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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,707 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>

Icy Turbo wrote:

Here is how I see it. Much like how investigators are known for taking very small details or patterns and reaching a conclusion based on their finding, a individual with Spellcraft, even if someone is casting a Silent, Still, Eschew Material spell on someone, can make a Check to identify the spell being cast as long as the person making the Spellcraft check is able to actually perceive that character. People without Spellcraft cannot because they are not trained to hone in on those kind of details, and not everyone is an investigator.

If you are not happy with the FAQ, then house-rule it. State that you get a -2 penalty for every missing component of a spell that you can't identify. Someone with a good roll or high enough Spellcraft may be able to still see that a Silent, Still, Eschew Material spell is being cast, but at a -6 penalty. Done.

Interestingly, one of the developers used a solution like this, except that it was -5 per missing component, with the caveat that spells with NO components could not be identified.

One of the James', if I recall... I'll try to find the quote.


alexd1976 wrote:


Interestingly, one of the developers used a solution like this, except that it was -5 per missing component, with the caveat that spells with NO components could not be identified.

One of the James', if I recall... I'll try to find the quote.

Humorously it was actually the Jason post that said spells always are identifiable that everyone quotes. It has the =5 per missing component as a houserule he suggests.


Milo v3 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:


Interestingly, one of the developers used a solution like this, except that it was -5 per missing component, with the caveat that spells with NO components could not be identified.

One of the James', if I recall... I'll try to find the quote.

Humorously it was actually the Jason post that said spells always are identifiable that everyone quotes. It has the =5 per missing component as a houserule he suggests.

Was it Jason? I don't care enough about this anymore... I was trying to argue for something that doesn't even affect me.

I feel bad for people playing PFS though... there is another thing that will cause 'table variation' now... (how to adjudicate visible spells being cast while caster is invisible).


alexd1976 wrote:
I feel bad for people playing PFS though... there is another thing that will cause 'table variation' now... (how to adjudicate visible spells being cast while caster is invisible).

And, yet, that was already a problem. In the Core Rulebook. The FAQ did not create this problem because the Core Rulebook created it 6 years ago.

All the FAQ did was clarify the rules so people now understand them better - and now the spotlight is on this 6-year-old problem.

Maybe one day they'll FAQ this problem too. Of course, that will piss off half the players like this FAQ did, but at least that time we'll be learning something new, something NOT already in the Core Rulebook.


I would argue it's a Paizo rule to publish books with at least half filler, so that if that counts.


alexd1976 wrote:

I don't see how spellsong could conceal the visual effects of a spell, I mean, do violins normally give off sparks?

Or is it a flaming trombone?

Saxophone rainbow-chucker?

I would like to see an example explaining this ability.

Do you mean this is not how it works?


Don't you just love how if you ever agree with a Dev you're suddenly part of a conspiracy. -.-

Can this thread just go back to "Name one Pathfinder rule or subsystem that you dislike, and say why"


hiiamtom wrote:

Lord of the rings definitely describes supernatural expression in casting magic

-Harry potter too\

I'm going to have to stop you there.

In the last books they learned Wandless (Still spells) and Silent (Silent Metamagic) techniques.

Harry couldn't perform Silent at all. He found it too hard.

Voldemore was kicked out of school before he learned either. Which is why he never learned them.

The purpose of Silent and/or Still are they are almost impossible to counter since you have to identify the opposing spells to think yup the right counter measure (Protego, etc).

Boom, just blew your mind.


Sure im late getting to this and could of already been said. Has anyone house ruled the full attack with movement. Wondering if u guys think these 2 ideas are good. 1) as u gain extra attack(6th, 11th, etc) add 5' each time for full attack/movement. So a 6th lvl fgt would get full attack with 10', 11th fa/15'. Making 15 might be max or up to 1/2 base movement. 2) making it 10' to start with and lose an attack for each 5' after. That way when u get to higher lvl u could more 15 and only lose 1 attack. Not complicated so wouldnt really add any work. Are there any flaws to these systems?


I wonder how all this will affect future Pathfinder fiction in regards to concealed spellcasting.


