| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if it's been stated yet, but I find that the size modifiers to AC and CMB/CMD can have hilarious and completely unrealistic (even for a fantasy game) repercussions. The prime example of this is a fight between a swashbuckling pixie and a titan. Due to size modifiers to AC and attack rolls (+2 to pixie's AC, -8 to titan's attack roll), the titan is at a ten point penalty due to size alone to have his attacks connect with ANY part of the pixie. Say Mr. Titan gets fed up with this crap, though, and decides to disarm the stupid fey twerp of his diminutive rapier. Now his -8 penalty becomes a +8 CMB bonus on the disarm check and the pixie's AC boost turns into a 2 point CMD penalty. So we go from a -10 penalty for one type of attack based on size to a +10 bonus for another type of attack due to size, all by the same attacker and under the same conditions. The only difference? The target is actually SMALLER! Yes, hitting a smaller target using Pathfinder's CMB/CMD rules can sometimes lead to an order of magnitude better accuracy. It's the equivalent of being completely unable to swat a fly with your hand, but being able to catch them with total ease using chopsticks. I'm not sure how to correct such a quirk of the rules, but this can't be a sensible way of doing thing.
Jumping is part of movement. Thus using acrobatics to jump over a 1' chair just continues your movement, does it not?
You can't use skills to avoid obstacles but that's aside from the point..
'fraid the rules are ironclad on this one. "You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles)."
When Paizo says charging "carries tight restrictions" it isn't kidding.
Jumping is part of movement. Thus using acrobatics to jump over a 1' chair just continues your movement, does it not?
You can't use skills to avoid obstacles but that's aside from the point..
'fraid the rules are ironclad on this one. "You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles)."
When Paizo says charging "carries tight restrictions" it isn't kidding.
That DOES sound fairly straightforward. Plus, it wouldn't be the first time a seemingly common sense argument about how a feat or mechanic should work was done otherwise by the rules. See Spring Attack + Vital Strike, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have the sneaking suspicion that a lot of the reason stems from not entirely understanding how non-combat encounters award XP by the rules.
Not at all. But I have players who will in many cases obviate the need for many of the encounters altogether, through inginuity and forcing the narrative using their own abilities. If you're in a city, and a mob forms, you get XP for talking it down or killing the members or whatever. But if the party never enters that city in the first place, and events play out so that the mob never forms, you don't award XP for "potential encounters that could have happened in an alternative timeline," because that's absurd.
In simpler terms, f you have a random maze with 55 rooms, and the PCs go into 3 of them before they figure out how to get to the next level, do you award XP for the remaining 52 rooms they never even looked at? If so, on what basis? If not, aren't you encouraging them to pointlessly go into every room?
XP per encounter actively encourages the PCs to stall and wait for the BBEG to call in reinforcements and set more traps, and to needlessly stir up trouble. It discourages them from efficiently achieving their goals.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd imagine a lot of the problem stems from all of the myriad evocations that got intentionally filed under Conjuration with an "SR: No" tag. Which I disagree with, but if the designers are hell-bent on doing that, if SR were a + to saves they'd have to specify for each spell whether it gets the bonus (again, I'd give it to all of them, but, meh).
Spell Resistance in general has problems, and not just because Conjuration seems to get a free pass. Ideally, spells that deal energy damage wouldn't be subject to SR, regardless of school. You want to resist a fireball? Get fire resistance.
I have the sneaking suspicion that a lot of the reason stems from not entirely understanding how non-combat encounters award XP by the rules.Not at all. But I have players who will in many cases obviate the need for many of the encounters altogether, through inginuity and forcing the narrative using their own abilities. If you're in a city, and a mob forms, you get XP for talking it down or killing the members or whatever. But if the party never enters that city in the first place, and events play out so that the mob never forms, you don't award XP for "potential encounters that could have happened in an alternative timeline," because that's absurd.
