Which rules (if any) do you find absurd and / or unnecessary?

[Jaelithe]

Are there specific ones or even entire sections that you simply dispense with because you find them ponderous, convoluted, detrimental to flow, nonsensical, irritating or just effin' stupid? Do you rewrite, hand-wave, rule ad hoc, or ignore?

Please don't attack others' comments. Simply list those YOU dislike and why.

[Ross Byers]

Natural Armor, because it seems to correspond with a monster's CR more than the supposed toughness of skin.

I have an idea for a fix for this, but it becomes a rather large rewrite of attack bonuses, so I've never fully fleshed it out.

Edit: The gist is that wizard base attack bonus becomes zero, fighter BAB becomes 1/2, and rogue becomes 1/4. Then most monsters get their natural armor reduced by 1/2 CR. Chance to hit remains unchanged, but no longer have monsters with +15 natural armor just to get the numbers in the right place - Because the 'right place' is more conservative.

Magic items that grant AC would go up in price, but I'm unsure how much. Lots of class abilities that grant AC would also need to be evaluated.

[LazarX]

Things that I outright ban...

Leadership. (there's no need for it in my campaigns)

Sorcerer archetypes that use casting stats other than Charisma.

Feats and Traits I strongly moderate.

Eldritch Heritage line, Adopted, and similar traits and feats.

[Tin Foil Yamakah]

Tripping, grappling and sundering not into it

[Vivianne Laflamme]

Alignment restrictions on classes. They disallow certain combinations of character/mechanical concepts. I don't have any problem with the concepts being prohibited, so I throw out the rule. It doesn't make any sense to say a bard cannot be lawful.

[Jiggy]

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

It doesn't make any sense to say a bard cannot be lawful.

Bard wrote:

Alignment: Any.

[Jaelithe]

Rules that mandate casters having access to whatever spells they like. This removes one of a DM's primary controls over the tone of his or her campaign.

[Jiggy]

I'm trying to think of a rule that I've actually seen cause a problem at my tables, and I'm coming up blank at the moment. Maybe I'll think of something later.

[Vivianne Laflamme]

Jiggy wrote:

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

It doesn't make any sense to say a bard cannot be lawful.

Bard wrote:

Alignment: Any.

That's the joke.

In 3.5, bards weren't allowed to be lawful. Pathfinder (rightfully) changed that. Yet the restrictions on barbarians, druids (you can be a lawful druid or a good druid, but not both!), monks, clerics, and paladins were kept.

[Physically Unfeasible]

The fact Titan Mauler, by RAW, fails to do what it is intended to do is probably an easy target (if I ever had or played one) to be altered.

[Jiggy]

Oh! Thought of one!

I dislike the connection between immediate and swift actions (i.e., that using an immediate action consumes your swift for this/next turn). It's a bit of a memory strain to use liberating command or feather fall on Bob's turn, wait half a dozen creatures worth of turns, then remember that this turn I can't use Arcane Strike. Would it really break anything if I could use one of each on the same round?

[Zhayne]

Alignment. The whole thing.

The idea of quantifying unquantifiable abstract concepts is ridiculous. The idea of energy being 'good' or 'evil' is ridiculous. It's a pointless, unnecessary restriction, and has done more to impede roleplay and disrupt games than anything I've ever encountered.

Spell preparation/memorization.
This is totally not how I imagine spellcasting working. It makes no sense to me. If you know a spell, you KNOW a spell. You might run out of arcane energy to cast it, but you shouldn't forget it.

Arcane/divine magic divide
Magic is magic. There's no reason arcanists should be able to create planes of existence but not fix a broken arm.

[pH unbalanced]

I hate the way two-weapon fighting works.

Having a weapon in each hand should not give you extra attacks. What it ought to do is give you an attack bonus, because what you are really doing is making the defender divide their attention between multiple attack options. And the attack bonus should be larger against someone wielding one weapon, since they can only block one. There should also be a bonus to Feint -- but Feinting is so broken, I don't know that it matters.

This is speaking as someone who is ambidextrous and has had several years of medieval combat training.

I don't blame Pathfinder for this -- at some point the belief that more weapons=more attacks caught hold in gaming at large. But it's one of my big RPG combat pet peeves.

