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

[KahnyaGnorc]

I don't particularly like the Vancian magic system, preferring Psionics, with Spells Known/Spells per Day mechanic a second.

While Save-or-die spells are greatly reduced, spells that pretty much end the encounter if the target fails his save are still far too common.

This one will be difficult to fix: the large imbalance between single-classing, true multi-classing (not the min-max level dipping), and prestige classing. 3.5 Ed favored the last too much, while Pathfinder favors the first too much.

[SPCDRI]

Liegence wrote:

Only a Rogue (or archetype with trapfinding) can detect a magical trap. Garbage.

Assumes all magic traps have some magical permanent means of not giving off a magical aura. Gives rogues some supernatural sense to detect these that cannot be rationally be explained. ie, why can't a highly perceptive elven sorcerer using detect magic have at least a chance to find a magic trap?

I feel this abilities overrated utility and inability to be duplicated through other class features (save very poor options like Find Traps) has done massive damage to the rogue class; this is the core feature that has lead to the rogues imbalance in my mind.

Oh, certainly. This makes zero mechanical sense. It is nothing but Plot Armor and Arbitrarium.

Lets say Thrug the Half-Orc Rogue 10 12 Intelligence and Alix the Elven Wizard 10, 24 Intelligence, racial bonus to Perception, Maxed out Spellcraft and Use Magic Device pushing 20, his whole career is casting magic spells,he's mechanically twice as smart as Thrug, he can cast Detect Magic at will and if he so chose, Disable Device isn't even cross-class anymore so he could totally be getting some Disable Device Check and Perception check in the 20s...

Thrug finds the trap and disables it and Alix can't?
If anything, Alix is the guy you want in a dungeon around to find and disable magical traps, not Thrug.

t is nothing but Role Protection and you are right. It has limited the rogue's mechanically because trap finding and disabling is SO great and that means you can gimp the rogue on actual combat, which is 80 percent of the game, basically.

:/

[Justin Rocket]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Justin Rocket wrote:

The whole idea of threatened spaces promotes the need for "grid mastery" which makes the game feel more like chess and less like a roleplaying game.

I like chess. Taking out the tactical elements just feels like -MOAR NUMBERS!- I think it says more about a character when rushing past people to heal a comrade or snag a macguffin comes at a cost.

I like chess, too. I don't like chess as an RPG anymore than I like chocalate covered salad.

[Joana]

SPCDRI wrote:

Lets say Thrug the Half-Orc Rogue 10 12 Intelligence and Alix the Elven Wizard 10, 24 Intelligence, racial bonus to Perception, Maxed out Spellcraft and Use Magic Device pushing 20, his whole career is casting magic spells,he's mechanically twice as smart as Thrug, he can cast Detect Magic at will and if he so chose, Disable Device isn't even cross-class anymore so he could totally be getting some Disable Device Check and Perception check in the 20s...

Thrug finds the trap and disables it and Alix can't?
If anything, Alix is the guy you want in a dungeon around to find and disable magical traps, not Thrug.

Both Thrug and Alix can find the trap.

Both Thrug and Alix can "disable" the trap, Thrug via Disable Device and Alix vis dispel magic. The difference is that Thrug can disable any number of traps per day while Alix is limited by his spell slots devoted to dispel magic.

My guess is that more casters "disable" magical traps in Pathfinder than rogues do, simply because virtually every rogue archetype trades out Trapfinding and the ability to use Disable Device vs. magical traps.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

In the Stormbringer game from Chaosium in 1980 (similar to RuneQuest but simpler), it did away with hit locations. In RuneQuest armour had a set value and it reduced damage. Different locations usually had different amounts of armour, so it wasn't too common that anyone was invulnerable.

Without hit locations, Stormbringer had suits of armour that reduced damage, but instead of a set amount it was a random roll, representing the fact that some parts were better or worse protected than others.

So, a suit of leather armour reduced damage by 1d6-1, half plate by 1d8-1, and full plate (sans helmet) by 1d10-1. Full plate allowed you to add a helmet to make the roll 1d10+2 instead, but IIRC reduced perception.

Is was still quick and easy with the extra roll. You didn't have to worry about one side being invulnerable (also, crits ignore armour), and with only around 10-20 hit points that armour roll became quite exciting!

[SPCDRI]

Every rogue trading out trap-finding just proves my point. It is
almost meaningless. Other classes easily replicate it, it is exceedingly
rare and it made the rogues mechanically suffer in combat.

This is not 1979 anymore. Trapfinding and snagging the loot isn't
a third of the game. It is like, 10 percent of the game, tops.

Trading out 100 percent of 10 percent of the game for 15 percent boost
to 70 to 80 percent of the game, combat, is something Rogue players do
in Pathfinder now. That is an indictment of the Rogue's base power level, not something in favor of Archetypes.

