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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 1,707 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Hmm.

Arms Law (RoleMaster) is pretty clunky, but has some neat things to it.
Chivalry & Sorcery I'm not familiar with.
Runequest is actually kind of awesome. I'm personally familiar with RQ5 & 6. It's my second favorite RPG system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

Hit Points.

Not hating them (hating is such a strong word!), mostly unsatisfied with the concept of hp.

I don't like the "one second you're fresh, one second you're dying" effect of going from 100 hp to 1 hp with no effects, a super narrow "disabled" window, and then its a race not to die.

That isn’t Pathfinder. It’s D&D, and it’s a integral part of what makes D&D what it is. Love it or hate it, it’s just part of what D&D is, and if it goes away then PF stops being D&D, which means it becomes just another 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS.

Those of us that really want rid of it have the alternative system in Ultimate Combat anyway. IMO that's exactly how any major deviation to the traditional systems should be handled - as options rather than messing with the defaults we've been used to all this time. That way everyone can be happy, and there's no risk of driving people away by making major changes to core systems.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
I'd like to see the weakest three classes - monk, rogue, fighter - get their issues addressed.

But they aren't. They are still popular and fun and can really be a useful part of a team of four. This is both a bad and wrong meme. It's bad becuase it's endlessly repeated and I have seen thread after thread where someone wants to have fun running a Rogue and two or three people derail the thread and try to ruin his fun by telling him the class is cruddy and he CAN'T have fun playing it so why even try. This needs to stop. It's BAD advice.

Yeah, no doubt after spellcasters get 9th level spells the game changes. Few games are played at that level. This factoid has nothing to do with the fact that at 4th level a fighter can be fun to play, and be a major contibutor to the team. Heck, in my current 12th level game, our fighter is the most dangerous by far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkholme wrote:

Hmm.

Arms Law (RoleMaster) is pretty clunky, but has some neat things to it.
Chivalry & Sorcery I'm not familiar with.
Runequest is actually kind of awesome. I'm personally familiar with RQ5 & 6. It's my second favorite RPG system.

I think I'd go as far as stating sacrilege here and saying RQ/BRP is my favorite system, if it were down to having just the core books to compare. It's just that Pathfinder has way better support and a fantastic setting going for it which tips the balance back the other way for me (and then some)


Matt Thomason wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

Hit Points.

Not hating them (hating is such a strong word!), mostly unsatisfied with the concept of hp.

I don't like the "one second you're fresh, one second you're dying" effect of going from 100 hp to 1 hp with no effects, a super narrow "disabled" window, and then its a race not to die.

That isn’t Pathfinder. It’s D&D, and it’s a integral part of what makes D&D what it is. Love it or hate it, it’s just part of what D&D is, and if it goes away then PF stops being D&D, which means it becomes just another 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS.

Those of us that really want rid of it have the alternative system in Ultimate Combat anyway. IMO that's exactly how any major deviation to the traditional systems should be handled - as options rather than messing with the defaults we've been used to all this time. That way everyone can be happy, and there's no risk of driving people away by making major changes to core systems.

Very right, and I am very glad the devs have provided that option. It's great.

I'd also like to see some sort of warlock class that doesn't use anything even close to Vancian- as an option, of course!


Matt Thomason wrote:
Darkholme wrote:

Hmm.

Arms Law (RoleMaster) is pretty clunky, but has some neat things to it.
Chivalry & Sorcery I'm not familiar with.
Runequest is actually kind of awesome. I'm personally familiar with RQ5 & 6. It's my second favorite RPG system.

I think I'd go as far as stating sacrilege here and saying RQ/BRP is my favorite system, if it were down to having just the core books to compare. It's just that Pathfinder has way better support and a fantastic setting going for it which tips the balance back the other way for me (and then some)

BRP?

I played RQ 1 (clunky) then RQ2 (great esp as it was set in Glorantha with a different mythology, etc) but then AH set RQ in Medieval Europe and the uniqueness was gone.