[Larkspire]

Character Wealth by level.It seems like a ridiculous amount of cash.
I still give my players good things,but I don't give them nearly what I'm "supposed to".
I take this into account when designing encounters...
I ignore challenge rating entirely,except for counting up xp...but CR appropriate encounters are almost always a pushover (in my experience).
I don't use bags of holding,rope tricks,or summon pit in my games because the ability to create a pocket universe seems like a 9th lvl spellcaster exclusive ability...or the purview of divinity(like gods.)
It seems like these things started out as handy game fixes,the consequences(and implications) of which were not fully thought out.

[Johnico]

Larkspire wrote:

I ignore challenge rating entirely,except for counting up xp...but CR appropriate encounters are almost always a pushover (in my experience).

In case you didn't know, that's actually intentional. A combat of CR = APL is supposed to be fairly easy to deal with. It isn't until you get to about CR = APL + 4 that a fight is truly fair and likely to go either way.

As for the rules that bug me, personally... the whole concept of the "big six" and necessary magic items. Or, more specifically, that the game assumes you have the big six, but never outright states it, nor tells you what the game math assumes you have.

To use a somewhat extreme example, two 10th level parties, one who gets nothing but interesting magic items like Capes of the Montebank and Gloves of Storing and other things like that, and the other gets nothing but the big six, are going to be completely different in terms of capability. But the rules make no indication that that's the case. The closest thing is the suggestions on building PCs after 1st level.

What I prefer is either like 4e D&D where they basically tell you what kind of +s the game math assumes you have at a given level, or like most other RPGs where the game is designed so you don't need magic knick-knacks, they're just a nice bonus.

I love giving out cool magic stuff, I just want the game to tell me either A) We balanced this assuming they have +X gear at Y level or B) We balanced this assuming no magic stuff and anything you give is just a cool bonus.

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

1. i ignore Alignment Restrictions on classes. lawful babrarians and lawful evil paladins whom venerate good gods, but mimic the lawful good paladins, sure, hell, evil clerics can choose to channel positive energy and worship good gods. being a perversion of their god's ideals.

2. i ignore alignment restrictions on creatures based on bestiary entries, you can find a chaotic evil Solar whom serves a good god and thinks they are doing good or find a good Orc whom dislikes the Orcish ways of aggression

3. though i allow summoners, i remove the restriction on creatures they can emulate, but at the same time, force the eidolon to have a creature it emulates, at least in feel, and i ignore the translucent text on synthesists or the descriptive text on class specific abilities. a barbarian can be a very Zen person if they wish, but it would be mechanically identical to rage

4. the requirement of a Deity for divine casters. Divine casters draw their power from their faith and their devotion to an ideal. they don't have to be some big beefy outsider's whipping boy to keep their powers. paladins needn't follow their code of conduct, nor cavaliers their edicts. if you want an animist akin to shintoism, or a mock bhuddist or even mock taoist cleric. go ahead. i won't force a god on you. even in golarion.

5. the concept of Racial Attribute Modifiers, instead of the modifiers your race grants, you get +2 to any 2 attributes of your choice. this is done to make dwarf oracles or orc shamans a viable concept.

6. weapon size rules. a greatsword does 2d6, i don't care whether you are an ogre, a human or a pixie.

7. subtype restrictions or prerequisites in the race builder, i allow the race builder for building hybrids, but is purely for hybrids and toning back powerful monstrous races. all races get linguist for free because players are going to power game their language choices anyway. unless otherwise mentioned, any hybrids will be assumed to be half human and have a mostly human appearance.

i modify spell research as follows

you can use spell research to learn spells from other classes lists, or to learn a slightly modified version of a given spell. turning a fireball into a frostball, costs nothing but a week researching or training. but learning cure light wounds on the wizard list, costs a thousand gold and a week of research with a DC 16 spellcraft check.

[Lemmy]

Alignment as a whole. Especially alignment-based restrictions. Alignment wouldn't bother me if it was just a brief description of a character's belief and ethics but didn't have any mechanical effect. I ignore and remove alignment from my games as much as possible. Alignment is the worst rule in PF by far, IMHO. It adds literally nothing but restrictions to the game.

And pre-requisites for the race builds. It makes no sense whatsoever... Why the hell does a GM tool have prerequisites??? It's one of the most pointless rules in PF.

[Simon Legrande]

Zhayne wrote:

Arcane/divine magic divide
Magic is magic. There's no reason arcanists should be able to create planes of existence but not fix a broken arm.

