|
I won't list things that I have a problem with in 3.5, just what is specific to PF...
Ability Bonuses, Damage & Penalties
This is one of the big issues for me as it leads to unintuitive results and inconsistency of rules.
For example, a temporary Dexterity Bonus of +4 provides a +2 bonus to AC, it does not actually change the Dexterity Bonus itself. So a character with Dex 16/+3 wearing Half-plate armour (+8 AC, maximum Dexterity bonus of +0) has an AC of 18 normally. If he puts on a Belt of Incredible Dexterity +4, he gains a +2 AC for the first 24 hours whilst the Dexterity bonus is temporary providing an AC of 20.
After 24 hours the bonus becomes permanent and he no longer gains a +2 AC but instead his Dexterity bonus is now +5, but as the armour has a maximum Dexterity Bonus of +0, his AC is back to 18.
So for AC, the character is better off taking his belt off every night as in this instance Temporary bonus is better than Permanent bonus.
Grappling
The PF changes to the grappling rules have not reduced complexity IMHO, just shifted it about a bit, but more importantly have led to confusion and unintuitive results, e.g. it is often easier to break free of the grapple when Pinned than when just Grappled as the Pinning character's CMD gets worse than when just grappling, and the Pinned character's Escape Artist modifier gets better when Pinned as they are no longer suffering the -4 Dex Penalty.
Channelling
I liked this at first, but I discovered it didn't solve one of the problems I had with clerics (having to use a Standard action to heal in combat) but worse, increased disparity in healing capability between a party with a cleric and a party without one.
Those are the main subsystems I have an issue with.
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!"I have played Shadowrun* for years and never had real problems with its penalties for being injured. And it even has separate penalties for physical (lethal) damage and mental (nonlethal) damage so you get even more penalties if the damage you get is a mix of both.
...
*I can only talk about SR 1-3 because I tested SR4 for only a short time and decided to not accept it as shadowrun.
I loved SR4 personally, and SR5, IMO, is even better. Still needs more options for magic spells, but the core rules are pretty clean overall.
As to the death spiral effect, I agree that it should be minimized as much as possible, but including a small penalty when "bloodied" (<= 50% HP) wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian casting.
Play a Sorcerer then, instead of a wizard.
|
|
The key thing about an injury penalty mechanic and avoiding it result in a death spiral is to not have penalties appear on taking even the slightest damage.
Shadowrun 1st to 3rd editions were bad for that - a Light Wound, the minimum amount of damage you could take, imposeda +1 TN penalty, however Shadowrun 4th ed alleviated this somewhat by allowing you to take 2 boxes of damage before suffering any penalties.
Similarly new World of Darkness is even better in that you only take penalties for taking damage in the last 3 boxes of your damage track.
Earthdawn had another take on it - Wound Thresholds. Only hits that did significant damage in one blow would impose penalties, taking lots of scrapes and minor cuts and bruises wouldn't impose penalties.
And of course one could argue that the Staggered and Disabled conditions of 3.x are injury penalties - though not penalties to the Difficulty of tasks, but instead a change to the number of actions you can take in a round (something Mongoose Traveller also does with a Seriously wounded character losing their Minor action). Its just a pity Staggered and Disabled conditions are only applied on a very specific hit point total.
So injury penalties could work in 3.x without necessarily creating an inevitable death spiral, maybe having characters take on the Fatigued condition when their Hit Points fall below their Constitution score (like Star Wars d20 RCR, when you take Wound damage).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damage Reduction.
1) DR is either an annoyance or useless. That is, you either have to subtract this value from every damn damage roll made (at higher levels this gets especially cumbersome), or the PCs find a way to bypass it and ultimately it is worthless for the creature to have it. While as a GM you can try to limit the ways for PCs to be able to bypass it, that can also become it's own bone of contention, and I often feel like I'm trying to prevent the players from having the ability to bypass a mechanic I hate anyway.
2) Its existence is redundant. The Armor Class mechanic is supposed to represent BOTH a creature's ability to dodge attacks (Dex and dodge bonuses) AND to absorb damage (armor and natural armor bonues, etc.). HP and self-healing abilities like regeneration represent a creature's health, pain threshhold, and regenerative capabilities.
