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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

701 to 750 of 1,707 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>

the secret fire wrote:
Generally speaking, action economy/tactical movement (with the exception of the full attack, which I simply don't use) is probably the strongest area of the Pathfinder chassis, and the main reason I haven't abandoned the system.

... how? The d20 OGL combat system is one of it's worst aspects specifically because the action economy/tactical movement. What games are you even comparing it to?

And how are you not using full attacks?


Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

After running Skull and Shackles twice;

Any AP specific subsystem, Specifically Ship to Ship combat.

Why:
DCs are set to accommodate a casua investment of resources. If they were set higher, they would become impossible for PCs who did not specialize in the subsystem. However, set at a moderate difficulty, they become trivial for a PC who DOES specialize in the subsystem.

In both S&S games, ship to ship became a two round, at most, affair. The pilots were able to close distance between bot boats and board with minimal effort, because they built to do so. Oh, the DC 35 Profession(sailor) checks that may come up in a book or two? The pilot's Profession(sailor) is base 43, so yeah, no roll needed.

That's the system working as intended. A pro shouldn't have a problem doing something like that.


Trogdar wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Barathos wrote:


firearms
I hate pathfinder's firearm rules with a passion. I'm OK with firearms treating armour as a lower value, but it's b&$*@%*% that it ignores 50 points of natural armour like it was tissue paper.

I proposed using either of incorporeal touch AC against firearms or bullets having a penetration value, the latter is more complex but reflects that even modern firearms don't always penetrate the thickest natural armor, let alone dragon scales.

Incorporeal Touch was based on (since emergency force sphere didn't exist just yet) the hardness 30 of force effects, specifically the only one to stipulate a hardness at the time: wall of force. Armor and shield bonuses from mage armor and shield that are THREE TIMES harder than steel should contribute to the target's firearm bullet AC. Instead, they don't. At all. *facepalm*

The simplest solution would be to halve natural armor bonuses against firearms, but that overly complicates the simpler solution of using incorporeal touch AC.

"But Turin, we the publishers don't wanna revise our stat block format!" Yeah, well, since bog-standard creatures by far don't have it, it doesn't affect that many of them. Just do it and be done with it for the few creatures that do. NPCs wearing bracers of armor and casting shield should have this in their stat block anyway since spells such as spectral hand and player-conjurable monsters such as shadows and shadow demons have been in-game throughout all of Pathfinder and most if not nearly all of 3e. The whole point of the stat block is so that they paying customer (and thus presumably the GM running your campaign) doesn't have to do any more math than absolutely necessary.

I think having guns target flat footed ac is easier. It also has a side benefit of making guns a good option for sneak attack specialists.

So what you're doing is letting the zero-Dex-bonus foes keep their full AC and granting automatic sneak attack damage to the classes that have sneak attack? It makes guns simultaneously a fantastic option for sneak attack specialists against nimble foes and nearly worthless against rhinoceroses and other heavy natural armor/ heavily armored non-nimble foes. As I read it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Any time I see someone mentioning facing rules, I imagine characters running laps around each other to get backstabs. Certainly not how I imagine combat.

You must not be a Dark Souls player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

After running Skull and Shackles twice;

Any AP specific subsystem, Specifically Ship to Ship combat.

Why:
DCs are set to accommodate a casua investment of resources. If they were set higher, they would become impossible for PCs who did not specialize in the subsystem. However, set at a moderate difficulty, they become trivial for a PC who DOES specialize in the subsystem.

In both S&S games, ship to ship became a two round, at most, affair. The pilots were able to close distance between bot boats and board with minimal effort, because they built to do so. Oh, the DC 35 Profession(sailor) checks that may come up in a book or two? The pilot's Profession(sailor) is base 43, so yeah, no roll needed.

That's the system working as intended. A pro shouldn't have a problem doing something like that.

Working as intended and being functional are two separate things.

My problem with it is that players either make it inconsequential by building for it (in which case why bother having it?) or they don't build for it and it becomes a hassle (and takes away from the fun of the game).

Shadow Lodge

Serghar Cromwell wrote:
You must not be a Dark Souls player.

I haven't touched a console in years. :(


Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

After running Skull and Shackles twice;

Any AP specific subsystem, Specifically Ship to Ship combat.

