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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

901 to 950 of 1,707 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
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.

Without that extra verbiage, people would argue that it didn't have to be THEIR own ki points from their ki pool that they were spending...

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Pathfinder. Where everything is made up, and the Ki points don't matter.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Pathfinder. Where everything is made up, and the Ki points don't matter.

That's right, like a Fighter with an 8 Int in a skill challenge, the ki points don't matter.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Someone didn't catch that line, did they?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Someone didn't catch that line, did they?

Well, whose line is it anyway?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
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?

... Great, my headache is back....


I personally HATE elemental spells locked into their elements. Most so for spells that have no additional effect. Why isn't there a Freezing Hands spell? Acidball? Firebolt? Sure, there is a feat for that you'll say... but cast at +1 for no addition damage or effect and it locks you into one energy type... Whole things strikes me as stupid.

Learning a new Language... years of dedication to master a language and these adventuring linguists can pick up the whole deal in a weekend of rough combat having never heard it spoken before...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh-o-Lantern wrote:

...

Learning a new Language... years of dedication to master a language and these adventuring linguists can pick up the whole deal in a weekend of rough combat having never heard it spoken before...

This is just a consequence of how stupidly fast PCs level up. Level 5 is usually said to be the limits of real life humans. In most campaigns, PCs hit that in what...a couple of weeks, max?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Josh-o-Lantern wrote:

...

Learning a new Language... years of dedication to master a language and these adventuring linguists can pick up the whole deal in a weekend of rough combat having never heard it spoken before...

This is just a consequence of how stupidly fast PCs level up. Level 5 is usually said to be the limits of real life humans. In most campaigns, PCs hit that in what...a couple of weeks, max?

I generally treat learning a new language as a process. They can't learn a language unless they have access to either reference materials or someone else who speaks it, and for a while they can't fluently converse or translate things on the fly, they need to use their references. It's still faster than real life, but it feels more organic without significantly hamstringing them.

Of course, at a certain point it's all moot because magic...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always LIKED how fast you can get languages in game actually...

INT 5 Orc fighter gains level...
Learns Common. Up until then, just pantomiming and grunting.

Lulz.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spent 3 weeks immersed in a new language and you'll be surprised how fast you pick it up.

That said, it's a result of how skill points work.

You think language is bad?

How about someone hitting level 5 and putting 5 ranks into profession(sailor) all at once, thereby becoming the equivalent of a skilled worker/sailor despite never having set foot on a dinghy let along a sailing ship.

Silver Crusade

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

Spent 3 weeks immersed in a new language and you'll be surprised how fast you pick it up.

That said, it's a result of how skill points work.

You think language is bad?

How about someone hitting level 5 and putting 5 ranks into profession(sailor) all at once, thereby becoming the equivalent of a skilled worker/sailor despite never having set foot on a dinghy let along a sailing ship.

Three weeks, sure. Three hours, not so much. And most folks learning languages in PF (at least in my experience) aren't immersed. It's more like "oh, we keep running into draconic language in this adventure, I should pick that up."

I would agree with you about the profession stuff, if I ever saw anyone take a profession skill ever. Sailor is really the only one I hear folks taking semi-often, and then it's generally for sea campaigns.


I believe that's because they actually gave Profession(sailor) in-game mechanics in certain AP's.


I frequently take Profession(driving) frequently because I like to keep a carriage around for travel - even when teleporting becomes common.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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 ingredients in this case would be the spellbook, so...yeah, absolutely.


Isonaroc wrote:
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

Spent 3 weeks immersed in a new language and you'll be surprised how fast you pick it up.

That said, it's a result of how skill points work.

You think language is bad?

How about someone hitting level 5 and putting 5 ranks into profession(sailor) all at once, thereby becoming the equivalent of a skilled worker/sailor despite never having set foot on a dinghy let along a sailing ship.

Three weeks, sure. Three hours, not so much. And most folks learning languages in PF (at least in my experience) aren't immersed. It's more like "oh, we keep running into draconic language in this adventure, I should pick that up."

