|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft HouserulesWhoah, how did I miss that?!? I'll have to read through it in its entirety later:O
I personally can't even begin to comprehend the desire to play using a stack of house rules that rivals the thickness of the Core Rulebook.
Someone could describe the most amazing campaign I've ever heard of, but if they then plopped that monstrosity down and said "Here's the house rules we will be using", then I'd most likely not ever want to game with that group again, at least in any situation where they were setting the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blanket mind affecting immunity.
There are so many ways to achieve this. A zombie I understand. It doesn't have a mind to affect.
I should still be able to use Intimidate to scare a doppelganger. They're people more or less and should be able to be scared or persuaded into things.
Another thing while I'm on intimidate. I don't like how it always stops at shaken. If I build a fear based Fighter and roll a 65 check on a 1 HD kobold, it isn't going to just be mildly put off that shaken is. It's going to have a heart attack and die.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 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.
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...
Well, to be honest, it makes sense to me. You can't tell me that the demon/devil/etc being most vulnerable to holy power isn't iconic far beyond the bounds of tabletop gaming, and it also mirrors what is true of elements (you fight cold with fire and fire with cold).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two things about feats frustrate me:
First, needless prerequisites ("feat trees"). Possibly one of the things I dislike most about Pathfinder is the system's evident eagerness to bury feats, especially martial feats, under piles of prerequisites at but the slightest provocation.
Second, feats like Antagonize, which claim that the ability to try to taunt someone into taking a swing at you is somehow something that requires intense specialized training. Things that anyone ought to be able to do should not be feats.
But you totally fight fire with fire. ;)
No, honestly though, you can make sense of either argument - I get that. (But in fairness, the "iconic stereotype" is that evil cannot withstand good, but good can withstand evil. It's very one-sided in literature, lore, etc. PF just makes it into a balancing act.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two things about feats frustrate me:
First, needless prerequisites ("feat trees"). Possibly one of the things I dislike most about Pathfinder is the system's evident eagerness to bury feats, especially martial feats, under piles of prerequisites at but the slightest provocation.
Second, feats like Antagonize, which claim that the ability to try to taunt someone into taking a swing at you is somehow something that requires intense specialized training. Things that anyone ought to be able to do should not be feats.
I hope that in PF 2e, the overwhelming majority of feats are given rules for how they can be accomplished by characters that do NOT have the feat. That way 1st level characters won't have to pick between being able to wipe their ass or blow their nose.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally can't even begin to comprehend the desire to play using a stack of house rules that rivals the thickness of the Core Rulebook.
I take it that includes PF as well? :)
@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.
I'm having that problem in Razor Coast as well. If the ifrit monk gets killed, his player has a wayang rogue ship captain ready to go, and I just don't know if I'm going to allow it or not.
Kirthfinder - World of Warriorcraft HouserulesWhoah, how did I miss that?!? I'll have to read through it in its entirety later:OI personally can't even begin to comprehend the desire to play using a stack of house rules that rivals the thickness of the Core Rulebook.
Someone could describe the most amazing campaign I've ever heard of, but if they then plopped that monstrosity down and said "Here's the house rules we will be using", then I'd most likely not ever want to game with that group again, at least in any situation where they were setting the rules.
On the other hand, once development is finished it could be really good with the relevant parts of the PRD copy-pasted into place to make a complete system, and sent off to CreateSpace for printing.
|
|
I personally can't even begin to comprehend the desire to play using a stack of house rules that rivals the thickness of the Core Rulebook.I take it that includes PF as well? :)
Well, as you know, it's far from my favorite system. But you seem to be equating the need to know 600-ish pages from the Core Rulebook with the need to know 600-ish pages from the Core Rulebook PLUS the 600-ish pages of Kirthfinder. Which is rather disingenuous.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, as you know, it's far from my favorite system. But you seem to be equating the need to know 600-ish pages from the Core Rulebook with the need to know 600-ish pages from the Core Rulebook PLUS the 600-ish pages of Kirthfinder. Which is rather disingenuous.
Actually, there is enough overlap that by this point there are only a few things that need to be added to have everything you need in the Kirthfinder PDF. Much like you don't need to reference the 3.5 CRB to use the PF CRB, you don't need to reference the PF CRB to use Kirthfinder.