In simpoler terms, f you have a random maze with 55 rooms, and the PCs go into 3 of them before they figure out how to get to the next level, do you award XP for the remaining 52 rooms they never even looked at? If so, on what basis? If not, aren't you encouraging them to pointlessly go into every room?
XP per encounter actively encourages the PCs to stall and wait for the BBEG to call in reinforcements and set more traps, and to needlessly stir up trouble. It discourages them from efficiently achieving their goals.
While I see your point Kirth, at least some of those other rooms will be explored by most adventuring groups as well. Why? Treasure. Unless you find a way to consolidate both XP and treasure in the manner you're looking at, players will keep focusing on killing monsters as the co-objective rather than such activity being merely a challenge in the face of a grander goal.
|
While I see your point Kirth, at least some of those other rooms will be explored by most adventuring groups as well. Why? Treasure. Unless you find a way to consolidate both XP and treasure in the manner you're looking at, players will keep focusing on killing monsters as the co-objective rather than such activity being merely a challenge in the face of a grander goal.
What you want to do for that is to separate treasure from the adventure location.
Ideally, you set up a patron who pays the PCs for results, not orc ears. So they can walk out of the mission location with nothing but the McGuffin and still get paid.
Pathfinder Society does this well, if not entirely maintaining suspension of disbelief.
Jumping is part of movement. Thus using acrobatics to jump over a 1' chair just continues your movement, does it not?
You can't use skills to avoid obstacles but that's aside from the point..
'fraid the rules are ironclad on this one. "You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles)."
If you can jump over it it no longer hinders your movement. Your movement is the same, if you have a 30" move and part of it includes a 5" jump then you have another 25" of movement, all of which is "unhindered".
If you cast or have up:FEATHER STEP
School transmutation; Level bard 1, druid 1, ranger 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Duration 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw Fortitude negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes
For the duration of this spell, the subject ignores the adverse movement effects of difficult terrain, and can even take 5-foot steps in difficult terrain."
Then your movement is no longer hindered by difficult terrain.
TOZ's solution works nicely, for parties that are amenable to working for others.
What I like even better is to separate monetary treasure from magic item acquisition. Then, if becoming wealthy is the party's goal, they get XP for finding and retaining treasure. If not, they can spend whatever they find on hookers and blow, and not worry about all the treasure they're not finding.
I personally think the game works better if you tell the players, "You should have X gp worth of magic items at this point. Assign it to yourself, but tell me where major items came from" -- e.g., "Remember the gnoll king we killed? This was his spear, okay?" or "One of the torches on the wall of the family crypt was actually my great-gradfather's mace of disruption!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone mentioned Diehard yet? One point of nonlethal damage can circumvent Diehard's benefit and knock the person out.
"You want to hit me with a longsword? Fine, I'll stand my ground and keep fighting. But please don't have a small child punch me for one nonlethal..."
If you can jump over it it no longer hinders your movement. Your movement is the same, if you have a 30" move and part of it includes a 5" jump then you have another 25" of movement, all of which is "unhindered".
I believe the keyword in the rule CommandoDude quoted was 'obstacle'. A 3 ft. tall wall may easily surmountable by your acrobatics check, but it's still something which requires extra effort from you in your movement from point A to point B.
DrDeth, does your stance not obsolete the duelist's prestige class ability that lets you perform an acrobatic charge? (Which in itself implies that you interpretation is mistaken.)
Has anyone mentioned Diehard yet? One point of nonlethal damage can circumvent Diehard's benefit and knock the person out.
"You want to hit me with a longsword? Fine, I'll stand my ground and keep fighting. But please don't have a small child punch me for one nonlethal..."
Technically, you don't have to have taken ANY non-lethal damage to get knocked out when using Diehard. Even 0 non-lethal damage would do it, since 0 > -1. That is a really funny point about that feat, though.
DrDeth, does your stance not obsolete the duelist's prestige class ability that lets you perform an acrobatic charge? (Which in itself implies that you interpretation is mistaken.)
