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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

751 to 800 of 1,707 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

Athaleon wrote:


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).

[...] 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.

Totally agree.

Athaleon wrote:


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

I've DM'ed in Golarion using Mutants & Masterminds 3, works better that the Pathfinder itself. lol

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Degoon Squad wrote:
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.

So the rogue can never get a second backstab then?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Ahh, well, then it works like this:

Fighter: I pivot!
GM: Why?
Fighter: Because I want to.
GM: You can't.
Fighter: Why not?
GM: You don't know of a rogue there.
Fighter: You mean I have to KNOW there's a rogue there before I can pivot?
GM: Pretty much. Yep.
Fighter: Why? Does some mystical force of the universe reach down and hold my head in this facing?
GM: *shrug* I dunno. It's just how it works.
Fighter: OK, I guess I don't pivot.
GM: Aha! A Rogue stabs you in the back. Take 93 damage!
Fighter: I knew it...
GM: No you didn't.
Fighter: Yeah, I did.
GM: Nuh uh. But, the rogue isn't done, he's winding up for another attack.
Fighter: NOW I pivot. Does the universe stop me?
GM: Nope, you can pivot.
Fighter: Fine. I pivot.

A few rounds later...
Fighter: Now that the rogue is dead, I pivot back to face the way I used to be facing.
GM: Nope, you can't, you don't know of a rogue there.
Fighter: Does it have to be a rogue?
GM: Well, no, I guess not. Could be a ninja.
Fighter: What about a slayer?
GM: Or that. Yeah, slayer could work.
Fighter: What about an orc? Could I pivot to face an orc?
GM: Oh, all right already, you could pivot to face an orc.
Fighter: What about a goblin? Or a mite? Or a viper?
GM: Sure, fine, you could pivot to face those too.
Fighter: What about a fly or gnat?
GM: Why would you?
Fighter: Well, it could be dangerous. Could I pivot?
GM: OK, you can pivot to face anything as long as you know it's there. Happy?
Fighter: Oh, yeah. I pivot to face the grass.
GM: Grass?
Fighter: Yep. Could be dangerous grass, and I know the grass is there, so I pivot to face it.
GM: *consults his house rule book* Well, I guess you can do it.
Fighter: Swell. I do that. Oh, and next time I want to pivot and you say the universe won't let me, I'll just pivot to face the grass. That'll fool the universe!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Charging

1) It's utterly and pathetically inflexible. You MUST move in a straight line towards someone to even attempt it, and nothing more substantial than a small puddle can be in your way. Even allies count against you.

2) It's not even very good. You make yourself more vulnerable to attack for a small to hit bonus on ONE attack. Like a LOT of dumb Pathfinder subsystems, it's only good for a few specific classes that get class abilities which enhance it.

3) Bracing against a charge is pointless because you can't predict when you're going to be charged (and Bracing alerts the GM not to charge you).

It's not the worst part about Pathfinder, just the part that bugged me the most (especially coming from 4e which is much better about charging).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Exotic Weapon Prof.

Why? Cause half the time the weapons are very similar if not practically the same thing as a previous weapon in both form and functionality. Then most of the other half its because its not European.

Somehow firearms starts off as EWP items, but can move down to Simple depending on how common they are. While Crossbows stay exactly where they are.

Speaking of Crossbows, EWP affects only the ability to hit, imposing a -4 to hit with the weapon. But for some reason, A heavy repeating crossbow, or a hand crossbow, is so utterly different from Heavy or Light Crossbows that it should be a feat to aim them more properly.