I would agree with you about the profession stuff, if I ever saw anyone take a profession skill ever. Sailor is really the only one I hear folks taking semi-often, and then it's generally for sea campaigns.

Seriously, pick any skill in pathfinder that a PC hasn't put ranks into. On leveling up to level 5, stick 5 ranks into that skill. This is the equivalent to someone who can barely apply a bandaid turning into a world class surgeon in the space of a week. It's ridiculous for every skill. Language is actually one of the less egrarious ones - how long does it normally take to get a couple of points in Knowledge(Engineering) in real life? Several years?


So would a good (house-)rule be: "You can only ever invest 1 skill point in a skill at level up" to avoid the sudden jump of 5 points in one shot?

Liberty's Edge

Here the thing I think gamers forget about RPGs. They are not supposed to be realistic IMO. Sure having ranks in skills and being good at it might not be realistic. But you know I'm not playing RPGs or at least D&D for realism. I live it day in and out and I don't want it at the game table. Any DM that starts using realism as a argument for not allowing something at the table. Will find my character sheet torn to shreds. While I'm walking out the door before he even finished that sentence.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Revan wrote:
The ingredients in this case would be the spellbook, so...yeah, absolutely.

No, the spellbook would be the cookbook. That's why it doesn't show up under detect magic. There are only instructions in there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For people that quibble about spells having definite levels, with a set number of spells per level, I always like to point out the Bohr model of the atom, with set numbers of electrons occupying distinct energy levels.


Otherwhere wrote:
So would a good (house-)rule be: "You can only ever invest 1 skill point in a skill at level up" to avoid the sudden jump of 5 points in one shot?

Are you OK with someone who doesn't begin their life learning a skill never reaching their potential in that skill. Or someone who levels up after a 5 year apprenticeship under a master of a trade only having a single skill point. Heck, even spending 5 years learning a couple of languages is impossible for most with that houserule*.

The problem is that the typical PC goes from novice to master in a few weeks due to how quickly XP accrues and how fast most adventures are. That in and of itself is absurd. So long as someone who is fresh out of training can go out and adventure for a week and return better than the people who trained them, then any pretense of realism is lost. Houserules that try to fix particular cases without handling the entire absurdity are pretty much a waste of effort.

*retraining aside, which defeats the whole point of that houserule anyway unless modified


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Revan wrote:
The ingredients in this case would be the spellbook, so...yeah, absolutely.
No, the spellbook would be the cookbook. That's why it doesn't show up under detect magic. There are only instructions in there.

Then what are the ingredients,npray tell? The material components, only provided at the moment of casting, which you have a limitless supply of?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Revan wrote:
Then what are the ingredients,npray tell?

The magical power that the caster has to muster in order to prepare the spell. Why else would you have to have spell slots? Otherwise, anyone with Use Magic Device could prepare and cast a spell. But they can't, because UMD can only manipulate existing magic. It can't gather magic like a spellcaster can.


Snowblind wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
So would a good (house-)rule be: "You can only ever invest 1 skill point in a skill at level up" to avoid the sudden jump of 5 points in one shot?

Are you OK with someone who doesn't begin their life learning a skill never reaching their potential in that skill. Or someone who levels up after a 5 year apprenticeship under a master of a trade only having a single skill point. Heck, even spending 5 years learning a couple of languages is impossible for most with that houserule*.

The problem is that the typical PC goes from novice to master in a few weeks due to how quickly XP accrues and how fast most adventures are. That in and of itself is absurd. So long as someone who is fresh out of training can go out and adventure for a week and return better than the people who trained them, then any pretense of realism is lost. Houserules that try to fix particular cases without handling the entire absurdity are pretty much a waste of effort.

*retraining aside, which defeats the whole point of that houserule anyway unless modified

Which is why I'm asking: what is your suggestion to handle this?

I think we agree. I'm honestly not sure based on your post. How do you try to "realistically" (as far as one can in a fantasy rpg) reflect such a thing as learning or improving a skill?


