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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

951 to 1,000 of 1,707 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

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.

Then I ask, just how many ranks in Linguistics do I need to become a perfect speaker?

Bearing in mind that while my first rank in Linguistics was in Common, my next rank will teach me Draconic, and the rank after that will teach me Aquan, and the rank after that will teach me Celestial, etc. - which one of those ranks turns me into a flawless speaker of Common?

Answer? The first one.

One rank, flawless speaking, reading, and writing of this language. Next rank, flawless speaking, reading, and writing of THAT language. (yes, I left in my Oxford Comma) (yes, I like the irony of it).

(and for the Weird Al fans out there, I have figured out the difference that 'irony' is not 'coincidence')


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I speak well english.


I speak English well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.

I don't mind it, as such, if only because I've been inured to it by tradition. But I disagree that it makes sense.

The 'memorization' explanation is nonsensical on its face, and whether or not the terminology is used in the rulebook, it is how *everyone* thinks of it. Pre-casting, as we've seen, falls apart, unless you add the same rationale as spell points to it, and even then, it's a patch at best--it's a pretty nonsensical way for magical energy to work.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Otherwhere wrote:

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?

Honestly, I don't sweat it. There are a number of ways people can crash course through new skills now - what's to stop an adventurer from doing the same during downtime, camptime, or whatever time seems reasonable?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Athaleon wrote:
One that's currently bugging me: Only people with Halfling DNA can be cautious fighters.

I think that's getting too hung up on the name. Any fighter can be cautious, but halflings can get into a fighting style that's particularly good at fighting defensively. Maybe it uses their small size in ways bigger creatures can't and their tenacity in ways other small creatures can't. Either way, what's wrong with race-based goodies? I think they're interesting ways to develop more character for the races. The designers just happened to call it "cautious fighter," a name that shouldn't be assumed to disallow any other fighter from behaving cautiously.


@ Revan

I don't know that I'd agree with 'less evocative.'

The idea that a spellcaster cultivates 'spells' within him as he improves his magic casting ability, gaining progressively more potent spells to fill in the morning [or release in moment in the case of a spontaneous caster] can be quite provocative... in some ways moreso than simply obtaining a larger mana pool.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Revan wrote:
it's a pretty nonsensical way for magical energy to work.

It's a perfectly sensible way for a fantasy magic system to work.


DM_Blake wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

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.

Then I ask, just how many ranks in Linguistics do I need to become a perfect speaker?

Bearing in mind that while my first rank in Linguistics was in Common, my next rank will teach me Draconic, and the rank after that will teach me Aquan, and the rank after that will teach me Celestial, etc. - which one of those ranks turns me into a flawless speaker of Common?

Answer? The first one.

One rank, flawless speaking, reading, and writing of this language. Next rank, flawless speaking, reading, and writing of THAT language. (yes, I left in my Oxford Comma) (yes, I like the irony of it).

(and for the Weird Al fans out there, I have figured out the difference that 'irony' is not 'coincidence')

Consider it as gradual over the PC's career(character level after gaining skill), unless they take over grading papers they only need a certain percentage of said language at any time, and can expand and deepen that knowledge naturally over time, it doesn't have to be and indeed shouldn't be all at once for anything other than functionality... it's not like they know word x was first spoken 10 years ago in the very pub they now stand in or that word y was first spoken in a conclave on another plane... that is what the knowledge checks are for.

All the players need is for their character to be able to make the relevant checks without penalty.


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

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.

Then I ask, just how many ranks in Linguistics do I need to become a perfect speaker?

To speak PERFECTLY all the time? Any number of mythic ranks with the right path abilities/mythic feats ought to do it.


Idiomatically correct language comes with just one rank, though.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would change the combat section to state you need a class ability to 5' step, withdraw and draw weapons as part of a move. The bonus for charging/flanking would be +1. Being a fighter/rogue/monk will improve the above actions and bonuses per a class ability. With a feat to help more or allow others to do these actions.