Mind you, it's not the system, it's the players and the DM that make a game great. We have had scads of fun playing Tunnels & trolls. Horrible system after a few levels in. A "bad system" really them is a system that gets in the way of fun. T&T in high levels, and C&S at any level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
(b). At low levels, it's hard to cast spells while people are swinging sticks at you. Good. But at high levels, it's a joke and you auto-succeed -- regardless of whether the people attacking you are mooks or world-class slayers. In other words, you automatically get better at casting while under attack, but the people attacking you somehow never get better at disrupting your casting. WTF?!?!?!

I'm not sure if tis ever came up in one of your games, but if you take damage from AoOs, you need to make another concentration check to ignore the damage and continue the spell. The DC increases with more damage, so that sort of evens out.


DrDeth wrote:


BRP?

Chaosium's "Basic Roleplaying", which I guess you could say is to RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu what the d20 SRD is to D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Mostly, I just prefer how a character's core stats stay fairly static while it's individual skills that increase over time rather than across-the-board levelling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Hit Points.
That isn’t Pathfinder. It’s D&D, and it’s a integral part of what makes D&D what it is. (...)

It's D&D, and many other games too (including Rolemaster). Actually most games do have hp, even if they only have three of four in the form of a damage track, but I dislike the way D&D/Pathfinder deal with them.

But it's also Pathfinder, regardless of where Pathfinder comes from (and the thread asks for rules we dislike). But it can still be D&D or Pathfinder with an alternate hp mechanics. Unearthed Arcana had variants, Ultimate Combat have others, and not all houserules don't make my Pathfinder less Pathfinder than your Pathfinder.

Bah, ninja'd my Matt Thomasson


Matt Thomason wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


BRP?

Chaosium's "Basic Roleplaying", which I guess you could say is to RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu what the d20 SRD is to D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Mostly, I just prefer how a character's core stats stay fairly static while it's individual skills that increase over time rather than across-the-board levelling.

Right, and that's a interesting way of going. But here's the thing, there's been dozens of such skill based systems and none have progressed much further than RQ, which now is "just another 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS". Thus, it seems to be the kiss of death. Or maybe, it's just that deviating too much from D&D is the kiss of death.

Still, if I found a RQ game, I'd want to play. Miss it.

Mind you, we tried a Champions game a little while ago, and boy did 'the rules got in the way".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

2. Spells that Supersede Skills.

(a). Rogue 3, Str 14, trained in Climbing. Total bonus: +8. Wizard 3, Str 5, untrained. Total bonus: +infinity (spider climb or levitation).

(b). Rogue 5, Dex 18, trained and max ranks in Stealth. Total bonus: +12, and cannot hide if observed. Wizard 5, Dex 10, untrained. Total bonus: +20, and can hide in plain sight (invisibility spell).

Once a day for 30 minutes *IF* prepared vs all day every day.

Not to mention, by doing so, the wizard gives up a significant portion of his offesnive capability for the whole day. The rogue gives up nuttin.

And what would happen without it? The party finds a steep climb. The rogue sez "No sweat". The fighter sez "Well, I should make it and even if I fall once I have lots of HP". The spellcasters go "can't make it, screw it, let's go home". Man that would be SUCH a fun game. Fun, fun, FUN!

not.

And while we're at it, let's get rid of the Wizard's capability to do damage. That's the fighters job. Right?


24 people marked this as a favorite.

Alignment. Because it's pointless. It adds nothing but restrictions to the game. It doesn't allow you to role play anything that couldn't be role played without it.

It's a obsolete holy cow that should be turned into minced meat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

Alignment. Because it's pointless. It adds nothing but restrictions to the game. It doesn't allow you to role play anything that couldn't be role played without it.

It's a obsolete holy cow that should be turned into minced meat.

It’s a sacred cow that’s been part of the game for forty years and it’s not going away. There is something to be said fro tradition, you know. Other games have tried and they “just another 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS".

Why do so many people want Paizo to emulate those "3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS". Those models have failed. Over & over and over, time after time, for forty years they have failed- non Vancian, non-HP, skill-based, non-alignment. All failures. People just do NOT want to play that way. Or if they do, they certainly don't spend their money as if they do.

