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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,231 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

One thing I've always thought was just... wrong.

The movement speeds of Giant type monsters... And that they are restricted to the same 5' steps that mere mortals are. Just seems weird.. If you hit the 15-20' high range... a 5'shuffle seems off. Their movement should be much better.

I'd figure at LEAST a 10' step. They got have some STRIDE...

Probably something for game balance. Haven't delved much in the bestiaries... but looks really weird on the map when I fight them :)

Grand Lodge

Meh. The 5ft step is meant to allow you to reposition without provoking. I just take it to be 5ft is the maximum movement you can make before someone gets a swing at you, regardless of what your stride is.


swoosh wrote:
Maneuvers themselves don't need to be treated so conservatively in terms of power either. Sure, at low levels they might be okay, but tripping a single enemy or leaving them shaken isn't particularly impressive battlefield control towards endgame.

I agree with this. As it stands Dirty Trick is really the only maneuver that gets impressive at mid to later levels due to Dirty Trick Master, but of course that requires 3 other feats (4 if you count Quick Dirty Trick as being necessary to the build), 13 intelligence (unless you happen to get Combat Expertise prerequisite free), and 11 BAB. It would be nice if some of the others got cool things like that as well.

Maybe Trip could have a feat that prevents enemies from getting up from prone when you are threatening. Maybe you could Bull Rush someone so hard they are stunned for a round. How about your disarm almost literally disarming the enemy along with their blade, so that they take bleed damage and negatives to hit even if they get their weapon back. Or something.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Meh. The 5ft step is meant to allow you to reposition without provoking. I just take it to be 5ft is the maximum movement you can make before someone gets a swing at you, regardless of what your stride is.

I can see his point, actually. The '5-foot step' should be less a definitive distance mechanically and just the default distance a normally sized character could safely move with A) little expenditure of energy or time (no action required) and B) without dropping their guard and therefore provoking an AoO. A halfing should not have the same safe-move shuffle distance as a freaking rune giant, not when smaller characters have a default -10 ft. / round move speed reduction and titans walk at twice a normal person's speed. Allowing a 'safe shuffle' mechanic out to your natural reach distance doesn't seem like it would break the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cerberus Seven wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Meh. The 5ft step is meant to allow you to reposition without provoking. I just take it to be 5ft is the maximum movement you can make before someone gets a swing at you, regardless of what your stride is.
I can see his point, actually. The '5-foot step' should be less a definitive distance mechanically and just the default distance a normally sized character could safely move with A) little expenditure of energy or time (no action required) and B) without dropping their guard and therefore provoking an AoO. A halfing should not have the same safe-move shuffle distance as a freaking rune giant, not when smaller characters have a default -10 ft. / round move speed reduction and titans walk at twice a normal person's speed. Allowing a 'safe shuffle' mechanic out to your natural reach distance doesn't seem like it would break the game.

And the evil GM gleefully starts throwing colossal creatures that can 30 ft shift into the game and the real trouble starts.


Chemlak wrote:
And the evil GM gleefully starts throwing colossal creatures that can 30 ft shift into the game and the real trouble starts.

That's easily fixed. Large+ creatures can't take a 5' step: their size means it's not possible for them to effectively defend against an AoO triggered by movement.

Logical extension: taking a 5' step only prevents AoO against opponents of your size or greater.

Ah, sod it. Just get rid of 5' steps altogether.


The 5 ft step is considered a "free step" because in your 5x5 square, your character can literally be anywhere. He is not necessarily in the very center. So essentially the "5 ft step" is actually the guy moving like... 2 ft to the left, he was just on the edge of his square so it counted as 5 ft of movement because thet is the smalled unit in which movement is measured.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Allowing a 'safe shuffle' mechanic out to your natural reach distance doesn't seem like it would break the game.

Except that it allows monsters to move 10 to 30ft and still get their full attacks while the PCs are limited to a single attack if they move more than 5. Not conducive to party survival.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Allowing a 'safe shuffle' mechanic out to your natural reach distance doesn't seem like it would break the game.
Except that it allows monsters to move 10 to 30ft and still get their full attacks while the PCs are limited to a single attack if they move more than 5. Not conducive to party survival.

Could always boost these monster's CR by 1 or 2 to compensate.