Edit: 5' step, withdraw, and drawing weapons could improve as well. Also maybe some other classes could get a small bonus to the above too but not scaling or scales slowler.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Arakhor wrote:
Idiomatically correct language comes with just one rank, though.

According to...?

Liberty's Edge

If PCs speaking and being fluent breaks realism for some in D&D breKd realism. Then maybe it's not the type of rpg a gamer should be playing IMO. Even genetic RPGs like the Hero System assume that PCs depending on the setting have certain Everyman skills. Skills that the average person should have. For example many people in a modern day style of rpg are assumed to drive, speak their native tongue and have at least a basic knowledge with computers.

I just can't see how realism as a argument can be used when their a spell that allows the creator of a demiplane. That's like complaining that ships can go at warp speed in a science fiction rpg. Realistically we can't but it sure as hell fits that kind of rpg


memorax wrote:
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.

Personally, if you wanted a more realistic skill system, I'd say the simplest way to do it would be to make skills more expensive as they get higher ranked, to represent diminishing marginal returns. Maybe also make the first rank or two cheaper, to represent how easy it is to get the basics.

On top of being (Slightly) more realistic, it would add more incentive to diversify skills, which I see as a good thing.

Bill Dunn wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
One that's currently bugging me: Only people with Halfling DNA can be cautious fighters.
I think that's getting too hung up on the name. Any fighter can be cautious, but halflings can get into a fighting style that's particularly good at fighting defensively. Maybe it uses their small size in ways bigger creatures can't and their tenacity in ways other small creatures can't. Either way, what's wrong with race-based goodies? I think they're interesting ways to develop more character for the races. The designers just happened to call it "cautious fighter," a name that shouldn't be assumed to disallow any other fighter from behaving cautiously.

The issue with feats like this is that they race-lock things that really shouldn't be race-locked. Why can only halflings be good at fighting defensively, or only Gnomes can trick a guard into loosening their ropes? I'm all for racial feats that actually relate to that race's abilities, or things like the race traits (not racial traits) that represent certain minor aspects of their race's society and culture. But right now too many feats have arbitrary race restrictions that really have no reason for being there.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
One that's currently bugging me: Only people with Halfling DNA can be cautious fighters.
I think that's getting too hung up on the name. Any fighter can be cautious, but halflings can get into a fighting style that's particularly good at fighting defensively. Maybe it uses their small size in ways bigger creatures can't and their tenacity in ways other small creatures can't. Either way, what's wrong with race-based goodies? I think they're interesting ways to develop more character for the races. The designers just happened to call it "cautious fighter," a name that shouldn't be assumed to disallow any other fighter from behaving cautiously.

If it has to do with their small size, why couldn't Gnomes or Goblins use it? Maybe the prerequisite should be "Size: Small or smaller" instead (precluding Humans with Racial Heritage from using it), but then, why wouldn't a Human fight the same way if he was always going up against size Large or larger opponents?

I'm particularly bitter about this one right now, because I'm playing a character that has it. The DM (following RAW) wouldn't waive the race restriction, so I had to burn the Human bonus feat on Racial Heritage, and then shoehorn into his background a point about one of his ancestors being a halfling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As usual, if it can breed a human has probably done it at some point in the past.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the language argument: If you want to bring realism into this game's linguistics, get ready to have almost as many dialects as you have villages. A "common tongue" would only exist in places where there was an empire powerful enough to impose one. Even then, it would not be universal: The rural backwaters and wild frontiers (where adventurers are most commonly found) probably won't use the lingua franca. Meanwhile in the heart of the empires, the elites often used a different language again from the common folk (the Roman elite used Greek for example, even in the western empire). Consider how many dialects still exist, in modern nation-states, that are incomprehensible to countrymen from the next province over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as languages go, I say get over it.

