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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

851 to 900 of 1,707 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I like watching Horatio Hornblower for cool ship combat action.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
Intimidate and Diplomacy. Both are bad systems that have persisted through multiple versions of D&D and into Pathfinder. The way the rules are written you can turn even your worst enemy into your best friend for a DC 40. Which sounds hard, until you have someone who focus their feats and gear into it. I coudl go on, but there are many threads on the board about Diplomacy and Intimidate and many include posts and references to why the system doesn't work.

This is why I only use Diplomacy or Intimidate checks for someone the characters have *just* met, and if they can't roleplay what they want, then they don't get to make the role. I might let someone make a Diplomacy check against someone they're very familiar with who has a deeply-ingrained opinion of them under the right circumstances, but it would require some really impressive roleplaying first.


Ravingdork wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Ship combat

Ship combat rules say it will take hours and hours for a ship to sink another ship at optimal range.

Which...is pretty accurate to the way ship battles were fought, especially in the pre-cannon era.

Most ship battles ended with boarding actions.

I am talking about cannons.

In addition ship rams may as well be kitten hugs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Revan wrote:
Point being, if the 'preparation is pre-casting' logic held true, then a Wizard should be able to do that with expended spell slots, or cast an unprepared spell even without open slots, provided that they have the time for a ritual.
And if I eat all the cake, I should just be able to bake another one. It's not like I need ingredients or anything.
The Cake is a lie.

That's a videogame quote! Get out of my hobby, filthy munchkin videogame MMO rollplayer! Real roleplays know that the Pie is a lie!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Revan wrote:
Point being, if the 'preparation is pre-casting' logic held true, then a Wizard should be able to do that with expended spell slots, or cast an unprepared spell even without open slots, provided that they have the time for a ritual.
And if I eat all the cake, I should just be able to bake another one. It's not like I need ingredients or anything.
The Cake is a lie.
That's a videogame quote! Get out of my hobby, filthy munchkin videogame MMO rollplayer! Real roleplays know that the Pie is a lie!

No, the pie is pink, and loves to party.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Real roleplays know that the Pie is a lie!

That orc never lied. He had the pie, and he wasn't giving it to you. You had to take it over his dead body.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pi is not a lie, just hard to obtain as a bonus to your rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
In one of the Pathfinder books (or possibly v3.5), there was a wizard who described what it was like to prepare spells. It was an in-game description that totally made sense within the context of the fantasy world. I'll see if I can find it and post it for you.

I think you may have misread. I am not saying spell slots don't make sense. I'm saying they don't represent other media, and people often want to play characters and in-settings that represent other fantasy media.


Milo v3 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
In one of the Pathfinder books (or possibly v3.5), there was a wizard who described what it was like to prepare spells. It was an in-game description that totally made sense within the context of the fantasy world. I'll see if I can find it and post it for you.
I think you may have misread. I am not saying spell slots don't make sense. I'm saying they don't represent other media, and people often want to play characters and in-settings that represent other fantasy media.

If you want to be a Jedi, there's a Star Wars tabletop RPG which was recently released a year or so ago, and it's actually pretty good. If you want to use mana points and whatnot, there's a different tabletop RPG system for that, too.

This game system has its own unique approach to spells, and I actually really like it. It's one of the reasons why I actually kind of dislike the Sorcerer.


Nigrescence wrote:

If you want to be a Jedi, there's a Star Wars tabletop RPG which was recently released a year or so ago, and it's actually pretty good. If you want to use mana points and whatnot, there's a different tabletop RPG system for that, too.

This game system has its own unique approach to spells, and I actually really like it. It's one of the reasons why I actually kind of dislike the Sorcerer.

That's a bad argument in my opinion since:

1. The game PF is explicitly a clone of had multiple magic systems to it's benefit (If it wasn't for third-party porting over those systems and making new ones I wouldn't even be playing this game).
2. Pathfinder is a kitchensink system. Adding new forms of magic increases options for players and adds new ways for stories to be told.


Milo v3 wrote:
Nigrescence wrote:

If you want to be a Jedi, there's a Star Wars tabletop RPG which was recently released a year or so ago, and it's actually pretty good. If you want to use mana points and whatnot, there's a different tabletop RPG system for that, too.

This game system has its own unique approach to spells, and I actually really like it. It's one of the reasons why I actually kind of dislike the Sorcerer.