(I will admit that I'm reminded of an undead from 3.5 that effectively got two full rounds worth of actions because it was two skeletons sort of squished together. It was total cheese when it 5 foot stepped, did a full attack, then five-foot stepped again.)


Draco18s wrote:
(I will admit that I'm reminded of an undead from 3.5 that effectively got two full rounds worth of actions because it was two skeletons sort of squished together. It was total cheese when it 5 foot stepped, did a full attack, then five-foot stepped again.)

Unless it had reach too what you described wouldn't really do much as the PCs would just 5 ft step up... now if was already on top of the PCs, full attacked, and then took two 5 ft steps away so the PCs had to move up, rinse, repeat, now you're talking something that will make PCs rage.


chaoseffect wrote:
Unless it had reach too what you described wouldn't really do much as the PCs would just 5 ft step up... now if was already on top of the PCs, full attacked, and then took two 5 ft steps away so the PCs had to move up, rinse, repeat, now you're talking something that will make PCs rage.

Its been over six years since that game.

IIRC it did not have reach, but may have been large sized, so it's a little fuzzy.

But basically it 5-foot stepped up to a PC, murdered them (unconscious), and then 5-foot stepped up to another PC for another full attack.

And yes, we called Bullshit.


I don't like that colossal monsters are trapped inside 30' x 30' boxes when some of their descriptions indicate they are several times that size. They are rare occasions, though, so when they occur I just ignore the 6x6 square box they say they are in and adjudicate according to their description.

Similarly, I don't care for the 2D aspect of size and how it doesn't relate very well into the third dimension (height). Frost giants are 15' tall but fit in a 10'x10'x10' box.


I guess you could always go back to the original 3rd edition's sizes for the various creatures, though they still didn't account much for height.


Dosgamer wrote:

I don't like that colossal monsters are trapped inside 30' x 30' boxes when some of their descriptions indicate they are several times that size. They are rare occasions, though, so when they occur I just ignore the 6x6 square box they say they are in and adjudicate according to their description.

Similarly, I don't care for the 2D aspect of size and how it doesn't relate very well into the third dimension (height). Frost giants are 15' tall but fit in a 10'x10'x10' box.

Dragons will take over the whole table and then move into the living room. A 360 foot long dragon (not including tail!) at the 1" scale is six feet long.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dosgamer wrote:
Similarly, I don't care for the 2D aspect of size and how it doesn't relate very well into the third dimension (height). Frost giants are 15' tall but fit in a 10'x10'x10' box.

That's only because he's constantly bending over trying to hack at the little heroes scurrying around his feet with his greataxe. ;D

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Dosgamer wrote:

I don't like that colossal monsters are trapped inside 30' x 30' boxes when some of their descriptions indicate they are several times that size. They are rare occasions, though, so when they occur I just ignore the 6x6 square box they say they are in and adjudicate according to their description.

Similarly, I don't care for the 2D aspect of size and how it doesn't relate very well into the third dimension (height). Frost giants are 15' tall but fit in a 10'x10'x10' box.

Who said their box is only 10' tall? Maybe it's a 10 x 10 x 20 box.

The game is really awful at handling the third dimension, for all it hands out flying and reverse gravity and whatnot.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
TOZ wrote:
The sad fact is that combat maneuvers are best used against targets that don't threaten you.
Which, last I heard, was the system working as intended.

This stinks of an 12th level caster picking up feats that let them blow up 1 HD kobolds in more spectacular ways. "Spectacular Bang: any creature that this spell instantly kills is thrown about, possibly injuring other creatures. [metamagic +0] (Now with ragdoll physics!)"

I.e. "not something they should be doing."

If combat maneuvers are intended for fights below the challenge-level of the party, then wtf are the feats for? Why are we encouraging fighters to become utter masters of beating up unarmed children?

In fairness, if you read the post, the point seems to be that combat maneuvers are best used on targets weaker than you unless you have the Feats that improve them in which case, equal opponents can be effected more readily.

Whether that actually is working as intended is another matter, but that's the logic.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

In fairness, if you read the post, the point seems to be that combat maneuvers are best used on targets weaker than you unless you have the Feats that improve them in which case, equal opponents can be effected more readily.

Whether that actually is working as intended is another matter, but that's the logic.