Has anyone asking for languages to be changed actually played in a system with more complicated rules? You have any idea how much of a pain in the ass it is to both roleplay and run a conversation where someone is half fluent?

As much as I hate my players, and as fun as it would be to go: "Roll your linguistics? Oops, you meant to say 'go in peace,' but actually insulted his mother, roll init," it just isn't worth the headache.

If you want languages to be a sticking point, just make more of them. Disband common and replace it with a half dozen regional languages and dialects. Then you can still have a functional language barrier without screwing around with varying levels of vocabulary and understanding.

Smart players will just get a translator hireling or cast tongues anyway. It's not worth adding a large amount of complexity to the game's basic communication for the sake of what amounts to either 3sp/day (trained hireling) or a low level spell slot (tongues).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
On the language argument: If you want to bring realism into this game's linguistics, get ready to have almost as many dialects as you have villages. A "common tongue" would only exist in places where there was an empire powerful enough to impose one. Even then, it would not be universal: The rural backwaters and wild frontiers (where adventurers are most commonly found) probably won't use the lingua franca. Meanwhile in the heart of the empires, the elites often used a different language again from the common folk (the Roman elite used Greek for example, even in the western empire). Consider how many dialects still exist, in modern nation-states, that are incomprehensible to countrymen from the next province over.

Oh its.worse... in London, accents vary by NEIGHBORHOOD....


In 5e you don't just get free languages. Some come from your race or class, but otherwise you have to train for 180 days to get a new language. Linguistics is not a skill.

It makes languages seem like something important my character does.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
On the language argument: If you want to bring realism into this game's linguistics, get ready to have almost as many dialects as you have villages. A "common tongue" would only exist in places where there was an empire powerful enough to impose one. Even then, it would not be universal: The rural backwaters and wild frontiers (where adventurers are most commonly found) probably won't use the lingua franca. Meanwhile in the heart of the empires, the elites often used a different language again from the common folk (the Roman elite used Greek for example, even in the western empire). Consider how many dialects still exist, in modern nation-states, that are incomprehensible to countrymen from the next province over.
Oh its.worse... in London, accents vary by NEIGHBORHOOD....

My mother will watched BBC with English subtitles.


Rhedyn wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
On the language argument: If you want to bring realism into this game's linguistics, get ready to have almost as many dialects as you have villages. A "common tongue" would only exist in places where there was an empire powerful enough to impose one. Even then, it would not be universal: The rural backwaters and wild frontiers (where adventurers are most commonly found) probably won't use the lingua franca. Meanwhile in the heart of the empires, the elites often used a different language again from the common folk (the Roman elite used Greek for example, even in the western empire). Consider how many dialects still exist, in modern nation-states, that are incomprehensible to countrymen from the next province over.

i

Oh its.worse... in London, accents vary by NEIGHBORHOOD....

My mother will watched BBC with English subtitles.

Only in Britain... or the States... A person from Jersey has a nearly incomprehensible accent to a southerner


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Only in Britain... or the States... A person from Jersey has a nearly incomprehensible accent to a southerner

Or in India. Or in China, just to name a couple more. Oh, and the Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, several African countries, Russia, Australia...


Chengar Qordath wrote:
if you wanted a more realistic skill system

Who said anything about wanting a more realistic skill system? This is, still, a thread about weird/strange/awkward Pathfinder rules/subsystems that we dislike, right?

ChainsawSam wrote:
As far as languages go, I say get over it.

Who needs to get over what now? This is, still, a thread about weird/strange/awkward Pathfinder rules/subsystems that we dislike, right?

Even so, I inadvertently launched this side-discussion by simply exaggerating some of the weirdness in someone else's post. Yes, it was RAW weirdness which is why I found it comical. Maybe I should have mentioned that I don't actually "hate" it; it's just comical to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh it's certainly comical, I just think it is a good enough abstracted mechanic for an abstracted gamiest tabletop system.