Why:
DCs are set to accommodate a casua investment of resources. If they were set higher, they would become impossible for PCs who did not specialize in the subsystem. However, set at a moderate difficulty, they become trivial for a PC who DOES specialize in the subsystem.

In both S&S games, ship to ship became a two round, at most, affair. The pilots were able to close distance between bot boats and board with minimal effort, because they built to do so. Oh, the DC 35 Profession(sailor) checks that may come up in a book or two? The pilot's Profession(sailor) is base 43, so yeah, no roll needed.

That's the system working as intended. A pro shouldn't have a problem doing something like that.

Working as intended and being functional are two separate things.

My problem with it is that players either make it inconsequential by building for it (in which case why bother having it?) or they don't build for it and it becomes a hassle (and takes away from the fun of the game).

I suspect the point is that it's supposed to challenge characters who didn't build for it and be a breeze for those who did.


TOZ wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
You must not be a Dark Souls player.
I haven't touched a console in years. :(

That's a shame. Beating a Souls game is a very satisfying experience.

Anyway, people who try PvP without knowing the game very well will do nothing but try to get behind you for a backstab crit. It pisses off people who do know what they're doing, because lag will occasionally allow them to succeed when they shouldn't.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
That's a shame. Beating a Souls game is a very satisfying experience.

I felt that way about beating Godhand.


I used to feel that way about my high score at Pitfall.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I could never get past the scorpions. Always had to take the high road.

But then, I was always more into River Raid or Archon.


Adventure was the best!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That dragon terrified the hell out of me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Since finding GOG.com, I've discovered I really like Zork.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Since finding GOG.com, I've discovered I really like Zork.

Me too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CaptainGemini wrote:
We've got enough kitchen sink systems to fill the Tarrasque's kitchen sink.

I don't have a kitchen sink. It's not like I cook my food; it's already warmed to a pleasant 98.6 degrees. And I never do dishes; what a waste of time.

It's just CHOMP!!! then GULP, then find something else to CHOMP!!!


Turin the Mad wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Barathos wrote:


firearms
I hate pathfinder's firearm rules with a passion. I'm OK with firearms treating armour as a lower value, but it's b&$*@%*% that it ignores 50 points of natural armour like it was tissue paper.

I proposed using either of incorporeal touch AC against firearms or bullets having a penetration value, the latter is more complex but reflects that even modern firearms don't always penetrate the thickest natural armor, let alone dragon scales.

Incorporeal Touch was based on (since emergency force sphere didn't exist just yet) the hardness 30 of force effects, specifically the only one to stipulate a hardness at the time: wall of force. Armor and shield bonuses from mage armor and shield that are THREE TIMES harder than steel should contribute to the target's firearm bullet AC. Instead, they don't. At all. *facepalm*

The simplest solution would be to halve natural armor bonuses against firearms, but that overly complicates the simpler solution of using incorporeal touch AC.

"But Turin, we the publishers don't wanna revise our stat block format!" Yeah, well, since bog-standard creatures by far don't have it, it doesn't affect that many of them. Just do it and be done with it for the few creatures that do. NPCs wearing bracers of armor and casting shield should have this in their stat block anyway since spells such as spectral hand and player-conjurable monsters such as shadows and shadow demons have been in-game throughout all of Pathfinder and most if not nearly all of 3e. The whole point of the stat block is so that they paying customer (and thus presumably the GM running your campaign) doesn't have to do any more math than absolutely necessary.

I think having guns target flat footed ac is easier. It also has a side benefit of making guns a good option for sneak attack specialists.
So what you're doing is letting the zero-Dex-bonus foes keep...

Yes, more or less. Six inches of dragon scale will absolutely turn a bullet, but I can't see many being able to react to one before its on its way out of them. That said, tels has a good idea for character ters with evasion and uncanny dodge.


Trogdar wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Barathos wrote:


firearms
I hate pathfinder's firearm rules with a passion. I'm OK with firearms treating armour as a lower value, but it's b&$*@%*% that it ignores 50 points of natural armour like it was tissue paper.

I proposed using either of incorporeal touch AC against firearms or bullets having a penetration value, the latter is more complex but reflects that even modern firearms don't always penetrate the thickest natural armor, let alone dragon scales.