GMs with an issue with skill points being unnatural need to provide breathing points in their stories then so players can spend time leveling and learning skills in a more narrative-cohesive way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:


Seriously, pick any skill in pathfinder that a PC hasn't put ranks into. On leveling up to level 5, stick 5 ranks into that skill. This is the equivalent to someone who can barely apply a bandaid turning into a world class surgeon in the space of a week. It's ridiculous for every skill. Language is actually one of the less egrarious ones - how long does it normally take to get a couple of points in Knowledge(Engineering) in real life? Several years?
The Avengers wrote:

Maria Hill: When did you become an expert in thermonuclear astrophysics?

Tony Stark: Last night.

PCs have far more in common with comic heroes than they do with ordinary folks.

I usually just incorporate the abnormally fast growth/learning as thing in my games - as in, it is unusual to the "normal" people of the setting, and it's usually a sign of divine providence or destiny's favor.

Being able to catch up to foes who have years, centuries, or millenniums of experience over the PCs is part of what makes the PCs (or a villain that's actually keeping pace with them or ahead of them) special =P


Otherwhere wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
So would a good (house-)rule be: "You can only ever invest 1 skill point in a skill at level up" to avoid the sudden jump of 5 points in one shot?

Are you OK with someone who doesn't begin their life learning a skill never reaching their potential in that skill. Or someone who levels up after a 5 year apprenticeship under a master of a trade only having a single skill point. Heck, even spending 5 years learning a couple of languages is impossible for most with that houserule*.

The problem is that the typical PC goes from novice to master in a few weeks due to how quickly XP accrues and how fast most adventures are. That in and of itself is absurd. So long as someone who is fresh out of training can go out and adventure for a week and return better than the people who trained them, then any pretense of realism is lost. Houserules that try to fix particular cases without handling the entire absurdity are pretty much a waste of effort.

*retraining aside, which defeats the whole point of that houserule anyway unless modified

Which is why I'm asking: what is your suggestion to handle this?

I think we agree. I'm honestly not sure based on your post. How do you try to "realistically" (as far as one can in a fantasy rpg) reflect such a thing as learning or improving a skill?

Either go and curtail the rate of XP accrual over short periods massively, to the point where the vast majority of APs and homebrew campaigns don't work (Kingmaker might work from what I understand, but not much else), or just accept that PCs are going to learn everything absurdly fast. There isn't a way to get around the total lack of realism that happens when characters go from farmhand to demigod in a space of a month, without...stopping characters from going from farmhand to demigod in a space of a month. That's pretty much all there is to it. Nip everything in the bud by doing something like hardcapping leveling to once per year or so (which makes almost all of the wackiness go away on the spot), or "suspension of disbelief" away characters learning languages in a couple of days, or becoming master swordsmen in a week, or discovering the secrets of becoming a being of Fantasmic Kosmic Power(TM) during their spare time over the course of a month.


Revan 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 ingredients in this case would be the spellbook, so...yeah, absolutely.

A better analogy might be claiming that you can still bake a cake after all your wood-fired-oven wood is used up.

You could mix the ingredients and go through all the motions, but without the fuel [spell slots] you cannot bake another cake.


Then just buy more fuel...


alexd1976 wrote:

I've always LIKED how fast you can get languages in game actually...

INT 5 Orc fighter gains level...
Learns Common. Up until then, just pantomiming and grunting.

Lulz.

It's even better.

INT 5 Orc fighter kills a few goblins, or humans, or whatever he likes to kill. Then he gains a level and spontaneously KNOWS common (seems to skip the learning step altogether) - getting XP from combat somehow spontaneously generates the language in his brain.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Then just buy more fuel...

With Spell Slots that means sleeping.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
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).

2) really bugs me whenever it comes up. There should be not be a significant rules difference between "Wielding a weapon in one hand" and "Wielding a one-handed weapon." For that matter, "Attack" vs. "Attack Action" and "Race Trait" vs. "Racial Trait" are also eternal causes of confusion.

Zhangar wrote:
The Avengers wrote:

Maria Hill: When did you become an expert in thermonuclear astrophysics?

