item that imposes a measly DC 19 saving throw (mindmaster's eyes, for example) just sort of makes me cringe.
Good lord, this. So much this. And DC 19 is actually on the high end for those saving throws. I swear, I see way too many endgame level items with DC 14 saves.
The biggest problem, though, is you've got characters with poor saves and a dump stat so that at 20th level they only get a +6 or +7 to a will save alongside the cleric with the 34 Wisdom who has a +19 or so.
How did they ever survive to 20th level without being dominated into murdering their party?

Who dump-stats a save stat unless they have said save as a strong save?

A Fighter [for example] with less than 12 starting Wisdom is going to have massive problems.

It's also not like a martial class [unless you're a Swashbuckler, a Paladin(who gets saves from a different stat anyway and is thus not a problem in this specific case) or a Cha-Focused Barbarian] has any other stat to put into a Stat Boosting Headband anyway.

That means come endgame [ignoring Inherent Bonuses] the low saves should be somewhere in the vicinity of 6+5[resistance]+4[stat]= +15, average save result of 25, 24 if they started with a 10 Wisdom instead of 12.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
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

New rule! Everybody starts standing on their heads at level 5! Don't worry, it's balanced. There are items and spells you can invest in to negate the head standing disease prior to level 5. And commoners aren't high enough level so it doesn't screw up the economics and such of the world.

Does that make it a good rule? No, if it isn't adding anything and makes the story more contrived, creates arguments, etc., it doesn't matter if it's balanced, just ditch it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
This is because following/breaking laws is a function of the Lawful/Chaotic axis of alignment, not the Good/Evil axis. So yes, chaotic good characters break the law whenever they want (see Robin Hood for the iconic example).
This is also not true - Law is not Legal. Law is 'Order'.
It can be argued quite strongly that Law can be interpreted equally as self-discipline - which is why Monks have to be Lawful, because they're committed to discipline of the self. And still support rebellions against a government they disapprove of, which is certainly not helpful to Order.

I think he meant order of the self.

The way I see alignments:

G vs E is the interaction with others. Good is community and such. Evil is selfishness and narcissistic views.

L vs C is the view of the self. L is orderly and maintained in thought and mind. They are logical and tend to follow processes. C is very wild in self thought. Many times their thought processes are not quite so orderly (seemingly coming from random thin air to others) and tends to follow "gut" pr "emotion" vs a logical progression of analysis.

But that is my opinion anyway


Saldiven wrote:


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."

Okay, "While the BBEG is talking, I viciously attack the pebble under my shoe with a kick attack. I would like to roll the attack as per damaging object rules which specifically describe damaging objects as attack rolls, and attempt to break the pebble by overcoming its hardness of 8 and its hitpoints."

An attack has been made, so in a silly "combat is only attacks being made" system, we roll initiative. The BBEG is obviously not threatened by me quirkily stomping a pebble, and continues monologuing on his action. Then I shoot an arroow in his face on mine.


Ssalarn wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Revan wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
1) DCs that don't scale, like with poisons, alchemical items, and most magic items. A 95,000 gp item that imposes a measly DC 19 saving throw (mindmaster's eyes, for example) just sort of makes me cringe.
Good lord, this. So much this. And DC 19 is actually on the high end for those saving throws. I swear, I see way too many endgame level items with DC 14 saves.
The biggest problem, though, is you've got characters with poor saves and a dump stat so that at 20th level they only get a +6 or +7 to a will save alongside the cleric with the 34 Wisdom who has a +19 or so.
How did they ever survive to 20th level without being dominated into murdering their party?
They survived, it was just the rest of their party who kept being killed and replaced. All of the enemies who use mind control and possession powers have a vested interest in keeping WIS-dumped murder machines alive and functioning in every population of adventurers.

True, which is why those other PC's/players need to put their foot down. "Dude, if you dont get something to stop you from being dominated, either you're out or I am."


Lol there is an easy way around it lol. When I played an Enchantment focused sorcerer we made it point of having ME dominate our fighter at the start of the day xD.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Lol there is an easy way around it lol. When I played an Enchantment focused sorcerer we made it point of having ME dominate our fighter at the start of the day xD.

He is still a valid target for the dominate person spell. It would just devolve into a headache-inducing series of hold and readied actions to jostle initiative order, with "I command" "no I command!"

I guess it depends which team has more action economy overall as for who at would benefit most to have 2-3 people just standing there in deadlock.


They're using opposed charisma checks between the people with a dominate on the target Crimeo.


Crimeo wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Lol there is an easy way around it lol. When I played an Enchantment focused sorcerer we made it point of having ME dominate our fighter at the start of the day xD.

He is still a valid target for the dominate person spell. It would just devolve into a headache-inducing series of hold and readied actions to jostle initiative order, with "I command" "no I command!"

I guess it depends which team has more action economy overall as for who at would benefit most to have 2-3 people just standing there in deadlock.

Nope. What happens is an opposed CHARISMA check. They have to try and beat MY charisma with a charisma roll. Whoever wins gains control of thebfighter....