Incorporeal Touch was based on (since emergency force sphere didn't exist just yet) the hardness 30 of force effects, specifically the only one to stipulate a hardness at the time: wall of force. Armor and shield bonuses from mage armor and shield that are THREE TIMES harder than steel should contribute to the target's firearm bullet AC. Instead, they don't. At all. *facepalm*

The simplest solution would be to halve natural armor bonuses against firearms, but that overly complicates the simpler solution of using incorporeal touch AC.

"But Turin, we the publishers don't wanna revise our stat block format!" Yeah, well, since bog-standard creatures by far don't have it, it doesn't affect that many of them. Just do it and be done with it for the few creatures that do. NPCs wearing bracers of armor and casting shield should have this in their stat block anyway since spells such as spectral hand and player-conjurable monsters such as shadows and shadow demons have been in-game throughout all of Pathfinder and most if not nearly all of 3e. The whole point of the stat block is so that they paying customer (and thus presumably the GM running your campaign) doesn't have to do any more math than absolutely necessary.

I think having guns target flat footed ac is easier. It also has a side benefit of making guns a good option for sneak attack specialists.
So what you're doing is
...

I'm not Tels, we just both have excellent taste in avatars.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I won't mind have a Amor Piercing Ability in the game after all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
Generally speaking, action economy/tactical movement (with the exception of the full attack, which I simply don't use) is probably the strongest area of the Pathfinder chassis, and the main reason I haven't abandoned the system.

... how? The d20 OGL combat system is one of it's worst aspects specifically because the action economy/tactical movement. What games are you even comparing it to?

And how are you not using full attacks?

I simply let characters (PCs and NPCs) mix standard and move actions as they choose. However many attacks you get, you can take them all in a turn regardless as to how you choose to move (essentially, you always get a "full attack"). This means, for example, that a fighter can move 10', take an attack, move another 10', attack again, etc. He'll still provoke AoOs (provided the things that would threaten him are still standing), but I don't restrict melee to only one attack if you take more than a frikkin 5 foot step (or cheese your way into pounce...yawn). This somewhat benefits casters, as well, as they can now move, cast, and move. If a character is restricted to just one or the other (for example, he is staggered), then I revert to the old rules (ie. full attack or move + one attack).

It's an easy change that makes melee much more useful, and balances it nicely with archers. Spring Attack is obviously obsolete in my games, and I make Mobility add 2 + Dex mod to AC vs. AoOs. Melee combat in my games ends up being relatively fluid, and it is also easier for well-trained enemies to get behind the meatshields and hack at the casters. I like it that way, and I think it's also more realistic. Movement and action in real combat don't occur in some sort of weird, fixed sequence, but simultaneously, jumbled up...all at once.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Since finding GOG.com, I've discovered I really like Zork.

Mmm. I played the heck out of Zork.

Spoiler:

West of House

You are in a open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.

There is a small mailbox here.

>N.N.U.Take egg.D.E.Open window.W.W.Take lamp.Roll up rug.Open trap door.D.Turn on lamp.S.E.Take painting.N.U.U.Take all.D.Turn off lamp.Take all.W.Open case.Put painting in case.Take sword.Open trap door.D.Turn on lamp.N.Kill troll with sword.

I may have played a lot of Zork.


I always sneak Zork (et al.) references into games (esp. play-by-post), and hardly anyone ever gets them.

BTW, Enchanter was even better than Zork!


Metal Sonic wrote:
I won't mind have a Amor Piercing Ability in the game after all.

We've had that for a long time. Brilliant energy weapons.


hiiamtom wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
Generally speaking, action economy/tactical movement (with the exception of the full attack, which I simply don't use) is probably the strongest area of the Pathfinder chassis, and the main reason I haven't abandoned the system.

... how? The d20 OGL combat system is one of it's worst aspects specifically because the action economy/tactical movement. What games are you even comparing it to?

And how are you not using full attacks?

I should add that there are obviously better systems out there, but they are, of course, more complex. The HERO system which has, I think, twelve different speed ratings for actions within a round where each speed ranking gives an extra action and it all happens mixed together (I act on sequence 2, 4, 6, 8...you act on sequence 3, 6, 9...) is obviously better, but that is neither here nor there. I'm fine with the Pathfinder tactical chassis without the full attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
Generally speaking, action economy/tactical movement (with the exception of the full attack, which I simply don't use) is probably the strongest area of the Pathfinder chassis, and the main reason I haven't abandoned the system.