But DR is ALSO supposed to both represent soak or healing of damage, in other words duplicating effects there are already other mechanics for (natural armor bonuses to represent a tough hide, fast healing and regeneration to represent wounds closing as soon as they open). Notably, these other mechanics are far less of a pain in the ass to track than DR and slow down combat far less. I cannot fathom what DR is really supposed to be accomplishing that is not better reflected by other extant mechanics, except for #3.
3) It is a weakness disguised as a strength. DR isn't really supposed to show how tough a creature is--that's what we have AC and HP for--it's supposed to show that it's weak to a particular substance. It's an utterly ass backwards way of doing so.
It would be far more better to construct the mechanic based around the weakness rather than the strength. For example, if the creature is supposed to be incredibly tough, give it extra hit points or a higher AC. But then allow attacks from the magical substance be double damage.
Or, use the regeneration mechanic a la the troll -- the creature has regeneration, but does not heal damage dealt by the special substance it is weak to. This ensures all damage is somewhat effective (so the guy without the golfbag of weapons with special items inside doesn't feel useless) but the special weapon is still desirable (and fulfills the mythologies such special weapons reflect).
Both of these also require a lot less pausing to do math, and require adding which is faster than subtracting. The last is especially great because you only have to calculate it per round rather than after every damage roll.
Vancian casting.Play a Sorcerer then, instead of a wizard.
Sorcerors don't use spell slots? 0.o
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, see:
Monk fluff vs. Monk mechanics discrepancy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont like WBL.
It has never made sense to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont like WBL.
It has never made sense to me.
Really? It has always made sense to me. Granted, a lot of people mistake it for a rule, when it is actually a metric. Once you get past that, it's hard to find a problem with it.
Sorcerors don't use spell slots? 0.oVancian casting.Play a Sorcerer then, instead of a wizard.
I wish I knew this when I made my most recent sorcerer.
Wasn't there an alternate rule set that gave mages alternate casting capabilities, though? Like how Power Points worked for Psionics? Or was that a homebrewed thing?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Sorcerors don't use spell slots? 0.oVancian casting.Play a Sorcerer then, instead of a wizard.
From a pedantic point of view, Vancian implies preparation so spontaneous casters in 3.x or PF aren't Vancian.
I gather from your follow up post that you more dislike spell levels/spell slots in general. Fair enough, but that's broader than "Vancian."
Back to topic: I dislike how point buy doesn't let you have scores below 7. I know some people would use it to dump stat even further but I think even a hardcore minmaxer would think twice before putting a 3 in something. The one appeal that rolling has for me is the possibility of dealing with a truly low score.
There are a few areas where the rules could just be simpler, and I think it would improve the game. Total concelament/stealth should just = invisibility. All spells that require attack rolls should count as weapons for feats and such. One sneak attack per attack roll, if the conditions are met each time.
I hate that we don't have psionics yet. "Mind magic" as flavor, not necessarily the point system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess there are a few things that I actually hate in Pathfinder.
I hate the reliance on magic to do anything interesting, but it really boils down to;
1)Lack of martial mobility. being mobile should be an inherent thing for martial classes. This, sit still and full attack thing gets boring really fast.
2) Feats. Feats just need to be redesigned. Some are stupidly dull or underpowered, but you need it to do something you want to do. Them rarely scaling hurts worse. Also some feats are so universally used that they might as well be class features or normal options.
3) I hate multiple resource pool. While I'm okay enough with how magic works (although I think only the prepared casters should have to deal with slots) but I think the best argument for mana pools is that a lot of things use some kind of resource pool and some feats call for more pools. Stunning Fist, Elemental fist, Ki, Rage, Performance, challenge. I wish there was a unified resource pool system reflecting stamina.
Sorcerors don't use spell slots? 0.oVancian casting.Play a Sorcerer then, instead of a wizard.From a pedantic point of view, Vancian implies preparation so spontaneous casters in 3.x or PF aren't Vancian.