You want to play without alignments, without Vancian, without HP, without levels? There are optional PF rules for some of those (which is great!), and if not, there are plenty of marked down dusty 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS.


17 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Alignment. Because it's pointless. It adds nothing but restrictions to the game. It doesn't allow you to role play anything that couldn't be role played without it.

It's a obsolete holy cow that should be turned into minced meat.

It’s a sacred cow that’s been part of the game for forty years and it’s not going away. There is something to be said fro tradition, you know. Other games have tried and they “just another 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS".

Why do so many people want Paizo to emulate those "3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS". Those models have failed. Over & over and over, time after time, for forty years they have failed- non Vancian, non-HP, skill-based, non-alignment. All failures. People just do NOT want to play that way. Or if they do, they certainly don't spend their money as if they do.

You want to play without alignments, without Vancian, without HP, without levels? There are optional PF rules for some of those (which is great!), and if not, there are plenty of marked down dusty 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS.

Are you just going to bash on every single person who brings up their opinion in a thread that's all about bringing up the things people don't like about the current rules?


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Dr. Deth, I say respectfully: People ought to be able to say there are subsystems they don't like about PF/D&D (the point of the thread, after all) and not instantly hear from you "But that's always been D&D, and if you don't like it go play some other game." Nobody's denying that, and the very fact that the people posting here are *involved enough to read these boards and post here* suggests that they still love the game and don't need schooling.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

1. Casting in Combat.

(a). You can cast a quickened spell, and a normal spell -- both of which require you to pull stuff out of a pouch, wave your hands in secret signs, and recite the Gettysburg Address in pig Latin -- while tumbling across the battlefield at full speed. Meanwhile, if Fred the Fighter moves, he loses all but one of his attacks. WTF?!?!?!

(b). At low levels, it's hard to cast spells while people are swinging sticks at you. Good. But at high levels, it's a joke and you auto-succeed -- regardless of whether the people attacking you are mooks or world-class slayers. In other words, you automatically get better at casting while under attack, but the people attacking you somehow never get better at disrupting your casting. WTF?!?!?!

So true. Annoying as hell.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
I'd like to see the weakest three classes - monk, rogue, fighter - get their issues addressed.

But they aren't. They are still popular and fun and can really be a useful part of a team of four. This is both a bad and wrong meme. It's bad becuase it's endlessly repeated and I have seen thread after thread where someone wants to have fun running a Rogue and two or three people derail the thread and try to ruin his fun by telling him the class is cruddy and he CAN'T have fun playing it so why even try. This needs to stop. It's BAD advice.

People can have fun with any class. The fighter is my favorite class and I really enjoy playing one of them, still they have some troubles, to deny that do not help the game.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Alignment. Because it's pointless. It adds nothing but restrictions to the game. It doesn't allow you to role play anything that couldn't be role played without it.

It's a obsolete holy cow that should be turned into minced meat.

It’s a sacred cow that’s been part of the game for forty years and it’s not going away. There is something to be said fro tradition, you know. Other games have tried and they “just another 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS".

Just because it's traditional, it doesn't mean it's good. More than a few traditional mechanics have been changed or completely removed from D&D since its creation, to the point where it became a completely different game.

DrDeth wrote:
Why do so many people want Paizo to emulate those "3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS". Those models have failed. Over & over and over, time after time, for forty years they have failed- non Vancian, non-HP, skill-based, non-alignment. All failures. People just do NOT want to play that way. Or if they do, they certainly don't spend their money as if they do.

That's odd... I can think of quite a few rather successful RPGs without an alignment. I very much doubt alignment is what makes D&D successful.

DrDeth wrote:
You want to play without alignments, without Vancian, without HP, without levels? There are optional PF rules for some of those (which is great!), and if not, there are plenty of marked down dusty 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS.

Hating one part of the system doesn't mean I hate all of it.

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Are you just going to bash on every single person who bring up their opinion in a thread that's all about bringing up the things people don't like about the current rules?

It's what he does.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, getting to the matter at hand...