I actually designed a completely new class that works this way. It's a spontaneous casting class that is capable of using any spell printed in any spell book. It's loosely based on four different schools of philosophy as a 10 level base + 10 level specialty with each school having different good saves, BAB, and spell slots available.

[Set]

Ross Byers wrote:

Natural Armor, because it seems to correspond with a monster's CR more than the supposed toughness of skin.

That's pretty interesting.

My own quibble with natural armor is how it's handed out. Lizardfolk, troglodytes and sahuagin, for instance, are perfectly able to wear armor, and yet have a ridiculous +5 Natural Armor, which makes them crazy high AC foes at low levels (and by the time their AC is appropriate, they are a huge waste of time to use...). It also tends to make attempts at using them as PC options (primarily lizardfolk) potentially overpowering, since a racial ability of '+5 natural armor' pretty much blows away 'race hatred, +1 to hit orcs.'

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

Lemmy wrote:

Alignment as a whole. Especially alignment-based restrictions. Alignment wouldn't bother me if it was just a brief description of a character's belief and ethics but didn't have any mechanical effect. I ignore and remove alignment from my games as much as possible. Alignment is the worst rule in PF by far, IMHO. It adds literally nothing but restrictions to the game.

And pre-requisites for the race builds. It makes no sense whatsoever... Why the hell does a GM tool have prerequisites??? It's one of the most pointless rules in PF.

for me, the race builder is a guideline, i still have to eyeball the races being made, because the abilities weren't priced fairly, but instead, priced to make the main 3 non-elemental planetouched look stronger than they were and priced to make the core races appear equal.

[kyrt-ryder]

I hate the way two-weapon fighting works.

Swinging a weapon in each hand should not require a Full Attack Action, because what you're really doing is wielding the off-hand in conjunction with the main hand.

This is speaking as someone who is ambidextrous and has had several years of martial arts training

I don't blame Pathfinder for this -- at some point the belief that martials=suck caught hold in gaming at large. But it's one of my big RPG combat pet peeves.

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I hate the way two-weapon fighting works.

Swinging a weapon in each hand should not require a Full Attack Action, because what you're really doing is wielding the off-hand in conjunction with the main hand.

This is speaking as someone who is ambidextrous and has had several years of martial arts training

I don't blame Pathfinder for this -- at some point the belief that martials=suck caught hold in gaming at large. But it's one of my big RPG combat pet peeves.

i agree with this and would like to say

a full attack shouldn't require a full round action and full attacking while moving shouldn't require a special class ability. nor should iteratives get so progressively less accurate to the point the 3rd and 4th attacks are guaranteed misses.

[Deadmanwalking]

The entire race-building rules. I mean, what?

I tried to build a Gnoll's stat mods (+4 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int, -2 Chr). Should be doable, right? Well it is, but there's a problem:

To do this, you need to get the Paragon race package (1 rp) and then buy up both Wis and Con at 4 rp a piece, for 9 rp total.

Alternately, you could go with the Specialized race package (1 rp), and then buy Strength to +4 for 4 rp. This costs 5 rp, but leaves the stat spread at +4 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int or Chr, not both.

Any system where it is a lot more expensive to buy a set of stats that are objectively worse in every way is designed notably poorly.

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The entire race-building rules. I mean, what?

I tried to build a Gnoll's stat mods (+4 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int, -2 Chr). Should be doable, right? Well it is, but there's a problem:

To do this, you need to get the Paragon race package (1 rp) and then buy up both Wis and Con at 4 rp a piece, for 9 rp total.

Alternately, you could go with the Specialized race package (1 rp), and then buy Strength to +4 for 4 rp. This costs 5 rp, but leaves the stat spread at +4 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int or Chr, not both.

Any system where it is a lot more expensive to buy a set of stats that are objectively worse in every way is designed notably poorly.

that is why i use it as a guideline and abolish racial modifiers for PCs, giving PCs +2 to any 2 stats of their choice. i do the same for major NPCs and save racial/monster stats for generic foes or for BBEGs that are designed to optimize their race.

[aboniks]

Grappling. If you need full-page flow chart to handle a single action, you've gone too far down the rabbit hole, in my opinion.

Touch attack + opposed strength check = grappled

[Adjule]

A design element that I don't care for (not necessarily a rule) is spontaneous casters getting their new spell levels at levelx2, instead of levelx2-1 like prepared. So, I have spontaneous casters gain spell levels like prepared casters, while still getting more spells per day thanks to their more limited selection of spells.