I gather from your follow up post that you more dislike spell levels/spell slots in general. Fair enough, but that's broader than "Vancian."
Back to topic: I dislike how point buy doesn't let you have scores below 7. I know some people would use it to dump stat even further but I think even a hardcore minmaxer would think twice before putting a 3 in something. The one appeal that rolling has for me is the possibility of dealing with a truly low score.
There are a few areas where the rules could just be simpler, and I think it would improve the game. Total concelament/stealth should just = invisibility. All spells that require attack rolls should count as weapons for feats and such. One sneak attack per attack roll, if the conditions are met each time.
I hate that we don't have psionics yet. "Mind magic" as flavor, not necessarily the point system.
I see.
Well, then I dislike spell slots. Vance is cool :)I like points better, becasue it allows a better control of your resources, and allows things like augments, which are, imho, alot less clunky than metamagic feats.
Problem, though, is if you do use power points/spell points, how then do you differentiate between Wizards and sorcs? Just the school stuff/bloodlines?
I see.
Well, then I dislike spell slots. Vance is cool :)
I like points better, becasue it allows a better control of your resources, and allows things like augments, which are, imho, alot less clunky than metamagic feats.
Problem, though, is if you do use power points/spell points, how then do you differentiate between Wizards and sorcs? Just the school stuff/bloodlines?
I run a set of house rules where wizards == sorcerers. Wizards have less spells per day and known spells, but they can change their known spells every day.
So sorcerers are more powerful, but less flexible.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see.
Well, then I dislike spell slots. Vance is cool :)
I like points better, becasue it allows a better control of your resources, and allows things like augments, which are, imho, alot less clunky than metamagic feats.
Problem, though, is if you do use power points/spell points, how then do you differentiate between Wizards and sorcs? Just the school stuff/bloodlines?
I've seen a variant system (maybe from 2e Player's Option stuff?) where a wizard has spell points but still uses memorization...your points just divide up into "memorization slots" however you like.
In this system a wizard would work like a psion that has to "pre-spend" all their points each morning, but is free each day to change their loadout to anything in their spellbooks. A sorcerer would basiclaly work just like a psion but using magic.
Really? It has always made sense to me. Granted, a lot of people mistake it for a rule, when it is actually a metric. Once you get past that, it's hard to find a problem with it.I dont like WBL.
It has never made sense to me.
This is why i dont like WBL.
All numbers are made up and not real, i dont have a book nearbuy.....Sam is a CN picpoket specialist. He is 1st level.
He is a bit impulsive....
He has an encounter with a lord...or even an adventurere and does real well on his sleight of hand, and gets away cleanly.
If sam has a bunch of wealth in gear and supplies, and is at his WBL, the results of the pick pocket roll should not put him over. He might get <10 gp item.
But if he is a new 1st level, with no money, he might get a lot more in loot.
WBL seems to determine the results of the sucess in the plan rather than the tactical, strategic thinking and luck of the dice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? It has always made sense to me. Granted, a lot of people mistake it for a rule, when it is actually a metric. Once you get past that, it's hard to find a problem with it.I dont like WBL.
It has never made sense to me.
This is why i dont like WBL.
All numbers are made up and not real, i dont have a book nearbuy.....Sam is a CN picpoket specialist. He is 1st level.
He is a bit impulsive....He has an encounter with a lord...or even an adventurere and does real well on his sleight of hand, and gets away cleanly.
If sam has a bunch of wealth in gear and supplies, and is at his WBL, the results of the pick pocket roll should not put him over. He might get <10 gp item.
But if he is a new 1st level, with no money, he might get a lot more in loot.
WBL seems to determine the results of the sucess in the plan rather than the tactical, strategic thinking and luck of the dice.
You are thinking of WBL are a hard rule, not a guideline. The game simply assumes that the party is near WBL for challenge purposes. There is nothing wrong with a level 1 party have 1 million gold worth of equipment as long as you adjust the challenge ratings to compensate for it.