[Laurefindel]

mplindustries wrote:

To those complaining about the "you're 100% fine until your HP hit 0" thing, I'm curious:

Have you ever played another RPG with a death spiral of wound penalties in it? And I mean, really played it, not just read it and thought "hey, that makes more sense than D&D!"

Because, well, they're called Death Spirals for a reason.

Yes, I've played a few games with condition track/damage penalty.

As long as it works both ways, my experience was that fewer combats are made "to the death"; more combat (than it D&D) end-up with a group fleeing or relenting the fight somehow. It also allows different strategies based on the state of your party member; sometimes defense becomes a good option.

Other games have incorporated some kind of "halfway there" mechanics that did not necessarily imply penalties, but opened/closed some options (4th ed bloodied condition comes to mind).

It's not always about "making sense"; its usually creating a play-style that is more compatible with mine...

[Kthulhu]

"Assumes all magic traps have some magical permanent means of not giving off a magical aura"

Well, I generally go with the assumption that the person who put the trap there to begin with wasn't a complete moron. And making a magical trap that's detectable with the Detect Magic that every wizard is spamming every three rounds would be pretty g%#%+@n moronic.

[Anonymous Visitor 163 576]

mplindustries wrote:

Edited

However, talking would become a chore because you couldn't just, you know, talk naturally and then roll afterwards to see how it worked. You'd have to talk in arbitrary chunks and determine the outcome of each line and think less about the actual conversation and more about speaking tactically and whatnot.

To piggyback on your question and my previous comment, though, we don't resolve combat with a single roll of the "kill stuff" skill, so why do we handle traps that way?

I agree with you about traps, but it's not my biggest complaints because traps are relatively rare in my games.

I disagree about the other, though. Thinking about what you are going to say sounds exactly like role-playing to me. Speech normally divides up into sentences, which would work fine, as long as there was a system to support it.

It's not automatically harder than thinking about what you will do next combat round. We've all seen beginning players try to draw a sword, charge toward their foes, and vanquish them with a series of cuts and thrusts, then hop on a horse and chase after the escapee. We've got a system for to resolve that, and it works very well. By limiting what you can do in a round, we make the game fair for every player.

Imagine a system to resolve social encounters that worked as well. What we have now comes down to GM judgment, which works only when you agree with how that GM does things. And if you are the GM, there's no guidance whatsoever.

Can't we do better?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Laurefindel wrote:

Hit Points.

I also don't like the undefined mixture of avoiding blows, withstanding damage and exhaustion, which rises questions like "how badly wounded am I really", and "how much more blood do I have in my body now that I'm 10th level". And if you bring out hp as the ability to avoid serious blows, then the "really, it takes me 10 days to sleep this off?" comment arises.

I understand they are meant to be abstract, but they also kill other abstract and cinematic tropes like "I sneak around and break his neck/cut his throat", or "I muster enough energy to give a last blow despite my two broken legs".

In other words, I find that it fails to convey the fast and cinematic feel that it was intended for.

'findel

I love how hit points are abstract. (Like the description of hit points says.) Except when they're not. (Like the Sneak Attack description, and like a million other descriptions.)

And when I say 'I love' I mean 'it destroys any meaningful sense of immersion until I completely redefine what hit points mean.'

[demontroll]

It is too easy to have high AC characters, and most of the game focuses on hitting that AC. Low to mid level monsters have a difficult time hitting characters. Monster AC is pitifully low in comparison.

Monster CMD gets too high at high levels, making character builds focusing on maneuvers underwhelming at high level, whereas casters get really good at high level.

Most pre-made content is way too easy for optimized characters.

Rogues are underpowered, and need a power boost.

All characters should get more skill points. Classes with only 2 skill points per level are a cruel joke.

[Nicos]

demontroll wrote:

All characters should get more skill points. Classes with only 2 skill points per level are a cruel joke.

+1.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Shadowborn wrote:

Wait, nobody has mentioned weapon sizes yet? I'm talking about when you scale down below Medium.

A small longspear, which is...well, smaller than a regular longspear, gives a smaller than medium-sized creature a 10 foot reach. Huh?

Then there are bludgeoning weapons, which rely on weight and impact to do damage. That tiny warhammer you've got there is basically a ball bearing on the end of a pencil. Good luck with that, oh mighty pixie barbarian.

I agree it's ridiculous. But to be fair, it's no more ridiculous than Small people having natural 5 foot reach despite having half-length limbs.

Ah, the things we swallow to keep hobb, er, I mean halflings playable!

Wiggz wrote:

Mattastrophic wrote:

Challenge Rating. It's based on an assumption of a party of four versus a single monster, which is very unrealistic and very limiting. It also assumes four encounters per day, which is also very limiting.