Ones that do it 'right' are weapons that are pretty dang strange, like the flying blade for example. Weapons that are vastly superior to others, to an extent. Or ones that have a basic function if you have martial/simple prof with another weapon, but this one gives you special bonuses only if you're prof with it. That prevents the whole -4 to hit thing, and brings about the feat being more of the training and how to use the strange thing in all its function


Reach weapons being utterly and completely useless for anything that is adjacent to you. Multiply the disdain when you increase the creature's size above Medium.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
I hate that despite a gazillion pages of rules, there no facing in Pathfinder. We have house rules for facing and it makes the rogue class very dangerous and improves the monk quiet a bit.
Does your house rule take into account the fact that in PF a round is 6 seconds, so without a way to change orientation repeatedly between turns you end up with this ridiculous situation where extremely nimble highly trained monster hunters turn around on the spot slower than a 300 pound tubby does in real life?

I actually use facing rules. The rule is: Before you are aware of combat or not specifically alert, etc., you have a facing. Once alert/aware of combat, you now see 360.

Deals with this, but makes rogueing still significantly better. I use this in conjunction with a custom perception system that separates out vision, hearing, and smell, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crimeo wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
I hate that despite a gazillion pages of rules, there no facing in Pathfinder. We have house rules for facing and it makes the rogue class very dangerous and improves the monk quiet a bit.
Does your house rule take into account the fact that in PF a round is 6 seconds, so without a way to change orientation repeatedly between turns you end up with this ridiculous situation where extremely nimble highly trained monster hunters turn around on the spot slower than a 300 pound tubby does in real life?

I actually use facing rules. The rule is: Before you are aware of combat or not specifically alert, etc., you have a facing. Once alert/aware of combat, you now see 360.

Deals with this, but makes rogueing still significantly better. I use this in conjunction with a custom perception system that separates out vision, hearing, and smell, too.

I use something similar, in the sense that I do not give enemies auto-detect against stealthy characters the instant they leave concealment. Instead, I give them a +2 bonus to their opposed Perception checks for every 5' covered without concealment, and remaining hidden requires, at a minimum, that a character's move both begins and ends in an area with concealment.

I don't attempt anything like facing in combat. I love to tinker with Pathfinder rules, but I've never come up with anything resembling a reasonable facing rule for combat.

Grand Lodge

The magic item system. You have to have weapon, shield, armor, belt, cloak, etc with the proper +X for your level. You spend more of your money buying +1 than on cool items like a cloak of the bat (which you dont want because you need it for your +4 cloak of not dying). Also, why are there so many items available to to buy? Half of the time you go to town, sell the items you found, and buy the ones you want because there is an unlimited stock of +3 swords laying around.

I would much prefer a system where having +2 items was not part of the balance system. As well, it should be rare to buy stuff. Instead you should have to find or make the item. That would be a lot cooler.

Now, I will grant that they did make some strides towards this in Pathfinder Unchained.


the secret fire wrote:
I don't attempt anything like facing in combat. I love to tinker with Pathfinder rules, but I've never come up with anything resembling a reasonable facing rule for combat.

I love tinkering with the rules myself. As far as a decent facing rule goes, I have only ever seen one that I cared for, and it was in a video game. Final Fantasy Tactics on the PS1 to be specific. The only thing that those rules did was increase your odds for attacks and special abilities to hit when using them from the sides or behind.

As far as a subsystem that I hate goes I would have to say it's the maneuver system. I love the idea of maneuvers. They're this great tool-kit for, primarily, martial characters to use but they're locked behind this giant tree of feats.

I know they *can* be used without the feats, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone use one without having invested in it. If only because they don't want to eat an AoO. And even if you do invest in it you'll find yourself in a lot situations where it's not applicable and you suddenly have a ton of dead feats.

If anything I think they shouldn't provoke AoO baseline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I kinda hate flanking and how sneak attacks are limited. One of the big things that was keeping rogues down is that they can't apply their sneak attack and therefore 90% of their combat utility reliably.

As the system stands, I could have the Mountain that Rides in my face with Bruce Lee punching me in the back and face a penalty to my AC. This is fair as I'm dividing my concentration to defending against two foes. But, while the two are fighting me, if Frodo attacks me from the side, I can apparently put all my concentration into defending my weak spots allowing him no chance to sneak attack me or even get a bonus to hit me.

