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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,707 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I hate the shear number of riders on combat maneuvers. "can't move an enemy into a dangerous square" then what's the bloody point? also the fact you can not hockey-check people with a bullrush is inane. Also fun, feats with use riders that the user could not possible fulfill by himself, like deadly stroke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:

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.

Especially since most of the armor class penalties are one of those nods to "realism" that's based on people 25 years ago not doing the research, and everyone else sticking with it because of legacy.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
9mm wrote:
I hate the shear number of riders on combat maneuvers. "can't move an enemy into a dangerous square" then what's the bloody point? also the fact you can not hockey-check people with a bullrush is inane. Also fun, feats with use riders that the user could not possible fulfill by himself, like deadly stroke.

Oh, dip, I COMPLETELY forgot about this.

This. This, this, this, this, this 100%. You absolutely should be able to reposition dudes into fires and over cliffs. You totally should be able to bullrush dudes through a solid object if you succeed in the strength check.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing that annoyed my group was the AoO from using a combat maneuver without having the right feats (especially, since it penalizes the CMB roll with the damage from the AoO).

We ended up houseruling it to only provoke the AoO if you failed an untrained maneuver.

We've seen a lot more maneuvers since then.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

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.
Especially since most of the armor class penalties are one of those nods to "realism" that's based on people 25 years ago not doing the research, and everyone else sticking with it because of legacy.

Speaking of 25-year-old nods to realism, someone somewhere in D&D's history saw something like this in a book and decided "Yup, slashing only. Longswords can't deal piercing damage."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't stand the Bleeding effect,it's a pet hate of everyone I play with as it make little sense how it works when everyone hitting each other with swords.


jonn254 wrote:
I can't stand the Bleeding effect,it's a pet hate of everyone I play with as it make little sense how it works when everyone hitting each other with swords.

You mean the fact that bleeding effects don't stack? That's because MARTIAL REALISM! in Pathfinder only exists to take things away from martials.

But seriously...if you hate it so much, just get rid of it. Allow bleeding effects to stack if you want to. It doesn't make that much difference. Or is your beef that people aren't constantly spurting blood everywhere? If that's what you want, try Rolemaster. It's hours of gore for the whole family.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

I think the one major thing I hate is that you have to have the Trapfinding class feature to notice ALL magical traps. I always houserule in my games that Perception can find magical traps unless they're specifically hidden by invisibility spells or things like that.


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


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

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

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

Rigid spell slots are illogical in every way.

Wizard:

"The art of magic isn't something that is simple. It requires locking the complicated formula inside a part of my brain. I have to focus hard to keep them structured. The largest part of my training was learning how to compartmentalize part of my thought process. It is, in effect, making a scroll within my skull.

When that spell is cast, just as a scroll, those formula are wiped away. Power, my young apprentice, is fleeting. You would do to remember that."

Sorcerer:
"Lucky you. My magic is natural, it comes from inside of me. The energies that flow inside of me are something I have to sculpt into the spell. Like a potion, or a brew, I need the right amounts of the right types of energy. What energy is needed for one spell, may not be needed for another spell, even if they do something similar. Once I am all out of milk, no matter how hard I try, I can't make cheese. I have to wait for the pantry to restock."

Cleric:
"My God grants to me the powers that I ask for. My God states that I should think carefully on what spells I require for the day. My God asks that I ask for these by ritual and rote, so as to honor them. My God limits me on what I may ask for to teach me to be independent and careful in how I use their power."


cartmanbeck wrote:
I think the one major thing I hate is that you have to have the Trapfinding class feature to notice ALL magical traps. I always houserule in my games that Perception can find magical traps unless they're specifically hidden by invisibility spells or things like that.

You may be thinking 3.X?

You don't need trapfinding to find magical traps with perception.

You DO need trapfinding to take out magical traps with Disable Device.

prd wrote:

Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.[/url]

(Emphasis added.)

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Sorry, that is totally what I meant. :)


HWalsh wrote:
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:


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

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

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

Rigid spell slots are illogical in every way.

Wizard:

"The art of magic isn't something that is simple. It requires locking the complicated formula inside a part of my brain. I have to focus hard to keep them structured. The largest part of my training was learning how to compartmentalize part of my thought process. It is, in effect, making a scroll within my skull.

When that spell is cast, just as a scroll, those formula are wiped away. Power, my young apprentice, is fleeting. You would do to remember that."