I would love to see Pathfinder Second Edition adopt a system where Challenge Rating had a "squad versus squad" assumption instead of the "squad versus solo" assumption that's there now. Instead of a party of four Level 7 PCs going up against a CR 7 monster, Challenge Rating could be reworked to be intended for a party of X Level 7 PCs going up against X CR 7 monsters.

.

I agree with this. I'd say base CR rating for creatures on a 1 for 1 basis, i.e one of these creatures is about as powerful as one character of approximately the same level.

Careful, you two. You're getting dangerously close to 4e ideas!

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Mattastrophic wrote:

I would love to see Pathfinder Second Edition switch to abstract spell durations, much like Evil Lincoln set out to do.

If they were to include something like this in a future edition, I hope they don't go too far like 4e did. In the Scenes and Acts system linked above, the concrete time is still there as a guideline, but the abstract time helps you actually play the game.

FYI, the 4e 'encounter' is a concrete amount of time -- 5 minutes. It's just that 'encounter' takes less space on the page, so they buried this detail in the combat chapter of the PHB.

[Justin Rocket]

I hate the Christmas Tree effect. If we got rid of that alone, we'd cure a lot of the game's problems (such as super high AC), but the game publishers would loose filler for their books.

[BigNorseWolf]

Quote:

Only a Rogue (or archetype with trapfinding) can detect a magical trap. Garbage.

This isn't part of the system anymore.

[JTibbs]

KahnyaGnorc wrote:

I don't particularly like the Vancian magic system, preferring Psionics, with Spells Known/Spells per Day mechanic a second.

While Save-or-die spells are greatly reduced, spells that pretty much end the encounter if the target fails his save are still far too common.

This one will be difficult to fix: the large imbalance between single-classing, true multi-classing (not the min-max level dipping), and prestige classing. 3.5 Ed favored the last too much, while Pathfinder favors the first too much.

I personally don't like the spell slot system due to its arbitrariness and illogical limitations. I think a modified spell point system would work a lot better. Not the regular spell point system due to its crazy exponential power growth.

Ideally I'd replace the spell slot system and the spell point system with this:

Spells take up their spell level in points. A magic missile takes up 1 point, a fireball 3 points. This is regardless of the caster level of the spell. A 10th level caster is just MUCH more efficient with the fireballs energy than a 5th level caster.

Instead of converting the vancian spell levels into points, that is completely scrapped.

Wizards/druid/clerics get 1+casting stat modifier spell points per level. a wizard with 18 INT would start with 5 spell points at lvl 1, and at level 5 would have 25 spell points. Sorcerers get 3+casting stat modifier spell points per level.

The wizard would, at low levels, have more spell points than the normal spell point system. This helps them not be essentially a spare set of hands to hold a crossbow.

At higher levels, a wizard would have significantly less spell points than the standard spell point system. A level 15 wizard would have 191 spell points with the standard system. Using the modified system here, the wizard would have 90 spell points.

Linear power growth is emphasized here, rather than exponential. It also rewards casting stats far more heavily than the traditional system.

Wizards would prepare any number of spells per day of any level they can cast, so long as total spell levels don't exceed their max amount. Said lvl 15 wizard could prepare 30 fireballs if she wanted to. or 11 lvl 8 spells and a single lvl 2 spell.

keep in mind prepared casters still have to prepare each and every one of their spells, and not prepare a selection of them to cast like a sorcerer like some spell point systems.

This system adds tons of flexibility and utility to wizards, while severely limiting power creep at high levels. Effectively reducing the quadratic equation of wizard power to a straight(er) curve.

This system also effectively rewards ability bonuses far more than the standard magic system. Oh, and ability point bonus spells per level are retroactive like normal FYI.

It also makes magic staves MUCH more useful. When a single staff has 40-50 spell points worth of charges in it (10 5th level spells anyone?), its going to a huge chunk of your total magic.

If you are a wizard, you probably are going to want a staff. Its your icon of power after all...

[Tequila Sunrise]

Zhayne wrote:

Alignment having mechanical effects of any sort.

Rynjin wrote:

Alignment based mechanics are the perfect reason why fluff and gameplay should be kept separate, with neither stopping the other from doing their job.

Careful, you two, we don't want any 4e ideas here. ;)

Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

I don't like the social combat system, because there isn't one.

We don't resolve combat with a single roll of the fight skill, so why would we resolve negotiations with a single roll of the diplomacy skill?

For something that claims to be a role-playing game, there's surprisingly little about how to do that.