In the same scenario, with all three attacking me, if Samwise Gamgee decides to help his small-sized friend directly across from him by throwing a knife at me, I can also divert all my attention to blocking that dagger so as to not expose myself or drop my guard in anyway.

In the next round, Bruce and Gregor get a bonus to hit me as I'm so distracted but Frodo still doesn't and neither does Sam. How does this make any sense?

Wouldn't it make more sense for Frodo to have a flanking bonus too? I think his should be even better. Sam should be also able to SA. I'd being willing let Sam not get a bonus to hit because he has to worry about hitting the others.

Grand Lodge

Oh, and the dire flail. Stupidest weapon ever. Im not even talking about mechanics (which are actually fine more or less). It would just be near impossible to use. Or just impossible. I've tried to imagine how it would work, and nothing, nada.


Larkos wrote:

I kinda hate flanking and how sneak attacks are limited. One of the big things that was keeping rogues down is that they can't apply their sneak attack and therefore 90% of their combat utility reliably.

As the system stands, I could have the Mountain that Rides in my face with Bruce Lee punching me in the back and face a penalty to my AC. This is fair as I'm dividing my concentration to defending against two foes. But, while the two are fighting me, if Frodo attacks me from the side, I can apparently put all my concentration into defending my weak spots allowing him no chance to sneak attack me or even get a bonus to hit me.

In the same scenario, with all three attacking me, if Samwise Gamgee decides to help his small-sized friend directly across from him by throwing a knife at me, I can also divert all my attention to blocking that dagger so as to not expose myself or drop my guard in anyway.

In the next round, Bruce and Gregor get a bonus to hit me as I'm so distracted but Frodo still doesn't and neither does Sam. How does this make any sense?

Wouldn't it make more sense for Frodo to have a flanking bonus too? I think his should be even better. Sam should be also able to SA. I'd being willing let Sam not get a bonus to hit because he has to worry about hitting the others.

To simulate it reasonably, you really should be taking stacking penalties for multiple characters attacking you, full stop. Plus more penalties for those attackers being placed optimally (read:flanking). Hell, it's arguable that you should be taking stacking penalties for multiple swings at you. Even ranged attacks. Especially ranged attacks, because it is hard to notice someone in the background drawing a bow when you are dodging great-axe swings.

This is quickly getting really complicated, though. Flanking might be a flakey abstraction, but it's quick and simple.


CommandoDude wrote:
3) Bracing against a charge is pointless because you can't predict when you're going to be charged (and Bracing alerts the GM not to charge you).

While I agree with your post in general, Item 3 is a GM problem. A GM is supposed to remove himself from his NPC's and not metagame.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
3) Bracing against a charge is pointless because you can't predict when you're going to be charged (and Bracing alerts the GM not to charge you).
While I agree with your post in general, Item 3 is a GM problem. A GM is supposed to remove himself from his NPC's and not metagame.

I agree. I think part of what the game has become is that people tend to see the mechanical option on the sheet and "just do it." Combat tends to be a thing you have to psych yourself up to do. There's a fair amount of telegraphing. Even long time trained professionals still telegraph from time to time. There's recovery time. There's a lot of stuff going on that are almost completely skipped over. If you try to introduce them "in the name of roleplay" holy hell is it not exploited versus there being any kind of good sportsmanship about it. So, the prevailing attitude of "it's on the sheet so I can do it" I think is often taken way too far. Everyone (GMs and players) tends to fall into it.

Silver Crusade

Snowblind wrote:
Larkos wrote:
I kinda hate flanking and how sneak attacks are limited. One of the big things that was keeping rogues down is that they can't apply their sneak attack and therefore 90% of their combat utility ...