Note how i said I was an enchantment focused SORCERER. Opposed charisma rolls was my forte lol

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I went looking for that rule. It's actually not under Dominate or the Enchantment school rules.

Edit: Ah, there it is. Under Combining Magic Effects. Knew I wasn't crazy.

I actually have a character concept about running a fighter that allows his wizard to dominate him in exchange for magical support. Could be a fun dynamic to play out.


Magic Items
Uncapped Ability Progression
The word "race".
Racial penalties.
Vancian casting.
Magic Items.
Intelligent Magic Items.
Fighter as a class.
Fighter as a name for a better Warrior.
Adept as a class.
Critical hits.
-10 points till death.
Divine magic.
Creature types having default traits.
Fey as a creature type.
HD targeting spells that aren't relative to caster level.
Saving Throws.
Multiclassing.
Prestigious Classes.
Ability score increases by level.
Death and Dismemberment.
Alignment subtypes.
Alignment targeting abilities.
Alignment restrictions.

I... think that's everything. Oh right, I'm supposed to say why... geeze, give me a couple days.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Yeah, it's not super easy to find, but it is pretty clear. link.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Knitifine wrote:

Magic Items

Uncapped Ability Progression
The word "race".
Racial penalties.
Vancian casting.
Magic Items.
Intelligent Magic Items.
Fighter as a class.
Fighter as a name for a better Warrior.
Adept as a class.
Critical hits.
-10 points till death.
Divine magic.
Creature types having default traits.
Fey as a creature type.
HD targeting spells that aren't relative to caster level.
Saving Throws.
Multiclassing.
Prestigious Classes.
Ability score increases by level.
Death and Dismemberment.
Alignment subtypes.
Alignment targeting abilities.
Alignment restrictions.

I... think that's everything. Oh right, I'm supposed to say why... geeze, give me a couple days.

It'd be more efficient if you just said that the sub-system of Pathfinder you don't like is Pathfinder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knitifine wrote:

Magic Items

Uncapped Ability Progression
The word "race".
Racial penalties.
Vancian casting.
Magic Items.
Intelligent Magic Items.
Fighter as a class.
Fighter as a name for a better Warrior.
Adept as a class.
Critical hits.
-10 points till death.
Divine magic.
Creature types having default traits.
Fey as a creature type.
HD targeting spells that aren't relative to caster level.
Saving Throws.
Multiclassing.
Prestigious Classes.
Ability score increases by level.
Death and Dismemberment.
Alignment subtypes.
Alignment targeting abilities.
Alignment restrictions.

I... think that's everything. Oh right, I'm supposed to say why... geeze, give me a couple days.

Do... do you even like Pathfinder?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:
It'd be more efficient if you just said that the sub-system of Pathfinder you don't like is Pathfinder.

No, that would be extremely inefficient, because it's actually untrue.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Do... do you even like Pathfinder?

Very much, it's in the Top 3 of my favorite tabletop games(Alongside nWoD and 4e DnD), all of which I have several pages of critique for sitting up in my brain. Worth noting is that the number of tabletop games I've played/would play again is also very high.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Revan wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
1) DCs that don't scale, like with poisons, alchemical items, and most magic items. A 95,000 gp item that imposes a measly DC 19 saving throw (mindmaster's eyes, for example) just sort of makes me cringe.
Good lord, this. So much this. And DC 19 is actually on the high end for those saving throws. I swear, I see way too many endgame level items with DC 14 saves.

I absolutely agree!!!


Knitifine wrote:

Magic Items

Uncapped Ability Progression
The word "race".
Racial penalties.
Vancian casting.
Magic Items.
Intelligent Magic Items.
Fighter as a class.
Fighter as a name for a better Warrior.
Adept as a class.
Critical hits.
-10 points till death.
Divine magic.
Creature types having default traits.
Fey as a creature type.
HD targeting spells that aren't relative to caster level.
Saving Throws.
Multiclassing.
Prestigious Classes.
Ability score increases by level.
Death and Dismemberment.
Alignment subtypes.
Alignment targeting abilities.
Alignment restrictions.

I... think that's everything. Oh right, I'm supposed to say why... geeze, give me a couple days.

Perhaps... another game is right for you. Actually I can't think of any FRPGs that dont have at least one of those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

-10 points till death isn't even Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Perhaps... another game is right for you. Actually I can't think of any FRPGs that dont have at least one of those.

Already responded to this type of comment. They aren't constructive and I am now ignoring them from this point on. It is entirely possible to enjoy something and be critical of it.