I don't say this to dismiss your opinion, because I'd love a fun social combat system too, but I've experienced a couple of them and neither turned out well. The 4e skill challenge system creates a sort of social combat framework, but I've never been really satisfied by a skill challenge. Although there are DMs who swear by them, and have written fanmade SC guides that are floating around the 'net.

I also created by own social combat subsystem at one point. I thought it was really neat; it was strategic and dynamic, and...it failed spectacularly. Like epic failed. My players at the time hated it.

Anyway, a real social combat system would be nice, and I hope that it's possible. I just haven't seen one work out yet. :)

[Miranda]

Composite Longbow - strength ratings, too much extra damage for a minimal cost

Damage to unattended magic items - subsystem takes far too long to resolve checking item hardness and hit points then rolling damage, make it a simple single save

[Tequila Sunrise]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

You either need to write in an exception to how a pole arm threatens, OR you need to write in an exception changing threatened squares to a threatened "Area" that doesn't show up well on the grid.

Hex grid FTW. :)

Ross Byers wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Lthougt I do not have much problems with aligment, I do dislike detect "x" spells.

I like more the 2e version, where the spell can only detect evil intentions (unless the target is aparticulary evil being).

That's how the Pathfinder version works: under 5HD, it only detects outsiders, undead, [Evil] spells/magic items, cleric/antipaladins, and immediate evil intent.

Above 5HD, I think the assumption is you're powerful enough that it is hard to be a passive evil.

That's not quite how 2e Detect Evil works. A 2e paladin who scans a pub full of rapists, murderers, and tyrants might not get a single ping...so long as none of them are doing or thinking of doing horrible things at that particular moment. Doesn't matter how many HD they have. And if one of them is thinking of doing something horrible, he scans as Evil, even if he's a 0 HD peasant. And IIRC, that applies to fiends and other Always Evil types too.

[DrDeth]

Revenantdog wrote:

Resurrection. I hates it. I feel like it takes away stakes from death and I've had games where players were non-plussed about out their characters dying since the cleric could just revive them. And i know there are drawbacks to the system, losing a level and so on, but that doesn't make it better for me, now I just have a player whose character is behind everyone else and they feel like they were cheated. There isn't really a great solution to this problem, since the alternative is just 'role a new character who just happens to be the same level as everyone else.

I've taken now to allowing Breath of Life (Which i like for its immediacy and flavor) and that a expensive ritual that needs several cleric working in unison is needed to revive a dead character. But resurrection and reincarnation as spells- noooope.

Oh yeah.

Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?

[mdt]

@DrDeth

Or, the one most groups I've ever played with use...

GM : Ok Bob, Knuckles is dead. What do you want to bring in as a replacement?

Bob : Well, I was thinking about a Metal Oracle, maybe a Half-Elf, a real heavy hitter Strength/Charisma build?

Players : Yeah, that'd be cool. Yeah, especially since it'll free up Jim to use some of his spells instead of saving them for healing. Yeah, I'd like to be able to cast some buffs and damages, but Knuckles was always needing healing. lots of laughter

[Darkholme]

BryonD wrote:

I loathe the PF concept of regeneration.

Fortunately, plugging the 3E version back in is trivial.

I just looked up the 3.5 version and the Pathfinder version. The difference between the two seems so subtle so as to be irrelevant. I hadn't even noticed that it had changed before.

What about PF Regeneration makes ir problematic/bad/undesirable?

[Lemmy]

DrDeth wrote:

Oh yeah.

Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?

You know, DD... For once, we are in agreement. I do think there should be a penalty for dying, this adds incentive to keep your character alive and all, but it shouldn't be so punishing that switching characters becomes an obviously superior option.

It's kinda ironic that this is the subject we agree on, though, considering your name. :)

[SPCDRI]

Having Bogus Feat Prerequisites Without Spell Pre-Reqs:

Nobody has to take a bogus spell of dubious utility to take a
5th level spell.

Yet..

To get a bonus to trip and have it provoke AoOs like it used to
takes 3 feats! A 3 feat tax to get moderately better at one
CMB.

We all know what the stinkers are. Dodge. Combat Expertise.
Point Blank Shot. On and on and on.

"Yeah, this feat is lame but it sets up..."

Casters don't have to take Feather Fall and Levitate and Fly if they want Overland Flight. There isn't a 4 spell "chain" they have to complete to do something of mild interest, like be 10 percent better at one Maneuver and not take AoOs with it. Whoo! Two feats of the ten your character base gets. Worth it!

:/

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

Darkholme wrote:

BryonD wrote:

I loathe the PF concept of regeneration.

Fortunately, plugging the 3E version back in is trivial.

I just looked up the 3.5 version and the Pathfinder version. The difference between the two seems so subtle so as to be irrelevant. I hadn't even noticed that it had changed before.

What about PF Regeneration makes ir problematic/bad/undesirable?