To simulate it reasonably, you really should be taking stacking penalties for multiple characters attacking you, full stop. Plus more penalties for those attackers being placed optimally (read:flanking). Hell, it's arguable that you should be taking stacking penalties for multiple swings at you. Even ranged attacks. Especially ranged attacks, because it is hard to notice someone in the background drawing a bow when you are dodging great-axe swings.

This is quickly getting really complicated, though. Flanking might be a flakey abstraction, but it's quick and simple.

Or they could do the easy thing as just make flanking a condition like 4e did. If you are being flanked, you gain the condition "flanked" and everyone who attacks you gets the benefits.


Flanking is way more intuitive combat systems like RuneQuest 6's combat where defenders have to preserve their action economy for defense as well as offense. When multiple characters attack one other character they have to spend their entire effort defending themselves, and even then they will quickly find themselves taking unanswered attacks. To combat this, they can choose to Outmaneuver action to try and prevent all male attackers around your from being able to attack them - so it is a wasted action to get the chance to reduce the number of attackers attacking at once.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate the clunky rules in Ultimate Sarcasm. They're totally underpowered.


Isonaroc wrote:
Or they could do the easy thing as just make flanking a condition like 4e did. If you are being flanked, you gain the condition "flanked" and everyone who attacks you gets the benefits.

Just to note, 4e does not do this. Flanking in 4e is pretty much identical to in 3.P (except that the bonus you get from it is "combat advantage" so it stacks with fewer things).

_
glass.

Silver Crusade

glass wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Or they could do the easy thing as just make flanking a condition like 4e did. If you are being flanked, you gain the condition "flanked" and everyone who attacks you gets the benefits.
Just to note, 4e does not do this. Flanking in 4e is pretty much identical to in 3.P (except that the bonus you get from it is "combat advantage" so it stacks with fewer things.

Hmmm...I could've sworn it was 4e that handled flanking like that. Now it's going to bug me until I figure out what system I was thinking of.

Regardless, it's the obvious solution without reinventing the wheel.


Isonaroc wrote:
glass wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Or they could do the easy thing as just make flanking a condition like 4e did. If you are being flanked, you gain the condition "flanked" and everyone who attacks you gets the benefits.
Just to note, 4e does not do this. Flanking in 4e is pretty much identical to in 3.P (except that the bonus you get from it is "combat advantage" so it stacks with fewer things.

Hmmm...I could've sworn it was 4e that handled flanking like that. Now it's going to bug me until I figure out what system I was thinking of.

Regardless, it's the obvious solution without reinventing the wheel.

TBF, you can take advantage of other people's flanks with certain feats. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?

It just does not happen automatically.

_
glass.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
I hate the clunky rules in Ultimate Sarcasm. They're totally underpowered.

Yeah, and the sarcasm elemental stats are inaccurate.


Lifat wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

The Withdraw action.

"Eeek! I'm a wizard next to a fighter! Now I'm going to run away without provoking an attack of opportunity from him, and weave around this chair in the room to prevent him from charging to catch up with me!"

Spending one round to get out of a dire situation 'for free' seemed so cheesy I disallowed it in my first campaign. Our other GMs allowed it, so I started allowing it, and it's always been abusive and cheesy, in my opinion.

Even if I agreed with you that withdraw was overly powerful (which I don't), then I'd like to remind you that without it most parties will never ever flee from battle (untill they get other ways to escape). Personally I'd love having my players run away from a potential party wipe combat. As a GM I'm supposed to try and avoid the situation but it does happen from time to time and then it is nice that the players have a chance to escape.

I don't see how "Move away from opponent in a straight line and do nothing else on your entire turn" to avoid AoO from the first 5 foot square you leave is to powerful. Once they initiate withdraw that is it. The only choice they have left is how many feet they are going to move in a straight line.

The problem there doesn't seem to be that withdrawing is a thing, more that martial characters don't have a way to cut you down like a coward when you try to flee from them.