Not necessarily, the duelist can still charge up stairs, across rubble, through brush etc. that a normal person cannot do. However, if someone flips over a table in your path, you could make a jump check as a part of the movement of the charge, but if they were to scatter a bag of marbles or cast entangle you wouldn't be able to charge.
|
I'm not sure if it's been stated yet, but I find that the size modifiers to AC and CMB/CMD can have hilarious and completely unrealistic (even for a fantasy game) repercussions. The prime example of this is a fight between a swashbuckling pixie and a titan. Due to size modifiers to AC and attack rolls (+2 to pixie's AC, -8 to titan's attack roll), the titan is at a ten point penalty due to size alone to have his attacks connect with ANY part of the pixie. Say Mr. Titan gets fed up with this crap, though, and decides to disarm the stupid fey twerp of his diminutive rapier. Now his -8 penalty becomes a +8 CMB bonus on the disarm check and the pixie's AC boost turns into a 2 point CMD penalty. So we go from a -10 penalty for one type of attack based on size to a +10 bonus for another type of attack due to size, all by the same attacker and under the same conditions. The only difference? The target is actually SMALLER! Yes, hitting a smaller target using Pathfinder's CMB/CMD rules can sometimes lead to an order of magnitude better accuracy. It's the equivalent of being completely unable to swat a fly with your hand, but being able to catch them with total ease using chopsticks. I'm not sure how to correct such a quirk of the rules, but this can't be a sensible way of doing thing.
In our home game we houseruled it so that size modifiers only apply to a very specific set of maneuvers (primarily bull rush and overrun, though I feel like there was another we agreed on that I'm forgetting). There's just some things that being bigger shouldn't help you with, particularly finesse related maneuvers like trip, steal, dirty trick, disarm, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if it's been stated yet, but I find that the size modifiers to AC and CMB/CMD can have hilarious and completely unrealistic (even for a fantasy game) repercussions. The prime example of this is a fight between a swashbuckling pixie and a titan. Due to size modifiers to AC and attack rolls (+2 to pixie's AC, -8 to titan's attack roll), the titan is at a ten point penalty due to size alone to have his attacks connect with ANY part of the pixie. Say Mr. Titan gets fed up with this crap, though, and decides to disarm the stupid fey twerp of his diminutive rapier. Now his -8 penalty becomes a +8 CMB bonus on the disarm check and the pixie's AC boost turns into a 2 point CMD penalty. So we go from a -10 penalty for one type of attack based on size to a +10 bonus for another type of attack due to size, all by the same attacker and under the same conditions. The only difference? The target is actually SMALLER! Yes, hitting a smaller target using Pathfinder's CMB/CMD rules can sometimes lead to an order of magnitude better accuracy. It's the equivalent of being completely unable to swat a fly with your hand, but being able to catch them with total ease using chopsticks. I'm not sure how to correct such a quirk of the rules, but this can't be a sensible way of doing thing.In our home game we houseruled it so that size modifiers only apply to a very specific set of maneuvers (primarily bull rush and overrun, though I feel like there was another we agreed on that I'm forgetting). There's just some things that being bigger shouldn't help you with, particularly finesse related maneuvers like trip, steal, dirty trick, disarm, etc.
CMD/CMB was well intended: reduce the many different rules for combat options to one that was easier to remember and adjudicate. But the problem is that the reason the rules for all the combat actions were different is that plowing someone over and ripping a weapon from their grip are fundamentally different actions.
10+ pages to this thread. Not read all of them.
Anyway, I'd drop some of the various "typed" bonus types. I.e. Moral vs. Circumstance vs. Sacred vs. Profane.
It seems absurd to me that you can benefit from a Profane AND a Sacred bonus at the same time. Think about that one for a moment.
Competence should just go away as a type all together. Know what competence is? You having f%&&ing skill ranks in the f#!+ing skill.
Narrow it down to...