Moving on to explanations

Magic Items
I strongly dislike magic items as a numerical progression scheme. I think it's clunky and makes the items feel boring and well... not magical. I much prefer to have all the magic items in my game be class feature, or feat related or to be minor or major artifacts. I really appreciate the inclusion of a low magic items option in Pathfinder Unchained and will probably use it for all future pathfinder games.
Uncapped Ability Progression
I think that uncapped ability score progression is one of the things that leads to the heavy min-maxing I see in many Pathfinder games. The lack of hard caps also makes it much harder to start out with an unconviential race-class combination because you simply can't obtain the same level of skill as the favored race-class combo.
The word "race".
The word race to talk about a group of character backgrounds that include species, culture, subspecies and ethnicity seems to be a hold over from an earlier era and I always feel uncomfortable at the label "monstorous races" and "civilized races". It just reminds me way too much of colonialism. My games tend to offer a combination of species/culture choices instead.
Racial penalties.
Not having a bonus is enough of a penalty, the difference between +2 and -2 is much greater than many players and designers realize.
Vancian casting.
This system of magic is clunky and doesn't follow naturally from the fiction any of my players have ever consumed.
Magic Items.
So irritating is the magic item section that I accidentally listed it twice. In general I would prefer a system that implimented a greater amount of mundane and alchemical equipment.
Intelligent Magic Items.
The system that is used for this really interesting concept is atrocious. It's overcomplicated and uselessly tacts on a number of features that never occur to my and my players ideas of a intelligent magic items.
Fighter as a class.
I don't like Fighter as a class because it's concept is included in several other classes. The Paladin, Ranger, Rogue and Barbarian are all fighters, but with a more fleshed out concept. I think it would be much better to have a Soldier class to represent military and paramilitary types.
Fighter as a name for a better Warrior.
Fighter to me sounds like a a guy who beats people up in an sports arena for the entertainment of others. Warrior sounds like someone who knows how to handle armor and weapons.
Adept as a class.
I prefer my Adepts with no class features, bardic spell progression and a list drawn from one of the main spell classes. I feel like this better sums up to the role of NPC spellcasting class. To me the role of current Adept is completely subsumed by the Witch PC class.
Critical hits.
Specifically critical confirmations, though I prefer a system that awards high attack rolls with bonus attacks (it generally works out to be the same, though so it's not a big deal).
-10 points till death.
It's entirely too easy to kill 1st level characters. I remember when Pathfinder was asking for feedback on how much HP should be given to first level characters and I was always in the most generous camp. This was in part due to the fact that going from standing to dead starts out as easy to achieve and then gets easier.
Divine magic.
I dislike the massive spell list that's automatically granted. I dislike that it ignores the armor requirements of that arcane classes have to deal with. I dislike that it's embargo on healing makes it mandatory for all settings and parties. I dislike that it's healing spells are cast at melee range.
Creature types having default traits.
This often gets in the way of creating new monsters and player races. Also a absolutely ridiculous number of them have darkvision, speaking of which... time to add a new one.
Darkvision
I hate dark vision having a range limit. I would prefer darkvision to function similiar to low-light vision, where it's range is the same as normal vision.
Fey as a creature type.
Fey might be super important to some european folk tales, but you unless you're handing out the type generously it's not going to show up in any game inspired by any asian, african, pacific islander, or american based mythology. It prefer fey to be replaced with Outsider (Native), though to be honest I don't like the outsider type either.
HD targeting spells that aren't relative to caster level.
I would prefer for sleep spells to be something like "HD = Caster Level".
Saving Throws.
I prefer to have spellcasters roll attacks against static defenses.
Multiclassing.
I prefer a system that takes account of fractial BAB and Saving throws, and one that grants a capstone feature to everyone who reaches level 20, not just the single classes.
Prestigious Classes.
These were kept by Pathfinder, but not utilized in my opinion. I feel like Pathfinder should have either gone pure archetypes, or employed these more.
Ability score increases by level.
To me ability scores are representative of your training and mortal ability, time spent gaining experience in my eyes goes towards maintaining these abilities or shuffling around their priority (I tend to have a subsystem that allows players to shift their ability scores around over time), not towards exceeding the limits set early on in order to obtain silly level of power. (Like, what is the actual difference of 25 Int and 35 Int in concept? Not much they're both super geniuses, but 6 vs 16 Int. You have a big difference in concept).
Death and Dismemberment.
There's a regeneration spell yet few options to inclict status on the player characters that warrant it. It's also higher level than raising someone from the dead. This seems silly, often I will offer players the oppurtunity to keep their current character but gain a permanate injury instead of dying because I feel it adds more to the game. (Regeneration also shows up as earlier levels so players don't feel like they can't overcome those limits).
Alignment subtypes.
The idea that good, law, evil or chaos can be a type of matter seems silly to me. That something can be 'made of evil'? My suspension of disbelief just flies right out the door.
Alignment targeting abilities.
This is similiar to my view on alignment subtypes and alignment in general. It's a roleplaying guideline, it shouldn't have game mechanics attach to it.
Alignment restrictions.
As above.

Pardon the typos and grammar errors. I'll keep the original post up for the benefit of readers coming in later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An inability to grant at least level one spell casting on rogue like characters without crippling them. In skill based RPGs I've always enjoyed my rogues and assassins having enough scrying to see around to corner and other minor things but thats difficult to achieve in Pathfinder.

Multiclassing in general. It is no fun at low levels (With exceptions of course), and requires too much synergy to work. I have several multi classed characters sitting at the bottom of my character pile that are too unviable because there is no way to seamlessly blend abilities the way I want to.

501 to 550 of 1,707 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 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.