Yea, why does it not allow post editing?
My least favorite Pathfinder subsystem is the Rules Forum.It is pretty bad. Post editing is locked after an annoyingly short time and it provides the moderators no options other than moving threads, retitling threads, or deleting all the posts that reference any part of a post that might be a very long and detailed post with one offensive bit. Oh, and the way it cuts of quotes. The way it cuts of quotes is horrible. I've been on more modern forums in the nineties.
Aren't these problems with the ENTIRE Paizo forum, and not just the rules forum?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Name one Pathfinder rule or subsystem that you dislike, and say why... so I can tell you how you're wrong"
The subsystem I hate is that very small weapons do way more damage than very big weapons. I hate the fact that daggers do 2d6 damage while greatswords only do a d4. What a stupid system!
Now, having read that, is it inappropriate in this thread for somebody to come in here and say "Hey, you might not hate it if you re-read the rules because if you do, you'll find out that it doesn't work like that - once you get it right, maybe you'll find the rule is OK and you don't need to hate it anymore"?
Seems to me that this kind of thread is the PERFECT time for people to help each other clear up those little rules mistakes, especially when somebody makes a mistake such that they then "hate" the rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Name one Pathfinder rule or subsystem that you dislike, and say why... so I can tell you how you're wrong"The subsystem I hate is that very small weapons do way more damage than very big weapons. I hate the fact that daggers do 2d6 damage while greatswords only do a d4. What a stupid system!
Now, having read that, is it inappropriate in this thread for somebody to come in here and say "Hey, you might not hate it if you re-read the rules because if you do, you'll find out that it doesn't work like that - once you get it right, maybe you'll find the rule is OK and you don't need to hate it anymore"?
Seems to me that this kind of thread is the PERFECT time for people to help each other clear up those little rules mistakes, especially when somebody makes a mistake such that they then "hate" the rule.
That seems helpful.
However, there have also been people accurately portraying a rule or subsystem they don't like who then face similar arguments. I think the latter is what Irontruth was referring to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, there's a difference between "I think you might be misunderstanding how the rule works, which is why you don't like it" and the sort of responses that really boil down to "How dare you not love Holy Paizo's divinely perfect game system!!!"
I'm not a fan of combat maneuvers in Pathfinder. It's an awkward system that requires far too much investment for rewards that only pay out against certain enemies, and far too often have payoffs that range from doing nothing to neutralizing and opponent.
Yeah, there's a difference between "I think you might be misunderstanding how the rule works, which is why you don't like it" and the sort of responses that really boil down to "How dare you not love Holy Paizo's divinely perfect game system!!!"
Yep. I see how classes work. I get it. Still don't like em. Still enjoy classless. Even when the rest of the game is essentially the same, like M&M, or totally different, like nWoD.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Traits. Awkward execution. Too fiddly for pointless bonuses. Really really poor design.
5e Background - or even 3.5 Forgotten Realms background feats - is a much more elegant way to add flavor.
"Name one Pathfinder rule or subsystem that you dislike, and say why... so I can tell you how you're wrong"The subsystem I hate is that very small weapons do way more damage than very big weapons. I hate the fact that daggers do 2d6 damage while greatswords only do a d4. What a stupid system!
Now, having read that, is it inappropriate in this thread for somebody to come in here and say "Hey, you might not hate it if you re-read the rules because if you do, you'll find out that it doesn't work like that - once you get it right, maybe you'll find the rule is OK and you don't need to hate it anymore"?
Seems to me that this kind of thread is the PERFECT time for people to help each other clear up those little rules mistakes, especially when somebody makes a mistake such that they then "hate" the rule.
Actually, it's not the prefect thread for that. In fact, it has nothing to do with the intent of the thread at all.
There are lots of threads where people ask for clarification and advice. This isn't really one of those.
But this is a super strong trend in the culture of these boards. Regardless of how a thread starts, posters come in and decide that it's now about whatever thing they want to talk about or however they feel they want to misinterpret the threads intent. It happens constantly. I mean, just look at the post I replied to with this post, prime example.
|
But this is a super strong trend in the culture of these boards. Regardless of how a thread starts, posters come in and decide that it's now about whatever thing they want to talk about or however they feel they want to misinterpret the threads intent. It happens constantly.
Welcome to the internet.