Have we talked about how bizzare/useless counter-spelling is? Because I hate it. It's so obscure and such a pain to use that it might as well not even be a rule.


ChainsawSam wrote:

Oh it's certainly comical, I just think it is a good enough abstracted mechanic for an abstracted gamiest tabletop system.

Have we talked about how bizzare/useless counter-spelling is? Because I hate it. It's so obscure and such a pain to use that it might as well not even be a rule.

it's not obscure! just got to the table of contents under "wasting your turn". should be the first entry.


Yeah, some skills are weird. Swimming and Survival are two I think about together with Linguistics.
Any avg/normal person is able to swim or find food for a meal, and the ability to talk, write and read about any language per level.
There really isn't even a restriction to what languages you can learn, afaik. But I feel like learning Thassilonian, a 10000 year old, dead, language or Aboleth isn't really available to most people, so I don't really allow them in my games.
While I really don't care about the realism part, I just don't like how the game gives these abilities away for free.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Depends on where in the South. Texas and Louisiana can have frightfully different accents.

Then there is Creole, and it's various accents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My kids dragged me to the PC once to watch a you-tube clip which was one person's walk through of part of a game, and someone else deriding the 'fake cockney' accent he was using. The thing was, I'm pretty sure it wasn't 'fake cockney' but actually a genuine accent from south of London on the coast (roundabout Hastings, for those who now where that is).
Moral - do your research before deriding fakes and make sure they are in fact fake, or you'll sound like a prat. And be laughed at. :)

Liberty's Edge

Chengar Qordath wrote:


Personally, if you wanted a more realistic skill system, I'd say the simplest way to do it would be to make skills more expensive as they get higher ranked, to represent diminishing marginal returns. Maybe also make the first rank or two cheaper, to represent how easy it is to get the basics.

On top of being (Slightly) more realistic, it would add more incentive to diversify skills, which I see as a good thing.

I'm not saying a realistic skill system is a bad thing. It would require some houseruling. Minor or major depending on how much ones want to change. To me D&D never came of as realisitc. At the very least many fantasy rpgs just are not setup for realism imo. Dragons, orcs, elves etc. Maybe Ars Magica. Not D&D. I think if one is going to want to houserule. Might as well use a generic system like gurps, Hero System or Savage Worlds to do so.

Even then with classes having varying skill points. It's not worth it says for a Fighter to diversfy imo. Certainly a Bard or even a Rogue. A fighter to starved for skill points.


DM_Blake wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Only in Britain... or the States... A person from Jersey has a nearly incomprehensible accent to a southerner
Or in India. Or in China, just to name a couple more. Oh, and the Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, several African countries, Russia, Australia...

Britain in particular being a real standout for the sheer diversity of accents over a comparably small space.


DM_Blake wrote:

ChainsawSam wrote:
As far as languages go, I say get over it.

Who needs to get over what now? This is, still, a thread about weird/strange/awkward Pathfinder rules/subsystems that we dislike, right?

Even so, I inadvertently launched this side-discussion by simply exaggerating some of the weirdness in someone else's post. Yes, it was RAW weirdness which is why I found it comical. Maybe I should have mentioned that I don't actually "hate" it; it's just comical to me.

No-one was arguing to change the skill, I and RavingDork were merely suggesting you don't need to consider linguistics as a complete instruction by RAW, but rather a guideline of what the character CAN do.... unless as A GM you are going to give the party orc a reading assignment of classical literature whose reading comprehension is tantamount to the story, you only need to assume what he does in the story is what he is capable of and not a bit more, which should be far less than an English major. We were NOT suggesting rolling for comprehension or any such nonsense, merely that you keep what your character can do within the bounds of what they need to do.


Rub-Eta wrote:

Yeah, some skills are weird. Swimming and Survival are two I think about together with Linguistics.