Sorcerer:
"Lucky you. My magic is natural, it comes from inside of me. The energies that flow inside of me are something I have to sculpt into the spell. Like a potion, or a brew, I need the right amounts of the right types of energy. What energy is needed for one spell, may not be needed for another spell, even if they do something similar. Once I am all out of milk, no matter how hard I try, I can't make cheese. I have to wait for the pantry to restock."

Cleric:
"My God grants to me the powers that I ask for. My God states that I should think carefully on what spells I require for the day. My God asks that I ask for these by ritual and rote, so as to honor them. My God limits me on what I may ask for to teach me to be independent and careful in how I use their power."

Psion:

"I have a pool of energy and several ways to naturally use it into powers similar to your spells. I can also use more energy than is required to enhance and alter the effects."

Wilder with Wild Surge:
"Dude! Look at what I can do!"

Wilder with Enervation:
"Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude."


Athaleon wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

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.
Especially since most of the armor class penalties are one of those nods to "realism" that's based on people 25 years ago not doing the research, and everyone else sticking with it because of legacy.
Speaking of 25-year-old nods to realism, someone somewhere in D&D's history saw something like this in a book and decided "Yup, slashing only. Longswords can't deal piercing damage."

[sarcasm]That's not a longsword, that's a bastard sword.[/sarcasm] According to the rules at least...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I don't like is dire weapons and the Dire flail in particular . I have practice with both Nunchuks and the three section staff and can point out you do hit yourself when you use them. Put two spike pointy ball on both end of a stick with chains attached is more of a messy way to commit suicide and take your friends with you then then an effective fighting weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I find it irritating that the longspear is a two-handed weapon, considering that an actual spear of that size can be wielded with one or two hands...which is the definition of a one-handed weapon.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Alzrius wrote:
I find it irritating that the longspear is a two-handed weapon, considering that an actual spear of that size can be wielded with one or two hands...which is the definition of a one-handed weapon.

A person can hold a longspear in one hand easily enough, but wielding it effectively, however, is an entirely different matter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
I find it irritating that the longspear is a two-handed weapon, considering that an actual spear of that size can be wielded with one or two hands...which is the definition of a one-handed weapon.
A person can hold a longspear in one hand easily enough, but wielding it effectively, however, is an entirely different matter.

Not so much, no.

A "longspear" is only 8 feet long, by the game description. Given that it's a thrusting (or throwing) weapon, you can very much wield it effectively in a fight with one hand. Using a second hand is helpful, certainly, but it's not at all required (the vast majority of the time).

EDIT: But don't take my word for it, let's look at the hoplites:

Quote:
The main offensive weapon used was a 2.4–4.5-metre (7.9–14.8 ft) long and 2.5-centimetre (1 in) in diameter spear called a doru, or dory. It was held with the right hand, the other hand holding the hoplite's shield. Soldiers usually held their spears in an underhand position when approaching but once they came into close contact with their opponents, they were held in an overhand position ready to strike.


the secret fire wrote:
jonn254 wrote:
I can't stand the Bleeding effect,it's a pet hate of everyone I play with as it make little sense how it works when everyone hitting each other with swords.
But seriously...if you hate it so much, just get rid of it. Allow bleeding effects to stack if you want to.

I don't want to speak for john254, but I'd guess his problem is not that bleeding effects do not stack, but they exist at all. As in "why does this aword strike cause bleed, when all the other don't".

I could be wrong, of course.

_
glass.


Ravingdork wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
I find it irritating that the longspear is a two-handed weapon, considering that an actual spear of that size can be wielded with one or two hands...which is the definition of a one-handed weapon.
A person can hold a longspear in one hand easily enough, but wielding it effectively, however, is an entirely different matter.

Let me se, The Spartans, the Arabs, the Egyptians, the Sumerians, Early Roman, the Norman Infantry, The Scots, the Rus, ect, all used Longspear and shield quiet effectively.

Im an Old miniatures player, Have plenty on books on ancient armies and the most common troop used almost everywhere was Longspear and shield.


I think that the longspear can only be wielded one-handed in a phalanx: where you pretty much know that your enemy will be straight ahead of you. If you are fighting in a smaller skirmish, you are going to need far more control over your spear to be able to point it all your foes. At least that's how I justify it to myself :)

You could model that with a greater vulnerability to disarms, maybe?