... how? The d20 OGL combat system is one of it's worst aspects specifically because the action economy/tactical movement. What games are you even comparing it to?

And how are you not using full attacks?

I should add that there are obviously better systems out there, but they are, of course, more complex. The HERO system which has, I think, twelve different speed ratings for actions within a round where each speed ranking gives an extra action and it all happens mixed together (I act on sequence 2, 4, 6, 8...you act on sequence 3, 6, 9...) is obviously better, but that is neither here nor there. I'm fine with the Pathfinder tactical chassis without the full attack.

Ever played Exalted? My Organic Chemistry final made my head hurt less than learning that combat system.

Liberty's Edge

I dislike the ability to cast unlimited zero level spells.


Gunsmith Paladin wrote:
We've had that for a long time. Brilliant energy weapons.

No, you got me wrong. A Stat taht doesn't let you ignore fully the armor of the target. Something like "Pistol: Armor Piercing 8", and that will let you ignore up to 8 points of the Armor and/or Natural bonus of the target.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I dislike the ability to cast unlimited zero level spells.

Oh yeah. Would much rather see school/domain powers unlimited and cantrips/orisons back to the way they were.


Metal Sonic wrote:
Gunsmith Paladin wrote:
We've had that for a long time. Brilliant energy weapons.
No, you got me wrong. A Stat taht doesn't let you ignore fully the armor of the target. Something like "Pistol: Armor Piercing 8", and that will let you ignore up to 8 points of the Armor and/or Natural bonus of the target.

In what way is that different from just making it a +8 weapon? I guess not adding to damage? Yeah...ok. That seems like a useful mechanic.


the secret fire wrote:
In what way is that different from just making it a +8 weapon? I guess not adding to damage? Yeah...ok. That seems like a useful mechanic.

1- You don't get the damage bonus;

2- You don't get the to hit bonus against armorless foes;
3- You don't have "all or nothing" effect, and that's help to balance the system.


Whoops, my bad. Sorry Cromwell.


It's all good.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I dislike the ability to cast unlimited zero level spells.
Oh yeah. Would much rather see school/domain powers unlimited and cantrips/orisons back to the way they were.

This would also let Alchemists and Investigators get some dammed cantrips already.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Any time I see someone mentioning facing rules, I imagine characters running laps around each other to get backstabs. Certainly not how I imagine combat.

Our facing rules are simple. You start with a 180 degree of vision. Any enemy that start in your vision arc you are aware of(unless there a reason not to be aware of them. If such an enemy move to engage you , you can pivot freely to face them unless already engaged So no running around in circles. If some one is out of combat and out of the 180 degree frontal vision they can attempt a stealth check to sneak up on some one.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

So you're saying that once you know where the rogue is, you just have to choose him as your pivot target and they can never get a backstab in?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So you're saying that once you know where the rogue is, you just have to choose him as your pivot target and they can never get a backstab in?

If unengaged and you know where the rogue is yes. If engaged no you cannot get a free pivot. And if the rogue start the turn out of your line of site no free pivot unless you make a perception check.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Degoon Squad wrote:
If engaged no you cannot get a free pivot.

So I can spend an action to prevent the rogue from stabbing me in the back for the rest of the combat?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
If engaged no you cannot get a free pivot.
So I can spend an action to prevent the rogue from stabbing me in the back for the rest of the combat?

Ugh, as if the Rogue didn't already have a hard enough time in combat...


Diffan wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
If engaged no you cannot get a free pivot.
So I can spend an action to prevent the rogue from stabbing me in the back for the rest of the combat?
Ugh, as if the Rogue didn't already have a hard enough time in combat...

As I read it if you don't perceive the rogue you cannot track him, if he moves out of your sight you then need to follow him with your vision(which you cannot do in combat without a perception check).

So if the rogue is alone and there is no cover, then yes. If there is cover or teammates however, then you should have trouble keeping an eye on him, because he can essentially re-stealth... and then again this assumes you know the npc is a rogue and not some common warrior before he backstabs you.

edit: to clarify this is how I see Diffan's system as working, not how I play or perceive Pathfinder RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
If engaged no you cannot get a free pivot.
So I can spend an action to prevent the rogue from stabbing me in the back for the rest of the combat?