Also changed the prepared casters a little bit in how they cast their spells, but that's for a different thread.

[Doomed Hero]

If you are a medium creature, reach weapons do not threaten on diagonals.

At all.

If you are a large creature, they do.

Wat?

[Apotheosis]

Wealth by level: While I think its a good guideline when rolling up at a higher level, I positively can't stand trying to pace treasure out to match it in an ongoing campaign. I usually exceed it by 2-3 times as much, but in contrast magic item shops are much more limited and most items must be commissioned, not simply traded for. So you get -more- magic...but its not guaranteed to be the specific pieces you need. This also eliminates builds which are absolutely dependent on one specific magic item (or a very small amount of very specific ones), making so-called uber builds much less useful in my games.

Prepared casters 'saving' slots to prepare later: Yah, I'm still a bit too old-schooled for that and furthermore I feel it weakens the appeal of the sorcerer. If you want versatility in spell selection, your opportunity cost is having to prep ahead of time. Batman you may still be, but that one action brings batman down to a much more manageable level.

Combat maneuvers: I allow almost all of them to be used as an attack action. I still don't entirely grok the differentiation between why one can be used in a full attack but not another. But that's very much a case-by-case thing, dependent on extenuation circumstances. Still, its very seldom I say no to a CM in a full-attack chain.

[Ross Byers]

Doomed Hero wrote:

If you are a medium creature, reach weapons do not threaten on diagonals.

At all.

Actually, there is a specific exception to the 'second diagonal counts twice' thing for medium/small creatures with reach weapons. With a diagram and everything.

[Fraust]

The dispersal of skill points. Actually, skills in general. Profession (tavern wench) should not use the same resource as perception in my opinion.

Trap feats. You shouldn't design a game mechanic with purposely bad options to reward people with a higher system mastery in my opinion.

The magic item issue...or rather not having an official option for doing low/no magic campaigns.

[Alexandros Satorum]

Ross Byers wrote:

Doomed Hero wrote:

If you are a medium creature, reach weapons do not threaten on diagonals.

At all.

Actually, there is a specific exception to the 'second diagonal counts twice' thing for medium/small creatures with reach weapons. With a diagram and everything.

Actually it does not o.O

and I do agree that that is one of the most sillly rules out there.

[Doomed Hero]

Ross Byers wrote:

Doomed Hero wrote:

If you are a medium creature, reach weapons do not threaten on diagonals.

At all.

Actually, there is a specific exception to the 'second diagonal counts twice' thing for medium/small creatures with reach weapons. With a diagram and everything.

I know there was an exception in the 3.5 rules, but I've never seen one for pathfinder. Is it on the SRD? Can you link it? My search is coming up nil.

[Alexandros Satorum]

2+int skill per level in classes that do not get any mechanically incentive to rise int, or have any class feature to help then outside combat.

And just thinking than people asked to reduce the skills of brawler back in the ACG playteste makes me make a "WTF?" face.

[Ross Byers]

Doomed Hero wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Doomed Hero wrote:

If you are a medium creature, reach weapons do not threaten on diagonals.

At all.

Actually, there is a specific exception to the 'second diagonal counts twice' thing for medium/small creatures with reach weapons. With a diagram and everything.

I know there was an exception in the 3.5 rules, but I've never seen one for pathfinder. Is it on the SRD? Can you link it? My search is coming up nil.

I can't find it or the FAQ now.

Maybe I'm going crazy. Or was already crazy.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

Adjule wrote:

A design element that I don't care for (not necessarily a rule) is spontaneous casters getting their new spell levels at levelx2, instead of levelx2-1 like prepared. So, I have spontaneous casters gain spell levels like prepared casters, while still getting more spells per day thanks to their more limited selection of spells.

Also changed the prepared casters a little bit in how they cast their spells, but that's for a different thread.

I think this may imbalance the classes too much. The early entry into spells is part of the wizard balance. Fewer slots, but the power advantage. It works for balance and flavor in my mind. In this system a sorcerer gets the same or a greater number of say fourth level spells at level 7 with far more flexibility. To me, this makes no sense. At every level the wizard should have greater power with less ability to spam that power.

[Alexandros Satorum]

Doomed Hero wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Doomed Hero wrote:

If you are a medium creature, reach weapons do not threaten on diagonals.