Knight Magenta wrote:

I think that the longspear can only be wielded one-handed in a phalanx: where you pretty much know that your enemy will be straight ahead of you. If you are fighting in a smaller skirmish, you are going to need far more control over your spear to be able to point it all your foes. At least that's how I justify it to myself :)

You could model that with a greater vulnerability to disarms, maybe?

This is also replicates in the fighter archetype Phalanx Soldier that can single hand wield polearms when wielding a shield.

Also note that a lot of troops tend to carry swords for when the formation failed.


Knight Magenta wrote:

I think that the longspear can only be wielded one-handed in a phalanx: where you pretty much know that your enemy will be straight ahead of you. If you are fighting in a smaller skirmish, you are going to need far more control over your spear to be able to point it all your foes. At least that's how I justify it to myself :)

You could model that with a greater vulnerability to disarms, maybe?

Oh if you want to get realistic, european styles of of spear wielding would most likely impose an AC penalty when utilizing the full range of the spear due to having to put yourself out there and the focus on purely stabbing.

Chinese spears should possess distracting since the fuzzy red thing at the end actually has a purpose. Its meant to distract the opponent from the point. Also, Chinese methods of spear wielding are much better at defense since they utilize the tip like a rapier and focus more on opposition weapon control and cutting while stabbing only when they got an opening or to push back. Additionally, the entire spear tends to be utilized, not just the pointy bit. Further more, they utilize lots of arcs to control a.whole circle arpund them at the same time, not a single enemy.

Now granted, Europeans also tended to be more multiversed since they often only utilized spears while in formation then turned to their swords.

Spartans where renowned for not just their spear fightinf but their ability at hand to hand.combat, sword fighting, and utilizing their shields as weapons if need be.

Also Europeans perfected mass scale warfare centuries beyond any other. Many of the largest and most powerful armies the world has ever seen were European, and they mastered cruel and efficient war fighting tactics.


Might point out the Picts and early Scots used small shields and long spears in open formation, running over rocky hills etc. Only later did the Scots adopt the dense schilltron formation and later(in the 14 century) the Pike. Greek Thuroephoroi and Macabean Jews also used medium shields, long spears and Javelins and fought in loose formation


Here a nice article on thureophorio. Might point out Most Greek Cities change their Militia from Hoplites to thureophorio by the 2nd century BC.
http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Thureophoroi


Darkholme wrote:

Guns/Gunslinger

- Flavor: These gun mechanics make it difficult for me to have decent flintlock wielding pirates (which I do like) as the guns are terrible and overpriced for anyone but a gunslinger, and gunslinger is not appropriate for most pirate concepts, which would fire the pistol/blunderbuss/musket, drop it/sheathe it, and then fight with a sword for the rest of the fight.
- Flavor: Guns are much too expensive for me to do the pirate gunslinger thing; Frequently quickdraw a loaded pistol, fire off a shot, and then switch to my sword for an attack or 3 and then do it again with a different pistol, for 5 rounds.

Buccaneer gunslinger archetype makes a great pirate!


Anzyr wrote:
I'm going to be perfectly honest, the fact that unarmed strikes are explicitly both manufactured and natural weapons for spells or effects, but are nonetheless locked out of Improved Natural Attack has always been source of immense frustration. It's just so incredibly unnecessary, like tying a brick to puppy before you place it in a sack to drown it in a river.

This doesn't apply to monks. Their unarmed strikes are considered both weapons and natural so they can take that feat.


darth_borehd wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I'm going to be perfectly honest, the fact that unarmed strikes are explicitly both manufactured and natural weapons for spells or effects, but are nonetheless locked out of Improved Natural Attack has always been source of immense frustration. It's just so incredibly unnecessary, like tying a brick to puppy before you place it in a sack to drown it in a river.
This doesn't apply to monks. Their unarmed strikes are considered both weapons and natural so they can take that feat.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterFeats.html wrote:

Improved Natural Attack

Attacks made by one of this creature's natural attacks leave vicious wounds.

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.
Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, it applies to a different natural attack.

(emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, monk's cannot use INA for Unarmed Strike.


haremlord wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I'm going to be perfectly honest, the fact that unarmed strikes are explicitly both manufactured and natural weapons for spells or effects, but are nonetheless locked out of Improved Natural Attack has always been source of immense frustration. It's just so incredibly unnecessary, like tying a brick to puppy before you place it in a sack to drown it in a river.
This doesn't apply to monks. Their unarmed strikes are considered both weapons and natural so they can take that feat.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterFeats.html wrote:

Improved Natural Attack

Attacks made by one of this creature's natural attacks leave vicious wounds.