Isonaroc wrote:
glass wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Or they could do the easy thing as just make flanking a condition like 4e did. If you are being flanked, you gain the condition "flanked" and everyone who attacks you gets the benefits.
Just to note, 4e does not do this. Flanking in 4e is pretty much identical to in 3.P (except that the bonus you get from it is "combat advantage" so it stacks with fewer things.

Hmmm...I could've sworn it was 4e that handled flanking like that. Now it's going to bug me until I figure out what system I was thinking of.

Regardless, it's the obvious solution without reinventing the wheel.

Have you played or read Fate? Because that system would let you apply a temporary condition (Aspect in the games terminology) like 'Flanked' to an opponent, and that would set them up for someone else to make a more effective attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Spell slots. It's one thing that I think should have been put out to pasture years ago and replaced with something more logical.


Azraiel wrote:
Lifat wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

The Withdraw action.

"Eeek! I'm a wizard next to a fighter! Now I'm going to run away without provoking an attack of opportunity from him, and weave around this chair in the room to prevent him from charging to catch up with me!"

Spending one round to get out of a dire situation 'for free' seemed so cheesy I disallowed it in my first campaign. Our other GMs allowed it, so I started allowing it, and it's always been abusive and cheesy, in my opinion.

Even if I agreed with you that withdraw was overly powerful (which I don't), then I'd like to remind you that without it most parties will never ever flee from battle (untill they get other ways to escape). Personally I'd love having my players run away from a potential party wipe combat. As a GM I'm supposed to try and avoid the situation but it does happen from time to time and then it is nice that the players have a chance to escape.

I don't see how "Move away from opponent in a straight line and do nothing else on your entire turn" to avoid AoO from the first 5 foot square you leave is to powerful. Once they initiate withdraw that is it. The only choice they have left is how many feet they are going to move in a straight line.
The problem there doesn't seem to be that withdrawing is a thing, more that martial characters don't have a way to cut you down like a coward when you try to flee from them.

If you don't have withdraw, PCs will never leave combat, they don't flee enough as it is,

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

CommandoDude wrote:


2) It's not even very good. You make yourself more vulnerable to attack for a small to hit bonus on ONE attack. Like a LOT of dumb Pathfinder subsystems, it's only good for a few specific classes that get class abilities which enhance it.

It's not about the bonus or penalty, it's about making an attack at a range you would not otherwise be able to.

Quote:
3) Bracing against a charge is pointless because you can't predict when you're going to be charged (and Bracing alerts the GM not to charge you).

This is kinda realistic - no one wants to charge into a spearpoint. If the enemy can attack you some other way, then you're right, bracing against a charge is useless. They'll attack some other way and you wasted a readied action.

But if the enemy is far enough away they need to charge, then you've presented them with a choice: get attacked for double damage or don't attack. It's still generally good for you to not get attacked. Maybe you do it because you're the Sorcerer and you'd rather the Fighter get attacked instead. Maybe you're buying time by making the enemy run up more slowly. Or maybe you're an NPC Kobold teaching the PC barbarian a lesson about varying tactics.


Ross Byers wrote:
Or maybe you're an NPC Kobold teaching the PC barbarian a lesson about varying tactics.

RAGELANCEPOUNCECHARGE...die? T-T


If you happen to have a reach weapon out you are probably are using reach tactics. In that case you might be readying your weapon anyway, so you might as well say you set it too so you get free damage VS chargers(or force them to not charge, which is win-win).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
That dragon terrified the hell out of me.

I am clearly a superior dragon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
Spell slots. It's one thing that I think should have been put out to pasture years ago and replaced with something more logical.

Yes, like casting spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
Spell slots. It's one thing that I think should have been put out to pasture years ago and replaced with something more logical.
Yes, like casting spells.

There is no justification for slots by level that doesn't fall apart in the face of variable bonus slots.

There's no reason you can't use a mana system with spell preparation if your setting really needs it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's also no reason that spell slots are in and of themselves illogical.