0) Base (the stuff that isn't a "bonus": skill points, BAB, base ability scores, etc)
1) Racial (basically, anything that happens as a part of chargen)
2) Training (Feats, traits, most class features* etc.)
3) Enhancement (most spell effects, any tools, some class features*)
4) Supernatural (current sacred/profane, rare class features*)
5) Luck (moral goes here, some class features*)
6) Circumstantial (GM discretion only!)
*A paladin's Charisma-to-saves would be Supernatural. A barbarian's rage would be Luck/Moral. Bloodline bonuses for sorcerers would be Enhancement. Fighter Bravery would be Training.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems absurd to me that you can benefit from a Profane AND a Sacred bonus at the same time. Think about that one for a moment.
I just think it's silly, because from the Asmodean Cleric's point of view, all his spells that grant Profane bonuses are sacred.
It's like how the Core Rulebook has 'unholy symbols' for evil deities. Why not just 'holy symbol'? It's always holy to the person actually using it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Urban Barbarians, with the class feature Controlled Rage, still have an alignment restriction.
DrDeth, does your stance not obsolete the duelist's prestige class ability that lets you perform an acrobatic charge? (Which in itself implies that you interpretation is mistaken.)Not necessarily, the duelist can still charge up stairs, across rubble, through brush etc. that a normal person cannot do. However, if someone flips over a table in your path, you could make a jump check as a part of the movement of the charge, but if they were to scatter a bag of marbles or cast entangle you wouldn't be able to charge.
Right. The duelist's is way better: "Acrobatic Charge (Ex): At 6th level, a duelist gains the ability to charge in situations where others cannot. She may charge over difficult terrain that normally slows movement. Depending on the circumstance, she may still need to make appropriate checks to successfully move over the terrain."
I just allow a acrobatics/jump check as part of movement. If the entire floor is covered in rubble, you're hosed without Acrobatic Charge, but a chair is no big deal with a decent acrobatics skill- as it should be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Urban Barbarians, with the class feature Controlled Rage, still have an alignment restriction.
Also, Barbarians having alignment restrictions at all.
If you can jump over it it no longer hinders your movement. Your movement is the same, if you have a 30" move and part of it includes a 5" jump then you have another 25" of movement, all of which is "unhindered".I believe the keyword in the rule CommandoDude quoted was 'obstacle'. A 3 ft. tall wall may easily surmountable by your acrobatics check, but it's still something which requires extra effort from you in your movement from point A to point B.
If it reduces your movement, then it's a "obstacle". if there was a painted line on the dungeon floor, 1/16 of a inch think, would that be a obstacle? No. If you have to use climb, then your movement is reduced, thus it's a obstacle. If it slows your movement, it hinders your movement, thus obstacle.
In our home game we houseruled it so that size modifiers only apply to a very specific set of maneuvers (primarily bull rush and overrun, though I feel like there was another we agreed on that I'm forgetting). There's just some things that being bigger shouldn't help you with, particularly finesse related maneuvers like trip, steal, dirty trick, disarm, etc.
Well, on the other hand, much as a giant should have a rough time disarming a pixie, a pixie should probably have a rough time disarming a giant.
Well, on the other hand, much as a giant should have a rough time disarming a pixie, a pixie should probably have a rough time disarming a giant.
Call it even. The pixie is going to be at a size disadvantage trying to pull on the weapon, whereas the giant is going to have a damn near impossible time getting his fingers on something so small.
I don't like XP for killing monsters. It implies the whole point of the game is to line up combats one after the other, with no actual storyline. I'd rather see levels gained for successfully achieving party goals.
This is untrue (though most people don't know it). You get XP for overcoming obstacles, so you get the same XP for killing it, sneaking around it, or talking to it.
That said, i agree completely, XP is just a wasted extra step.
Urban Barbarians, with the class feature Controlled Rage, still have an alignment restriction.Also, Barbarians having alignment restrictions at all.
I know we're toeing the alignment line, but yes, alignment restrictions are terrible, pointless restrictions.