That's a bad argument in my opinion since:

1. The game PF is explicitly a clone of had multiple magic systems to it's benefit (If it wasn't for third-party porting over those systems and making new ones I wouldn't even be playing this game).
2. Pathfinder is a kitchensink system. Adding new forms of magic increases options for players and adds new ways for stories to be told.

The point is that this game's job IS NOT to emulate other media. It is its own game.

Now this game is meant to have a lot of variety and introduce many different options, but your SPECIFIC criticism was that it did not emulate other media. Well, tough. If you want to be a Jedi, there's a system specifically for you. If you want to be a Sorcerer, you're in luck, we have that class. If you want a magic system using MP, there are other games that have that, but this one does not currently (to my knowledge). Why don't you invent the class which uses it, or get someone else to do so?

It's not the job of this game to ensure that you can play as The Green Lantern or a Jedi or Tim The Enchanter.

That was my point. I think it's a bad argument of yours to suggest that this game must represent other media. That's flawed. Now I must insist that every movie represents my games, and that every book represents LARP. Are you even listening to yourself? That's ridiculous.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Caius The Disillusioned wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Intimidate and Diplomacy. Both are bad systems that have persisted through multiple versions of D&D and into Pathfinder. The way the rules are written you can turn even your worst enemy into your best friend for a DC 40. Which sounds hard, until you have someone who focus their feats and gear into it. I coudl go on, but there are many threads on the board about Diplomacy and Intimidate and many include posts and references to why the system doesn't work.
This is why I only use Diplomacy or Intimidate checks for someone the characters have *just* met, and if they can't roleplay what they want, then they don't get to make the role. I might let someone make a Diplomacy check against someone they're very familiar with who has a deeply-ingrained opinion of them under the right circumstances, but it would require some really impressive roleplaying first.

So your rewarding PLAYER cha, not CHARACTER charisma... now THAT is something that grates my nerves...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Revan wrote:
Point being, if the 'preparation is pre-casting' logic held true, then a Wizard should be able to do that with expended spell slots, or cast an unprepared spell even without open slots, provided that they have the time for a ritual.
And if I eat all the cake, I should just be able to bake another one. It's not like I need ingredients or anything.
The Cake is a lie.
That's a videogame quote! Get out of my hobby, filthy munchkin videogame MMO rollplayer! Real roleplays know that the Pie is a lie!
No, the pie is pink, and loves to party.

*whips out party cannon*

Someone say paaaaaarrrttttayyy!!!!

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Caius The Disillusioned wrote:
This is why I only use Diplomacy or Intimidate checks for someone the characters have *just* met, and if they can't roleplay what they want, then they don't get to make the role. I might let someone make a Diplomacy check against someone they're very familiar with who has a deeply-ingrained opinion of them under the right circumstances, but it would require some really impressive roleplaying first.
So your rewarding PLAYER cha, not CHARACTER charisma... now THAT is something that grates my nerves...

Word. Not everyone is good at extemporaneous banter, and they shouldn't be punished for that any more than the person playing the barbarian who can't actually break down an iron door.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isonaroc wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Caius The Disillusioned wrote:
This is why I only use Diplomacy or Intimidate checks for someone the characters have *just* met, and if they can't roleplay what they want, then they don't get to make the role. I might let someone make a Diplomacy check against someone they're very familiar with who has a deeply-ingrained opinion of them under the right circumstances, but it would require some really impressive roleplaying first.
So your rewarding PLAYER cha, not CHARACTER charisma... now THAT is something that grates my nerves...
Word. Not everyone is good at extemporaneous banter, and they shouldn't be punished for that any more than the person playing the barbarian who can't actually break down an iron door.

Now I'm imagining a player playing a barbarian as essentially a "party tricks" magician because that is the skillset he has IRL....lol


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isonaroc wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Caius The Disillusioned wrote:
This is why I only use Diplomacy or Intimidate checks for someone the characters have *just* met, and if they can't roleplay what they want, then they don't get to make the role. I might let someone make a Diplomacy check against someone they're very familiar with who has a deeply-ingrained opinion of them under the right circumstances, but it would require some really impressive roleplaying first.
So your rewarding PLAYER cha, not CHARACTER charisma... now THAT is something that grates my nerves...
Word. Not everyone is good at extemporaneous banter, and they shouldn't be punished for that any more than the person playing the barbarian who can't actually break down an iron door.

