Another problem with charisma is that you usually only need one or two party members with decent charisma for social skills and everyone else can dump it to hell.Ultimate Intrigue strongly implies that having antisocial characters standing next to the one highly-social character during a social situation is about as effective as having the full plate fighter sneaking alongside the nimble rogue prior to an ambush.
It even specifically calls out Bluff:
This just means you find a room to shove the socially inept members into during diplomacy/bluff hour.
Also holy s*~@ that is so mean to fighters and warpriests that it's not even funny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing like that turns a fighter / whomever has high opportunity cost on social skills into a liability.
Especially in a situation where both the party face and their opponent have high social skills it's simply not feasible for everyone in the party to have resources to invest to the point where it's significant. +5 bluff does jack against a +20 sense motive.
Playing like that encourages you to go at tasks alone and leave EVERY OTHER PLAYER behind as they are liable to make the situation MORE dangerous. I thought it was a team game?
Of all of the rulesets inherited from Dungeons and Dragons 3.0, the Cleric of an ideal, or essentially the godless clerics has always been the one that grinds my garters.
It always came off as for what it was originally intended... a sop to please Fundamentalist mommies and daddies that their local Dungeon Master wasn't going to introudce Tommy and Susie to pagan worship.
Hm, I had never considered that possibility.
I always figured that the philosophical cleric was the result of wanting to give players the opportunity to play a healer without the religious baggage, while feeling constrained from making a new class for the concept by game tradition. (Or simply free up all casters to heal.)
Anyway, thanks for an angle I had never considered. :)
Another problem with charisma is that you usually only need one or two party members with decent charisma for social skills and everyone else can dump it to hell.Ultimate Intrigue strongly implies that having antisocial characters standing next to the one highly-social character during a social situation is about as effective as having the full plate fighter sneaking alongside the nimble rogue prior to an ambush.
It even specifically calls out Bluff:
This just means you find a room to shove the socially inept members into during diplomacy/bluff hour.
Also holy s#$$ that is so mean to fighters and warpriests that it's not even funny.
In such a case, if I were the bard/sorcerer doing the bluffing, I'd aid another the poor fighter (and hope the other members of the team are allowed to do the same).
-style.As a GM I might employ that exact tactic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that it wasn't the intent. If you've ever read the Dying Earth books, the way classic wizard spells are expended int the is EXACTLY the way it works in the books which provide the complete rationalisation for why it works that way. Gygax invented the system used in AD+D because his inspiration for wizards is Turgan, not Gandalf, and not Merlin. Turgan who's considered so great a magician that he can memorise a staggering FOUR spells. Given that one of them is The Most Excellent Prismatic Spray, those four were sufficient to do the job. Erick Wujick was so fond of the system he used it for the chassis for his magic in Amber Diceless.
2) The Vancian System: Conceptually, the idea of having magic be a limited resource isn't a terrible idea, however it does not actually do at the table what it is intended to do. The intent was that casters sit back and use their spells sparingly, gradually diminishing in power over the course of the day until they were completely depleted. The actual result of the system is that parties generally buff up to the eyeballs for the highest chance of success, blitz as many encounters as possible and then retreat to rest for the day after 5-15 minutes of action. In part because encounters are design around the party having magical resources on hand, and thus people are usually averse to fighting without them.From any kind of narrative perspective, this is horrible.
Additionally, the default of having prepared spells expend themselves like ammunition is immensely unintuitive.
I'll be honest: I haven't read the Dying Earth series. It's not even on my "I should read this when I get the chance" list, which is exceedingly long as it is. And I don't think I'm in the minority in this regard.
I'm generally more fond of spontaneous casting and spell point systems, where the concept of the diminishing resource is captured without quite the strangeness of having the spell erase itself from your mind (which is strange because that is explicitly not how the brain works IRL).
I should also point out that my distaste for the Vancian system is not the reason I pick fault with the spellcasting system of 3.5 and Pathfinder - it is the combination of what spells can do (the Trump Game), how they are managed (Vancian and the 15 min work day) and how they and classes dependent upon them scale (completely differently to non-casters).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The entire concept of levels... I mean, I play with it, and I love the system (started with D+D, switched to Pathfinder and NEVER intend to go back!), but arbitrarily gaining more 'meat points' and 'spell levels' just seems weird.
I started roleplaying with a skill-based system (Interlock, by Talsorian Games, the Cyberpunk setting) and to this day still think it is the standard to which all other games should be compared.
I think the fragmented leveling in Unchained helps with that a bit. Makes it more gradual.