So if your rogue steals a 10k diamond, and goes about WBL that is perfectly ok as long as the DM understands that this will make them more powerful than they should be fore their level.
Sorcerors don't use spell slots? 0.oVancian casting.Play a Sorcerer then, instead of a wizard.
They do indeed. But Wizards are true vancian, sorc are not, as they can spam any spell they know. Until they run out of slots. Or with a Mana system, until they run out of mana. Same difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? It has always made sense to me. Granted, a lot of people mistake it for a rule, when it is actually a metric. Once you get past that, it's hard to find a problem with it.I dont like WBL.
It has never made sense to me.
This is why i dont like WBL.
All numbers are made up and not real, i dont have a book nearbuy.....Sam is a CN picpoket specialist. He is 1st level.
He is a bit impulsive....He has an encounter with a lord...or even an adventurere and does real well on his sleight of hand, and gets away cleanly.
If sam has a bunch of wealth in gear and supplies, and is at his WBL, the results of the pick pocket roll should not put him over. He might get <10 gp item.
But if he is a new 1st level, with no money, he might get a lot more in loot.
WBL seems to determine the results of the sucess in the plan rather than the tactical, strategic thinking and luck of the dice.
You are thinking of WBL are a hard rule, not a guideline. The game simply assumes that the party is near WBL for challenge purposes. There is nothing wrong with a level 1 party have 1 million gold worth of equipment as long as you adjust the challenge ratings to compensate for it.
So if your rogue steals a 10k diamond, and goes about WBL that is perfectly ok as long as the DM understands that this will make them more powerful than they should be fore their level.
Agreed 100%
It just seems that i have seen others use it more as a rule than guideline.Thanks
Metamagic is awful and clunky when it doesn't have to be.
I see no reason Metamagic shouldn't work exactly like the Spell-like Metamagic does; x/day with no spell level adjustment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think SKR once said that the WBl is basically a rule.WBL is a rule the same way CR is a rule. You use it to (very roughly) gauge what sorts of challenges your character can reasonably expect to overcome.
This. I find it rather important and somewhat accurate.
I would agree it's not a hard and fast rule, but it's definitely something any GM needs to be cognizant of when it comes to running a campaign. For good or for ill, character wealth and magic items can be a huge factor in how powerful characters are. A GM who wants to run a low wealth game or run Pathfinder as a low-magic item gritty realism game needs to be aware of how that will effect game balance. All else being equal, a level 10 fighter with half of his expected WBL is going to be weaker in just about every single category.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Multiple attacks, the more attacks a character gets the longer their turn is. Pre rolling does little as DR, Concealment and buffs that change round to round complicate matters.
I wish instead of iteratives characters gained an auto-Vital Strike style abilities, and that the maximum number of attacks a round is however many weapons you carry.
I also found that giving players all the rolls makes spell casting more interesting and keeps players focused outside their turns.
*I can only talk about SR 1-3 because I tested SR4 for only a short time and decided to not accept it as shadowrun.
Wow, see, I found SR before 4 to be laughably bad. Two specific issues cracked me up and I just couldn't take the systems seriously:
1) If you had wired reflexes, your grenades blew up faster
2) Crashing was based entirely on reaching speed threshholds and mass had nothing to do with it, so a nerf car going 100 mph could blow through a certain brick wall with no problem, but the death star going 99mph would bounce off and take damage.
Both were obviously easily fixed with houserules, but it was just too silly. I like Shadowrun 4, but I would put it about on par with Pathfinder as for how much I like to play/run it. I am not really a fan of "challenge based games" like these where everything is supposed to be tough enough that the PCs might lose if they do something foolish, but not tough enough that they have even an above average chance of failure.
D&D enforces that nonsense with CR, while Shadowrun does it just through the setting and by being mission based--it makes no sense to offer you a job you can't do, and it'd be cheaper to higher a lesser shadowrunner team if it was too easy for you. I find neither desirable, but still enjoy both games when I have to play/run them.