It's also disingenuous of you to imply you have to reference 600 pages in one and 600 pages in the other when most of the pages in the other obsoletes the pages in the one.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the strange moments between dreaming and waking, I had an odd thought: what if each creature, only during the full attack action, got a number of 5-foot steps equal to the number of iterative attacks they're granted by their BAB?
At BAB +1, one 5-foot step as normal.
At BAB +6, two 5-foot steps.
At BAB +11, three 5-foot steps.
At BAB +16, four 5-foot steps.
No cheesy way to get them early, doesn't work on a pounce since although you get a full attack you use the charge action not the full attack action, allows some mobility but not to the extent of a pounce.
Combined with the re-introduction of the Dual Strike feat from 3.5, wouldn't this be an acceptable way to make melee more mobile?
|
|
...doesn't work on a pounce since although you get a full attack you use the charge action not the full attack action...
I don't think there is actually a difference between a full attack and a full attack action.
Edit: Here it is.
Any melee attack sequence you can perform as a full attack is allowed as part of the charge-pounce-full attack.
You'd have to add an exception stating that this was not a melee attack sequence or something to that effect.
|
|
...doesn't work on a pounce since although you get a full attack you use the charge action not the full attack action...I don't think there is actually a difference between a full attack and a full attack action.
Then you must believe that Pounce requires two full round actions to execute!
I'm pretty sure we only get one full round action per round, and in the case of Pounce that full round action is the charge action not the full attack action.
Full attack =/= full attack action, just like attack =/= attack action.
There are many ways to attack without using the attack action, but the only way to take a full attack without using the full attack action (that I can recall) is Pounce.
There might be other ways in future.
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?"
Yeah, I've played it, and it's exactly the kind of system I was referring to that ruins social interaction (same for games like Burning Wheel or the various alternate systems in the world of darkness).
If you say, "I got a blah, does my hour and a half of conversation pay off," then I don't want to rolepaly with you at all, sorry, and I don't think, "I got a blah, does my two lines of conversation pay off," said more often is going to make it any better.
My ideal way to handle that would be, to, you know, actually have an hour and a half of conversation, or at the very least, summarize the points. I'd also prefer if no roll were necessary if the argument was a well made logical one that the target would be receptive to, but one roll at the end of the scene quite a bit more desirable to me than rolling every couple sentences and constantly interrupting my flow.
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.
And once again, you've hit the nail on the head as far as the exact game I was thinking of when I made my comments. I love the idea of L5R (and that's a game with great social mechanics, since special courtier abilities give them teeth without requiring tedious combat round style rolling during a talk), but the wound penalties basically made it so the first hit won.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am actually ok playing a game where one hit wins a fight--the problem was that one hit won a fight, but not in one round. They still had to be whittled down, but once they were suffering the right penalties, you were doomed and couldn't escape, either. Instead of just saying, "Ok, you lost," you'd have to sit there through the rest of the fight, flailing sadly, waiting to be finished off. Even if you were able to disengage and escape, I'd have been ok with it, but wound penalties slow you down, which, combined with pop-culture bushido means you're not running.
L5R had other problems, too, namely an almost-as-bad-as-3rd-edition caster/martial disparity. Magic is absurdly powerful. At least the setting kind of reigned that in a bit.
In my ideal wound system (and it will be the case in the game I'm designing), you would take no immediate wound penalties from combat--adrenaline is a funny thing that way--but carrying wounds long term would have other negative effects. That way, being hurt matters, but one injury doesn't end you.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally can't even begin to comprehend the desire to play using a stack of house rules that rivals the thickness of the Core Rulebook.I take it that includes PF as well? :)
Funny how if you sell someone a 600 page book of house rules, they're likely to play it without blinking. But give someone a 600 page book of house rules, and they're likely to turn their nose up at it.
(There actually is a term for this psychological phenomenon, but I can't recall it.)
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.
Someone on ENworld came up with a great house rule during the 3.5 era: instead of being completely binary, magical weapons bypass 5 points of DR per (actual) bonus.