Al Gore says hi.
|
Oh?
You have full understanding of the intent of the thread, and what can, cannot, be said, or discussed?
Seems like rules and rules subsystems are the subject.
If that's not the case, then please, inform everyone.
I don't see how "I hate this rule, because it works like this..." couldn't be answered with "Actually, it doesn't work like that."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traits. Awkward execution. Too fiddly for pointless bonuses. Really really poor design.Except for those which provide pretty huge bonuses, like Magical Lineage or the stat substitution ones.
Which to be honest, is simply the other end of the same problem.
They seem pointless to me. You choose them for the bonuses, not because it makes sense for your character's history.
For some reason, Golarion is a world of two kinds of people: people who spent much of their childhood wearing armor, and the people they bullied and made jumpy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's, well, a metagame problem.
How so? You see a guy brace his spear for you, you know spears hurt a lot when you charge into them, so you elect not to spit yourself on the pointy stick. I'm not seeing anything "metagame" about it.
The problem is in the way the held action/brace/delay rules work (or, more often, don't work) -- not in the way people play.
That implies that Bracing is evident.
What is the difference than just having a spear out, ready to attack, and bracing, as far as what others see?
You literally brace with the spear rather than simply holding it.... If you do not physically move the spear into bracing position, it wouldn't give any benefit.
What is the difference than just having a spear out, ready to attack, and bracing, as far as what others see?
Haven't you seen any movies where they do that? When an infantry pikeman/spearman braces his weapon against a (usually cavalry) charge, he actually plants the butt of the weapon in the ground.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That guy with the scary spear touched the butt end on the ground.
I was going to charge him, but he altered his stance, and now I am not going to do it.
Yep. Not metagaming.
I don't think you understand the meaning of metagaming if "people in the universe are acting logically based on the information they know in that universe" counts as metagaming... Is it metagaming to not melee attack someone who is 15 ft. away?
It's "A guy I am looking at just entered a stance physically that is designed to screw with tactic A, so I'm not going to do tactic A". That isn't metagaming, it's simply having an intelligence score over -.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if no one ever charged a Bracing enemy, then why was it ever a tactic?
Because in real life, bracing can be done between the time a charge starts, and when the charge reaches you, because a charging army in formation (or even in a random group rushing your position) can't just stop midway without getting poked and trampled by his own guys.
But, the round structure prevents that.
|
|
Does the Brace "stance" happen immediately, or, like a Readied Action, happen when triggered, which, in this case, is the Charge?
So, you ready an action to Brace. You don't change stance, or anything, like a normal Readied Action. Enemy Charges, the Readied Action(Brace) triggers, you deal double damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brace: If you use a readied action to set a brace weapon against a charge, you deal double damage on a successful hit against a charging character (see Combat)
.
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.
Emphasis added.
I'll note that blackbloodtroll has the right off it - since a readied action doesn't go off until the trigger condition, it means that a opponent doesn't get to find out that you braced until they charge and trigger your brace.
Which means that in a round, it actually works exactly as InVinoVeritas described - person charges -> bracer plants pole arm -> Ow My Spleen -> Spleenless Charge Resolved if still alive.
The round structure doesn't prevent it at all; people are just running the readied action for a brace wrong =P
Also, just learned something - I didn't know until just now that you can take five foot steps as part of a readied action. Neat.
But this is a super strong trend in the culture of these boards. Regardless of how a thread starts, posters come in and decide that it's now about whatever thing they want to talk about or however they feel they want to misinterpret the threads intent. It happens constantly.Welcome to the internet.
Al Gore says hi.
Were you under the impression I didn't realize this was on the internet?
|
|
Were you under the impression I didn't realize this was on the internet?But this is a super strong trend in the culture of these boards. Regardless of how a thread starts, posters come in and decide that it's now about whatever thing they want to talk about or however they feel they want to misinterpret the threads intent. It happens constantly.Welcome to the internet.
Al Gore says hi.
Since you apparently didn't realize that this (the internet) is the place where everyone talks about whatever they want to talk about... it didn't seem like you did.
It's not a Pathfinder boards phenomenon. It's an internet one.
Now I'm going to start talking about how 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is related to Gygax somehow...