I would agree it's not a hard and fast rule, but it's definitely something any GM needs to be cognizant of when it comes to running a campaign. For good or for ill, character wealth and magic items can be a huge factor in how powerful characters are. A GM who wants to run a low wealth game or run Pathfinder as a low-magic item gritty realism game needs to be aware of how that will effect game balance. All else being equal, a level 10 fighter with half of his expected WBL is going to be weaker in just about every single category.
More importantly, he's going to be asymmetrically weaker. He'll lose a few AB, damage, and save bonuses...and more dramatically, he'll remain stuck at ~10 AC. Forever.
So reducing wealth assumptions not only lowers PC numbers; it also turns the game into rocket tag. Even more than high levels already are!
1. Casting in Combat.
(a). You can cast a quickened spell, and a normal spell -- both of which require you to pull stuff out of a pouch, wave your hands in secret signs, and recite the Gettysburg Address in pig Latin -- while tumbling across the battlefield at full speed. Meanwhile, if Fred the Fighter moves, he loses all but one of his attacks. WTF?!?!?!
Ever see a fight in ''Naruto''? That's pretty par for the course. :) Concentrate, rapid sign-cast, move while doing regular casting.
Though I suppose the wrongness is more on the fact that you can't do a lot with Swift actions. Maybe allowing a quick stab with a light weapon so Martials can get on the action, too?
Oooh, what about something like Iado/Iajutsu (Japanese art of drawing and attacking with your sword in the same motion)? Though that only works with Katanas. Maybe it could work with Sabers and Scimitars, too...
(b). At low levels, it's hard to cast spells while people are swinging sticks at you. Good. But at high levels, it's a joke and you auto-succeed -- regardless of whether the people attacking you are mooks or world-class slayers. In other words, you automatically get better at casting while under attack, but the people attacking you somehow never get better at disrupting your casting. WTF?!?!?!
Because swinging a stick in someone's face can only do so much, period.
2. Spells that Supersede Skills.
(a). Rogue 3, Str 14, trained in Climbing. Total bonus: +8. Wizard 3, Str 5, untrained. Total bonus: +infinity (spider climb or levitation).
(b). Rogue 5, Dex 18, trained and max ranks in Stealth. Total bonus: +12, and cannot hide if observed. Wizard 5, Dex 10, untrained. Total bonus: +20, and can hide in plain sight (invisibility spell).
(etc.)
Yes, how dare spellcasting break the rules?! What does it think it is, magic or someth- ...oh. ^_^
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ever see a fight in ''Naruto''?
He doesn't watch anime.
Because swinging a stick in someone's face can only do so much, period.
It obviously can disrupt a spell.
Yes, how dare spellcasting break the rules?! What does it think it is, magic or someth- ...oh. ^_^
A 20th level Fighter should be able to break the rules too.
Yes, how dare spellcasting break the rules?! What does it think it is, magic or someth- ...oh. ^_^A 20th level Fighter should be able to break the rules too.
Exactly. If one character is allowed to casually rewrite the laws of the universe, while the other is strictly bound by what an ordinary human being could realistically accomplish, the guy who's stuck being realistic won't be accomplishing much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Casting in Combat.
(a). You can cast a quickened spell, and a normal spell -- both of which require you to pull stuff out of a pouch, wave your hands in secret signs, and recite the Gettysburg Address in pig Latin -- while tumbling across the battlefield at full speed. Meanwhile, if Fred the Fighter moves, he loses all but one of his attacks. WTF?!?!?!
Ever see a fight in ''Naruto''? That's pretty par for the course. :) Concentrate, rapid sign-cast, move while doing regular casting.
Though I suppose the wrongness is more on the fact that you can't do a lot with Swift actions. Maybe allowing a quick stab with a light weapon so Martials can get on the action, too?
It's not just swift actions. The full-round-action mechanic is broken.
The system works such that non-magic-based combatants are discouraged from moving while fighting at their full potential, while spellcasters have no such restrictions. This is most glaring with certain classes which, ironically, gain both multiple attacks AND increased movement speeds (yes monks I'm looking at you guys).