Any avg/normal person is able to swim or find food for a meal, and the ability to talk, write and read about any language per level.
There really isn't even a restriction to what languages you can learn, afaik. But I feel like learning Thassilonian, a 10000 year old, dead, language or Aboleth isn't really available to most people, so I don't really allow them in my games.
While I really don't care about the realism part, I just don't like how the game gives these abilities away for free.

Actually, swimming and survival are not that common IRL

Many sailors in history were unable to swim, many because they figured they'd rather drown fast rather than survive along time stuck in the sea, it was much like optimizing, they would rather sail the ship better than swim away to no certain survivable position.

Safe food was largely learned through trial and error

those skills do make sense.

Silver Crusade

DM_Blake wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Only in Britain... or the States... A person from Jersey has a nearly incomprehensible accent to a southerner
Or in India. Or in China, just to name a couple more. Oh, and the Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, several African countries, Russia, Australia...

I can't speak for the other countries, but it's totally true for China. Some of the dialects are so different that they may as well be completely different languages.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Only in Britain... or the States... A person from Jersey has a nearly incomprehensible accent to a southerner
Or in India. Or in China, just to name a couple more. Oh, and the Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, several African countries, Russia, Australia...
Britain in particular being a real standout for the sheer diversity of accents over a comparably small space.

East Glasgow to west Glasgow, for example.


Isonaroc wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Only in Britain... or the States... A person from Jersey has a nearly incomprehensible accent to a southerner
Or in India. Or in China, just to name a couple more. Oh, and the Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, several African countries, Russia, Australia...
I can't speak for the other countries, but it's totally true for China. Some of the dialects are so different that they may as well be completely different languages.

Because for tge most part they ARE different languages.

Technically there is no such thing as the Chinese language or Indian language.they have a massive amount of dialects worth a few being most prominent


M1k31 wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
A load of s~%@
Actually, swimming and survival are not that common IRL [...] those skills do make sense.

Go read the rules again and you'll see that your statment doesn't make sense (take a look at the two mentioned skills and the take 10 rules). I wasn't talking about how reality works, rather how it works within the rules of the game. And again: While I really don't care about the realism part, I just don't like how the game gives these abilities away for free.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Rub-Eta wrote:
M1k31 wrote:
Actually, swimming and survival are not that common IRL [...] those skills do make sense.
Go read the rules again and you'll see that your statment doesn't make sense (take a look at the two mentioned skills and the take 10 rules). I wasn't talking about how reality works, rather how it works within the rules of the game. And again: While I really don't care about the realism part, I just don't like how the game gives these abilities away for free.

Gives them away for free... to people who are expected to be highly competent protagonists of a fantasy story. Keep in mind that the rules of the game are for the players of the game and their characters. NPCs do not need to completely conform to them.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
M1k31 wrote:
Actually, swimming and survival are not that common IRL [...] those skills do make sense.
Go read the rules again and you'll see that your statment doesn't make sense (take a look at the two mentioned skills and the take 10 rules). I wasn't talking about how reality works, rather how it works within the rules of the game. And again: While I really don't care about the realism part, I just don't like how the game gives these abilities away for free.
Gives them away for free... to people who are expected to be highly competent protagonists of a fantasy story. Keep in mind that the rules of the game are for the players of the game and their characters. NPCs do not need to completely conform to them.

One amusing quirk I've found in regards to this is that a Level 1 Wizard with a 20 Int and Crafter's Fortune can take 10 to pass DC 20 Craft Checks in a Craft Skill they don't even have.


Revan wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.

I don't mind it, as such, if only because I've been inured to it by tradition. But I disagree that it makes sense.

The 'memorization' explanation is nonsensical on its face, and whether or not the terminology is used in the rulebook, it is how *everyone* thinks of it. Pre-casting, as we've seen, falls apart, unless you add the same rationale as spell points to it, and even then, it's a patch at best--it's a pretty nonsensical way for magical energy to work.

Your brain is a massive organic multi -spell scroll, which you are writing spells t that you memorize. Then, when you cast them, they disappear from your brain - just like they do from a scroll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Revan wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.