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.
Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, it applies to a different natural attack.

(emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, monk's cannot use INA for Unarmed Strike.

They can. Monk's unarmed strikes are a special case.

"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."


darth_borehd wrote:
haremlord wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I'm going to be perfectly honest, the fact that unarmed strikes are explicitly both manufactured and natural weapons for spells or effects, but are nonetheless locked out of Improved Natural Attack has always been source of immense frustration. It's just so incredibly unnecessary, like tying a brick to puppy before you place it in a sack to drown it in a river.
This doesn't apply to monks. Their unarmed strikes are considered both weapons and natural so they can take that feat.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterFeats.html wrote:

Improved Natural Attack

Attacks made by one of this creature's natural attacks leave vicious wounds.

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.
Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, it applies to a different natural attack.

(emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, monk's cannot use INA for Unarmed Strike.

They can. Monk's unarmed strikes are a special case.

"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

That's a general rule, which is overridden in the specific case of Improved Natural Attack.

[sarcasm="#FFFFFF"]Because, you know, Monks would be overpowered if that combination worked.[/sarcasm]

Silver Crusade

Athaleon wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
haremlord wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I'm going to be perfectly honest, the fact that unarmed strikes are explicitly both manufactured and natural weapons for spells or effects, but are nonetheless locked out of Improved Natural Attack has always been source of immense frustration. It's just so incredibly unnecessary, like tying a brick to puppy before you place it in a sack to drown it in a river.
This doesn't apply to monks. Their unarmed strikes are considered both weapons and natural so they can take that feat.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterFeats.html wrote:

Improved Natural Attack

Attacks made by one of this creature's natural attacks leave vicious wounds.

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.
Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, it applies to a different natural attack.

Unfortunately, monk's cannot use INA for Unarmed Strike.

They can. Monk's unarmed strikes are a special case.

"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

That's a general rule, which is overridden in the specific case of Improved Natural Attack.

[sarcasm="#FFFFFF"]Because, you know, Monks would be overpowered if that combination worked.[/sarcasm]

As I read it, the monk rule is ALSO a specific rule. Unless there's a FAQ to the contrary, I'd say either way is RAW.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Athaleon wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
haremlord wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I'm going to be perfectly honest, the fact that unarmed strikes are explicitly both manufactured and natural weapons for spells or effects, but are nonetheless locked out of Improved Natural Attack has always been source of immense frustration. It's just so incredibly unnecessary, like tying a brick to puppy before you place it in a sack to drown it in a river.
This doesn't apply to monks. Their unarmed strikes are considered both weapons and natural so they can take that feat.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterFeats.html wrote:

Improved Natural Attack

Attacks made by one of this creature's natural attacks leave vicious wounds.

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.
Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, it applies to a different natural attack.

(emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, monk's cannot use INA for Unarmed Strike.

They can. Monk's unarmed strikes are a special case.

"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

That's a general rule, which is overridden in the specific case of Improved Natural Attack.

[sarcasm="#FFFFFF"]Because, you know, Monks would be overpowered if that combination worked.[/sarcasm]

Then why does it specify "monk's unarmed strike" instead of just saying "an unarmed strike"? The only way it makes sense is that a monk's unarmed strike is not the same as a regular unarmed strike.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the key is the difference between a monk's unarmed and a regular unarmed. Basically, as I read it, the feat doesn't want the fighter or the wizard taking INA.


I think a lot of the issues people have raised regarding firearms kind of miss the point of firearms in Pathfinder. They're SUPPOSED to be powerful (there's a reason firearms replaced every other weapon), they're SUPPOSED to be rare and expensive (only one country on Golarion makes them, and as a result they get to set the prices), and they're SUPPOSED to be tricky to use (early firearms were notoriously unreliable, and it took a lot of skill to get good with them). I think it's ludicrous that DMs ban firearms entirely because they don't want to deal with them; I just enforce the setting rules and limit them to early firearms.


Isonaroc wrote:
Yeah, the key is the difference between a monk's unarmed and a regular unarmed. Basically, as I read it, the feat doesn't want the fighter or the wizard taking INA.