A pain in the butt in some ways? Certainly, but it's got its own flair and style to it.

I for one am all for mana systems as an option, I just don't see the point in 'putting spell slots out to pasture.'


They make sorcerers if you don't want to be tied down to preparation rituals.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

There's also no reason that spell slots are in and of themselves illogical.

A pain in the butt in some ways? Certainly, but it's got its own flair and style to it.

I for one am all for mana systems as an option, I just don't see the point in 'putting spell slots out to pasture.'

Wizard: I'll memorize these spells then cast them. Which wipes them from my memory...

Sorcerer: Ha! I don't need to memorize them I'll just cast them whenever I feel like. Unless I run out of slots for a particular level. Then I can't cast them even though I can still cast spells of different levels...

Cleric: Ha! I get my spells from my deity! They are minor miracles channeled through me! Except if I don't memorize a spell I might need during the day my all-powerful-all-seeing-god doesn't know which spell I need to cast no matter how much I pray to him. He/She can only hear me at dawn...

Rigid spell slots are illogical in every way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty simple really. Spell slots are a form of magical energy, a container of sorts that a caster cultivates as they grow in level.

Prepared casters use rituals to fill those containers with specific spells in the morning and cast them during the course of the day.

Spontaneous casters simply open a floodgate, releasing that spell energy in the form of one of the spells they know.

I think part of your problem is the old 'memorization' terminology. Spell preparation is a ritual and the first 99% of casting of the spell, not a memorization process.

EDIT: I will confess it's a little silly that clerics have to prepare their miracles rather than call upon their god for the right one at the right time. It would be cool to find a balanced way to create a truly spontaneous cleric with access to any spell on their list. Not sure how much fun it would play given the limits it must impose for balance-sake, but it would be cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

There's also no reason that spell slots are in and of themselves illogical.

A pain in the butt in some ways? Certainly, but it's got its own flair and style to it.

I for one am all for mana systems as an option, I just don't see the point in 'putting spell slots out to pasture.'

Wizard: I'll memorize these spells then cast them. Which wipes them from my memory...

Sorcerer: Ha! I don't need to memorize them I'll just cast them whenever I feel like. Unless I run out of slots for a particular level. Then I can't cast them even though I can still cast spells of different levels...

Cleric: Ha! I get my spells from my deity! They are minor miracles channeled through me! Except if I don't memorize a spell I might need during the day my all-powerful-all-seeing-god doesn't know which spell I need to cast no matter how much I pray to him. He/She can only hear me at dawn...

Rigid spell slots are illogical in every way.

Nitpicks:

Sorcerers can still cast lower level spells with higher level slots. It's more like "Unless I run out of higher level slots. Then I can't cast them even though I can still cast spells of lower levels...".

Golarion gods are very much not all-powerful-all-seeing. They are also very standoffish, to the point where a major Good aligned diety allows a major schism to exist between her worshipers, instead of just telling them what she prefers. It isn't out of place to not correct a cleric if they happen to make a bad choice of spells for the day. Besides, the cleric shouldn't be requesting all their spells. They can ask later...because their god can in fact hear them when it's not dawn.

If you are going to criticize a sub-system, please actually understand it first (unless being unable to understand it is the problem).


If my "containers" grow in "size" as I get more powerful why can't I prepare all my spells as my highest level spells? Why do my spells have to be split among all the levels?
It is really immersion breaking to have a wizard be unable to cast the simplest of spells because he's run out but still be able to cause world shaking effects because he's still got high level spells left.

And that's even worse with sorcerers. He can "open the floodgates" but apparently those gates have a built in dam...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
If my "containers" grow in "size" as I get more powerful why can't I prepare all my spells as my highest level spells?

They don't. You acquire more containers as you cultivate your magical potential. As you achieve new tiers/circles of magic, you acquire containers of larger size in addition to the containers you already had.

Quote:
Why do my spells have to be split among all the levels?

Because that is your magical potential.