If it's an action to pivot, does that mean a rogue behind me (without flanking) can full attack and get sneak attack on every attack because I can't see him for his entire full attack?

"Ow! That really hurt. Damn, I wish I could turn around and see who did that... Ow! It hurt again! I really wish I could turn around and... Ow! Again! I'm dyin' here! That one was really deep. I wish I could... Ow! Not again! Who keeps doing this??? I wish... Ow! Gurgle..."

That's like being paralyzed for 6 seconds.


DM_Blake wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
If engaged no you cannot get a free pivot.
So I can spend an action to prevent the rogue from stabbing me in the back for the rest of the combat?

If it's an action to pivot, does that mean a rogue behind me (without flanking) can full attack and get sneak attack on every attack because I can't see him for his entire full attack?

"Ow! That really hurt. Damn, I wish I could turn around and see who did that... Ow! It hurt again! I really wish I could turn around and... Ow! Again! I'm dyin' here! That one was really deep. I wish I could... Ow! Not again! Who keeps doing this??? I wish... Ow! Gurgle..."

That's like being paralyzed for 6 seconds.

And it's still less dangerous than a well built cavalier.


Facing is a cumbersome rule that lead to many, many stupid cases. It's better to avoid it at all.


I'm sure there's a way to do facing in a decent way but I personally would not want to deal with more things in combat than what there already is. I also cannot imagine the decision paralysis that would come up because of players wanting to make the most tactical move possible.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Bring back the 10 foot exception for medium pole arms.

"Attack them from the north west!

"Why's that captain?

"Pole arms don't work in any direction but due north due south due east or due west!

You either need to write in an exception to how a pole arm threatens, OR you need to write in an exception changing threatened squares to a threatened "Area" that doesn't show up well on the grid.

They added it back

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9sp8

Grand Lodge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I dislike the ability to cast unlimited zero level spells.

Only some of them are a real problem. Stuff like acid splash and light are fine. It's when you have people going crazy with guidance and detect magic using them literally every time they expire, that things get stupid. "As we go through the dungeon, I re-cast resistance on myself every 60 seconds." Argh. Some cantrips/orisons should either be buffed up and turned into 1st level spells, combined with other 0-level spells, or simply removed.

* * *

My personal pet peeve is how the game is quickly transitioning into a "points per day" system for every class. You know, arcane pool, panache, grit, bane, martial flexibility, etc. It seems like almost every class now has some fluctuating pool of "cool" points. Bleh. I personally can't stand the thought of my character running out of fun things to do, especially when said things are class-defining, role-essential things. Systems like this really break the 4th wall for me, making it feel more like a math/miniatures game instead of a shared storytelling experience.

In my opinion, all of these things would be better if they were remade into toggles or triggers for actions, or if they simply required longer actions to activate. For example, martial flexibility could take a full-round action, but be usable any number of times per day.


Headfirst wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I dislike the ability to cast unlimited zero level spells.

Only some of them are a real problem. Stuff like acid splash and light are fine. It's when you have people going crazy with guidance and detect magic using them literally every time they expire, that things get stupid. "As we go through the dungeon, I re-cast resistance on myself every 60 seconds." Argh. Some cantrips/orisons should either be buffed up and turned into 1st level spells, combined with other 0-level spells, or simply removed.

* * *

My personal pet peeve is how the game is quickly transitioning into a "points per day" system for every class. You know, arcane pool, panache, grit, bane, martial flexibility, etc. It seems like almost every class now has some fluctuating pool of "cool" points. Bleh. I personally can't stand the thought of my character running out of fun things to do, especially when said things are class-defining, role-essential things. Systems like this really break the 4th wall for me, making it feel more like a math/miniatures game instead of a shared storytelling experience.

In my opinion, all of these things would be better if they were remade into toggles or triggers for actions, or if they simply required longer actions to activate. For example, martial flexibility could take a full-round action, but be usable any number of times per day.

I can't "plus" this enough. I just can't.


Malwing wrote:
I'm sure there's a way to do facing in a decent way but I personally would not want to deal with more things in combat than what there already is. I also cannot imagine the decision paralysis that would come up because of players wanting to make the most tactical move possible.