It's basically worthless. Before, you needed to burn a troll to ashes, now a single HP of fire damage sets your whole party up to waste him.

[BryonD]

Darkholme wrote:

BryonD wrote:

I loathe the PF concept of regeneration.

Fortunately, plugging the 3E version back in is trivial.

I just looked up the 3.5 version and the Pathfinder version. The difference between the two seems so subtle so as to be irrelevant. I hadn't even noticed that it had changed before.

What about PF Regeneration makes ir problematic/bad/undesirable?

I don't find the difference remotely subtle.

Under the 3X system you must completely destroy the regenerating creature with damage that defeats the regeneration. Under Pathfinder RAW you can club a Troll down and then scorch his leg for 1 point with a torch and it dies instantly.

[Vod Canockers]

SPCDRI wrote:

Having Bogus Feat Prerequisites Without Spell Pre-Reqs:

Nobody has to take a bogus spell of dubious utility to take a
5th level spell.

Yet..

To get a bonus to trip and have it provoke AoOs like it used to
takes 3 feats! A 3 feat tax to get moderately better at one
CMB.

We all know what the stinkers are. Dodge. Combat Expertise.
Point Blank Shot. On and on and on.

"Yeah, this feat is lame but it sets up..."

Casters don't have to take Feather Fall and Levitate and Fly if they want Overland Flight. There isn't a 4 spell "chain" they have to complete to do something of mild interest, like be 10 percent better at one Maneuver and not take AoOs with it. Whoo! Two feats of the ten your character base gets. Worth it!

:/

Of course that spellcaster has to have a stat of 15, be 9th level, and have learned and/or prepared the spell to cast it. Seems like it has 3 prereqs to use the spell too.

[Rynjin]

Vod Canockers wrote:

Of course that spellcaster has to have a stat of 15, be 9th level, and have learned and/or prepared the spell to cast it. Seems like it has 3 prereqs to use the spell too.

u wot m8

Excuse me while I sit on my pile of stat prerequisites (some of which don't help your effectiveness at all, unlike your casting stat as a caster...), BaB prerequisites, and non-refundable extremely limited class feature investment on top of the Feat chain.

I just

Your post legitimately flabbergasts me

Are you SERIOUSLY even attempting to argue spells have even close to the amount of prerequisites as Feats?

Or are you just messing with me?

[Nicos]

To be fair, vod´s was a terrible argument.

[chaoseffect]

Vod Canockers wrote:

Of course that spellcaster has to have a stat of 15, be 9th level, and have learned and/or prepared the spell to cast it. Seems like it has 3 prereqs to use the spell too.

So essentially the prerequisites for choosing spells are having to be the appropriate level and not dump statting your primary ability score. Martials need appropriate BAB and ability scores too as well as needing garbage like Combat Expertise spent as one of their few (depending on class) feats.

[Petty Alchemy]

Alignment, feat taxes, trapfinding, full attacks, quadratic casters, and a strange adherence to "realism" to count off a few things I dislike.

Edit: Oh right, the thread also asks "why".

Alignment: Attaches roleplaying restrictions to class mechanics. I like the option of reflavoring things. Why can't my Barbarian go into a tranquil fury for her rage, and why can't my punchman unlock some inner magics without being lawful?

Feat Taxes: You get more feats in PF than 3.5, but it's still a precious few. Feat taxes feel like empty levels, which is something PF has done away with.

Trapfinding: I find in most games traps rarely if ever come up. It's silly to try to pretend that this feature justifies the rogue (especially now that other classes can steal it). Everyone should be able to trapfind, and the rogue should just be better.

Full attacks: Well, full attacks as full round actions. Every martial wants pounce. Caster spells get better without taking more time to cast (they actually get quicker when you get high level enough to Quicken), so why does a martial's main stick take them longer to perform?

Quadratic casters: Mundanes spend most of their career specializing on a single weapon/fighting style/manuever. Casters can command nearly every school of magic, and the spells just get bigger and better.

Realism: In a high fantasy setting there's quite a bit of focus on keeping things "realistic" for non-casters. I'd favor some rule of cool allowances.

[Vod Canockers]

Rynjin wrote:

Vod Canockers wrote:

Of course that spellcaster has to have a stat of 15, be 9th level, and have learned and/or prepared the spell to cast it. Seems like it has 3 prereqs to use the spell too.

u wot m8

Excuse me while I sit on my pile of stat prerequisites (some of which don't help your effectiveness at all, unlike your casting stat as a caster...), BaB prerequisites, and non-refundable extremely limited class feature investment on top of the Feat chain.

I just

Your post legitimately flabbergasts me

Are you SERIOUSLY even attempting to argue spells have even close to the amount of prerequisites as Feats?