At all.

Actually, there is a specific exception to the 'second diagonal counts twice' thing for medium/small creatures with reach weapons. With a diagram and everything.

I know there was an exception in the 3.5 rules, but I've never seen one for pathfinder. Is it on the SRD? Can you link it? My search is coming up nil.

It is not. In fact the dev say it does not exist.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p5qy?Poll-Reach-Weapons-and-the-2nd-diagonal-D o#1

[Alexandros Satorum]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Adjule wrote:

A design element that I don't care for (not necessarily a rule) is spontaneous casters getting their new spell levels at levelx2, instead of levelx2-1 like prepared. So, I have spontaneous casters gain spell levels like prepared casters, while still getting more spells per day thanks to their more limited selection of spells.

Also changed the prepared casters a little bit in how they cast their spells, but that's for a different thread.

I think this may imbalance the classes too much. The early entry into spells is part of the wizard balance. Fewer slots, but the power advantage. It works for balance and flavor in my mind. In this system a sorcerer gets the same or a greater number of say fourth level spells at level 7 with far more flexibility. To me, this makes no sense. At every level the wizard should have greater power with less ability to spam that power.

DO wizard actually have fewer spells at lest say 3th level?

A conjurer will have 3 1st level spells plus 2 2nd level spells (plus int, etc)

at this level the sorcerer have 5 1st level spells.

Not only the wizard have the same amount of spells but 2 of tose spells are of higher level.

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Adjule wrote:

A design element that I don't care for (not necessarily a rule) is spontaneous casters getting their new spell levels at levelx2, instead of levelx2-1 like prepared. So, I have spontaneous casters gain spell levels like prepared casters, while still getting more spells per day thanks to their more limited selection of spells.

Also changed the prepared casters a little bit in how they cast their spells, but that's for a different thread.

I think this may imbalance the classes too much. The early entry into spells is part of the wizard balance. Fewer slots, but the power advantage. It works for balance and flavor in my mind. In this system a sorcerer gets the same or a greater number of say fourth level spells at level 7 with far more flexibility. To me, this makes no sense. At every level the wizard should have greater power with less ability to spam that power.

DO wizard actually have fewer spells at lest say 3th level?

A conjurer will have 3 1st level spells plust 2 2nd level spells (plust int, etc)

at this level the sorcerer have 5 1st level spells.

Not only the wizard have the same amount of spells but 2 of tose spells are of higher level.

plus, the wizard has more spells scribed in their spellbooks than the sorcerer has spells known. at the same level, before accounting the fact the wizard can blow gold on spells known for a fraction of what the sorcerer pays for a page of spell knowledge. not even a whole 10%, closer to 5%.

[blahpers]

Alignment. Toss it. Pour gasoline on it and cast fireball. Adjudicate magical effects that care about alignment as being from the moral/ethical perspective of the entity or phenomenon providing the effect (deities for paladins & divine casters, the creators of magical items [or the items themselves if they're intelligent]), and so on. Outsiders that have alignment subtypes simply have alignment subtypes--the subtypes are essentially just elements anyway. Players will then play their characters and not give a left buttock about whether it's Chaotic or whatever, and paladins will have well-defined codes and not have to worry about falling because their GM got mad watching the State of the Union Address last night.

There are other rules that I cheerfully ignore in my own games, but that's the only one that I really despise, and it fits the bill as both absurd (to adjudicate) and unnecessary (it provides zero benefit to any campaign).

[Alexandros Satorum]

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Adjule wrote:

A design element that I don't care for (not necessarily a rule) is spontaneous casters getting their new spell levels at levelx2, instead of levelx2-1 like prepared. So, I have spontaneous casters gain spell levels like prepared casters, while still getting more spells per day thanks to their more limited selection of spells.

Also changed the prepared casters a little bit in how they cast their spells, but that's for a different thread.

I think this may imbalance the classes too much. The early entry into spells is part of the wizard balance. Fewer slots, but the power advantage. It works for balance and flavor in my mind. In this system a sorcerer gets the same or a greater number of say fourth level spells at level 7 with far more flexibility. To me, this makes no sense. At every level the wizard should have greater power with less ability to spam that power.

DO wizard actually have fewer spells at lest say 3th level?

A conjurer will have 3 1st level spells plust 2 2nd level spells (plust int, etc)

at this level the sorcerer have 5 1st level spells.