I think the fragmented leveling in Unchained helps with that a bit. Makes it more gradual.
I keep hearing good things about that book, but my group refuses to add books to our current 'allowed' list...
Mythic, apparently, is allowed, but not Unchained. Go figure. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that it wasn't the intent. If you've ever read the Dying Earth books, the way classic wizard spells are expended int the is EXACTLY the way it works in the books which provide the complete rationalisation for why it works that way. Gygax invented the system used in AD+D because his inspiration for wizards is Turgan, not Gandalf, and not Merlin. Turgan who's considered so great a magician that he can memorise a staggering FOUR spells. Given that one of them is The Most Excellent Prismatic Spray, those four were sufficient to do the job. Erick Wujick was so fond of the system he used it for the chassis for his magic in Amber Diceless.
2) The Vancian System: Conceptually, the idea of having magic be a limited resource isn't a terrible idea, however it does not actually do at the table what it is intended to do. The intent was that casters sit back and use their spells sparingly, gradually diminishing in power over the course of the day until they were completely depleted. The actual result of the system is that parties generally buff up to the eyeballs for the highest chance of success, blitz as many encounters as possible and then retreat to rest for the day after 5-15 minutes of action. In part because encounters are design around the party having magical resources on hand, and thus people are usually averse to fighting without them.From any kind of narrative perspective, this is horrible.
Additionally, the default of having prepared spells expend themselves like ammunition is immensely unintuitive.
I'll be honest: I haven't read the Dying Earth series. It's not even on my "I should read this when I get the chance" list, which is exceedingly long as it is. And I don't think I'm in the minority in this regard.
If you're looking for stories where a magician is the straight out action hero, Turgan is the guy who will warm your heart. He's not a demon summoning maniac, nor is he a stuck up like Mordenkainen or Blackstaff. The Dying Earth series is rightly considered a classic in it's own right.
I find Charisma to be actually quite strong.
-powers Leadership, which is probably the single strongest feat IF the GM allows it. It's also useful and flavorful for just about any heroic character out there. I perfectly understand not allowing it due to it's power and bookkeeping, but GMs should be aware that this may lead to people dumping CHA more. Cause and Effect
-Social skills, as discussed. Yes, one person CAN do the job, but the more diplomats/bluffers, the more complicated stunts you can pull off. You can pretty much achieve anything with clever players and diplomats. Maybe not as much as magic, but that's a given.
-Eldritch Heritage is an expensive feat chain that nevertheless adds a ton of cool options to martials. It'd be mandatory in my book except most of the coolest options don't pop up until level 9. Especially because at the very least you can make your charisma investment = strength, with the added benefit that people don't laugh at you in the streets.
I feel the problem with people dropping Charisma isn't so much that it doesn't convey proper benefits, it's that dropping the other stats are so dire: DEX, CON, and WIS weaken your defenses, and in this game it's a really good thing to have solid defenses if you don't want to die. Having a defensive weakness isn't flavorful or unique, it just means you're more likely to die. INT both reduces your out of combat skills and your ability to roleplay. STR is probably the second most dumped skill, ironically, the only reason it isn't dumped more is due to the fact that it's vital for the most DPS on martial classes. Of course, any group that actually tracks encumbrance also knows that dumping STR can be a poor decision if you like to carry items.
That leaves CHA. Dumping it hurts some cool toys like Leadership, but doesn't actively make you worse in concrete ways (though it makes you really vulnerable to the GM making NPCs hostile to you, which should be significant, but it's just not mechanical enough.)
So yeah, it isn't so much that people undervalue CHA, it's more like, if you have to dump a stat (and often you do), CHA is really the only stat that is a decent choice.
~ Buffs ~
There should be two bonus types: permanent and temporary
Then subtypes: dodge, enhancement, insight, luck, etc
Temporary bonuses stack with permanent bonuses and other temporary bonuses of different subtypes, but not other temporary bonuses of the same subtype, works the same for permanent bonuses
This would now make the animal buff spells and protection from evil far more useful at higher levels since they actually stack with equipment, might need to adjust some spell durations though
~ Shapeshifting ~
I HAAAAATE pathfinder shapeshifting rules, it turned polymorph spells into lackluster buff spells, not actual shapeshifting
Fix 1: you CANNOT cast YOUR spells while shapeshifting, period. This will stop most of the completely broken issues with old shifting.