Exactly. Also I would like to point out that the Improved Unarmed Strike feat does NOT have the same wording of the monk ability and the monk ability carries the same wording in the core rulebook and Unchained version.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
requiem_in_mortis wrote:
I think a lot of the issues people have raised regarding firearms kind of miss the point of firearms in Pathfinder. They're SUPPOSED to be powerful (there's a reason firearms replaced every other weapon), they're SUPPOSED to be rare and expensive (only one country on Golarion makes them, and as a result they get to set the prices), and they're SUPPOSED to be tricky to use (early firearms were notoriously unreliable, and it took a lot of skill to get good with them). I think it's ludicrous that DMs ban firearms entirely because they don't want to deal with them; I just enforce the setting rules and limit them to early firearms.

They should be powerful - I've love to see them as increasing the Crossbow progression, and offering a high-damage alternative to using thrown weapons or a composite longbow with a strength bonus. A gunslinger should be a ranged character that can actually dump strength - while an archer still wants an 18 for his Str + 4 bow.

But targeting Touch AC - in a system where the base assumption was Touch AC is a gate to effects (spells, supernatural touch attacks, etc.), not repeatable high damage - makes them very powerful.

Spoiler:
(In the base game, Touch AC is sufficiently secondary that a ring of protection and an amulet of natural armor cost the same, despite one increasing Touch AC while the other does not. If you have lots of guns in your game, ring of protection should cost 50% more.)

Not necessarily broken - not every encounter is a Dragon, and not every problem can be solved with bullets - but it is disconcerting that firearms get to completely ignore a +30 natural armor bonus. It takes a mechanic that was supposed to ignore a chain shirt, or at most +14 for +5 full plate and takes it to a ridiculous level. At a certain point, armor should become 'good enough' to stop or slow down a pistol shot. But the current rules do not reflect that.

SKR has an essay somewhere about absolute mechanics. I don't agree with everything he says, but I think the important takeway is that absolute effects very easily degenerate into absurd situations (Fire Giants walking on the sun, for instance.) Often those are corner cases, or thought experiments only (When do the PCs go to the sun? If the God of Locks shows up in an adventure, a few words could be spared to shut down knock. Whatever.) But a Gunslinger's ability to get a free (better than) brilliant energy weapon comes up all the time - there at lots of big, tough monster with low touch AC.


Ross Byers wrote:
Sadurian wrote:


I hear what you are saying that the spell is 'prepared' ahead of time and the cast as a fast action, but it rather seems like putting lipstick on a pig - the limitation was already there and the developers/writers had to come up with a way to make it appear somewhat less unattractive.

I'm not going to claim to know what the 3rd edition designers were thinking, but I know that Roger Zelazny used the 'prepared spell' idea in the Merlin half of the Chronicles of Amber, without being shackled to a legacy mechanic.

It's not a terrible way to reconcile 'magic is complicated and difficult' with 'magic fights should be fast paced'.

I really liked his books, especially the Amber series.

The way spellcasting was explained was that spells actually take hours to cast so spellcasters prepare spells by "hanging" them around their person (those with arcane sight could see a caster's prepared spells floating around their head).

They would then stick "linchpins," or little holes where needed bits of the completed spell should go. To cast the spell, a caster pulls the "linchpins", or completes the little missing bits (hand motions, magic words, thoughts, etc), and lets the spell fly. I think it's a cool way to imagine the D&D/PF magic system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Multiclassing

Because you basically HALT your current class to start another one, as there is no way to level both classes to a respectable level. A magus will be better than ANY fighter/wizard, just like a hunter will be better than ANY druid/ranger. Also, your primary class should increase, albeit more slowly. A fighter 10/wizard 10 should the equivalent of a fighter 15/wizard 10.

Furthermore, multiclassing often leads to one-trick ponies and/or ridiculous setups for prestige classes. The Battle Herald requires both Bard and Cavalier levels, not the most optimal combination. Same goes with the Rage Prophet, Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge. If it's to give one class a bunch of features found in another class, scrap the prestige class, screw multiclassing and develop an archetype or a hybrid class instead. A Prestige Class should enhance a single class' features only, not two or even three.

The Battle Herald could be a Bard archetype, the Rage Prophet a Bloodrager archetype and the Arcane Archer a Magus archetype, while the Arcane Trickster (rogue/wizard), Eldritch Knight (fighter/wizard) and Mystic Theurge (wizard/cleric) could be hybrid classes, all leaving out multiclassing.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. Multiclassing is basically broken (as in does-not-work, not 'too-powerful) for spellcasters, and the fact that it sort-of functions for non-casters just illustrates why those classes lose their luster at high level.

The 'multiclass' PrCs like Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge were band-aids for the problem, before the decision to just go all-in with new base classes.