Lessee ...
Arcane Spell Failure
Prep Casting
Attacks of Opportunity
Iterative Attacks
That said, i agree completely, XP is just a wasted extra step.
Well XP is really just a way of letting PCs measure how close they are to their next level.
Plus I guess it helps new GMs assess when to have the party level up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, i agree completely, XP is just a wasted extra step.Well XP is really just a way of letting PCs measure how close they are to their next level.
Plus I guess it helps new GMs assess when to have the party level up.
For new guys, yeah ... but the thing is, XP is just a pacing mechanism. 'You should have X fights before going up a level'. The actual acquisition of XP changes nothing about the character; any benefits the player gets from it is just an illusion.
If it reduces your movement, then it's a "obstacle". if there was a painted line on the dungeon floor, 1/16 of a inch think, would that be a obstacle? No. If you have to use climb, then your movement is reduced, thus it's a obstacle. If it slows your movement, it hinders your movement, thus obstacle.
Hindering in this case is a somewhat broader statement than you're indicating. I'll quote from the rules:
Obstacles
Like difficult terrain, obstacles can hamper movement. If an obstacle hampers movement but doesn't completely block it, each obstructed square or obstacle between squares counts as 2 squares of movement. You must pay this cost to cross the obstacle, in addition to the cost to move into the square on the other side. If you don't have sufficient movement to cross the obstacle and move into the square on the other side, you can't cross it. Some obstacles may also require a skill check to cross.
On the other hand, some obstacles block movement entirely. A character can't move through a blocking obstacle.
So, said wall I mentioned? You can't pass through it, so you need to go around it (i.e. jump over it). Ergo, it counts as an obstacle. We can split hairs all day long to get down to the precise fraction-of-a-foot-high wall that would constitute an obstacle, but it seems pretty clear that any sufficiently solid and large object in the path of a charge is gonna count as an obstacle.
Urban Barbarians, with the class feature Controlled Rage, still have an alignment restriction.Also, Barbarians having alignment restrictions at all.I know we're toeing the alignment line, but yes, alignment restrictions are terrible, pointless restrictions.
Lessee ...
Arcane Spell Failure
Prep Casting
Attacks of Opportunity
Iterative Attacks
Wait, you're saying AOs and iterative attacks are a bad thing? Why? Haven't those been an item since at least 2nd Edition?
I'm not sure if it's been stated yet, but I find that the size modifiers to AC and CMB/CMD can have hilarious and completely unrealistic (even for a fantasy game) repercussions. The prime example of this is a fight between a swashbuckling pixie and a titan. Due to size modifiers to AC and attack rolls (+2 to pixie's AC, -8 to titan's attack roll), the titan is at a ten point penalty due to size alone to have his attacks connect with ANY part of the pixie. Say Mr. Titan gets fed up with this crap, though, and decides to disarm the stupid fey twerp of his diminutive rapier. Now his -8 penalty becomes a +8 CMB bonus on the disarm check and the pixie's AC boost turns into a 2 point CMD penalty. So we go from a -10 penalty for one type of attack based on size to a +10 bonus for another type of attack due to size, all by the same attacker and under the same conditions. The only difference? The target is actually SMALLER! Yes, hitting a smaller target using Pathfinder's CMB/CMD rules can sometimes lead to an order of magnitude better accuracy. It's the equivalent of being completely unable to swat a fly with your hand, but being able to catch them with total ease using chopsticks. I'm not sure how to correct such a quirk of the rules, but this can't be a sensible way of doing thing.
My gripe about that is a colossal creature has a -8 to attack, while a fine creature (I think that's the smallest) has a +8 to attack. I agree that the bigger you are, the easier it is to hit you. But I think the bigger you are, the easier it should be to hit something else. I never really liked that rule.
For new guys, yeah ... but the thing is, XP is just a pacing mechanism. 'You should have X fights before going up a level'. The actual acquisition of XP changes nothing about the character; any benefits the player gets from it is just an illusion.