Were you under the impression I didn't realize this was on the internet?But this is a super strong trend in the culture of these boards. Regardless of how a thread starts, posters come in and decide that it's now about whatever thing they want to talk about or however they feel they want to misinterpret the threads intent. It happens constantly.Welcome to the internet.
Al Gore says hi.
Since you apparently didn't realize that this (the internet) is the place where everyone talks about whatever they want to talk about... it didn't seem like you did.
It's not a Pathfinder boards phenomenon. It's an internet one.
Now I'm going to start talking about how 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is related to Gygax somehow...
No, it is not a universal phenomenon to the internet. I've been to plenty of boards where people do a much better job of staying on topic and taking their offshoots to new/other threads.
Just because you're used to something, does not mean that all things are required to be the exact same way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Were you under the impression I didn't realize this was on the internet?But this is a super strong trend in the culture of these boards. Regardless of how a thread starts, posters come in and decide that it's now about whatever thing they want to talk about or however they feel they want to misinterpret the threads intent. It happens constantly.Welcome to the internet.
Al Gore says hi.
Since you apparently didn't realize that this (the internet) is the place where everyone talks about whatever they want to talk about... it didn't seem like you did.
It's not a Pathfinder boards phenomenon. It's an internet one.
Now I'm going to start talking about how 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is related to Gygax somehow...
No, it is not a universal phenomenon to the internet. I've been to plenty of boards where people do a much better job of staying on topic and taking their offshoots to new/other threads.
Just because you're used to something, does not mean that all things are required to be the exact same way.
Is this on topic?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see swarms in the same light that I see golems - they get tossed in when I want one particular character type to get a moment of glory or a special challenge. I like that Pathfinder has a lot of different options and that sometimes your normal attacks won't be effective. It requires more work on the GM's part to make sure that the challenges don't become boring or frustrating, but I think it makes for a more entertaining game.My point is that swarms are not fun.I disagree.
In theory, swarms should work like Golems. I find that is less true in practice. Against Golems, spellcasters can buff allies, look for SR: No spells, or cast spells that affect terrain instead of the golem itself. Or even Aid Another on the barbarian's Power Attack.
Against swarms, a barbarian can...hope he's carrying enough alchemist's fire to make a difference, and that the swarm isn't immune/resistant to fire. Or if he has a magical weapon with +damage elemental enchantment, swing for 1d6 + 50% damage instead. Swarms also have the double whammy of being both hard to hid and hard to defend from. A spellcaster can fly/levitate out of reach or at least buff his AC to avoid a Golem's attacks while his teammates kill it. A swarm doesn't make attack rolls - it moves over you and you are both damaged and debuffed (Usually with nausea or similar).Golems turn off some spells. Swarms turn off the d20 numbers engine that the game runs on.
DM_Blake also misquoted me slightly to shorten my quote. I don't think swarms are never fun. I pointed out that it is too easy for a party to be under-equipped to handle one, both in terms of gear carried and spells prepared/known. A GM who knows their party can certain counter this - if you have players who largely wing it, you can avoid swarms that would kill them. If you have players who obsessively make sure they have at least three of any given alchemical attack at all times, you can have more leeway.
But that's less than good for a product line that thrives on pre-published adventures in the form of Adventure Paths. Almost by definition, those adventures need to work with a wide range of parties, and swarms are too likely to simply be difficult out of whack with their CR against too many parties.
My point is that swarms are not fun.I disagree.
As a player, I LOVE challenges that are, well, challenging. I like it that there are a few encounters out there that I can't beat just by rolling a d20 a few times. It's FUN to solve a problem.
You suggest that a swarm should be a hazard instead of a creature. I suggest that it's BOTH. I also suggest that it doesn't matter what label you put on it; call it what you want, it's still a challenge that can be defeated by dishing out enough elemental damage and cannot be defeated by hacking it with a sword - and once you've defeated it, you get XP. Knowing that, I don't care what the label is, the solution to overcome the challenge is the same: Be prepared with the right tools or run away and find some other way to get around it or get away from it or get to town to procure the right tools.
To me, as a player, that's fun. And yes, I know that other players, and evidently you're one of them, disagree. Can't please all the people all of the time.
Here's a suggestion: Take the swarm and multiply its HP by x10. Then multiply all applicable damage by x10 (that means x15 for AE elemental stuff). Then simply allow normal weapons to do normal damage. But maybe consider DR 5/Bludgeoning just for fun - I bet arrows and spears and daggers and swords are still somewhat ineffective against them no matter what you try.