So if you hit a monster with DR 10/magic with a +1 sword, you only deal 5 less damage than normal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(There actually is a term for this psychological phenomenon, but I can't recall it.)
Something about the price we pay increasing how much we value something. We have plenty of free PDFs we never look at because they cost nothing to us, thus we value it less. But as soon as we pay money for the same PDF, we value it more and want to get something back for the price we paid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, as you know, it's far from my favorite system. But you seem to be equating the need to know 600-ish pages from the Core Rulebook with the need to know 600-ish pages from the Core Rulebook PLUS the 600-ish pages of Kirthfinder. Which is rather disingenuous.Actually, there is enough overlap that by this point there are only a few things that need to be added to have everything you need in the Kirthfinder PDF. Much like you don't need to reference the 3.5 CRB to use the PF CRB, you don't need to reference the PF CRB to use Kirthfinder.
It's also disingenuous of you to imply you have to reference 600 pages in one and 600 pages in the other when most of the pages in the other obsoletes the pages in the one.
just going to add to this that Kirthfinder covers the options from apg, uc, and um as well. Hooray for streamlining.
|
|
Funny how if you sell someone a 600 page book of house rules, they're likely to play it without blinking. But give someone a 600 page book of house rules, and they're likely to turn their nose up at it.I personally can't even begin to comprehend the desire to play using a stack of house rules that rivals the thickness of the Core Rulebook.I take it that includes PF as well? :)
I've explained this. You still need at least SOME segments of the Core Rulebook to play "Kirthfinder", so it isn't a 600 page rulebook, it's a 1200 page rulebook, where half of it doesn't have art or professional layout, isn't professionally printed or even bound. And of the half that IS professionally done, huge swaths are either redundant or obsolete.
I'm not really sure WHY I'm having to defend the fact that some random dude on the internet's massively bloated collection of house rules has no appeal to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you buy Pathfinder for the art?
Would you pay $50 for a copy printed copy of the PRD? Not all of it, mind you, just the Core Rulebook bits.
Yes, if Paizo's books lacked art and professional layout, I doubt I would buy them. I also doubt they'd enjoy anywhere near the level of success they currently have. They'd be just another in the long line of d20 games that never really took off.
Also, one of my points about the art and the layout is that if you took Kirthfinder and printed it up to Paizo's standards, it would expand from it's current bulk of just shy of 600 pages to something more along the line of 700-750 or so.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really sure WHY I'm having to defend the fact that some random dude on the internet's massively bloated collection of house rules has no appeal to me.
Because you started out by saying that you couldn't begin to imagine why anyone else would want to play it, thus making everyone who does want to play it feel the need to justify themselves.
|
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?"
White Wolf's nWoD has this too (3 different versions of it, in fact).
And there's a decent system for it in Pathfinder in a Campaign Setting Book called Necropunk.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, if Paizo's books lacked art and professional layout, I doubt I would buy them. I also doubt they'd enjoy anywhere near the level of success they currently have. They'd be just another in the long line of d20 games that never really took off.
Also, one of my points about the art and the layout is that if you took Kirthfinder and printed it up to Paizo's standards, it would expand from it's current bulk of just shy of 600 pages to something more along the line of 700-750 or so.
So: Hypothetically speaking, if you didn't need to reference the corebook at all, and instead of "A massive collection of houserules" it was "some weird alternate corebook" would that be better?
Lets assume that Kirth had someone do the layout so it was prettier. Say he's got an 800 page rulebook, but much of it is character options, not rules you need to know. How is that worse than needing to know the pathfinder corebook, + apg + um + uc + ue?
I do agree that there comes a point in houseruling, where you may as well just make it an alternate corebook for simplicity; if thats all youre saying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the alignment system, but what i do not like are alignment restrictions. I could very easily see the Lawful Good barbarian, whose "rage" is an extra surge of strength that he can summon from within himself when the chips are truly down like is so common in books, movies, etc. Or a True Neutral paladin of balance who fights for it as hard as any religious zealot. Or a Chaotic Evil monk who is out to simply gain ultimate power and riches so he can ultimately fulfill any desire he has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really sure WHY I'm having to defend the fact that some random dude on the internet's massively bloated collection of house rules has no appeal to me.You posted an opinion on the internet and expected to NOT have to defend it?