I don't think wizards should be nerfed. I think the full round action rules should be rewritten
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More importantly, he's going to be asymmetrically weaker. He'll lose a few AB, damage, and save bonuses...and more dramatically, he'll remain stuck at ~10 AC. Forever.So reducing wealth assumptions not only lowers PC numbers; it also turns the game into rocket tag. Even more than high levels already are!
Depends on how 'low wealth' you mean. Breastplate is only 200 gp. The fighter can jump up his AC rather rapidly with small amounts of wealth (going from studded leather to breastplate and a shield, for instance.) But then he hits a hard cap without thousands of gp for +1 bonuses.
|
I hate multiple resource pool. While I'm okay enough with how magic works (although I think only the prepared casters should have to deal with slots) but I think the best argument for mana pools is that a lot of things use some kind of resource pool and some feats call for more pools. Stunning Fist, Elemental fist, Ki, Rage, Performance, challenge. I wish there was a unified resource pool system reflecting stamina.
Hmm. I hadn't considered this.
That could work out pretty well, actually.
|
|
So's the CMB/CMD problem.
If nobody else has mentioned the CMB/CMD problem it's easier to trip a kobold or goblin than to tag him with a touch spell. Smaller animals and fey are even worse. CMD scales faster than CR. CMB for nonweapon maneuvers scales more slowly than CMB for weapon maneuvers since only the latter get enhancement bonuses, but they face the same CMD.
Hmm. That sounds problematic.
Has anyone taken a stab at addressing this math problem?
|
|
Alternates to the Vancian casting aren't really discussed; I would be interested in what alternate systems people are using in its place, I mean there has to be something that's used right?
Personally I kindof like vancian casting; but there are a couple of mana pool systems floating around (including http://paizo.com/products/btpy8ymz?Houserule-Handbooks-Spellpoints-Compilat ion), and I remember True20 Sorcery being good.
I hate multiple resource pool. While I'm okay enough with how magic works (although I think only the prepared casters should have to deal with slots) but I think the best argument for mana pools is that a lot of things use some kind of resource pool and some feats call for more pools. Stunning Fist, Elemental fist, Ki, Rage, Performance, challenge. I wish there was a unified resource pool system reflecting stamina.Hmm. I hadn't considered this.
That could work out pretty well, actually.
I played around with an idea similar to that a while ago.
The idea was that martial characters have a stamina pool which they can use to "imitate" martial or combat feats. If they have the feat, they don't have to spend stamina, but if they don't they can temporarily gain the feat for one round.
For example a fighter without power attack can use stamina to gain power attack for one round, and so on. Stamina could also be spent to use full round attacks after moving.
Never playtested it, though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm one of those 'Magic can do anything, but if YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MAGIC you can't do blatant magic at will'
You must do some hefty houseruling for HP and falling damage and a ton of other things, yep.
More importantly, he's going to be asymmetrically weaker. He'll lose a few AB, damage, and save bonuses...and more dramatically, he'll remain stuck at ~10 AC. Forever.So reducing wealth assumptions not only lowers PC numbers; it also turns the game into rocket tag. Even more than high levels already are!
Depends on how 'low wealth' you mean. Breastplate is only 200 gp. The fighter can jump up his AC rather rapidly with small amounts of wealth (going from studded leather to breastplate and a shield, for instance.) But then he hits a hard cap without thousands of gp for +1 bonuses.
Oh yes, mundane armor can get you up to ~20 AC. Which works for the first couple of levels of any game.
But if you have one of the "Every +1 item is a rare and precious artifact of a bygone era" DMs, the fighter might be stuck with that same ~20 AC at 20th level. I hope he has lots o' life insurance, 'cause he's gonna need it! And probably has needed it to cover uncounted resurrections.
(This is an extreme example for the purpose of demonstration; obviously there are degrees of rocket taggy-ness that vary with the degree of DM stinginess.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm one of those 'Magic can do anything, but if YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MAGIC you can't do blatant magic at will'You must do some hefty houseruling for HP and falling damage and a ton of other things, yep.
I feel like this is a good place for a blog link: Revenge of the Realism
It's a general post about 3.x, but most of remains relevant to PF.