I'm not a fan of how most of the ranged combat system works, mostly because (aside from firearms) ranged weapons are broken down into "longbows" and "inferior weapons you would only ever use because you can't have a longbow." I would like to see weapons like crossbows, slings, and throwing weapons keep up mechanically, while still having some flavorfully fun and unique things going for them.

Sczarni

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Encumbrance. The only good thing about it is how easy it it to completely ignore. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand what's so tough about grapple rules.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

+1 Jiggy.

(For my Blazing 9 friends) Why rings can't be Wondrous! :)

I hate the item-crafting system because I want to love it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Weapon Focus/Specialization split and still doing what they still do.

Why not...

Weapon Focus: +1/+2
Improved Weapon Focus +2/+4
Greater Weapon Focus +4/+6
Superior Weapon Focus +6/+8

The distinction to Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization is bogus.

It is for Fighters only anyway.

Weapon Training is the Broad weapon type, FOCUS is you pick 1
weapon in particular to focus with. What is "specialization" when
Focus is already specializing?

+2/+4 for something that should be Fighter's main thing (Fighting, that is literally just about all it does) is not worth 4 feats.
Make the +2/+4 into the class or beef those feats up.

+6/+8 to attack probably isn't worth 4 feats. That really ain't nothing special compared to 3 Ranger feats without pre-reqs by level 12 or Barbarian Rage stuff.

They shouldn't even be feats to begin with. It is like if Sorcerers had to spend "bonus feats" for Bloodline powers.

I know lots of people are down on Focus/Specialization but lots of people think that those 4 feats are the bee's knees and the reason to play the Fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's lots to fix, but here is my current short list.

Weapon Finesse: Should affect damage also. (Yes you can put the Agile enchantment on a weapon, but that's a bandaid and it's not balanced either). Dex builds should be more viable and re-balanced in other areas.

Grappling: Too powerful against casters. And very uncinematic. Does Conan the Barbarian throw down his sword and grapple the sorcerer in the movies? No, he slashes the crap out of him. In PF, that would be the wrong answer.

Archers/Guns: Too powerful compared to melee, with too many advantages. Ranged attacks are overtuned.

Prestige Classes: I never liked the prestige classes because I've always felt that if you want to make X character, you should be able to do so at level 1. So I like the current Paizo design. Having said that, the PClasses aren't very prestigious anymore, especially considering you can't apply your favored class hp bonus each level, and many of them are weaker than core/base classes.

Immunity Spells: Spells like Protection from Evil, Remove Fear, or Freedom of Movement are fun killers. Anything that involves complete immunity is bad game design imo. Add +10 to the saves, but not complete immunity.

Control Spells: I like how these spells work outside of combat but these spells are too powerful in combat. In combat, they should work for a limited number of rounds (2?) or allow a save each round. They've already made major strives with some spells (Hold Person, Hideous Laughter) but CC needs to have reduced effect in combat and it should be standardized.

Rogues: Rogues should be able to crit with sneak attack damage. Their talents need to be better. Talents like Powerful Sneak need to actually help their DPR, NOT hurt it! And there are a lot of Alchemist Discoveries that should be Rogue Talents. Alchemists shouldn't be better rogues than Rogues.

Balancing of damage vs hit points: I can't stand to see creatures as big as a house have only 200 hit points. And then get taken down solo by a PC in the 1st round. At higher levels PF is rocket tag, whoever acts first is the winner and it's usually over in 1-2 rounds. Not very exciting or cinematic imo.

Those are the major ones.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As far as my actual list goes ...
Spell Resistance and Anti-Magic. I hate 'neener neener' mechanics, and it's simply too prevalent; it seems like every monster has it. Better to rein in the spellcasters and give them moderate power instead of insane power with ham-handed neuterings.

Vancian Casting. Nothing makes me feel less like a wizard or other spellcaster than running out of magic, and let's not even get into the silliness of forgetting spells. Infinite Cantrips helps, but not enough.

Alignment having mechanical effects of any sort. Every argument about this has been hashed and re-hashed, so not getting into it in detail here.