Gebby wrote:
Sure im late getting to this and could of already been said. Has anyone house ruled the full attack with movement. Wondering if u guys think these 2 ideas are good. 1) as u gain extra attack(6th, 11th, etc) add 5' each time for full attack/movement. So a 6th lvl fgt would get full attack with 10', 11th fa/15'. Making 15 might be max or up to 1/2 base movement. 2) making it 10' to start with and lose an attack for each 5' after. That way when u get to higher lvl u could more 15 and only lose 1 attack. Not complicated so wouldnt really add any work. Are there any flaws to these systems?

Yay things not related to the spell cluster FAQ! Okay I think I may have posted this idea for martials already, but I did put a quick solution for a campaign I just started.

When a character gains access to their second attack, they can use their swift action to use that additional attack during their turn. I think it adds creative attack use, and if nothing else is pretty simple until a better solution exists for full-attackers.

Granted it only works for 1 additional attack, but it's a step in the right direction.


Ah, I remembered another one. I posted this one recently in the "minor house rules" thread, but it fits here:
I like the idea of nonlethal damage, but I can't stand the way it is implemented.

137ben wrote:

The rules surrounding nonlethal damage are needlessly complicated IMO. The point seems to be that you can decide not to kill someone when you strike them really hard, but

a)they are more complicated than the need to be, and
b)they don't always work (e.g., if you get a critical hit, you can still kill someone with "nonlethal" damage).

Fortunately, 4e provided a much simpler alternative which I adopted as a house rule in 3.5 shortly after I stopped playing 4e:

4e PHB, pg 295 wrote:

When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it.

Until it regains hit points, the creature is unconscious but not dying. Any healing makes the creature conscious. If the creature doesn’t receive any healing, it is restored to 1 hit point and becomes conscious after a
short rest.
Of course, 4e was build with that rule from the ground up, while 3.5 wasn't, so there are a few kinks to work out. There are a small number of spells (in 3.5 at least, and probably Pathfinder too) which can only deal nonlethal damage, and are ostensibly balanced around that assumption. The number of such abilities is so small that you can easily play for a long time with this house rule without noticing them. When they do come up, though, I decided that abilities which only deal nonlethal damage must be used to "knock out" anyone they reduce to zero hp, and that they still do not harm creatures immune to nonlethal damage under RAW.


Is non-lethal really that complex?

You subtract all normal damage from your current HP. When your current HP reaches 0 you're staggered. At -1 or lower, you're unconscious and dying.

If you take non-lethal damage, you add UP from zero and you replace "0" with whatever your total amount of non-lethal damage is so that you become staggered at this new value instead of 0, and unconscious if you go below that value.

If I have 30 HP and get hit by a sword for 12 HP, I now have 18 HP left. Now if I get punched for 10 non-lethal HP, I have taken 10 non-lethal damage. I still have 18 HP left. If I get hit by the sword again, and it does exactly 8 HP of normal damage, I will have 10 HP left and since that matches my non-lethal damage, I am staggered. If that second sword hit did 9 or more damage (instead of 8), I would have fewer HP than my total non-lethal damage and would become unconscious but not necessarily dying - that still doesn't happen until my HP are actually negative.

Admittedly, that's not as simple as just tracking HP numbers on a page, but it's also not very complex. It sounds like removing non-lethal damage from the game by implementing 4e rules creates more challenges than it really solves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Haldelar Baxter wrote:
I wonder how all this will affect future Pathfinder fiction in regards to concealed spellcasting.

I've read several Pathfinder fictions. Concealed spellcasting happens all the time, particularly in regards to spell-like abilities.

So what directly supports the FAQ in the RAW? The artwork apparently.
What supports the opposing interpretation? Paizo's non role-laying literature.

An odd duck this situation.


Ravingdork wrote:
Haldelar Baxter wrote:
I wonder how all this will affect future Pathfinder fiction in regards to concealed spellcasting.

I've read several Pathfinder fictions. Concealed spellcasting happens all the time, particularly in regards to spell-like abilities.

So what directly supports the FAQ in the RAW? The artwork apparently.
What supports the opposing interpretation? Paizo's non role-laying literature.

An odd duck this situation.