New Shifting: you become a carbon copy of the thing you transform into, including HP, but replace your mental stats with it. You gain all of it's abilities including SLA's and Casting, but only what uses they have when you shift into them. You also track daily uses so you cant shift into a wizard, cast spells, then unshift and reshift and have more free spells. Most shifting abilities would limit what you can turn into by only letting you turn into things of your CR or lower.
PS: Sorry that post was overly long, it was on my lunch break and I didn't have time to condense my thoughts.
As far as the actual topic goes, I'd go with the full round attack and the countless problems with it. Everything else I dislike I can GM away with relative ease, but not so much the full round attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
t is the sort of thing Pharasma would do, because it HAS been done. There are actual story mechanics which will get your character's soul sent to a plane where he or she would not otherwise belong.
Pharasma is not the Abrahamic Yahweh or Yeshua. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are irrelevant to her. When you stand to her in judgement she is not judging how good, or evil, or orderly you were. She is judging as to which plane or deity has the best claim on your soul. And there are rituals and monsters which will put an overriding claim on your soul. Such as the altar golems dedicated to Lissala, or the rite of ritual sacrifice.
Just because Pharasma is a judge, does not mean her main concern is justice.
That would require Pharasma to act in violation of her alignment. Either she must consider "claims" of such overriding authority that she cannot fail to be lawful or she shows such a complete lack of mercy and justice that she cannot fail to be evil.
But she's supposed to be true neutral. Neutral might not go out of its way to fight evil, but neutral doesn't sign off on great and unambiguous evils when they cross its desk either.
Again it's not her concern. Her ONLY concern is the proper allocation of souls to planes and their owners. "You were properly claimed on the Altar of Lissala. To her domain you go." This is Paizo's ruling not my interpretation. If a person is sacrificed on a Lissalan altar-golem, the only way you're getting her back is by the offices of a cleric of Lissala.
I too enjoy alignment and having features tied to it.
You know what I dislike? Complaints about alignment. Seriously? There's 9 options. You can't find one of 9 options to fit what you need? There's over 30 classes and hundreds of archetypes. You can't find one of 30 classes to fit what you need? You have to be a paladin, but can't be lawful good? Seriously?
Seems like the kind of people who will find something to complain about even if they hand-make the game themselves.
And even if you don't want to be lawful good, you can use the Paladin and Antipaladin archetypes to be of any alignment you want except for true neutral, chaotic neutral and chaotic good.
It would be nice if those got covered in a way.
Playing like that turns a fighter / whomever has high opportunity cost on social skills into a liability.
Especially in a situation where both the party face and their opponent have high social skills it's simply not feasible for everyone in the party to have resources to invest to the point where it's significant. +5 bluff does jack against a +20 sense motive.
Playing like that encourages you to go at tasks alone and leave EVERY OTHER PLAYER behind as they are liable to make the situation MORE dangerous. I thought it was a team game?
I agree with this, but still feel like it's a good system to have...But it's difficult to handle, because it does make it a boon to go at a diplomacy challenge alone. Including options for lending your bluff to allies (which I believe there's a rogue trick for), circumstance bonuses for a rehearsed story, the option for the main face to intercept the challenge ("you're talking to me, remember? I find it insulting that you'd push me aside like that" which is more character behavior than any mechanic). I think it could be done, but needs more support than is currently given, but it is certainly realistic that someone may direct questions at another party member if they're suspicious & social.
As it should, if you ask me.
There just aren't enough skill points to have everyone put points in bluff, besides, it's not like you require the whole party to put ranks in spellcraft so the wizard can copy and identify spells, you don't penalise the bard's knowledge check because the other guys left it to him.
Similarly some of the more MAD classes pretty much depend on charisma to be dumpable. Can't dump str or you'll be useless in melee, even if you jump through the hoops of dex-to-damage you still can't dump it if you plan to use heavy armour and weapons, and you'll need it to carry stuff until you can afford a bag of holding, can't dump dex because that's your AC, initiative, ranged attacks and reflex save, can't dump con because that's your health and fort save, can't dump wis because that's your will save, int could maybe work, but you'll lose out on skill points and quite a few of the more MAD classes use it for class features. So to have good scores in what you need and not suffer from dumping those other ones, you dump cha, because even if you do plan to intimidate, bluff UMD etc., you can just stick a few extra skillpoints in from not dumping int.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right now... Any talk of Pathfinder 2nd edition. Make a book of alternative optional rules and publish that, don't enter edition wars.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything relating to allignment and absolute morality.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mine is that every class gets the same AoO and a 5 foot step. Melee only classes should get 5ft step and a melee AoO.
The Wizard/Sorc/Oracle didn't train martially they are casters, their AoO should be related to counter spelling not attacking.