Well, don't be surprised if I brandish a firearm or knife during a game. I win the intimidate check, don't I. (note the lack of a question mark) An extreme but it illustrates the ridiculousness being asked for. If you yourself can't be intimidating then your character can't be. It doesn't make sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
M1k31 wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Caius The Disillusioned wrote:
This is why I only use Diplomacy or Intimidate checks for someone the characters have *just* met, and if they can't roleplay what they want, then they don't get to make the role. I might let someone make a Diplomacy check against someone they're very familiar with who has a deeply-ingrained opinion of them under the right circumstances, but it would require some really impressive roleplaying first.
So your rewarding PLAYER cha, not CHARACTER charisma... now THAT is something that grates my nerves...
Word. Not everyone is good at extemporaneous banter, and they shouldn't be punished for that any more than the person playing the barbarian who can't actually break down an iron door.
Now I'm imagining a player playing a barbarian as essentially a "party tricks" magician because that is the skillset he has IRL....lol

Lol, yeah this is a topic that tends to irk me because my BF is a rather soft spoken guy, but sometimes we wants to try and be a face precisely BECAUSE HE IS NOT MR CHARISMA IRL. He wants to live out a fantasy. He occasionally wants to play the super Suave Yuki from Fruits Basket. Just like a friend of mine likes to play big beefy guys despite he is 5'4" and 100lbs soaking wet...


I'm not going through 18 pages worth of text, but has anyone else pointed out how..."wordy" the descriptions are for...EVERYTHING! I think they want to be clear as possible to avoid loopholes and the like, but at the same, it makes reading anything a chore! the rules should be more concise!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
M1k31 wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Caius The Disillusioned wrote:
This is why I only use Diplomacy or Intimidate checks for someone the characters have *just* met, and if they can't roleplay what they want, then they don't get to make the role. I might let someone make a Diplomacy check against someone they're very familiar with who has a deeply-ingrained opinion of them under the right circumstances, but it would require some really impressive roleplaying first.
So your rewarding PLAYER cha, not CHARACTER charisma... now THAT is something that grates my nerves...
Word. Not everyone is good at extemporaneous banter, and they shouldn't be punished for that any more than the person playing the barbarian who can't actually break down an iron door.
Now I'm imagining a player playing a barbarian as essentially a "party tricks" magician because that is the skillset he has IRL....lol
Lol, yeah this is a topic that tends to irk me because my BF is a rather soft spoken guy, but sometimes we wants to try and be a face precisely BECAUSE HE IS NOT MR CHARISMA IRL. He wants to live out a fantasy. He occasionally wants to play the super Suave Yuki from Fruits Basket. Just like a friend of mine likes to play big beefy guys despite he is 5'4" and 100lbs soaking wet...

Games like this actually led me to want to improve IRL... I just figured 'hey, if experience makes you better, I can get better'.

Now, instead of being an overweight, unshowered, video-game addicted single nerd...

I'm an overweight, unshowered, video-game addicted MARRIED nerd. It totally works.

:D


Nemitri wrote:
I'm not going through 18 pages worth of text, but has anyone else pointed out how..."wordy" the descriptions are for...EVERYTHING! I think they want to be clear as possible to avoid loopholes and the like, but at the same, it makes reading anything a chore! the rules should be more concise!

I was just thinking about that as well. One example that comes up consistently is monk ability costs. They always say "when the monk spends a point from his ki pool" rather than just saying "when the monk spends a ki point". It's only a three word difference, but it adds up after a while.


Nemitri wrote:
I'm not going through 18 pages worth of text, but has anyone else pointed out how..."wordy" the descriptions are for...EVERYTHING! I think they want to be clear as possible to avoid loopholes and the like, but at the same, it makes reading anything a chore! the rules should be more concise!

It's a common gripe I have, though I wouldn't say I "hate" it, per se. It has two major effects: 1) you can't rely on a preponderance of the rules as simple misprintings in some abilities completely undercut how the entire class of abilities work in those particular instances; 2) it creates a false division of versions of identical abilities (closely related to 1). Plus, I'd bet there are hundreds of pages of duplicated copy across all of Paizo's books with verbatim identical text. This has its own issues among them being giving Paizo a false scapegoat out of creating genuinely unique content and probably simply being extraneous pages they're printing and essentially wasting money.