I am fairly sure that if it frequently causes decision paralysis and significantly increases the complexity of combat then it isn't decent.

That's part of the issue. As far as I can tell your options are to either do something simple that is really, really stupid in some fashion, or something very complex that becomes a pain and doesn't actually add to the game much. It might be possible to make something simple and sane, but I don't see how.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:


My personal pet peeve is how the game is quickly transitioning into a "points per day" system for every class. You know, arcane pool, panache, grit, bane, martial flexibility, etc. It seems like almost every class now has some fluctuating pool of "cool" points. Bleh. I personally can't stand the thought of my character running out of fun things to do, especially when said things are class-defining, role-essential things. Systems like this really break the 4th wall for me, making it feel more like a math/miniatures game instead of a shared storytelling experience.

I don't see how it would be any more immersion-breaking than any of the other game math or resource pools (spell slots, HP).

I will say this, though: There are now dozens of classes with hundreds of archetypes (many of which allow you to exchange your class features for those of a different class), with Multiclassing, Variant Multiclassing, and Prestige Classes all possible. As you pointed out, most classes have some sort of "resource point pool" and nearly all have limited-use-per-day abilities. Many of them have spells and pseudo-spells (like Alchemists). That's on top of racial traits, feats, and so forth that grant additional limited-use-per-day powers. This leads to situations where a character just cannot do X any more times until he takes a rest - But he's otherwise still full of energy and raring to go. Just can't use (say) his Darkness SLA any more times per day, because of purely mechanical, metagame reasons. That starts to break my suspension of disbelief (this is also why Vancian casting bugs me), and almost makes me wonder if some unified resource system (say, Stamina, though that name is already in use with Unchained rules) ought to be used to govern most or all special abilities.

As an aside, it also makes me wonder if classless (maybe even level-less?) systems are the way to go after all.


DM_Blake wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
If engaged no you cannot get a free pivot.
So I can spend an action to prevent the rogue from stabbing me in the back for the rest of the combat?

If it's an action to pivot, does that mean a rogue behind me (without flanking) can full attack and get sneak attack on every attack because I can't see him for his entire full attack?

"Ow! That really hurt. Damn, I wish I could turn around and see who did that... Ow! It hurt again! I really wish I could turn around and... Ow! Again! I'm dyin' here! That one was really deep. I wish I could... Ow! Not again! Who keeps doing this??? I wish... Ow! Gurgle..."

That's like being paralyzed for 6 seconds.

As I said you can pivot if you know the rogue is there. And after the first backstab I think we would all agree that you know the rogue is there. Pivot is a free action.


Degoon Squad wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
If engaged no you cannot get a free pivot.
So I can spend an action to prevent the rogue from stabbing me in the back for the rest of the combat?

If it's an action to pivot, does that mean a rogue behind me (without flanking) can full attack and get sneak attack on every attack because I can't see him for his entire full attack?

"Ow! That really hurt. Damn, I wish I could turn around and see who did that... Ow! It hurt again! I really wish I could turn around and... Ow! Again! I'm dyin' here! That one was really deep. I wish I could... Ow! Not again! Who keeps doing this??? I wish... Ow! Gurgle..."

That's like being paralyzed for 6 seconds.

As I said you can pivot if you know the rogue is there. And after the first backstab I think we would all agree that you know the rogue is there. Pivot is a free action.

Do you mean a free action that can be taken out of turn? Because you need that exception, otherwise you still can't look around out of turn.

If there is that exception, what stops everyone from keeping their heads spinning around all the time so that they have 360 vision for most purposes? Or is looking every which way constantly just vetoed by the GM, making the entire mechanic effectively a round about way of saying "you see what the GM thinks you see", with nothing in there working towards consistency?

It might seem like I am being really nit-picky, but a core mechanic of a rules heavy system shouldn't need constant GM adjudication when just about every other major mechanic doesn't. If it does, then that's a sign that it has issues and need to be fixed. If it can't be reasonably fixed, then it should be scrapped entirely and flat out left to the GM with at most a few guidelines, or if that slows down play too much the entire thing abstracted away (as is the case with line of sight, so it is abstracted away by the flanking rules) .

701 to 750 of 1,707 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 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.