Tony Stark: Last night.

PCs have far more in common with comic heroes than they do with ordinary folks.

I usually just incorporate the abnormally fast growth/learning as thing in my games - as in, it is unusual to the "normal" people of the setting, and it's usually a sign of divine providence or destiny's favor.

Being able to catch up to foes who have years, centuries, or millenniums of experience over the PCs is part of what makes the PCs (or a villain that's actually keeping pace with them or ahead of them) special =P

Really, the biggest realism issue with skills is probably the fact that everything goes up on a straight linear progression. It's as easy to go from 0 ranks to 1 rank as it is to go from 19 to 20.

Realistically, most people could probably get the equivalent of one rank in a skill after a pretty short amount of time. Similar to your example, an all-night study session could probably make some reason bly informed about a given subject (though retaining the info is another matter). For another example, picking up the first rank in Ride is probably just a matter of learning everything a person is told in their riding lesson: how to sit, how to guide the horse, etc.

The thing is, in real life most skills start running into diminishing marginal returns pretty quickly. You can learn enough about swimming to not drown in calm water in a single afternoon, but going from "Pretty Good Swimmer" to "Olympic Swimmer" takes a lifetime of training and dedication. Skill levels that should be pretty easy to learn take just as much effort as skill levels that would take a lifetime of dedicated training.

Liberty's Edge

Then it ends up being that no one will take skills or the ones that are a absolute must for a character. If leRning something is going to be hard in a rpg. Then why bother. Realism works in real life. Not so much in a rpg. One can houserule realism into D&D. The default setting is anything but IMO. This a rpg with dragons the size of jumbo jets not only flying and doing it well. They also find enough food to feed on. It's the same way in a fantasy movies where the warrior in heavy armor not only runs away from a threat. They do it easily.


One that's currently bugging me: Only people with Halfling DNA can be cautious fighters.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I've always LIKED how fast you can get languages in game actually...

INT 5 Orc fighter gains level...
Learns Common. Up until then, just pantomiming and grunting.

Lulz.

It's even better.

INT 5 Orc fighter kills a few goblins, or humans, or whatever he likes to kill. Then he gains a level and spontaneously KNOWS common (seems to skip the learning step altogether) - getting XP from combat somehow spontaneously generates the language in his brain.

That's a little disingenuous, no? I think we all know that when a player puts ranks or feats into something, it is assumed that they had been training towards that end in their off-time (off screen as it were) all along.

Your orc didn't just spontaneously learn Common from combat. He pieced it together over a lengthy period of time, from listening to his enemies' battle cries, their pleading as they died, or from prisoner interrogations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I've always LIKED how fast you can get languages in game actually...

INT 5 Orc fighter gains level...
Learns Common. Up until then, just pantomiming and grunting.

Lulz.

It's even better.

INT 5 Orc fighter kills a few goblins, or humans, or whatever he likes to kill. Then he gains a level and spontaneously KNOWS common (seems to skip the learning step altogether) - getting XP from combat somehow spontaneously generates the language in his brain.

That's a little disingenuous, no? I think we all know that when a player puts ranks or feats into something, it is assumed that they had been training towards that end in their off-time (off screen as it were) all along.

Your orc didn't just spontaneously learn Common from combat. He pieced it together over a lengthy period of time, from listening to his enemies' battle cries, their pleading as they died, or from prisoner interrogations.

No the Orc picked it up because tasty manflesh directly imbued him with its language.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I've always LIKED how fast you can get languages in game actually...

INT 5 Orc fighter gains level...
Learns Common. Up until then, just pantomiming and grunting.

Lulz.

It's even better.

INT 5 Orc fighter kills a few goblins, or humans, or whatever he likes to kill. Then he gains a level and spontaneously KNOWS common (seems to skip the learning step altogether) - getting XP from combat somehow spontaneously generates the language in his brain.

That's a little disingenuous, no? I think we all know that when a player puts ranks or feats into something, it is assumed that they had been training towards that end in their off-time (off screen as it were) all along.