Nigrescence wrote:

The point is that this game's job IS NOT to emulate other media. It is its own game.

Now this game is meant to have a lot of variety and introduce many different options, but your SPECIFIC criticism was that it did not emulate other media. Well, tough. If you want to be a Jedi, there's a system specifically for you. If you want to be a Sorcerer, you're in luck, we have that class. If you want a magic system using MP, there are other games that have that, but this one does not currently (to my knowledge). Why don't you invent the class which uses it, or get someone else to do so?

It's not the job of this game to ensure that you can play as The Green Lantern or a Jedi or Tim The Enchanter.

That was my point. I think it's a bad argument of yours to suggest that this game must represent other media. That's flawed. Now I must insist that every movie represents my games, and that every book represents LARP. Are you even listening to yourself? That's ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting every game should represent every fantasy media. Your building a strawman. I am saying it's a flaw when a game is actually meant to be generic kitchen sink fantasy, and can't cover ANY other examples of fantasy when it comes to Magic (A very very major aspect of fantasy), other than D&D magic.

Pathfinder isn't trying to be a special unique setting with unique magic. It tries to portray itself as being able to cover whatever fantasy setting you want.

Silver Crusade

Buri Reborn wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Word. Not everyone is good at extemporaneous banter, and they shouldn't be punished for that any more than the person playing the barbarian who can't actually break down an iron door.
Well, don't be surprised if I brandish a firearm or knife during a game. I win the intimidate check, don't I. (note the lack of a question mark) An extreme but it illustrates the ridiculousness being asked for. If you yourself can't be intimidating then your character can't be. It doesn't make sense.

Either I don't understand what you're getting at, or you missed my point...


Isonaroc wrote:
Either I don't understand what you're getting at, or you missed my point...

Either is likely

Silver Crusade

Buri Reborn wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Either I don't understand what you're getting at, or you missed my point...
Either are likely

I'm saying that it's not realistic to expect people to have the skill set of their characters. Be it diplomacy, intimidation, spell casting, or the ability to break down a door.

EDIT: And that characters shouldn't be punished because their player doesn't have a +15 bluff modifier.


Isonaroc wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Either I don't understand what you're getting at, or you missed my point...
Either are likely
I'm saying that it's not realistic to expect people to have the skill set of their characters. Be it diplomacy, intimidation, spell casting, or the ability to break down a door.

I'm pretty sure he was just agreeing with you.

Silver Crusade

Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Either I don't understand what you're getting at, or you missed my point...
Either are likely
I'm saying that it's not realistic to expect people to have the skill set of their characters. Be it diplomacy, intimidation, spell casting, or the ability to break down a door.
I'm pretty sure he was just agreeing with you.

Yeah, that's what I thought, but the tone seemed antagonistic. Probably just me.


Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Either I don't understand what you're getting at, or you missed my point...
Either are likely
I'm saying that it's not realistic to expect people to have the skill set of their characters. Be it diplomacy, intimidation, spell casting, or the ability to break down a door.
I'm pretty sure he was just agreeing with you.

Or trying to start an argument, hard to tell on here :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Saying that if you simply don't have those skills yourself and have to manufacture a situation in which the GM is intimidated then the resulting enumeration of what that means includes some pretty stupid scenarios.

Silver Crusade

Buri Reborn wrote:
Saying that if you simply don't have those things skills yourself and have to manufacture a situation in which the GM is intimidated then it the resulting enumeration of what that means includes some pretty stupid scenarios.

Ohhhhhhh...ok, yeah. Agreed. Sorry for my confusion.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Furiously arguing about who agrees with the other more?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Furiously arguing about who agrees with the other more?

THE OUTRAGE!

Really, just explaining what I was saying.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, I understand and agree with you MORE!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, I understand and agree with you MORE!

NO! ME!


Milo v3 wrote:
Your building a strawman.

No, I was using your EXACT wording. Unless you did not mean to say what you actually said. Then you're just going to have to argue with yourself.

Milo v3 wrote:
I'm saying they don't represent other media, and people often want to play characters and in-settings that represent other fantasy media.
Milo v3 wrote:
I'm not suggesting every game should represent every fantasy media.