I don't mind it, as such, if only because I've been inured to it by tradition. But I disagree that it makes sense.

The 'memorization' explanation is nonsensical on its face, and whether or not the terminology is used in the rulebook, it is how *everyone* thinks of it. Pre-casting, as we've seen, falls apart, unless you add the same rationale as spell points to it, and even then, it's a patch at best--it's a pretty nonsensical way for magical energy to work.

Your brain is a massive organic multi -spell scroll, which you are writing spells t that you memorize. Then, when you cast them, they disappear from your brain - just like they do from a scroll.

So THAT's the origin of the Goblin Myth that writing steals words from your brain.


Seriously though, why is it plausible to believe spells function like this off scrolls but it isn't to believe that they could function like this in your brain?


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.'

They could be logical, but they aren't. To be logical they would have to follow a natural progression, which they can't do if there are bonus slots. There's the valence analogy, which requires their progression to be dictated by geometry and invariant. You could get away with some other sequence, but it would always be invariant. Whatever restricts the caster to a mix of slots must be a natural law and the same for universalist wizard, specialist wizard, sorcerer, and bard (the bard is slower, but when he gets to fourth level slots he should have the same slot configuration as a wizard who just got fourth level slots).

It's not possible to justify spell slots while bonus slots and different progression patterns exist apart from optionally a divine-arcane divide. If you force everything into the same mathematical progression you can make it plausible, but it doesn't play nicely with the balance paradigm since it introduces an unstated requirement that no more than usually two or three encounters a day are difficult enough to need top level slots while easy encounters are provided in the correct proportion to justify having lower level slots. Mana or even better at will/cooldown mechanics are more flexible for the adventure designer as well as the player.


RDM42 wrote:
Seriously though, why is it plausible to believe spells function like this off scrolls but it isn't to believe that they could function like this in your brain?

Because brains have a different information storage medium than scrolls.


Missed most of the posts but will comment anyway...

Spellcasting is very much like scrolls on your brain.

You cast them and they are gone.

Scroll are also gone after casting.

What's the issue?

A scroll was a piece of the persons memory committed to paper, so the DC is set (it literally is cast by them, onto the scroll, but delayed).

So what, are people saying low level scrolls should be modified by high level casters reading them?

That's stupid.

It's already been cast, just delayed.

That's why Rogues can use it.


Atarlost wrote:
If you force everything into the same mathematical progression you can make it plausible, but it doesn't play nicely with the balance paradigm since it introduces an unstated requirement that no more than usually two or three encounters a day are difficult enough to need top level slots while easy encounters are provided in the correct proportion to justify having lower level slots. Mana or even better at will/cooldown mechanics are more flexible for the adventure designer as well as the player.

No comment on plausibility (all magic is implausible), but this is a good point. Spell slots contribute mightily to the 15 minute adventuring day problem, and to the difficulty in balancing encounters around the possibility that any given magic user may either go nova or run dry at any given point.

YMMV, but in the campaigns I run, Oracles and Sorcerers casting off of magic pools are the top dogs, and I find that things run much more smoothly that way. They have plenty of stamina to last multiple encounters, but lack the explosive versatility of prepared casters to wreck multiple encounters (scrolls cannot be purchased), and aren't burdened by the weird decision making process and occasional "dead action" turns that often take hold when casters with fixed slots start running low on higher-level spells. It has made designing balanced encounters much easier for me.


Bluenose wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Seriously though, why is it plausible to believe spells function like this off scrolls but it isn't to believe that they could function like this in your brain?
Because brains have a different information storage medium than scrolls.

Ah, so that's how REAL spells work?


I also really don't like ACP from armour. It's just a fun-spoiler. For some reason you're not really proficient with armour even when you're proficient with armour...
It's just one more thing that you have to deal with, unlike the unarmoured characters. How I envy them.

951 to 1,000 of 1,707 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 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.