Or are you just messing with me?

Nope sorry. I see there are couple of feats with 4 prereqs.

Well you can do a couple of things, play the way the devs wrote the game, or Rule 0 it and allow people to take whatever feats they want, whenever they want.

What I hate about the game.

Might give you insight to my thoughts.

[Rynjin]

That doesn't give any insight. It has no explanation behind it.

If I told you I hated cottage cheese that would not give you any insight as to my opinion on related things, because I have not told you WHY I don't like cottage cheese (is it the flavor, texture, smell, etc.?).

Tell me WHY you don't like Feats and things released after the CRB and I will have some insight.

As it is currently I don't see how it relates. At all.

If you think "I don't like Feats" = "I think spells are just as hard to get a hold of for a spellcaster as Feats are for anyone else" I'm gonna need something else to help me bridge that gap.

[necromental]

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Darkholme wrote:

BryonD wrote:

I loathe the PF concept of regeneration.

Fortunately, plugging the 3E version back in is trivial.

I just looked up the 3.5 version and the Pathfinder version. The difference between the two seems so subtle so as to be irrelevant. I hadn't even noticed that it had changed before.

What about PF Regeneration makes ir problematic/bad/undesirable?

It's basically worthless. Before, you needed to burn a troll to ashes, now a single HP of fire damage sets your whole party up to waste him.

How about making amount of damage per round necessary to negate regeneration equal to creatures Con score? Or modifier? Or regeneration value?

Or making it work like this:

Regeneration: you heal the listed amount of hp damage every round at the start of your turn.
When brought below 0 hp you continue to heal damage and cannot be killed by hit point damage,
except damage of a certain types (usually fire and acid). That damage is not healed while the
regenerating creature is below 0 hp (if it is at 0 hp or above, that type of damage IS healed),
and can be killed by it.

On the OP:

Full attack with some movement for martials. (It can be something like full attack+half move from Kirthfinder).
Feats that scale and no feat taxes.
I think people explained these two enough.

Better poor saves for everyone. Trailblazer's every class has two good saves, one bad. Kirth's Iron Will (and other two...three) that grant good progression for saves. Instituting Arcana Evolved's average save in place of poor save. Favored class bonus can be used to bolster saves (up to good or average save value). Choose one, you won't make a mistake.
Half the wizards power would be in check if some classes had good will saves. Which is logical for them to have.

Rogue class. It's the only 3/4 BAB martial class that doesn't have a way to boost it's attack. Only class whose class feature (talents) are more sucky than feats (feats suck, and the best talents you can take are combat feats, so go figure). His usefulness as skill monkey is degraded by the new skill system, make him able to imitate spells with skills (Kirthfinder).

Anyway, play Kirthfinder, not Pathfinder. :P

[PathlessBeth]

What's Kirthfinder? Sounds interesting?

[necromental]

Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules

It's a heavily house ruled subsystem of PF, combined with many good ideas from other d20 variants, streamlined, and featuring heavily upgraded martials, a nerfed spellcasters. Even if you don't want to switch completely, some subsystems are relatively easily transported to standard PF, and un-nerfing spellcasters is easy. Checkout his feats (most scale, relative to BAB or skill ranks, especially interesting are Combat-Strikes and Combat-Stances), his metamagic system, and firstly Introduction chapter. Also, his races are very customizable.

The files in the first post are somewhat outdated, you can request new ones in the thread if it strikes your fancy, but it's not required.

Edit: another important part, all of his classes are heavily customizable, most by some kind of talents, and many talents or bloodlines/domains are a step to multiclassing with mitigated penalties for doing so. (example, a cleric domain that gives you mystic theurge bonuses if you multiclass with an arcane spellcaster, or fighter talent that makes your fighter levels stack with barbarians for purposes of rage bonuses...)

[necromental]

I found another one: DR for outsiders.

Firstly why can angel's natural enemy penetrate it's DR? Wouldn't it be logical that their DR works against demons and devils. And if his friends/allies wan't to knock it out because he is being unreasonable, they are unable because of it's f-ing DR. Secondary, what does silver and cold iron have to do with outsiders? I get it for fey and lycantrophy, but devils and eladrins? I'm inclined to make dual-aligment outsider have dual-aligment DR. Devils with DR/evil and lawful.

[Rynjin]

Silver and Cold Iron are traditionally metals used to summon and bind creatures from beyond our plane (like demons) IIRC, so it makes sense.

[Ilja]

necromental wrote:

I found another one: DR for outsiders.

Firstly why can angel's natural enemy penetrate it's DR? Wouldn't it be logical that their DR works against demons and devils.

You can think of it the opposite way - angels are so powerful nearly nothing can hurt them, but their eternal enemies - the demons and devils - have learnt how to circumvent that.