Not only the wizard have the same amount of spells but 2 of tose spells are of higher level.

plus, the wizard has more spells scribed in their spellbooks than the sorcerer has spells known. at the same level, before accounting the fact the wizard can blow gold on spells known for a fraction of what the sorcerer pays for a page of spell knowledge. not even a whole 10%, closer to 5%.

Now that we are talking thise, I dislike ho easy is to be an specialist wizard. the opposed school is pretty much a joke.

And related, I do not like the umbalance between magic schools.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

Yes, but if you grant sorcerers spells as the same level as wizards how do you adjust for this? At 3rd level, sorcerers would have to either have fewer or the same spells as wizard. Maybe you could do 3 1st and 1 2nd? And the spellbook is irrelevant, we are discussing spells per day. Obviously the flexibility is an advantage of the wizard, but not enough to keep true balance if you allow sorcerers early entry into spell levels without simply crippling the number of spells allowed, which is the traditional advantage of the spontaneous caster.

[pH unbalanced]

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I hate the way two-weapon fighting works.

Swinging a weapon in each hand should not require a Full Attack Action, because what you're really doing is wielding the off-hand in conjunction with the main hand.

This is speaking as someone who is ambidextrous and has had several years of martial arts training

I don't blame Pathfinder for this -- at some point the belief that martials=suck caught hold in gaming at large. But it's one of my big RPG combat pet peeves.

i agree with this and would like to say

a full attack shouldn't require a full round action and full attacking while moving shouldn't require a special class ability. nor should iteratives get so progressively less accurate to the point the 3rd and 4th attacks are guaranteed misses.

Completely agree.

I think I'd go with a choice of multiple attacks all at the same penalty, or a single attack at full BAB, all as a standard action.

But none of that would depend on how many weapons you are wielding.

[Alexandros Satorum]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Yes, but if you grant sorcerers spells as the same level as wizards how do you adjust for this? At 3rd level, sorcerers would have to either have fewer or the same spells as wizard. Maybe you could do 3 1st and 1 2nd? And the spellbook is irrelevant, we are discussing spells per day. Obviously the flexibility is an advantage of the wizard, but not enough to keep true balance if you allow sorcerers early entry into spell levels without simply crippling the number of spells allowed, which is the traditional advantage of the spontaneous caster.

I actually would balavne the issue by the other side. Make specialization not a granted thing, make it to have real drawbacks so having more spells is not the utterly best option for them.

[kyrt-ryder]

Wizards already have a ton of other advantages Mr. Pitt.

Spellcraft is Int-based, for example.

Also, take a very careful look at the number of spells per day a Specialist gets, compared to a Sorcerer, and you will find the two are almost identical.

The wizard's big advantage at those odd levels is having access to many different spells of the level. Sorcerers only get one spell known of a spell level at the first level they get it.

Incidentally, I've seen a GREAT MANY sorcerers have major Wizard envy under the book rules at the even levels when they theoretically catch up, because at that point the Wizard knows 4 spells of their new level for free [likely plus several they've scribed from other sources] while the sorcerer only has ONE spell known of that level.

[Ross Byers]

Set wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Natural Armor, because it seems to correspond with a monster's CR more than the supposed toughness of skin.

That's pretty interesting.

My own quibble with natural armor is how it's handed out. Lizardfolk, troglodytes and sahuagin, for instance, are perfectly able to wear armor, and yet have a ridiculous +5 Natural Armor, which makes them crazy high AC foes at low levels (and by the time their AC is appropriate, they are a huge waste of time to use...). It also tends to make attempts at using them as PC options (primarily lizardfolk) potentially overpowering, since a racial ability of '+5 natural armor' pretty much blows away 'race hatred, +1 to hit orcs.'

Ehn. I'm okay with those (they're just clearly not meant for PCs, and the bonuses should be closer to +3 than +5), because if it was a human NPC they'd just be wearing Scale Mail or something instead. It makes it easy to accidentally give them too high of AC as leveled NPCs, but if you just pay attention and give them chainmail instead of fullplate (for instance) it works out.

It bothers me more when designing, say, a new Outsider and tacking on a +23 Natural armor bonus because that's what the table says they should have.

Basically, you should be able to benchmark that a +2 natural bonus is equal to thick fur (wolves and cats get that, for instance), and another bonus is rhino hide, and another bonus is elephant hide. Or creatures like elder dragons and earth elementals that are hard as stone.