GP=HP and ridiculously slow natural recovery, culminating in either 'Bag of Holding full of Wands of CLW', or 'who gets stuck playing the cleric'.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Alignment. Because it's pointless. It adds nothing but restrictions to the game. It doesn't allow you to role play anything that couldn't be role played without it.

It's a obsolete holy cow that should be turned into minced meat.

It’s a sacred cow that’s been part of the game for forty years and it’s not going away. There is something to be said fro tradition, you know. Other games have tried and they “just another 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS".

Why do so many people want Paizo to emulate those "3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS". Those models have failed. Over & over and over, time after time, for forty years they have failed- non Vancian, non-HP, skill-based, non-alignment. All failures. People just do NOT want to play that way. Or if they do, they certainly don't spend their money as if they do.

You want to play without alignments, without Vancian, without HP, without levels? There are optional PF rules for some of those (which is great!), and if not, there are plenty of marked down dusty 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS.

So, is this a straw man, a slippery slope, an ad hominem, or simply a colossal pile of steaming minotaur poop?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

16 people marked this as a favorite.

Natural Armor. It ends up being an arbitrary value slapped on monsters to get their AC in the right spot for their CR.

Related: AC and attack scaling in two completely different ways that don't make a lot of sense compared against each other.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:
Archers/Guns: Too powerful compared to melee, with too many advantages. Ranged attacks are overtuned.

Personally, I think the biggest issue here is that most melee characters can't move without taking a huge hit to their offensive potential. The biggest thing for making ranged characters scary is almost always being able to full attack, while melee has a lot more trouble with that.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

The Trap system is terrible. I could write dozens of pages on how bad it is and why, but it would be faster just to list the things I like about the way traps are handled in 3rd edition D&D/Pathfinder:

1) Nothing


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

Alignment. Because it's pointless. It adds nothing but restrictions to the game. It doesn't allow you to role play anything that couldn't be role played without it.

It's a obsolete holy cow that should be turned into minced meat.

Seriously. I entered the thread expecting it to the the first thing with everyone agreeing with it. Why did this take till the second page?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Because I kind of like the alignment system, and I'd much rather complain about traps, plane shift, the firearm mechanics, or natural armor than revisit that particular debate.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

Worthless feat tax:

It is terrible that a fighter need combat expertise, a feat that he never ever plan to use, just to tto take improved trip. It is like designed purporserly to hurt martials diversity.

realted to that, a spellcaster can take quicken spell without meeting any other prerequisites (other than be a spellcaster).

It is weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Because I kind of like the alignment system, and I'd much rather complain about traps, plane shift, the firearm mechanics, or natural armor than revisit that particular debate.

+1.

I do not see much problems with aligment. it works fine for me, and if you do not like it yu can just play without it.


Cleanthes wrote:
Dr. Deth, I say respectfully: People ought to be able to say there are subsystems they don't like about PF/D&D (the point of the thread, after all) and not instantly hear from you "But that's always been D&D, and if you don't like it go play some other game." Nobody's denying that, and the very fact that the people posting here are *involved enough to read these boards and post here* suggests that they still love the game and don't need schooling.

So, someone can post they don’t like something but I am not allow to disagree with that opinion?

I don’t say “if you don't like it go play some other game”, after all, many of these things are options within the PF game. I suggest you play with that option, instead of trying to eliminate the option *YOU* don’t like. Why not have options? If you don’t like Hit point, then play with the option, don’t try to force everyone else to play your way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
If you don’t like Hit point, then play with the option, don’t try to force everyone else to play your way.

I have yet to see anyone trying to force anyone to play with any style. None of us have the required mind-control powers or the ability to go back in time and take over Jason Buhlmann's brain and force the words in the Core to be what we want them to be.

The thread is about naming Pathfinder rules or subsystems that we don't like, and discussing why. It's a shame that you have equated that to attempts at mind-control.

-Matt


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:

Well, getting to the matter at hand...