Which one is right?! Place your bets now, for the showdown at THUNDERDOME, for just $5 on Sunday, SUNDAY, SUNDAY!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

Games like this actually led me to want to improve IRL... I just figured 'hey, if experience makes you better, I can get better'.

Now, instead of being an overweight, unshowered, video-game addicted single nerd...

I'm an overweight, unshowered, video-game addicted MARRIED nerd. It totally works.

:D

getting married seems a bit far to go to play a married nerd in a tabletop RPG... but I must Say I have respect for your dedication....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
M1k31 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Games like this actually led me to want to improve IRL... I just figured 'hey, if experience makes you better, I can get better'.

Now, instead of being an overweight, unshowered, video-game addicted single nerd...

I'm an overweight, unshowered, video-game addicted MARRIED nerd. It totally works.

:D

getting married seems a bit far to go to play a married nerd in a tabletop RPG... but I must Say I have respect for your dedication....

I want followers, it seemed logical. :D


Also, she's twelve years younger, totally hot and... yeah...

I guess my CHA is higher than 12. :D

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, I understand and agree with you MORE!
NO! ME!

I disagree, that you agree, more than I agree, with your disagreement, on the stronger agreement of which agreement, we agree on. This is indeed a greater agreement, than your agreement, and though you disagree, with your agreement, of a stronger agreement, we can at least agree to agree.

Agreed?


Nigrescence wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Your building a strawman.

No, I was using your EXACT wording. Unless you did not mean to say what you actually said. Then you're just going to have to argue with yourself.

Milo v3 wrote:
I'm saying they don't represent other media, and people often want to play characters and in-settings that represent other fantasy media.
Milo v3 wrote:
I'm not suggesting every game should represent every fantasy media.
Which one is right?! Place your bets now, for the showdown at THUNDERDOME!

Um. Those don't conflict.... And you said "Now I must insist that every movie represents my games, and that every book represents LARP." Which is a completely strawman that doesn't reflect what I was saying at all.

This game is meant to be a generic kitchensink fantasy setting that is meant to be able to cover a giant range of fantasy settings so you can play in whatever sort of setting you want. So it makes sense for people to want to play play characters and in-settings that represent other fantasy media in such a game, and that it is a flaw that it doesn't.

I'm not sure how this is being miscommunicated, but I would appreciate if you weren't being hostile for no reason.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, I understand and agree with you MORE!
NO! ME!

I'M BRIAN AND SO IS MY WIFE!

...Wait, what were we talking about again?

Oh, right, rules we don't like. Um...let's see, we talked about iterative attacks, spell slots, AC...hmmm...

Oh, ok, monks not being able to use unarmed damage with brass knuckles. Monks need all the help they can get. Also, we should be allowed to apply STR to intimidate without burning a feat. In fact, we should be able to do a LOT of things without burning a feat (I'm looking at you, spring attack).


Isonaroc wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, I understand and agree with you MORE!
NO! ME!

I'M BRIAN AND SO IS MY WIFE!

...Wait, what were we talking about again?

Oh, right, rules we don't like. Um...let's see, we talked about iterative attacks, spell slots, AC...hmmm...

Oh, ok, monks not being able to use unarmed damage with brass knuckles. Monks need all the help they can get. Also, we should be allowed to apply STR to intimidate without burning a feat. In fact, we should be able to do a LOT of things without burning a feat (I'm looking at you, spring attack).

All martials need all the help they can get [though Fighter/Rogue/Monk need more than Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian]

The following simple rule is one which could be restricted exclusively to the monk [and fits perfectly with his flavor text] or could be opened to any combat class.

Craft Magic Arms and Armor: Note- this process can instead be performed on the body of a warrior [the archetype not the npc class] granting these bonuses and abilities to his body and any weapons he might wield, at no greater cost than normal for enhancing a single piece of armor or weapon.

Silver Crusade

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Craft Magic Arms and Armor: Note- this process can instead be performed on the body of a warrior [the archetype not the npc class] granting these bonuses and abilities to his body and any weapons he might wield, at no greater cost than normal for enhancing a single piece of armor or weapon.

Yeah, one of my favorite characters I played in 3.5 was a monk/kensai, 3.5 kensai had a class ability that let them out weapon abilities on their fists.

851 to 900 of 1,707 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 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.