They also shouldn't get a 5ft step because that is something that training in combat should be all about.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than a rule, I'll instead list a trend that irks me:
Constantly hard-coding classes (like Gunslinger 11) and casting stats (such as Wisdom) rather than class features and other things like BAB. This has already caused multiple problems and forced archetypes to constantly carry additional wording baggage ("the archetype also counts as a X level other class for meeting prerequisites"), but Paizo keeps on doing it with every new class released when even the homebrew D&D 3.5 community realized its problems five years prior to PF's release.
It's much more future-proof'd to have prerequisites of "Deeds class feature, BAB +11" rather than "Gunslinger 11", and much more friendly to homebrew and 3rd party designers that want to take advantage of the OGL...not to mention future Paizo releases themselves.
That intimidate is a charisma skill.
Two people walk up to you. The first is a barbarian. He is rippling with muscles, has a huge scar running down the side of his face, and has an axe on his back which is bigger than you are. He doesn't say anything, but glowers at you with barely contained fury. The barbarian has dumped his charisma into the negatives so he can boost his strength up to godly proportions.
Next to him is a halfling bard. He is holding a lute. He is really handsome, is wearing this season's fashion, and...how do I put this charitably? His stomach is larger than all of his muscles put together. When he speaks it even sounds like he is singing. He has a warm smile that puts you at ease. The halfling has dipped three levels into rogue. He naturally gets a -2 to strength and he reduced it even further to boost up his already high dexterity and charisma.
Tell me why the hell the halfling is 1000% better at intimidation than the barbarian? Sure, that halfling might be effective in combat (given that he'd use his dexterity for to-hit and damage rolls), but looking at them there is no way that he'd come across as intimidating.
Charisma should be for bluff and diplomacy.
Strength should be for intimidate.
Classes that get bluff and diplomacy shouldn't get intimidate as a class skill, and classes that get intimidate shouldn't get bluff and diplomacy.
Let barbarians and fighter be good at intimidating while bards and paladins are good at diplomacy.
There's a feat that lets you use strength for intimidation, though it should be a trait if you ask me. That said intimidation should be a charisma skill by default. A scrawny guy can be incredibly scary if he knows people to hurt you and the ones you care about and can present himself correctly.
On a side note, anyone else peeved at all the traits to make charisma skills intelligence skills? I mean come on, by default that's all the stat has!
Mundane Crafting - because it just doesn't work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Felyndiira: While I can somewhat agree, using Deeds class feature, BAB +11 instead of Gunslinger 11 means that someone with 1 level in Gunslinger can fulfill the prerequisite. And a 3/4 BAB class at level 11 with the Deeds class feature can't (even if they use their levels as Gunslinger levels in regards to fulfilling prerequisits).
To be honest, I consider a Gunslinger 1/Fighter 10 able to take the feat to be a good thing. The main reason why, say, Signature Deed has such a requirement is to mark it as an end-game feat, and a GS1/Ftr10 will generally appear at the same point of the game as a GS11. Feats are supposed to be modular rather than class features in disguise, so letting more different class combinations take it is a good thing.
As for the latter, if you need to make a 3/4 class have the same progression, you can just add "this class counts as full BAB for the purpose of meeting prerequisites of grit feats" and be no worse off than before.
Alternatively, use something else as the prerequisite. While I don't necessarily like it, even "11 levels of a deed-using class" is more future-proofed than "Gunslinger 11".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, anyone else peeved at all the traits to make charisma skills intelligence skills? I mean come on, by default that's all the stat has!
I like them, it's nice thematically to handle your diplomacy, UMD etc by being clever, just like the str to intimidate feat, and it means I can still do social stuff when I'm not playing a charisma based class, because dumping charisma is pretty much always a good idea if your class doesn't use it. People are more likely to just not bother with those skills than raise charisma if you remove the traits.
On a side note, anyone else peeved at all the traits to make charisma skills intelligence skills? I mean come on, by default that's all the stat has!
This is true. Sorcerers, bards, oracles, paladins, and every other class that has features keyed off of charisma don't exist if you plug your ears hard enough and yell out "NAH NAH NAH I'M NOT LISTENING" loud enough.
This is true. Sorcerers, bards, oracles, paladins, and every other class that has features keyed off of charisma don't exist if you plug your ears hard enough and yell out "NAH NAH NAH I'M NOT LISTENING" loud enough.
On a side note, anyone else peeved at all the traits to make charisma skills intelligence skills? I mean come on, by default that's all the stat has!