I'm not a fan of how most of the ranged combat system works, mostly because (aside from firearms) ranged weapons are broken down into "longbows" and "inferior weapons you would only ever use because you can't have a longbow." I would like to see weapons like crossbows, slings, and throwing weapons keep up mechanically, while still having some flavorfully fun and unique things going for them.

I think is aproblem bigger than this.

It seems like the game is designed to have a "best" option, and a bunch of weaker ones. The more important example I think is

Magic > everything else


13 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Cleanthes wrote:
Dr. Deth, I say respectfully: People ought to be able to say there are subsystems they don't like about PF/D&D (the point of the thread, after all) and not instantly hear from you "But that's always been D&D, and if you don't like it go play some other game." Nobody's denying that, and the very fact that the people posting here are *involved enough to read these boards and post here* suggests that they still love the game and don't need schooling.

So, someone can post they don’t like something but I am not allow to disagree with that opinion?

I don’t say “if you don't like it go play some other game”, after all, many of these things are options within the PF game. I suggest you play with that option, instead of trying to eliminate the option *YOU* don’t like. Why not have options? If you don’t like Hit point, then play with the option, don’t try to force everyone else to play your way.

This thread is about catharsis. We all love this system and will continue to enjoy it. Think of it more like when you need to complain about someone you love. You just need to blow off some steam. Some folks will differ from others in what they choose to b&!!& about.

Imagine there is a group of guys out at a bar. Each one takes a turn complaining about his wife. Now, they all love their wife very much and can't imagine life without her. You are the guy who after each person complains says, "You might as well divorce her."

You don't get it. So, leave.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Mounted combat. I wish it was more simplified the whole who is charging, what actions you can take, what constitutes the penalties and bonuses of a charge stuff makes it rather unappealing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Do I have to stick to just one? I have four, if that's okay.

This may annoy some fans out there, but do bear in mind that I'm a RQ 2nd and GURPS player/GM first and foremost.

Classes: I hate having restrictions on what my character concept and development are because of some arbitrary ruling that 'your character role can't do that'. Balls. If my mage decides to invest in being an expert with a composite bow or picking a lock then why do I need to jump through game-mechanic loops to do so? Why shouldn't a holy warrior (cleric) be able to use a polearm? Why should a burglar not be able to learn a healing spell?

Multi-classing addresses this somewhat, but it is still not a open development system. Was Conan, the master thief, really a lesser warrior than dedicated fighters? Or a lesser thief than dedicated thieves?

Hit points: It's been mentioned before and I agree. I'd prefer an ablative system where damage taken really affects your performance in a more linear fashion than 100 (fine), 68 (fine), 52 (fine), 3 (fine), -1 (oh, you're only now injured).

Guns: Not in a pseudo-medieval setting thank you, and certainly not six-guns and metallic cartridges. My dwarf uses crude firearms in my current campaign, but even then I am self-restricting myself to the very basics (blunderbuss and pistol).

Spells that disappear from memory: I prefer a reducing spell-point/mana system.

I still play Pathfinder, despite my preferences (it is a wide-ranging system and so easy to find groups), but I can't say that it's my system of choice.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Magpied wrote:
Imagine there is a group of guys out at a bar. Each one takes a turn complaining about his wife. Now, they all love their wife very much and can't imagine life without her. You are the guy who after each person complains says, "You might as well divorce her."

This is a great analogy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
It's just so incredibly unnecessary, like tying a brick to a puppy before you place it in a sack to drown it in a river.

In my experience the brick's an essential preventative measure. Puppy's tend to have good ranks in Escape Artist.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't care for the whole ye olde magic shop concept. The idea that you can buy magic items just bothers me.

We don't have it our home game.


Sadurian wrote:


Spells that disappear from memory: I prefer a reducing spell-point/mana system.

The whole "memory" thing was fluff and fluff from a previous edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Sadurian wrote:


Spells that disappear from memory: I prefer a reducing spell-point/mana system.

The whole "memory" thing was fluff and fluff from a previous edition.

Editions, I think you'll find. I've played Basic D&D, 1st Edition AD&D, 2nd Edition AD&D, D&D 3.0 and D&D 3.5. Now I play Pathfinder. It has been a key feature of magic in D&D and AD&D since its inception and I still don't like it.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

17 people marked this as a favorite.