So where's the Mystic Theurge base class?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
So where's the Mystic Theurge base class?

Kinda hard to convert a PrC into a hybrid class without some backlash from the fans...

TBH, I've seen little use for PrCs when archetypes and hybrids have been added to the mix. For me, a PrC should enhance a class' feature, like the assassin does to a rogue or the dragon disciple does to a sorcerer.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
So where's the Mystic Theurge base class?

Witch.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
So where's the Mystic Theurge base class?

Witch and Shaman are pretty much it. I can imagine a 'true' Arcane/Divine hybrid becoming an impossible-to-balance mechanical clusterf*** pretty quickly.

Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge basically existed because a) They Were In 3.5, and b) there was no other effective way, besides prestige classes, to pull off a concept like a hybrid fighter / magic user. I suppose that you could also say that at that time, they were still pushing its "backwards compatibility", so the Duskblade (say) was still an option.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
So where's the Mystic Theurge base class?
Witch.

Hahahahaha, good one.

How about we try something like this.

Sorcerer/Oracle spells per day chart, prepares spells from the Cleric List [no domains or perhaps one only, no domain slots but if it is given access to a domain it can use its normal slots to prepare them] and from a Spellbook it scribes as a Wizard would, gains 1 free Wizard spell at every level.


If INA worked, then is the Titan Strike mythic feat for non-monks only? I thought that was the whole point of the mythic feat (for monks)...I'd be surprised seeing someone spend two mythic feats to get it that WASN'T a monk.

Silver Crusade

haremlord wrote:
If INA worked, then is the Titan Strike mythic feat for non-monks only? I thought that was the whole point of the mythic feat (for monks)...I'd be surprised seeing someone spend two mythic feats to get it that WASN'T a monk.

No, as far as I'm concerned they stack.


Isonaroc wrote:
haremlord wrote:
If INA worked, then is the Titan Strike mythic feat for non-monks only? I thought that was the whole point of the mythic feat (for monks)...I'd be surprised seeing someone spend two mythic feats to get it that WASN'T a monk.
No, as far as I'm concerned they stack.

And you would be wrong.

Monk unarmed attacks count as unarmed attacks, manufactured attacks and natural attacks. INA can only be applied to a natural attack, but it can't be applied to an unarmed strike. Monk unarmed strikes are natural attacks, but they are also unarmed strikes, which INA expressly prohibits being applied to. You would need text saying something along the lines of "Monk unarmed strikes don't count as unarmed strikes" or "Monk unarmed strikes can be enhanced by effects that enhance natural attacks, even if they can't normally be applied to unarmed strikes". Otherwise, they are still unarmed attacks, and INA is a no-go.


Oh! I hate the normal action economy. The revised one from Unchained is much better. Our group now uses that and automatic bonus progression.

I now can play PF again without wishing every moment that we were playing 5e.


People are arguing about INA and monk???

If they are not universally seen as RAW now... they are not RAW.

They have been around since the beginnings of 3.0, if every monk hasnt been grabbing INA since then, there is a reason...


Metal Sonic wrote:


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

Mah ni-... ninja... yeah, that's what I was gonna say.

Silver Crusade

Snowblind wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
haremlord wrote:
If INA worked, then is the Titan Strike mythic feat for non-monks only? I thought that was the whole point of the mythic feat (for monks)...I'd be surprised seeing someone spend two mythic feats to get it that WASN'T a monk.
No, as far as I'm concerned they stack.

And you would be wrong.

Monk unarmed attacks count as unarmed attacks, manufactured attacks and natural attacks. INA can only be applied to a natural attack, but it can't be applied to an unarmed strike. Monk unarmed strikes are natural attacks, but they are also unarmed strikes, which INA expressly prohibits being applied to. You would need text saying something along the lines of "Monk unarmed strikes don't count as unarmed strikes" or "Monk unarmed strikes can be enhanced by effects that enhance natural attacks, even if they can't normally be applied to unarmed strikes". Otherwise, they are still unarmed attacks, and INA is a no-go.

As I read it, you would be wrong (or, at the least, it's ambiguous enough that neither reading can be discounted). "Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike)" reads to me as reiterating the rule that "unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons" to avoid confusion. The monk's unarmed strike is a specific exception to the rule that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, being specifically called out AS a natural weapon for the express purpose of applying effects that affect natural weapons. You're welcome to disagree, and I understand the nature of your disagreement, but I don't agree with it.

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,707 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 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.