But it is impossible to figure that out, because the method of granting those bonuses is so arbitrary.

[Lemmy]

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Alignment as a whole. Especially alignment-based restrictions. Alignment wouldn't bother me if it was just a brief description of a character's belief and ethics but didn't have any mechanical effect. I ignore and remove alignment from my games as much as possible. Alignment is the worst rule in PF by far, IMHO. It adds literally nothing but restrictions to the game.

And pre-requisites for the race builds. It makes no sense whatsoever... Why the hell does a GM tool have prerequisites??? It's one of the most pointless rules in PF.

for me, the race builder is a guideline, i still have to eyeball the races being made, because the abilities weren't priced fairly, but instead, priced to make the main 3 non-elemental planetouched look stronger than they were and priced to make the core races appear equal.

Yup. ARG is a great book, IMO, but the Race Builder is terrible. The idea is great, but it suffers of a bad execution. The pricing and prerequisites of each ability varies from "acceptable" to "completely off". Trying to artificially make race look like they are balanced was a horrible decision.

But still... Other than the Race Builder (and a few things like Paragon Surge), I still think ARG is one of the best made hard-cover books for PF.

[blue_the_wolf]

the flat footed in the first round of combat rule always gets my goat and is the first thing waved in my games (although I give sneak attack classes a special rule to compensate)

a large portion of the prereqs for feats: why is it only elves of ALL races, can stabbing shot?

and a few others but these are the ones that would be easiest to fix.

I also dislike:

Quote:

The dispersal of skill points. Actually, skills in general. Profession (tavern wench) should not use the same resource as perception in my opinion.

[blue_the_wolf]

OH and I forgot... the entire rule set for illusions...

basically I dont get why you get an automatic will save for all of the senses except sight.

doesn't that essentially negate the value of illusions

(note this is a GM perspective complaint)

.... and while i am in the GM mind set... Paladins, completely annoying, almost always broken in one way or another class as writen.

[Umbriere Moonwhisper]

Lemmy wrote:

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Alignment as a whole. Especially alignment-based restrictions. Alignment wouldn't bother me if it was just a brief description of a character's belief and ethics but didn't have any mechanical effect. I ignore and remove alignment from my games as much as possible. Alignment is the worst rule in PF by far, IMHO. It adds literally nothing but restrictions to the game.

And pre-requisites for the race builds. It makes no sense whatsoever... Why the hell does a GM tool have prerequisites??? It's one of the most pointless rules in PF.

for me, the race builder is a guideline, i still have to eyeball the races being made, because the abilities weren't priced fairly, but instead, priced to make the main 3 non-elemental planetouched look stronger than they were and priced to make the core races appear equal.

Yup. ARG is a great book, IMO, but the Race Builder is terrible. The idea is great, but it suffers of a bad execution. The pricing and prerequisites of each ability varies from "acceptable" to "completely off". Trying to artificially make race look like they are balanced was a horrible decision.

But still... Other than the Race Builder (and a few things like Paragon Surge), I still think ARG is one of the best made hard-cover books for PF.

i like the ARG

and i do use the race builder, and allow players to design their own rough drafts, ignoring general requirements

but in exchange, i have to review the race and propose the right to alter or veto it.

i'm fine with say wood elves designed to trade their constitution penalty for a charisma penalty and their intelligence bonus for a strength bonus (+2 Strength +2 Dexterity -2 Charisma) or with Steelskin Oreads whom trade their wisdom bonus for a constitution bonus (+2 Strength +2 Constitution -2 Charisma) or even Deepsea Undines whom bear the same Variant Racial Modifiers of a Steelskin Oread, but what i'm not fine with is, a Race with +10 intellect and -4 to Strength and -4 to Charisma or a race whom by virtue of being half nymph or half succubus, thinks they deserve a +6 or better charisma bonus. a +4 Charisma at the cost of -2 strength, would be my limit for them.

[Zhayne]

Oh yes, another.

Power-loss mechanics.
Roleplayed actions should have roleplayed consequences, not mechanical ones. 'You lose your powers' is painfully boring and unimaginative.

Racial prereqs 90% of the time
As referenced above by blue the wolf, 90%+ of racial prerequisites are nonsense. If it doesn't directly pertain to a race's mechanics, it should not be racially restricted.