To be honest, I agree with him. :)
No, I'm not a kirth-hater, I kind of like the guy having traded posts in the past.
I just don't have time to sit down, learn all the PF rules, then turn around and learn another 600 pages of modifications and house rules. I told you this before I think? If I had to have enough house rules that my house rules take up as much space as the core rules, I'm using the wrong system in my opinion. Or I should just make up my own system and ignore the published one.
The closest I've come to this is Shadowrun 3.0, where I had a grey binder full of custom stuff. But it wasn't houseruling the base system into a battered beaten version of itself. It was additional rules, additional cyberware, additional bioware, basically it wasn't altering the core rules so much as expanding them with things that the publisher didn't provide.
Much as I like Kirth from trading posts, I'd never play in his games. I just don't have the time to learn that much new rules (note also the mental gymnastics of having to keep them separate from the core rules when I'm running a game at the same time).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment.Been playing since 1e and it's still an unnecessary mechanical obstruction to roleplay. I obviously don't care for the effects Aignment has on Outsiders, Aligned DR, detect x spells.
Spell Components.Seriously, how annoying is this stuff to have to keep track of, source, or protect? Never mind the awesome powers you can't command if you fresh out of bats$&t...
Grappling. That there is a (very involved) flowchart on the d20PFSRD shows there is a problem.
Feat Madness. From feats that shouldn't be feats (i.e. things anyone should be able to do) to arbitrary/nonsensical racial-only feats to overtaxing feat chains to conletely useless feats to must-have feats. Read the current feat thread for more info...
Prepared Casting. Regardless of whether you are hung up on memories of legacy memorization or rolling with the uber-post modern ammunition/utility belt analogy it still sucks. I make all casters spontaneous. Sucks to be a wizard or a sorceror. Mash together to be a mage and choose your snowflake-style: bond or bloodline or whatever you like.
That's all for now. I'm forgetting some I'm sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Me too. Love Kirth, but if I was that dissatisfied with the state of the game, I would go buy a nice looking book instead of adding to the problem with another mountain of rules.
House rules are awesome, but everyone has their limits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's remember, that Pathfinder started out as Jason Bulmahn's massive collection of house rules.
Let's focus on the OP, least favorite subsystem is...?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blood drain = con damage. Why exactly does losing blood through having it sucked out of you do Con damage, where losing blood through having someone whack you with a sword do hp damage? by RAW, 7 stirges (which are Tiny) can drain enough blood to kill a 200 ton BLUE WHALE in 4 rounds. And they get a Touch attack on the poor thing, which has a Touch AC of 1.
Blood drain = con damage. Why exactly does losing blood through having it sucked out of you do Con damage, where losing blood through having someone whack you with a sword do hp damage? by RAW, 7 stirges (which are Tiny) can drain enough blood to kill a 200 ton BLUE WHALE in 4 rounds. And they get a Touch attack on the poor thing, which has a Touch AC of 1.
Bear in mind that HP is an abstract concept, so being hit with a sword and losing HP may not involve any actual physical damage, instead simply meaning the target wore themselves out a bit trying to dodge the blow.
However, for your example I would say there's a need for blood drain to take the target size into account and do less Con damage to larger targets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate how a ranger can shoot way farther than a musket master. A musket has a 40 foot range increment, with five increments. A composite longbow has a 110 foot range increment, with ten increments.
Thus a Musket of Distance can shoot out to 400 feet, 450 with a deed, while a normal composite longbow shoots out to 1100 feet, 2200 with Distance.
Even a Rifle, an advanced firearm, has a range increment of 80 feet with ten range increments, shooting out to 800 feet (900 with a deed), up to 1800 with Distance.
I highly doubt that a good archer would be able to shoot farther than a good musketeer or rifleman.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate how a ranger can shoot way farther than a musket master. A musket has a 40 foot range increment, with five increments. A composite longbow has a 110 foot range increment, with ten increments.
Thus a Musket of Distance can shoot out to 400 feet, 450 with a deed, while a normal composite longbow shoots out to 1100 feet, 2200 with Distance.