That said, i agree completely, XP is just a wasted extra step.Well XP is really just a way of letting PCs measure how close they are to their next level.
Plus I guess it helps new GMs assess when to have the party level up.
It used to be you could spend XP on stuff, such as during item creation, but that created a few problems...
Players I have like it because it lets them know how close to a level-up they are.
Wait, you're saying AOs and iterative attacks are a bad thing? Why? Haven't those been an item since at least 2nd Edition?Urban Barbarians, with the class feature Controlled Rage, still have an alignment restriction.Also, Barbarians having alignment restrictions at all.I know we're toeing the alignment line, but yes, alignment restrictions are terrible, pointless restrictions.
Lessee ...
Arcane Spell Failure
Prep Casting
Attacks of Opportunity
Iterative Attacks
Yes, but they annoy me. Rolling iteratives takes too much time, and the last one or two are typically wasted effort. One of the things I liked about 4e was the removal of full-round actions, particularly the full attack. I've considered doing away with the full attack action and basically making the Vital Strike chain the way things work.
AoOs might not be so annoying if they didn't crop up any time you try to freaking do anything. They're a terrible 'balance' mechanism for spellcasting, they encourage 'stand here and slog it out throwing full attacks', and it seems like any time a player wants to do somethng cool, if they hear the phrase 'that'll provoke an AoO', then give it up and just hit things. Too prevalent, too limiting.
I almost never see AoOs being done. Most spellcasters easily make their casting defensively concentration check, and everything being done in 5-foot steps also negates all the AoOs. Unless, of course, you are fighting a creature with reach, but in the APs I have played, there's damn near no creatures of Huge size or larger, and Large creatures or those with reach weapons are rather easy to negate after the initial AoO (unless they go first and manage to get to you) as all you need to is 5ft step and you are golden.
But, that's my experience with AoOs, or the lack of AoOs.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
AoOs are why no one will ever try to do a combat maneuver without Improved *Blank* which in turn promotes the stellar summation of general Martial play in Pathfinder.
CAN YOU FULL ATTACK?
(Y):FULL ATTACK
(N):ASK THE SPELLCASTER IF HE CAN LET YOU FULL ATTACK
AoOs promote the draconic stand next to your foe and barrage till dead.
They're a terrible 'balance' mechanism for spellcasting, they encourage 'stand here and slog it out throwing full attacks', and it seems like any time a player wants to do somethng cool, if they hear the phrase 'that'll provoke an AoO', then give it up and just hit things. Too prevalent, too limiting.
That statement is so true it hurts.
That sounds more like an attitude problem than anything else. "Oh no, I might take a hit? Better not do anything!" If you just took out AoOs, I'm confident more people would complain about no longer being able to attack people moving by them, spellcasters, and the like.
What would you replace them with, by the way?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds more like an attitude problem than anything else. "Oh no, I might take a hit? Better not do anything!"
He didn't say they wouldn't do anything, just that they'd go for the safe option.
A little reading comprehension goes a long way.
That sounds more like an attitude problem than anything else. "Oh no, I might take a hit? Better not do anything!"
That's not the only issue with it.
Oh you took damage from that hit? Looks like your Combat Maneuver now takes a penalty equal to the damage. If it was only risking getting hit in exchange for the situational benefits combat maneuvers can get you there'd be no issue with it from me.
The fact that it's the danger of flat out you lose your whole turn trying to do that is what ticks me off.
The Combat Maneuver system has always been terrible. You want to try but haven't invested yet in Improved *Blank*? Might as well not. You've invested heavily? Guess again, the CMD system is jacked to hell and there are loads of monsters who are just immune to certain maneuvers. Want to be a maneuver master? Not only is it a lot of feats, but requires a lot of gold, specific archetypes and system mastery to be mediocre if not still outright awful.