[PathlessBeth]

necromental wrote:

Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules

It's a heavily house ruled subsystem of PF, combined with many good ideas from other d20 variants, streamlined, and featuring heavily upgraded martials, a nerfed spellcasters. Even if you don't want to switch completely, some subsystems are relatively easily transported to standard PF, and un-nerfing spellcasters is easy. Checkout his feats (most scale, relative to BAB or skill ranks, especially interesting are Combat-Strikes and Combat-Stances), his metamagic system, and firstly Introduction chapter. Also, his races are very customizable.

The files in the first post are somewhat outdated, you can request new ones in the thread if it strikes your fancy, but it's not required.

Edit: another important part, all of his classes are heavily customizable, most by some kind of talents, and many talents or bloodlines/domains are a step to multiclassing with mitigated penalties for doing so. (example, a cleric domain that gives you mystic theurge bonuses if you multiclass with an arcane spellcaster, or fighter talent that makes your fighter levels stack with barbarians for purposes of rage bonuses...)

Whoah, how did I miss that?!? I'll have to read through it in its entirety later:O

[JTibbs]

137ben wrote:

necromental wrote:

Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft Houserules

It's a heavily house ruled subsystem of PF, combined with many good ideas from other d20 variants, streamlined, and featuring heavily upgraded martials, a nerfed spellcasters. Even if you don't want to switch completely, some subsystems are relatively easily transported to standard PF, and un-nerfing spellcasters is easy. Checkout his feats (most scale, relative to BAB or skill ranks, especially interesting are Combat-Strikes and Combat-Stances), his metamagic system, and firstly Introduction chapter. Also, his races are very customizable.

The files in the first post are somewhat outdated, you can request new ones in the thread if it strikes your fancy, but it's not required.

Edit: another important part, all of his classes are heavily customizable, most by some kind of talents, and many talents or bloodlines/domains are a step to multiclassing with mitigated penalties for doing so. (example, a cleric domain that gives you mystic theurge bonuses if you multiclass with an arcane spellcaster, or fighter talent that makes your fighter levels stack with barbarians for purposes of rage bonuses...)

Whoah, how did I miss that?!? I'll have to read through it in its entirety later:O

Some parts of it i like personally, but others like the 'mojo' approach to magic items i don't. Also the changing of various pathfinder special classes like the 'elementalist wizard' into more 3.5 D&D version prestige class/school hybrids with annoying prerequisites.. (also wizards are back to d4 hit dice). His approach to arcane bonds is nice though. Its interesting how you can do an arcane bond to your own mind, which allows you to permanently learn all your spells via Eidetic memory. So you can either choose to get rid of your spellbook entirely, or have an arcane bonded item (that with his additions is actually pretty tempting), or have a familiar (which is also much better than the normal familiar).

It also has specklings of unbelievable crap through it, like giving fighters starting at 3rd level Ant Haul, where you add your fighter level to your carrying capacity, ignore encumberence from medium and heavy loads,and can retrieve anything from your massive pile of junk on your back as a free action...

seriously? A 10th level fighter with only 18 strength is going to be carrying around up to 1200 pounds as if it was a 25 pound backback... Give him a +2 to Str from ability growth, and a +4 belt, and he will be carrying around 3680 pounds of gear on his back. Thats a freaking Pickup truck he can carry around essentially unencumbered.

lots of little false balance bones thrown around that just make things unbelievable and awkward.

If I were to use this, I'd throw out about half of it all together. The other half isn't bad at all though.

His monk for example is pretty cool. The monks basically a martial focused caster whose spells all are focused on the body or for personal protection.

The monk class here is actually pretty formidable. Its basically an anti-caster martial/caster class. like a monk/spellblade fusion.

Clerics are boosted a bit more here too... Basically at this point if you want to play a wizard, you might as well play as a cleric because they are almost as good at spells but can still use weapons, armor, and have d8 HD... seriously, is anyone else annoyed how bad Clerics have gotten in power creep? people complain about wizards all the time, but Clerics have gotten to the point that they beat wizards like a drum.

If you are going to make Clerics into partial Fighters, you gotta limit their magic somehow. Maybe make it so they can only cast from their Deities domains or something.

An adventuring party of all Clerics as it is would run roughshod over pretty much anything.

[Nicos]

DR/magic

Afther a couple of levels is like a joke.

[BigNorseWolf]

Nicos wrote:

DR/magic

Afther a couple of levels is like a joke.

I liked the DR/ +1, +2 etc. If you picked your sword up at the corner magic mart you should be bounciing off a great wyrms scales.

The only thing wrong with it is that it forces fighters to have strait +s to weapons. A better solution would be to have magical abilities count for +s bs Dr/+X only.