The 'memorize' terminology went away in 3.0. Because you're right, it makes no goddamn sense.

I think the more modern idea is that 'preparing' (the modern terminology) a spell means doing most of the work of casting it, so that you can set it off with a word or two and a gesture when you need it. This makes sense, because doing a three-page set of complex instructions to cast a fireball would take too long.

Once you've cast it, you still remember the words and the gesture, but the spell is still expended until you can pack up another one.

Another idea is looking at it like Batman's utility belt: manufacturing a sleeping-gas filled batarang is a pain. He has to do it before he gets in a fight. And once he throws it, it is spent. And he only has so many pockets to hold all his gimmicks in. He hasn't forgotten how to make more, but he needs access to his equipment in the batcave before he can do it again.

I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong: Some people just don't like Vancian mechanics. But I find a lot of people get hung up on the 'memorize' wording from 1st & 2nd edition instead of the mechanics themselves or the modern fluff of them.


Darkholme wrote:
Chivalry & Sorcery I'm not familiar with.

The old system was extremely number-heavy but worked, albeit using a Class system. The newer revision is still numbers heavy and has an innovative (but flawed) combat system that is realistic at the expense of ease and player attention.

It is primarily a combat game, where non-fighting types get very much second billing. It's not a bad system for experienced and hard-core gamers who like their games historically believable and 'crunchy'.

Darkholme wrote:
Runequest is actually kind of awesome. I'm personally familiar with RQ5 & 6. It's my second favorite RPG system.

I don't know the system beyond 2nd. I very briefly looked at 3rd Edition and recoiled in horror at what Avalon Hill had done to the game. 2nd Edition is somewhat dated but still workable as long as you impose a few minor houserules (my website details the ones I use) and overlook its limitations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I forget about the problems I have with Diplomacy because I've been using house rules from giantitp for so long I tend to confuse them with the RAW, but it's definitely a system that I dislike.

Guns are wonky and I'm not a fan of the way the system models them. Others have pointed out the specifics so I won't reiterate.

Stealth could use some work, in my opinion. It's too easy to negate mundane stealth, or even magical invisibility in many cases. Also, as much as I've wanted to play stealthy scout type rangers and rogues (and run games for them) if anyone in the party isn't focused on stealth it's hard to handle a stealth specialist and a non-stealthy party without leaving people twiddling their thumbs. This especially hurts in play by post, when taking what would be a couple minutes at the table to let a scout go off alone means working one on one with a person while a couple of days or weeks go by in real time. And if the scout stumbles into a fight against one of the many things that can detect them easily (or just has a bad roll and is spotted by perception alone) the non-stealthy members of the party are not going to be close enough to arrive immediately. It ends up being more one player gaming the scout faces whatever they came across alone while the rest of the party (if they can even tell the scout is in trouble) is too far away to do anything at first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But here's the thing about issues like Hit Points. Ok, so you don't like HP and want to play without them. Great! There's an optional Pathfinder system for that. So the Devs and I are saying "Well, HP's are traditional and most people like them, but if you don't there's a whole set of option rules to play without them."

But the haters don't want that. They don't want just the option to be able to play without HP, they want NO ONE to be able to use that system. They hate HP- thereby no one gets to use it.

Don't like Vancian? Play a Sorcerer, great. I love sorcs. Doesn't mean I wanna change the rules so that my buddy CAN'T play his wizard he loves.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

So, why is it that WE have to houserule instead of YOU? Why can't YOU use an optional system?

If your answer is 'tradition', then you have no answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
redliska wrote:
Mounted combat. I wish it was more simplified the whole who is charging, what actions you can take, what constitutes the penalties and bonuses of a charge stuff makes it rather unappealing.

Definitely my current #1 most aggravating subsystem currently. I just want a way to have my character charge while mounted. Not my mount charge, and the rider goes along for the ride. Streamline the entire mounted mechanics, even so far as merging the action economies of the rider and mount.

51 to 100 of 1,707 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.