That mechanic would make it so someone with a bludgeoning weapon could eventually swat enough of the swarm to death to kill it, if he's patient enough. Someone with piercing or slashing will need a lot longer. But AE elemental damage is still the I WIN button against a swarm.
I don't think x10 hp is right, maybe X5 hp, multiply applicable damage by x10 (15 for Area effect) still, DR 5/Blunt.
Feels more right for me.|
|
But that's less than good for a product line that thrives on pre-published adventures in the form of Adventure Paths. Almost by definition, those adventures need to work with a wide range of parties, and swarms are too likely to simply be difficult out of whack with their CR against too many parties.
Also probably why they're so very popular in PFS. An author going, "I know, SWARM! Heh heh, I rule." At least, that's the way it looks from the outside (My dear apology to the authors among us. I've been a module author. It ain't easy and you are to be commended for your effort. Swarms still look like a bad move.)
|
|
Then I suggest some here never play 2E or 5E where magic marts are a must. In both editions some monsters are immune to damage unless it's both a magic weapon and made a certain material. While some parties will run away from such creatures. Their a point where any group of players gets tired of running away. If as a DM they can't find the magical silver longsword. No matter how often they ask or look for it. Fight a werewolf it ends up in a tpk. I put the blame mostly on the DM. The players as well it's up tp the DM to make sure they have the right equipment to survive.
Players should not assume they will get every magic item. Neither should they also have to beg on their hands and knees either. At least with Pathfinder and DR the need for a magic mart is less it's still there. Good luck fighting a werewolf without at least one or two dead pcs if they don't have a silver weapon to overcome it's DR. Again only so many times they can run away. Depending on the type of DM if he or she allows them to run away.
Their a certain point as well where a +1 item just loses the awe factor if you will. If a character is 10th level or higher a regular +1 sword after one finds better items loses it's attraction. It's the same way where a high level party approaches what looks like to be a empty room. The first order of business at least with experienced players. Is Detect Magic/evil, Rogue checks for traps etc. Not "oh look a empty room I'm going to act like I'm first level and not check for traps or magic"
sometimes it's also obvious when a DM goes out of his way to restrict certain items which may cause resentment between players and DMs. Don't confuse suffering in silence with players being happy with your DMing style. The DM I play with currently hates magic marts yet kind of had to backtrack on finding barding for animal companions. Were at a centaur camp and it's in the middle of nowhere. So it makes sense for it to not have as many items as a city would. then he tried to make it be as if their was no...
Someone may have already pointed this out in an earlier reply, but 5E actually has a decent system set up to deal with this where you can be semimagical limited use quick fixes RAW (e.g. alchemical silver for werewolves, holy water for undead) without having to necessarily put in a magic mart.
|
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".
The summoner makes a neat sort of conjuration super-specialist.
And the summoner chassis, for that matter, could be stripped and used as the base for a necromancer super-specialist (change the eidolon to an undead, and swap out the heavy conjuration focused spell list to be heavily necromancy focused) or an enchantment super-specialist (eidolon becomes a single 'perma-thrall' under your control, spells become heavily enchantment focused) or transmutation super-specialist (eidolon becomes an animated construct *or* you become a wild shaping shapechanger, spells become heavily transmutation focused) or illusion super-specialist (eidolon becomes a shadow creature, spells become illusion focused), etc.
But yeah, the beguiler and dread necromancer, in particular, were very cool. A few PrCs went in the direction of trying to make abjuration fun as well (abjurant champion, for instance), but there wasn't really a base class around that, IIRC.
|
I see swarms in the same light that I see golems - they get tossed in when I want one particular character type to get a moment of glory or a special challenge. I like that Pathfinder has a lot of different options and that sometimes your normal attacks won't be effective. It requires more work on the GM's part to make sure that the challenges don't become boring or frustrating, but I think it makes for a more entertaining game.My point is that swarms are not fun.I disagree.
In theory, swarms should work like Golems. I find that is less true in practice. Against Golems, spellcasters can buff allies, look for SR: No spells, or cast spells that affect terrain instead of the golem itself. Or even Aid Another on the barbarian's Power Attack.