This all makes me wonder if the thing about spell-like abilities not being counterspell-able is now gonna change. There's no components of ANY sort in an SLA, it's 100% mental. Amusingly enough, this also means you can use them while paralyzed, but not the lesser conditions of dazed or stunned. Part of the nature of an SLA is that it's basically just like a spell in all manners except for the no components bit and the fact they can be counterspelled or be used to counterspell. But now, this FAQ kinda makes me wonder about that. You can still use Spellcraft to determine what the SLA is, and now there's apparently a perceptible energy to the use of the SLA as well. So, why can't dispel magic or something similar be used to counter an SLA now?

Also, has it come up yet that the Secret Signs feat is a thing and seems to run contrary to this FAQ?


Because the rules say you can't counterspell SLAs.

Spells being detectable doesn't make Spell-Like Abilities counterable any more than it gives Spell-Like Abilities Somatic and Verbal components. Hypothetically, the devs suddenly might want to change that, but it would be a blatant rules change, not some re-interpretation of the rules that came about as a result of this FAQ.


Ravingdork wrote:
I've read several Pathfinder fictions. Concealed spellcasting happens all the time, particularly in regards to spell-like abilities.

Care to show some examples?


Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I've read several Pathfinder fictions. Concealed spellcasting happens all the time, particularly in regards to spell-like abilities.
Care to show some examples?

Off hand there's Pirate's Honor

Also from old Forgotten Realms novels the House of Serpents series had psychic magic and had no physical manifestation at all, just a buzzing sound in the mind of the target of the spell that they dismissed if they failed their save.

There's another that I don't remember the title where the villain is disguised and crushes a man's heart, he hid the hand movements in his robes when casting the spell. There might have been a heart that appeared in his hand that he squeezed but it's been a while since I read it.


Gordrenn Higgler wrote:
Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I've read several Pathfinder fictions. Concealed spellcasting happens all the time, particularly in regards to spell-like abilities.
Care to show some examples?

Off hand there's Pirate's Honor

Also from old Forgotten Realms novels the House of Serpents series had psychic magic and had no physical manifestation at all, just a buzzing sound in the mind of the target of the spell that they dismissed if they failed their save.

There's another that I don't remember the title where the villain is disguised and crushes a man's heart, he hid the hand movements in his robes when casting the spell. There might have been a heart that appeared in his hand that he squeezed but it's been a while since I read it.

I'm not familiar with your other examples, but one thing to note about Pirate's Honor is that it already doesn't follow Pathfinder's spellcasting rules.

Verbal Components wrote:
To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice.

Much of the spellcasting Celeste does is via murmuring and whispering. Perhaps Celeste's "GM" allows a house rule to add a Bluff check to the DC to perceive spellcasting, either through some sort of feat or just as a basic element of spellcasting.

Scarab Sages

Huh, I was just going to post something about this, and here I see there is a thread for it.

One thing that always kind of irked me is DR Silver/adamantine/cold iron. The main reason being that, basically, it is impossible to overcome those damage types unless you weild a metal weapon. If you chose to use a non-metal weapon, well screw you, you are just worse in every way.

Like: So let's say I want to make a Staff Magus because I think it would be fun. Not optimal, I know, but fun. Well, I can't overcome ANY DR (quarterstaves are made from wood) until I get it up to +3. Considering that you can fight creatures with DR silver/cold iron at level 1/2, that's a bit far off. +4 for adamantine.

And don't even mention weapon blanch. It is a joke (only works for one hit.)

Anyone who wants to use a greatclub, club, quarterstaff, or a monk (unarmed strike) just flat out looses if they come up against something like that. Only upside of these weapons? I guess they're immune to rust. . .


VampByDay wrote:
...I guess they're immune to rust. . .

And for 3k GP, a +1 Greatsword can laugh at rust monsters too.


VampByDay wrote:

Huh, I was just going to post something about this, and here I see there is a thread for it.

One thing that always kind of irked me is DR Silver/adamantine/cold iron. The main reason being that, basically, it is impossible to overcome those damage types unless you weild a metal weapon. If you chose to use a non-metal weapon, well screw you, you are just worse in every way.