Your orc didn't just spontaneously learn Common from combat. He pieced it together over a lengthy period of time, from listening to his enemies' battle cries, their pleading as they died, or from prisoner interrogations.

No the Orc picked it up because tasty manflesh directly imbued him with its language.

I can roll with that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That's some Relic-style horror right there.


Ravingdork wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I've always LIKED how fast you can get languages in game actually...

INT 5 Orc fighter gains level...
Learns Common. Up until then, just pantomiming and grunting.

Lulz.

It's even better.

INT 5 Orc fighter kills a few goblins, or humans, or whatever he likes to kill. Then he gains a level and spontaneously KNOWS common (seems to skip the learning step altogether) - getting XP from combat somehow spontaneously generates the language in his brain.

That's a little disingenuous, no? I think we all know that when a player puts ranks or feats into something, it is assumed that they had been training towards that end in their off-time (off screen as it were) all along.

Your orc didn't just spontaneously learn Common from combat. He pieced it together over a lengthy period of time, from listening to his enemies' battle cries, their pleading as they died, or from prisoner interrogations.

Sure. That's certainly the assumption I always use.

Note that if the orc puts JUST ONE POINT into linguistics he can learn to speak Common. Just just battle cries and pleas for mercy, not even snippets from interrogations. All of Common. He can converse intellectually with any native speaker of Common. In fact, he has perfect vocabulary and understands EVERY word of common.

Even better, he can read and write it. Perfectly. Flawlessly. With perfect grammar and spelling.

Oddly enough, that's greater fluency than your average native-English speaking 8-year college graduate who, by the way, was pretty much forced to take several years of study in the English language during his many school years.

That's a lot to get for ONE skill rank. That's a lot to apply even off-screen when the source of the skill rank was murder and mayhem on the battlefield.


DM_Blake wrote:

Note that if the orc puts JUST ONE POINT into linguistics he can learn to speak Common. Just just battle cries and pleas for mercy, not even snippets from interrogations. All of Common. He can converse intellectually with any native speaker of Common. In fact, he has perfect vocabulary and understands EVERY word of common.

Even better, he can read and write it. Perfectly. Flawlessly. With perfect grammar and spelling.

Oddly enough, that's greater fluency than your average native-English speaking 8-year college graduate who, by the way, was pretty much forced to take several years of study in the English language during his many school years.

That's a lot to get for ONE skill rank. That's a lot to apply even off-screen when the source of the skill rank was murder and mayhem on the battlefield.

I don't see why you assume it to be flawless.... unmistakable certainly, but I wouldn't call it flawless to the level of a college graduate with one rank... unless it's a class skill, I would think of it more like young Schwarzenegger English than a college student, you can understand him, but it's not the best or most intellectual you ever heard, though perhaps next level or rank it is.


That's an argument for a tiered system of languages, such as in GURPS, not making it harder to take said skill points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And an argument in favor of a less binary skill system. One where the degree of success or failure is important.


Otherwhere wrote:
And an argument in favor of a less binary skill system. One where the degree of success or failure is important.

My point was there are ways to mitigate these unbelievable skill abilities increasing that fast, you don't need to assume your Orc is an English PHD because he took one rank, it's not like the player is all of a sudden going to make his character a court magistrate because of that single level, or try exploring the deeper meaning of "To Kill a Mockingbird" because they joined Oprah's bookclub, on the contrary, the Character just wants to understand x, y, and do z without undue fuss, so you don't need to say "you also comprehend A-Z" perfectly and can also teach others the subtle nuances of n, p, and m immediately the next day.

Just consider the subtle nuances as being gained over time and the full comprehension of the language as recognizing years of understanding vague niche phrases and finally phonetically comprehending the language as a whole.


Yeah, there's probably a reason that "Dungeons & Dragons" is more popular than "Languages & Linguistics" as an RPG.

Community & Digital Content Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a baiting/personally abusive post and the responses to it.


M1k31 wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
And an argument in favor of a less binary skill system. One where the degree of success or failure is important.