Quote:
It is really immersion breaking to have a wizard be unable to cast the simplest of spells because he's run out but still be able to cause world shaking effects because he's still got high level spells left.

It's only immersion breaking if you haven't immersed yourself in the nature of this type of spellcasting. If your head is entirely in a mana/stamina system then yeah, your immersion's gonna break. Is your imagination so weak you can't internalize a different approach?

Quote:
And that's even worse with sorcerers. He can "open the floodgates" but apparently those gates have a built in dam...

You might want to re-read what I said. He opens the floodgates of a single container, emptying it with the magic of a spell he knows.

You can't drain more from one container than is in that container.


kyrt-ryder wrote:


It's only immersion breaking if you haven't immersed yourself in the nature of this type of spellcasting. If your head is entirely in a mana/stamina system then yeah, your immersion's gonna break. Is your imagination so weak you can't internalize a different approach?

really? You're going with personal insults?

I've been "immersed" in spell slots ever since Ad&d 2nd ed. I thought spell slots were bad back then and I haven't seen anything to change that position since.

Hell, I didn't even know mana points was a thing until the Players Option books came out.
So don't make assumptions about me or my "weak imagination".


Wildebob wrote:

Attacks of opportunity.

They're clunky. Sure, they help mitigate caster/fighter disparity, but they are also incredibly complex and they slow the game down. I never realized how bad I hated them until I ran the Beginner Box scenario, which doesn't include AoO's, and it was so smooth and easy.

My solution: Make AoO's a fighter feat tree. That way the more advanced and tactically minded players can still use them to great effect and they'll actually be cool because that one guy is slicing up everyone that comes near him while the rest of us can move along smoothly.

I like the idea of AoOs as a feat tree, or even as a result of a single feat. AoO are not there to mitigate the caster/fighter(weapon user) disparity that is what the iterative attacks are for.

But when we start getting into AoO for moving, casting, sneezing, and so on it calls into question the decision to "Simplify" all of the things that were lumped into "Combat Maneuver" with the CMB/CMD mechanic. Yes AoO can be done in such a way as to not stop/slow table flow. In practice what I see usually goes something like this:

At level 1-5 adventure table, being GMed by a very experienced GM, or VO: ("He" and "him" all refer to the only bad guy in this case who has 15 HP at the beginning)

Player 1: I stab him with my sword. Rolls d20 hit AC 18, for (1d8+2) 7 points.
GM: It looks like he took (most of) that damage. Player 2 your turn.

Player 2: I cast Magic Missile at him (the guy next to me) for (1d4+1) for 3 points.
GM: It takes 4 points. Player 3 your tur.... wait did you want to cast defensively? ...
Player 2: Cast defensively? What is that? How do I do that? Table flow come to screeching halt as GM needs to find the table on their screen for the DC that needed to be reached to cast defensively, while then also having to explain to the player how to preform the check.
-- what seems like 10 min pass while this gets resolved --
in reality 2 min pass then we get back to GM: Player 3 your turn.

Player 3: I cast cure light wounds (1d8+1) on Player 2 (who just took 5 damage while loosing their spell and nearly died) for 6 points.
GM: Okay Player 2 heals 6 points. Player 4 your tur.... wait player 3 did you cast defensively (as they are being threatened by "him" who just happens to have combat reflexes)...
Player 3: Cast defensively? How do I do that (again)? Table flow come to screeching halt as GM needs to find the table on their screen for the DC that needed to be reached to cast defensively, while then also having to explain to the player how to preform the check.
-- what seems like 10 min pass while this gets resolved --
in reality 2 min pass then we get back to GM: Player 4 your turn.

Player 4: I move behind "him" to get a flank with Player 1 and attack him. Rolls d20 gets a 17, hitting AC 19 for (1d6+1, plus 1d6 sneak attack) 9 points of damage.
GM: Okay he takes 9 more and drops.


Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


It's only immersion breaking if you haven't immersed yourself in the nature of this type of spellcasting. If your head is entirely in a mana/stamina system then yeah, your immersion's gonna break. Is your imagination so weak you can't internalize a different approach?

really? You're going with personal insults?

I've been "immersed" in spell slots ever since Ad&d 2nd ed. I thought spell slots were bad back then and I haven't seen anything to change that position since.

Hell, I didn't even know mana points was a thing until the Players Option books came out.
So don't make assumptions about me or my "weak imagination".

It wasn't intended as an insult but as a challenge so to speak.

Spell slots certainly don't fit into a Stamina/Mana mentality, but they maker perfect sense in their own right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The issue with spell slots is that they don't represent any form of fantasy aside from D&D fantasy.


Milo v3 wrote:
The issue with spell slots is that they don't represent any form of fantasy aside from D&D fantasy.

Which has a history of how long now?

Not saying Mana/Stamina don't also have their place, they totally do. But slots work and have their own place as well IMO


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


It's only immersion breaking if you haven't immersed yourself in the nature of this type of spellcasting. If your head is entirely in a mana/stamina system then yeah, your immersion's gonna break. Is your imagination so weak you can't internalize a different approach?

really? You're going with personal insults?

I've been "immersed" in spell slots ever since Ad&d 2nd ed. I thought spell slots were bad back then and I haven't seen anything to change that position since.

Hell, I didn't even know mana points was a thing until the Players Option books came out.
So don't make assumptions about me or my "weak imagination".

It wasn't intended as an insult but as a challenge so to speak.

Spell slots certainly don't fit into a Stamina/Mana mentality, but they maker perfect sense in their own right.

Only to a point. It does lead to situations where a mage might run out of weaker spells but still be able to use stronger ones. Or, he might be able to cast a Fireball but not a smaller "Fire Bolt", or Burning Hands, and so on down the line.

I think that spell slots, and discrete spells with highly specific effects, became a D&D convention mainly to simplify the game and prevent magic from bogging down the combat. It seems more like a highly setting-specific quirk ("in this world, magic works this way") than the system that makes the most intuitive sense for a generic rule set.


Except they don't make sense to me.
I've seen many explanations for how they work over the years, such as your container one, and they all seemed a stretch at the very least.

Please note, that although slots don't make sense, casters are still my favourite classes. I love the concept of magic and its use. So I can ignore the immersion breaking long enough to enjoy my characters, I'd just prefer my "belief crane" didn't have to work so hard at suspending it.


Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

Except they don't make sense to me.

I've seen many explanations for how they work over the years, such as your container one, and they all seemed a stretch at the very least.

Heh, fair enough Natan.

Personally speaking I've never had a problem with spell slots. The old memorization language made no sense whatsoever, but the container one I use makes perfect sense to me.

Like I said though, I agree a Stamina or Mana system [the two are separate, one results in physical fatigue from casting and the other is a simple pool of magical power] has its place in this game. For example I've never had a problem with Psionics as presented in 3.5 and by Dreamscarred Press.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Not saying Mana/Stamina don't also have their place, they totally do. But slots work and have their own place as well IMO

I'm fine with spell slots having a place. But many people want to play magic users that actually reflect magic users in myth and fiction, but Paizo specifically doesn't want to ever have spellcasting that isn't spell slots unless they are super specific flavour-wise (such as kineticist).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Not saying Mana/Stamina don't also have their place, they totally do. But slots work and have their own place as well IMO
I'm fine with spell slots having a place. But many people want to play magic users that actually reflect magic users in myth and fiction, but Paizo specifically doesn't want to ever have spellcasting that isn't spell slots unless they are super specific flavour-wise (such as kineticist).

Yeah that's a problem too.


Frankly I think they should do something like the Players Option books from way back when. A bunch of optional methods that players can choose to use in their games without altering the base game rules.

751 to 800 of 1,707 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 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.