Even a Rifle, an advanced firearm, has a range increment of 80 feet with ten range increments, shooting out to 800 feet (900 with a deed), up to 1800 with Distance.
That's honestly pretty realistic. You didn't start getting really long range on firearms until the last hundred years or so. A black powder rifle has a pretty awful range compared to a .306 or 30-30. And if we're talking smoothbore... there's a reason it is a trope that the safest place to be was 50 ft or more directly in front of the pistol during the revolution. :) Between bad ammo, bad barrels, bad maintenance and bad powder, black powder weapons were horribly inaccurate without rifling. Even with rifling, it wasn't until the industrial revolution and machining of parts that the tolerances were good enough to make weapons way more accurate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Feats turned a game I could teach someone to play in under a half hour to game that requires hundreds of hours of reading and studying to work out all the interactions between feats and rules and character/monster interaction. I want to play the game, not have to take a college course to be able to play the game.
All of the stuff that has come after the CRB has more or less ignored what was in the CRB, and for the most part is severely overpowered compared to what is in the CRB. Why for example can the Magus cast more spells per spell level than the Wizard?
|
|
All of the stuff that has come after the CRB has more or less ignored what was in the CRB, and for the most part is severely overpowered compared to what is in the CRB. Why for example can the Magus cast more spells per spell level than the Wizard?
You want the Magus to have fewer spell levels AND fewer spells per spell level than the wizard?
Discounting cantrips, the Magus has 30 spell slots to the wizards 36.
That's honestly pretty realistic. You didn't start getting really long range on firearms until the last hundred years or so. A black powder rifle has a pretty awful range compared to a .306 or 30-30. And if we're talking smoothbore... there's a reason it is a trope that the safest place to be was 50 ft or more directly in front of the pistol during the revolution. :) Between bad ammo, bad barrels, bad maintenance and bad powder, black powder weapons were horribly inaccurate without rifling. Even with rifling, it wasn't until the industrial revolution and machining of parts that the tolerances were good enough to make weapons way more accurate.I hate how a ranger can shoot way farther than a musket master. A musket has a 40 foot range increment, with five increments. A composite longbow has a 110 foot range increment, with ten increments.
Thus a Musket of Distance can shoot out to 400 feet, 450 with a deed, while a normal composite longbow shoots out to 1100 feet, 2200 with Distance.
Even a Rifle, an advanced firearm, has a range increment of 80 feet with ten range increments, shooting out to 800 feet (900 with a deed), up to 1800 with Distance.
How do you explain composite longbows outshooting advanced rifles?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feats turned a game I could teach someone to play in under a half hour to game that requires hundreds of hours of reading and studying to work out all the interactions between feats and rules and character/monster interaction. I want to play the game, not have to take a college course to be able to play the game.
I figured out how to play this game in under 4 hours (one session), as did everyone else I played with bar 1. It's not that hard. And it had nothing to do with Feats, either. The hard part is learning all of the actual RULES.
All of the stuff that has come after the CRB has more or less ignored what was in the CRB, and for the most part is severely overpowered compared to what is in the CRB. Why for example can the Magus cast more spells per spell level than the Wizard?
Because he only has 6 spell levels and his spell list is worse and he's designed around using spells every round in combat to keep up on damage with other classes?
That was a terrible example.
How do you explain composite longbows outshooting advanced rifles?
With the fact that the advanced firearms are only about as good as like an old Winchester, which weren't high precision, long range weapons.
With the fact that the advanced firearms are only about as good as like an old Winchester, which weren't high precision, long range weapons.
And archers were renowned for their accuracy at and beyond 500 feet?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And archers were renowned for their accuracy at and beyond 500 feet?
With the fact that the advanced firearms are only about as good as like an old Winchester, which weren't high precision, long range weapons.
Apparently so - Henry VIII decreed that archery practice ranges had to be at least 660 feet.
Apparently so - Henry VIII decreed that archery practice ranges had to be at least 660 feet.And archers were renowned for their accuracy at and beyond 500 feet?
With the fact that the advanced firearms are only about as good as like an old Winchester, which weren't high precision, long range weapons.