My point was there are ways to mitigate these unbelievable skill abilities increasing that fast, you don't need to assume your Orc is an English PHD because he took one rank, it's not like the player is all of a sudden going to make his character a court magistrate because of that single level, or try exploring the deeper meaning of "To Kill a Mockingbird" because they joined Oprah's bookclub, on the contrary, the Character just wants to understand x, y, and do z without undue fuss, so you don't need to say "you also comprehend A-Z" perfectly and can also teach others the subtle nuances of n, p, and m immediately the next day.

Just consider the subtle nuances as being gained over time and the full comprehension of the language as recognizing years of understanding vague niche phrases and finally phonetically comprehending the language as a whole.

My point, in the thread about weird rule subsystems, is that there is no distinction between any of the stuff you said. Every English professor at Oxford has 1 rank in English. They may also have Profession(English Professor) but that is the skill they have to create lessons, grade papers, deal with students, kiss the head master's backside, earn tenure, etc. Their actual skill ranks in the English language is, by Pathfinder standard, the one skill rank they put into Linguistics (assuming they didn't start as native speakers; if they did, then they got the language for free but it's still equivalent to 1 rank).

It's not like an English major has 5 ranks in English and a professor has 10 Ranks in English. Nope. They all have just one.

Likewise, the afore-mentioned orc with a single rank in Linguistics picks Common and now he is exactly as fluent as ALL other characters who speak Common. All of them. Uneducated Common-speaking bumpkins and over-educated tenured Commons professors teaching Common at the Common department of the Absolom University. Or whomever in between.

And I agree, having to put numerous ranks into gaining grammatical proficiency with a language would be tedious in a game like this, so it works the way it works.

But it has been reduced to silly levels of abstraction.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's some Relic-style horror right there.

I understood that reference.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Revan wrote:
Then what are the ingredients,npray tell?
The magical power that the caster has to muster in order to prepare the spell. Why else would you have to have spell slots? Otherwise, anyone with Use Magic Device could prepare and cast a spell. But they can't, because UMD can only manipulate existing magic. It can't gather magic like a spellcaster can.

So, in other words, a more complicated, less intuitive, less evocative version of a spell point system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I've always LIKED how fast you can get languages in game actually...

INT 5 Orc fighter gains level...
Learns Common. Up until then, just pantomiming and grunting.

Lulz.

It's even better.

INT 5 Orc fighter kills a few goblins, or humans, or whatever he likes to kill. Then he gains a level and spontaneously KNOWS common (seems to skip the learning step altogether) - getting XP from combat somehow spontaneously generates the language in his brain.

That's a little disingenuous, no? I think we all know that when a player puts ranks or feats into something, it is assumed that they had been training towards that end in their off-time (off screen as it were) all along.

Your orc didn't just spontaneously learn Common from combat. He pieced it together over a lengthy period of time, from listening to his enemies' battle cries, their pleading as they died, or from prisoner interrogations.

Sure. That's certainly the assumption I always use.

Note that if the orc puts JUST ONE POINT into linguistics he can learn to speak Common. Just just battle cries and pleas for mercy, not even snippets from interrogations. All of Common. He can converse intellectually with any native speaker of Common. In fact, he has perfect vocabulary and understands EVERY word of common.

Even better, he can read and write it. Perfectly. Flawlessly. With perfect grammar and spelling.

Oddly enough, that's greater fluency than your average native-English speaking 8-year college graduate who, by the way, was pretty much forced to take several years of study in the English language during his many school years.

That's a lot to get for ONE skill rank. That's a lot to apply even off-screen when the source of the skill rank was murder and mayhem on the battlefield.

Not even native speakers know every word of their own language, nor can they write it perfectly, flawlessly, with perfect grammar and spelling.

I don't see why you'd think this would be true of a non-native speaker putting a rank into linguistics.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Revan wrote:
So, in other words, a more complicated, less intuitive, less evocative version of a spell point system.

Search my post history for spell points and you'll see I've described it as such.

I don't like it either, but it does make sense regardless of our feelings.

901 to 950 of 1,707 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 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.