I said by default, meaning if you're not those classes you have no reason to boost the thing, which makes the traits insult to injury.
By default, strength is meaningless too. If you don't use a melee weapon or a long or shortbow, it never comes up.
By default, strength is meaningless too. If you don't use a melee weapon or a long or shortbow, it never comes up.
Except everyone uses those things. Ranged characters probably use bows.
Gunslingers have to melee once in awhile. Even spellcasters occasionally need to make a melee touch attack.Also carrying capacity.
Charisma does literally nothing for a barbarian who doesn't use Charisma skills (with no ranks, there isn't much of a practical difference between 0 and -1).
I mean, my Wizard might not make very many attacks of opportunity in his career, but hes's going to do it more often than the Fighter rolls Diplomacy.
By default, strength is meaningless too. If you don't use a melee weapon or a long or shortbow, it never comes up.
Oh trust me I have a problem with that too, it's just charisma I have more of an issue with because I keep wanting to play high charisma characters in classes that use nothing for charisma except for skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hitpoints. Mutants & Masterminds turned HP into basically a Toughness saving throw. Damage comes in, you make a Toughness save. You pass the save, you're fine, no damage. You fail the save, you take damage that basically applies a -1 to everything (future toughness saves, damage, ability checks, whole shebang). Fail the save by a lot, and you go unconcious/dead.
Meant that the more damage you took, the more you slowed down. It wasn't the binary "You are at 100% capability or you're dying, with nothing in between" that we have in DnD and PF.
|
It's probably been said a million times, but I hate the alignment system and how many mechanics interact with and depend on this system. My issue with it isn't so much on the moralistic side but on the roleplaying side. While it isn't really meant to be overly restrictive, no matter how many times I would try to explain to my players that they shouldn't treat their alignment as descriptive rather than descriptive (as in not a tiny box they have to cramp themselves into)... to many players played their alignment instead of playing a character. I always got tired of "Well I'm [alignment] so I probably (don't) care" sort of thing, without first considering what their character would do. The alignment was too often put first.
For example, not every Paladin will necessarily follow their code or alignment 100%. Some will of course, but some will also be capable of very human emotions and be able to succumb to their personal desires. One example I can think of is a Paladin of Iomedae whose sister, that he loves more than anything in the world, is brutally murdered by an overzealous Inquisitor who is not held accountable for their actions. This Paladin might be willing to fall from grace in order to seek revenge, by taking the law into their own hands, even if say the Inquisitor had a valid reason for killing the girl. Love is a powerful emotion. Now someone playing their alignment as a Paladin, would probably say "It would be unlawful for me to kill the Inquisitor, and I'd lose my powers. So I won't do it." rather than examining it from a character perspective, they examine it from the alignment. Alignment violations are treated too often as a taboo that must be avoided at all costs, rather than looking at the alignment as something that merely describes the characters' behavior up to this point.
Unchained provides some decide ideas for removing alignments, but if you want to preserve existing spell mechanics and class abilities (without going with the dreadful dichotomy of "lightness and darkness") some things still have to be homebrewed.
I had a decent setup in my old home group with the loyalties concept where having a primary loyalty (first or second) to something particularly evil or a loyalty to an evil god (or a major part of an evil gods portfolio) would make a person detect as evil, and the reverse is also true (conflicts between the two would be examined case-by-case). Obviously there were exceptions, and certain subtleties that had to be considered. This generated a lot more work for me as the GM in making moralistic judgements, but ultimately I was willing to deal with that in order to help players forget about alignment restrictions and instead play multi-dimensional characters, without eliminating the Alignment based spell and class mechanics.
For example, the aforementioned Paladin would have Loyalty #1 to his sister (or the concept of family, love, or siblings, etc) Loyalty #2 would be to Justice (and not necessarily Law), and Loyalty #3 could be anything (perhaps Law, perhaps Goodness, perhaps "Doing what is right" or whatever). And if totally consumed by the desire for revenge, the loyalties could shift around, perhaps Loyalty #1 could become "Revenge for his sister" or Loyalty #3 could become Revenge in general while the other 2 shift up one (and possibly dropping a loyalty to Law). The point is that the loyalty system is much more open, vague, and interpret-able compared to how the alignment system is most often approached.
|
|
I also HAVE to mention how bothered I am by the AC system at times. D&D 5E largely remedies the problems I have, but I'm not sure how one could homebrew that AC system into Pathfinder with existing AC items, spells, etc.