For massed fire with dozens/hundreds of archers. The maximum effective range of one archer shooting a man-size target is closer to 200 feet. Note that "maximum effective range" does not imply "within the second range increment" as it is for a longbow in pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For massed fire with dozens/hundreds of archers. The maximum effective range of one archer shooting a man-size target is closer to 200 feet. Note that "maximum effective range" does not imply "within the second range increment" as it is for a longbow in pathfinder.Apparently so - Henry VIII decreed that archery practice ranges had to be at least 660 feet.
Nope, that's for an individual archer practicing to hit a man-sized target. The actual measurement was "220 yards" and was the standard used for the legally-mandated archery practice at the time.
For massed fire with dozens/hundreds of archers. The maximum effective range of one archer shooting a man-size target is closer to 200 feet. Note that "maximum effective range" does not imply "within the second range increment" as it is for a longbow in pathfinder.Apparently so - Henry VIII decreed that archery practice ranges had to be at least 660 feet.
Nope, that's for an individual archer practicing to hit a man-sized target. The actual measurement was "220 yards" and was the standard used for the legally-mandated archery practice at the time.
Lets see a source please, as I do not see how it is remotely possible for someone to accurately shoot a bow anywhere near that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The maximum effective range of one archer shooting a man-size target is closer to 200 feet.
Er, so a quarterback can hit someone in the hands in stride with a thrown football at 200 feet (only about 67 yards), but an archer couldn't hit a man sized target anywhere any farther than that?
Also note that Olympic archery targets are about 260 feet away and the bullseye, which is regularly hit, is only about 2.5 inches in diameter, so, that's much smaller than man sized.
Lets see a source please, as I do not see how it is remotely possible for someone to accurately shoot a bow anywhere near that.For massed fire with dozens/hundreds of archers. The maximum effective range of one archer shooting a man-size target is closer to 200 feet. Note that "maximum effective range" does not imply "within the second range increment" as it is for a longbow in pathfinder.Apparently so - Henry VIII decreed that archery practice ranges had to be at least 660 feet.
Nope, that's for an individual archer practicing to hit a man-sized target. The actual measurement was "220 yards" and was the standard used for the legally-mandated archery practice at the time.
This one says 200 yards, which is still 600 feet:
source
In 1542 an Act established that the minimum target distance for anyone over the age of 24 years was 220 yards (the modern competition maximum is 80 yards)!
A trained archer could shoot 12 to 15 arrows per minute and hit a man sized target at a minimumof 200 yards. The maximum range of a longbow was about 400 yards
Note the comparison to today's competition standards. We've just become a lot less adept at it :)
Also, lots more sources here
Okay, so let's agree that an archer could accurately shoot 200 yards, and smoothbore muskets sucked (as they indeed did).
Let's take a look at early rifled muskets,
Rifled muskets increased the effective range to about 200 or 300 yards, and a rifled musket could often hit a man-sized target up to 500 yards away.
Which is at or above the effective range of a longbow, yet in pathfinder the best bow will shoot farther than the best rifle.
All of the stuff that has come after the CRB has more or less ignored what was in the CRB, and for the most part is severely overpowered compared to what is in the CRB. Why for example can the Magus cast more spells per spell level than the Wizard?You want the Magus to have fewer spell levels AND fewer spells per spell level than the wizard?
Discounting cantrips, the Magus has 30 spell slots to the wizards 36.
No, the Magus should have at most the same number of spells per level as the Wizard. Neither the Ranger or the Paladin has more spells per level than the Cleric or Druid. By your logic they should be getting a max of 8 spells per spell level. The Magus is getting nice things like the ability to cast spells and make melee attacks in the same round, something no other class can do.
I fully expect that in the Advanced Class Guide for there to be a class with a better BAB and extras than the Fighter. And other classes that can out do all of the Iconic classes.
How do you explain composite longbows outshooting advanced rifles?
The advanced rifle they are using was the equivalent of a M1903 Springfield. That one had an effective range of about 3000 ft.
What does this tell us? That their are some issues with reality vs game range for one specific firearm out of the entire batch.
Given how bad the firearms rules are in general, I just don't see this as the major issue. The real issue is they are unusable in game unless you play one specific build and dump them down to free reloads.