Like: So let's say I want to make a Staff Magus because I think it would be fun. Not optimal, I know, but fun. Well, I can't overcome ANY DR (quarterstaves are made from wood) until I get it up to +3. Considering that you can fight creatures with DR silver/cold iron at level 1/2, that's a bit far off. +4 for adamantine.

And don't even mention weapon blanch. It is a joke (only works for one hit.)

Anyone who wants to use a greatclub, club, quarterstaff, or a monk (unarmed strike) just flat out looses if they come up against something like that. Only upside of these weapons? I guess they're immune to rust. . .

Staffs and clubs could have metal tips.

But DR is still a stupid mechanic because especially at low levels it is very punishing. At later levels, if you wanted, you could stubbornly fight through DR 10 if you wanted, but at lvl 2, you will never overcome it unless you get really lucky with dice.

You either bypass it or it ruins you. Once my players were too late on magic items because of no real good or bad reason, but still were. Realize too late that gargoyle encounter was going to be a bit unfair on them, both I and players got lucky when wizard rolled high enough on his magic missiles.

Liberty's Edge

I agree about the different weapon types as well. It's one of the few reasons I won't switch over to 5E. I find Dr to be better IMO. Yes it's annoying that unless you have silver you won't be as effective in damaging the Werewolf if you did. At least one can still damage it. 5E brought back needing to carry a specific weapon material type to damage certain creatures. That Werewolf in 5E is going to be immune to anything but silver magic weapons. I don't mind playing with such a mechanic in 2E. As its part of the nostalgic charm of that edition. If really does not belong in any modern version of D&D IMO. It also reinforces the magic mart effect as you need to either have stores that sell specific kind of material. Or your able to find it in the wild.


Aaron Whitley wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
I think that it's fair to say that at best the visibility of spells was debatable. The rules say that you get a spellcraft check so long as you can see the spell being cast. Not "the components of the spell". The spell.

The problem I, and many others, had with this interpretation was that there was never any spell prior to the completion of its casting.

How do you observe a spell that does not yet exist? What you describe is about as logical as trying to observe a cake by staring at a cow and chicken on a wheat farm.

I think a better analogy would be walking into a kitchen and seeing the ingredients on the counter and the oven on.

If you walk into the kitchen and see milk, eggs, flour, sugar, baking powder, salt, and pans on the counter and the oven is on you can't figure out that something is about to be baked?

If you walk in and the oven is on, the ingredients aren't on the counter but there is a bowl full of batter you can't figure out that baking is about to happen?

That would be a spell with components. What Paizo wants us to swallow now is that you can walk into a kitchen and see no ingredients, batter, or active oven and automagically know that the owner of the kitchen is out back grilling salmon, ie. a spell without perceptible components.

Once he walks back in with a grilled salmon and asks you to set the table it's too late to stop him from cooking a meal. Since you saw no components you could not identify the spell or even that there was a spell being cast at all and therefore couldn't counter it.


Full casters basically go like this how I see it, at low levels your pretty much a burden to keep from getting axed, and if we successfully keep you safe from dying long enough our reward is that you can fill the rest of the parties roles no problem and the rest of might as well go home.

My best solution is that casters need to be way more narrow in what they can do so they don't end up filling every role at once, like having to choose a single school of magic to cast from, and gain one or two new schools as they level. Spells from like 7 and up should have to be taxing rituals that you can't do on the fly by simply reaching in a bag and throwing bat guano while chanting. I'm not averse to giving them some pretty below average marial prowess in exchange.

Seriously I jumped in on a home game once and went through like 6-7 full blown character concepts that filled different roles, all of which the min maxing necromancer player told me that his character alone covered. The only thing I came up with that his character didn't cover was bard obviously. :/
Also for a bit of scope one of the four undead he had with him was a CR 13 monster before he turned it into an undead monstrosity that would ressurect upon dying. We were only an eight level party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I liked the themed casters near the end of the 3E cycle - the Dread Necromancer, Beguiler and the like. They would certainly fit the niche of "specialised casters".


Personally, as someone who doesn't frequent this forum often, I never realized that magic makes some sort of thing. I always assumed that the components were the sign, and if you silence those, you can't see them.

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,707 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 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.