The problem I have is that at low levels AC makes sense. In most cases everything at least has the ability to hit you without rolling a Nat 20. Once you get into the upper levels however, you'll typically have such high AC that you can wade out into a mass of CR 1 enemies that mechanically would add up to an absurdly high CR... but none have a chance of hitting you (except on a Nat 20, but you might also have some DR by then that'd negate their damage anyways) and all would die from a single hit (which they rarely have a chance of avoiding). You'd rack up insane amounts of experience with minimal risk, all for killing a ton of CR 1 enemies without difficulty. Lets say it was 90 CR 1/3 skeletons (which add up CR 13 (maybe 14) if using the alternate CR method following the pattern past 16), yet all would die without much difficulty to a single 13th level fighter. But a single CR 13 monster (like an Adult Blue Dragon) could put up a serious fight.
The problem I have is twofold, 1 is that realistically a sea of mooks should never not be a threat. Even a max level fighter should feel threatened by 10,000 goblins. And 2 is that more than 3 enemies that add up to a CR (even with the alternate method) are often much less of a threat than 1 or 2 enemies that add up to a particular CR, yet both grant the same amount of experience. This (as a GM) sometimes makes me feel a bit restricted to higher CR enemies when setting up encounters with high level characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also HAVE to mention how bothered I am by the AC system at times. D&D 5E largely remedies the problems I have, but I'm not sure how one could homebrew that AC system into Pathfinder with existing AC items, spells, etc.
The problem I have is that at low levels AC makes sense. In most cases everything at least has the ability to hit you without rolling a Nat 20. Once you get into the upper levels however, you'll typically have such high AC that you can wade out into a mass of CR 1 enemies that mechanically would add up to an absurdly high CR... but none have a chance of hitting you (except on a Nat 20, but you might also have some DR by then that'd negate their damage anyways) and all would die from a single hit (which they rarely have a chance of avoiding). You'd rack up insane amounts of experience with minimal risk, all for killing a ton of CR 1 enemies without difficulty. Lets say it was 90 CR 1/3 skeletons (which add up CR 13 (maybe 14) if using the alternate CR method following the pattern past 16), yet all would die without much difficulty to a single 13th level fighter. But a single CR 13 monster (like an Adult Blue Dragon) could put up a serious fight.
The problem I have is twofold, 1 is that realistically a sea of mooks should never not be a threat. Even a max level fighter should feel threatened by 10,000 goblins. And 2 is that more than 3 enemies that add up to a CR (even with the alternate method) are often much less of a threat than 1 or 2 enemies that add up to a particular CR, yet both grant the same amount of experience. This (as a GM) sometimes makes me feel a bit restricted to higher CR enemies when setting up encounters with high level characters.
Troop rules might be what you're looking for.
|
|
Troop rules might be what you're looking for.I also HAVE to mention how bothered I am by the AC system at times. D&D 5E largely remedies the problems I have, but I'm not sure how one could homebrew that AC system into Pathfinder with existing AC items, spells, etc.
The problem I have is that at low levels AC makes sense. In most cases everything at least has the ability to hit you without rolling a Nat 20. Once you get into the upper levels however, you'll typically have such high AC that you can wade out into a mass of CR 1 enemies that mechanically would add up to an absurdly high CR... but none have a chance of hitting you (except on a Nat 20, but you might also have some DR by then that'd negate their damage anyways) and all would die from a single hit (which they rarely have a chance of avoiding). You'd rack up insane amounts of experience with minimal risk, all for killing a ton of CR 1 enemies without difficulty. Lets say it was 90 CR 1/3 skeletons (which add up CR 13 (maybe 14) if using the alternate CR method following the pattern past 16), yet all would die without much difficulty to a single 13th level fighter. But a single CR 13 monster (like an Adult Blue Dragon) could put up a serious fight.
The problem I have is twofold, 1 is that realistically a sea of mooks should never not be a threat. Even a max level fighter should feel threatened by 10,000 goblins. And 2 is that more than 3 enemies that add up to a CR (even with the alternate method) are often much less of a threat than 1 or 2 enemies that add up to a particular CR, yet both grant the same amount of experience. This (as a GM) sometimes makes me feel a bit restricted to higher CR enemies when setting up encounters with high level characters.
Now that I've read that, yeah that's exactly what I wanted. I always glossed over that assuming it was just for large scale overland combat... But using troops against a PC seems perfectly valid. Though it doesn't entirely solve my problem. That works great for large quantities of low CR enemies, not so much for 5 or so mid CR enemies. But I could be wrong, never tried it.