[Nicos]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Nicos wrote:

DR/magic

Afther a couple of levels is like a joke.

I liked the DR/ +1, +2 etc. If you picked your sword up at the corner magic mart you should be bounciing off a great wyrms scales.

The only thing wrong with it is that it forces fighters to have strait +s to weapons. A better solution would be to have magical abilities count for +s bs Dr/+X only.

Fighters already wants a +X weapon to bypass the cold iron/sivler/adamantie and aligment DRs.

But now that you mentioned it, I also dislike wea weapon enhacements. the +x is the best options more times than not. boring.

[PathlessBeth]

Nicos wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Nicos wrote:

DR/magic

Afther a couple of levels is like a joke.

I liked the DR/ +1, +2 etc. If you picked your sword up at the corner magic mart you should be bounciing off a great wyrms scales.

The only thing wrong with it is that it forces fighters to have strait +s to weapons. A better solution would be to have magical abilities count for +s bs Dr/+X only.

Fighters already wants a +X weapon to bypass the cold iron/sivler/adamantie and aligment DRs.

Which is essentially just a re-skinning of the DR/+X from 3.0.

[Matthew Downie]

DR/Magic is a significant obstacle for a druid who likes summoning tigers.

[Neo2151]

Lord_Malkov wrote:

Action Economy.

The whole full-attack thing is a real sticking point for me. It destroys mobility and has served to focus a ton of resources from martial melee classes into just getting to be able to full attack. This is why pounce is so prized.

A 20th level Core Fighter with the TWF feat chain can move 5ft and attack seven times or he can move 10ft and attack once. This is a really stupid setup.

With the addition of Deadly Aim, pathfinder begs the question: Why pick melee? The only decent answer to that question is that Barbarian Rage doesn't add to Dexterity. But really... run the numbers... archers are flat out better. And why is this? Action economy.

I also dislike that while martials are getting extra attacks, a caster is sitting on low level spells that need to either be used out of combat or not at all because apparently it never gets easier to cast a 1st level spell.

And finally... Vancian Magic. Something points based or pool based that could provide a more flavorful model than vancian magic would be much preferred.

I'm neutral on the Vancian/non-Vancian debate, but as for Action Economy, you beat me to it.

It ruins so much potential and complicates things SO BADLY. Alas, it's never going away - too hard-coded into the system/backwards compatibility/etc.

Also, I hate that grappling restricts your attacks, but being grappled doesn't. There is no sense to this, and it makes even the classes that can actually manage to be good at it, not want to do it.

[Neo2151]

mplindustries wrote:

Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

We don't resolve combat with a single roll of the fight skill, so why would we resolve negotiations with a single roll of the diplomacy skill?

The answer to both is that it would be boring to do it any other way ;)

Combat would be a silly chore if you rolled once and were done. However, talking would become a chore because you couldn't just, you know, talk naturally and then roll afterwards to see how it worked. You'd have to talk in arbitrary chunks and determine the outcome of each line and think less about the actual conversation and more about speaking tactically and whatnot.

Not true at all.

You should check out the Song of Ice and Fire rpg from Green Ronin (it helps that Game of Thrones is so popular right now :) ).
They have full-on "social combat" rules support and it works quite nicely to be honest.
WAY more engaging than just, "I got a [blah], does my hour and a half conversation pay off?"

[Neo2151]

mplindustries wrote:

To those complaining about the "you're 100% fine until your HP hit 0" thing, I'm curious:

Have you ever played another RPG with a death spiral of wound penalties in it? And I mean, really played it, not just read it and thought "hey, that makes more sense than D&D!"

Because, well, they're called Death Spirals for a reason. If being hurt gives you more and more penalties, one hit basically seals your fate. The more damage you take, the less you are able to avoid further damage. Most games with death spirals also have you move slower after taking wounds, so once you're hurt, you also can't escape anymore.

There's nothing quite like losing a fight on the first round, but then having to sit and play through 4 or 5 more rounds while you slowly die because everything you do is less and less effective.

L5R has wound penalties like you describe, and you're pretty near death before they get you down into areas where you can't do anything anymore. And there's even mechanics that allow you to lessen those penalties.

[Neo2151]

Ilja wrote:

necromental wrote:

I found another one: DR for outsiders.

Firstly why can angel's natural enemy penetrate it's DR? Wouldn't it be logical that their DR works against demons and devils.

You can think of it the opposite way - angels are so powerful nearly nothing can hurt them, but their eternal enemies - the demons and devils - have learnt how to circumvent that.

I feel necro's pain here.

This doesn't make sense - The one thing you're practically designed to fight is the one thing that can actually hurt you?

There's a reason that only Angel Swords can kill Angels in Supernatural...