Against swarms, a barbarian can...hope he's carrying enough alchemist's fire to make a difference, and that the swarm isn't immune/resistant to fire. Or if he has a magical weapon with +damage elemental enchantment, swing for 1d6 + 50% damage instead. Swarms also have the double whammy of being both hard to hid and hard to defend from. A spellcaster can fly/levitate out of reach or at least buff his AC to avoid a Golem's attacks while his teammates kill it. A swarm doesn't make attack rolls - it moves over you and you are both damaged and debuffed (Usually with nausea or similar).Golems turn off some spells. Swarms turn off the d20 numbers engine that the game runs on.
DM_Blake also misquoted me slightly to shorten my quote. I don't think swarms are never fun. I pointed out that it is too easy for a party to be under-equipped to handle one, both in terms of gear carried and spells prepared/known. A GM who knows their party can certain counter this - if you have players who largely wing it, you can avoid swarms that would kill them. If you have players who obsessively make sure they have at least three of any given...
One of the things I do to help with swarms is to allow energy damage from weapons to be affective even if the weapon damage is not. So if the barb attacks a swarm of wasps with a greatsword of frost they don't get the 2d6+whatever, but they do get the 1d6 cold damage.
This is actually lack of a rule: success at a cost.
I wouldn't want to use it for everything, but I think particularly skills and certain kinds of magic could be very interesting if they included "success at a cost" mechanics. Or if it were included as GM option as a mechanic in the game (to offer the players when they fail a check).
|
|
This is actually lack of a rule: success at a cost.
I wouldn't want to use it for everything, but I think particularly skills and certain kinds of magic could be very interesting if they included "success at a cost" mechanics. Or if it were included as GM option as a mechanic in the game (to offer the players when they fail a check).
Not saying there's anything wrong with the rule - but that's usually for soft systems without much crunch. In those the focus is upon storytelling rather than tactics.
Nothing wrong with the concept - I just don't think it works well in a crunchy system like Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Success at cost?
Like Mouse Guard?
Like lots of games.
Apocalypse world, Fate, Marvel, to name a couple more.
This is actually lack of a rule: success at a cost.
I wouldn't want to use it for everything, but I think particularly skills and certain kinds of magic could be very interesting if they included "success at a cost" mechanics. Or if it were included as GM option as a mechanic in the game (to offer the players when they fail a check).
Not saying there's anything wrong with the rule - but that's usually for soft systems without much crunch. In those the focus is upon storytelling rather than tactics.
Nothing wrong with the concept - I just don't think it works well in a crunchy system like Pathfinder.
I wouldn't want it for combat. To many rolls are happening and if they were all potential success at a cost it would bog down the game way too much. It works in combat for games where combat takes maybe 1-2 rolls per player.
I think the skill system would be a great place to put it, specifically as a mechanic for the GM. It would solve the issue of players failing critical skill checks that bring the plot to a halt. In addition, if it were in the GM's toolbox (instead of an automatic thing) it would be something that a group could apply as necessary/desired, instead of constant.
Also, I think you greatly mischaracterize these "soft games". Yes, they have less math, but that's because a lot of people confuse math with rules. Just because a rule doesn't have math in it, doesn't make it not a rule. Dungeon World is a great example, if you want the Dungeon World Experience(TM) you have to treat every sentence in the book as a rule. If you don't, you aren't playing the designers vision for the game, you're playing your own thing (which is fine if that's what you want, but it needs to be recognized).
In addition, I'd be really hard pressed to accept a comment that Burning Wheel is less complex of a game than Pathfinder. Sure, there's fewer books, but Burning Wheel is more like Harn-lite (or Harn-abstract).
In the end, success at a cost is really just part of the design toolbox now. I think Pathfinder would benefit from it's own version of implementation, not saying that all aspects need to be success at a cost.
|
|
Also, I think you greatly mischaracterize these "soft games".
I didn't mean it to imply a negative connotation.
It's like with science.
Physics and chemistry are hard science.
Psychiatry & sociology are soft sciences.
(With biology somewhere in the middle.)
That doesn't make psychiatry & sociology untrue or somehow 'lesser' - just soft, in that they leave much more open to interpretation rather than having a more hard & fast rule for most everything.
It's not good or bad - just different.
Tammy isn't soft.