Another problem with charisma is that you usually only need one or two party members with decent charisma for social skills and everyone else can dump it to hell.Ultimate Intrigue strongly implies that having antisocial characters standing next to the one highly-social character during a social situation is about as effective as having the full plate fighter sneaking alongside the nimble rogue prior to an ambush.
It even specifically calls out Bluff:
I have the same problem with this as stealth. As it is, in a dungeon, unless your whole party is maxing stealth then no one can really sneak. Sure, someone can go scout, but that just leaves them open to getting ambushed or walking into an alarm trap.
The party face should be able to cover social interactions much like the bard can cover monster knowledge. I feel that high ranks in bluff cover being able to keep others' attention focused on you. Maybe the NPC passing their sense motive check means that they spot the fighter snickering in the background or something of the sort.
[Edit] to stay on topic: From what I've heard of Ultimate Intrigue, it looks like instead of using the emergent properties of PF to resolve intrigue-type situations Paizo has mostly nerfed how existing things work. For example, You could be subtle before by casting spells with the Still and Silent meta-magics, now you cant. You could use mind-control to control minds, now the "obvious harm" clause has been expanded to cover almost everything. A better approach would be that fantasy kingdoms try to avoid single points of failure, or that the king is regularly hit with dispel magic before his decisions become final.
You can work around mooks not being able to hit by using aid actions.
You could use something like a goblin swarm rather than 10 thousand individuals to get somewhere close to what you want.
I also HAVE to mention how bothered I am by the AC system at times. D&D 5E largely remedies the problems I have, but I'm not sure how one could homebrew that AC system into Pathfinder with existing AC items, spells, etc.
The problem I have is that at low levels AC makes sense. In most cases everything at least has the ability to hit you without rolling a Nat 20. Once you get into the upper levels however, you'll typically have such high AC that you can wade out into a mass of CR 1 enemies that mechanically would add up to an absurdly high CR... but none have a chance of hitting you (except on a Nat 20, but you might also have some DR by then that'd negate their damage anyways) and all would die from a single hit (which they rarely have a chance of avoiding). You'd rack up insane amounts of experience with minimal risk, all for killing a ton of CR 1 enemies without difficulty. Lets say it was 90 CR 1/3 skeletons (which add up CR 13 (maybe 14) if using the alternate CR method following the pattern past 16), yet all would die without much difficulty to a single 13th level fighter. But a single CR 13 monster (like an Adult Blue Dragon) could put up a serious fight.
The problem I have is twofold, 1 is that realistically a sea of mooks should never not be a threat. Even a max level fighter should feel threatened by 10,000 goblins. And 2 is that more than 3 enemies that add up to a CR (even with the alternate method) are often much less of a threat than 1 or 2 enemies that add up to a particular CR, yet both grant the same amount of experience. This (as a GM) sometimes makes me feel a bit restricted to higher CR enemies when setting up encounters with high level characters.
A 20th level fighter is a mighty hero, there are plenty of stories where the mighty hero slaughters hundreds or even thousands in a large battle. Even the 13th level guy you mentioned is something special, unless you have adamantium armour or are a barbarian you probably don't have DR so those nat 20 hits add up, which works well narratively, the mighty warrior can take on hundreds of lesser men before eventually succumbing to attrition from the few lucky blows. Also don't forget flanking bonuses and aid another, it can add up and the idea that the lesser foes have to work together distracting him to let one of them get a hit makes for a decent story.
Mine is that every class gets the same AoO and a 5 foot step. Melee only classes should get 5ft step and a melee AoO.
The Wizard/Sorc/Oracle didn't train martially they are casters, their AoO should be related to counter spelling not attacking.
They also shouldn't get a 5ft step because that is something that training in combat should be all about.
Are you seriously worried about an AOO from a half BAB class who's going to be threatening you typically with either a quarterstaff or dagger, or most likely nothing at all because all he has out is a wand and a free hand so that he can cast?
I too enjoy alignment and having features tied to it.
You know what I dislike? Complaints about alignment. Seriously? There's 9 options. You can't find one of 9 options to fit what you need? There's over 30 classes and hundreds of archetypes. You can't find one of 30 classes to fit what you need? You have to be a paladin, but can't be lawful good? Seriously?
Seems like the kind of people who will find something to complain about even if they hand-make the game themselves.
This kind of attitude makes me glad that D&D is going the way of alignment as pure fluff, despite having a soft spot for both alignment and alignment mechanics.
I also HAVE to mention how bothered I am by the AC system at times. D&D 5E largely remedies the problems I have, but I'm not sure how one could homebrew that AC system into Pathfinder with existing AC items, spells, etc.