That sounds more like an attitude problem than anything else. "Oh no, I might take a hit? Better not do anything!" If you just took out AoOs, I'm confident more people would complain about no longer being able to attack people moving by them, spellcasters, and the like.
What would you replace them with, by the way?
No, it's simply rarely, if ever, worth it to take an AoO.
I would have no problem with spellcasting not provoking if it was brought down in power level.And even though I know what it's supposed to be narratively, lowering your defenses meaning a free attack doesn't feel right. If you drop your guard, you should drop your guard ... like losing your DEX bonus to AC, since you're distracted or having to stand still.
|
|
No, it's simply rarely, if ever, worth it to take an AoO.
My tanks often do. My Flame Oracle goes Total Defense and moves through threatened areas to make the enemies use up their (usually singular) AoOs. My Holy Vindicator would often not bother to cast defensively, relying on his 40 AC to allow him to get the spell off. Doesn't always work, but often enough to be worth it.
Combat maneuvers don't provoke if they can't hit you. Polarms for the win!
This is untrue (though most people don't know it). You get XP for overcoming obstacles, so you get the same XP for killing it, sneaking around it, or talking to it.
Already addressed above.
I have the sneaking suspicion that a lot of the reason stems from not entirely understanding how non-combat encounters award XP by the rules.Not at all. But I have players who will in many cases obviate the need for many of the encounters altogether, through inginuity and forcing the narrative using their own abilities. If you're in a city, and a mob forms, you get XP for talking it down or killing the members or whatever. But if the party never enters that city in the first place, and events play out so that the mob never forms, you don't award XP for "potential encounters that could have happened in an alternative timeline," because that's absurd.
In simpler terms, if you have a random maze with 55 rooms, and the PCs go into 3 of them before they figure out how to get to the next level, do you award XP for the remaining 52 rooms they never even looked at? If so, on what basis? If not, aren't you encouraging them to pointlessly go into every room?
XP per encounter actively encourages the PCs to stall and wait for the BBEG to call in reinforcements and set more traps, and to needlessly stir up trouble. It discourages them from efficiently achieving their goals.
|
|
That sounds more like an attitude problem than anything else. "Oh no, I might take a hit? Better not do anything!"That's not the only issue with it.
Oh you took damage from that hit? Looks like your Combat Maneuver now takes a penalty equal to the damage.
Do you know, we'd apparently been houseruling that away the entire time we've been playing, and most of my group still thought maneuvers were terrible, even though none of us remembered that there was a line that said "If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver". I don't think I've ever seen that rule enforced once in several years of playing Pathfinder, including at PFS.
That's just terrible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
none of us remembered that there was a line that said "If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver". I don't think I've ever seen that rule enforced once in several years of playing Pathfinder, including at PFS.
That's just terrible.
Wow, that's really bad. I had no idea that was even a rule. I can't imagine WHY it would be a rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, that's really bad. I had no idea that was even a rule. I can't imagine WHY it would be a rule.none of us remembered that there was a line that said "If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver". I don't think I've ever seen that rule enforced once in several years of playing Pathfinder, including at PFS.
That's just terrible.
"Oh ho, try to disarm me will you? Take that! Enjoy the -24 on your roll..."
Nothing like getting stabbed and failing colossally at the thing you got stabbed for to convince you to never do that thing again.
|
1000
That aside:
Wow, that's really bad. I had no idea that was even a rule. I can't imagine WHY it would be a rule.none of us remembered that there was a line that said "If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver". I don't think I've ever seen that rule enforced once in several years of playing Pathfinder, including at PFS.
That's just terrible.
"Oh ho, try to disarm me will you? Take that! Enjoy the -24 on your roll..."
Nothing like getting stabbed and failing colossally at the thing you got stabbed for to convince you to never do that thing again.
In my gaming circle we use it extensively instead.
Think about it: you attack someone with a special maneuver that require extensive training (a feat) without that training. You provoke an AoO.You don't think that being wounded while you try you grapple/disarm etc. will make you recoil and hinder you?