Oh. 5th Edition has it's own issues. The two systems really are chalk and cheese, largely due to how bounded accuracy changes how the system works.
The problem I have is that at low levels AC makes sense. In most cases everything at least has the ability to hit you without rolling a Nat 20. Once you get into the upper levels however, you'll typically have such high AC that you can wade out into a mass of CR 1 enemies that mechanically would add up to an absurdly high CR... but none have a chance of hitting you (except on a Nat 20, but you might also have some DR by then that'd negate their damage anyways) and all would die from a single hit (which they rarely have a chance of avoiding). You'd rack up insane amounts of experience with minimal risk, all for killing a ton of CR 1 enemies without difficulty. Lets say it was 90 CR 1/3 skeletons (which add up CR 13 (maybe 14) if using the alternate CR method following the pattern past 16), yet all would die without much difficulty to a single 13th level fighter. But a single CR 13 monster (like an Adult Blue Dragon) could put up a serious fight.
A CR 1/3 skeleton is 135xp, so 90 of them is 12,150xp, which is just shy of CR11. To actually hit CR 13 you would need 189 skeletons. Let's round this up to 200 for the following example.
Assuming the fighter has Great Cleave or Whirlwind Attack and the skeletons kindly surround him every round, he can kill 8 per round, and thus will kill all 200 in 25 rounds. Switching their weapons around, they can have a club and broken javelins. Say 15 of them each. That's 200 ranged attacks a round dealing 1d6+2 against a fighter of... let's say 13th level (HP around the 128 mark, odds of DR = virtually nil), for an average of 9.5 hits plus 0.5 crits per round, or about 10.5 x (1d6+2) ~ 58 damage per round, and will kill the fighter in under 3 rounds. Even just throwing stones (1d3+2), the fighter will be stoned to death before inflicting significant casualties on the skeleton horde.
Against the CR13 dragon (who tend to pack more punch than most things of equivalent CR, admittedly), he actually stands a chance as the lower number of dice make luck more of a factor.
Also: XP isn't some kind of mystical energy that is released by a monster on death. It's the experience gained by the party for defeating a creature. Thus: An encounter that is just a meat grinder as the PCs have all the magical items/buffs to render it harmless, doesn't need to give them XP, because they didn't learn anything - it went exactly as expected.
In a similar vein, it means that fleeing enemies (from a real encounter) still give XP because they were defeated. The sheer number of games I've been in where the GM has said "Nah, you don't get their XP as they got away" is mind-boggling.
The problem I have is twofold, 1 is that realistically a sea of mooks should never not be a threat. Even a max level fighter should feel threatened by 10,000 goblins. And 2 is that more than 3 enemies that add up to a CR (even with the alternate method) are often much less of a threat than 1 or 2 enemies that add up to a particular CR, yet both grant the same amount of experience. This (as a GM) sometimes makes me feel a bit restricted to higher CR enemies when setting up encounters with high level characters.
I'd suggest that when playing with larger numbers of mooks against overconfident PCs to feel free to be dirty and underhanded:
- Feel free to have a bugbear with Improved Grapple get an aid another from 6-8 goblins and start a dog-pile on the character.
- Add some goblin warchanters into the mix. When a character is rolling a dozen Will saves (or so) a round against hideous laughter they'll soon reconsider their frontal charge. Plus dropping Inspire Courage on a swarm of goblins is always funny.
- Goblin adepts who know magic missile, hiding behind their swarms of goblin warriors. Or Sorcerers if you're feeling particularly cruel.
- Add in a bunch goblin snipers near the rear of the group. With 2 ranger levels, Rapid shot and favored enemy to suit the PCs (if appropriate). They might still need nat 20's to hit, but that's a lot of attack rolls and (with deadly aim) d6+4 damage a hit.
You don't need to kill the PCs. You just need to scare them a little - and having something that can hurt them hidden among (or behind) a bunch of cannon fodder is a good way to go about it.
|
(With regard to Cha as a dump stat)
Or just don't dump any stat...and take a less extreme range.
Fantastic idea! Pathfinder gives characters extra points to spend on stats as they level up. Magic items provide even more points. With all of these chances to improve, is it really so bad for characters to start with stats that are grouped within a fairly narrow range?
I've always found the idea of dump stats to be inherently limiting. Is it really worth crippling one aspect of your character, just to achieve an ideal stat block at level 1? I'd rather see players assign an extra low score in a stat only if it describes the character they want to role-play.