I don't think it is. The only combat maneuver worth spending feats on to Not Suck at it is probably trip, because they provoke when they stand up and have a penalty to AC while prone.

Disarm would be GREAT if it actually WORKED and couldn't be defeated by a 50gp gauntlet option (lolz, locked gauntlet).

Sunder would be viable if you could reasonably damage weapons/armor/shield to any significant degree. Or rather, you can, and GMs will ignore it without having to explain why. I built a character around sunder once in 3.5 including the Sundering Cleave feat (when you break an item you deal damage to its wielder too). Tried to sunder some guy's tower shield and did 42 damage (with an adamantine reach weapon) and didn't break it. Tower shields only have 20 hp and with an adamantine weapon I was ignoring all of the shield's hardness even if it was also adamantine.

GM said the shield didn't break.


And of course the problem with doing so is that trip becomes increasingly pointless as you encounter more and more enemies which can fly and/or teleport or are simply too large and therefore have a very high CMD to reliably trip.

Grand Lodge

Draco18s wrote:
GM said the shield didn't break.

Bad GMs do not mean rules are bad.

My paladin nearly lost his breastplate and heavy shield to a sunder specialist. At it was his AC dropped dramatically for the rest of the scenario.


Draco18s wrote:

I don't think it is. The only combat maneuver worth spending feats on to Not Suck at it is probably trip, because they provoke when they stand up and have a penalty to AC while prone.

Disarm would be GREAT if it actually WORKED and couldn't be defeated by a 50gp gauntlet option (lolz, locked gauntlet).

Sunder would be viable if you could reasonably damage weapons/armor/shield to any significant degree. Or rather, you can, and GMs will ignore it without having to explain why. I built a character around sunder once in 3.5 including the Sundering Cleave feat (when you break an item you deal damage to its wielder too). Tried to sunder some guy's tower shield and did 42 damage (with an adamantine reach weapon) and didn't break it. Tower shields only have 20 hp and with an adamantine weapon I was ignoring all of the shield's hardness even if it was also adamantine.

GM said the shield didn't break.

Grapple can have devastating consequences to an unlucky defender, especially a caster. It's more than worth it, usually. Shame that it's also so complicated it requires a bloody flow-chart to know what the heck is going on. Our Jade Regent fighter has used reposition to hilarious and bloody results on unsuspecting enemies, so that one's pretty good.

It sounds like your GM just didn't know what the heck they were doing. Not really a fault of the rules there.

Liberty's Edge

Draco18s wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

In fairness, if you read the post, the point seems to be that combat maneuvers are best used on targets weaker than you unless you have the Feats that improve them in which case, equal opponents can be effected more readily.

Whether that actually is working as intended is another matter, but that's the logic.

I don't think it is. The only combat maneuver worth spending feats on to Not Suck at it is probably trip, because they provoke when they stand up and have a penalty to AC while prone.

Trip is definitely solid. Some creatures are immune, but all combat maneuvers should be an option, rather than the only effective thing you can do in combat.

Draco18s wrote:
Disarm would be GREAT if it actually WORKED and couldn't be defeated by a 50gp gauntlet option (lolz, locked gauntlet).

Very few NPCs have one of those, though. Unless your GM is a dick.

Fighting monsters who don't have weapons is a bigger concern, though, and a potential issue with the maneuver, I admit.

Draco18s wrote:

Sunder would be viable if you could reasonably damage weapons/armor/shield to any significant degree. Or rather, you can, and GMs will ignore it without having to explain why. I built a character around sunder once in 3.5 including the Sundering Cleave feat (when you break an item you deal damage to its wielder too). Tried to sunder some guy's tower shield and did 42 damage (with an adamantine reach weapon) and didn't break it. Tower shields only have 20 hp and with an adamantine weapon I was ignoring all of the shield's hardness even if it was also adamantine.

GM said the shield didn't break.

That's a bad GM, not a problem with the maneuver.

And I'd argue Dirty Trick is also a valid and worthwhile combat maneuver, as is grapple if you really specialize (Tetori, I'm looking at you). The others are seriously lackluster, though.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sunder has a goose/gander problem. Even leaving aside the crazy paranoid players who don't want to 'destroy the loot' using it offensively, when used by NPCs/Monsters on the players it has a lot of the same problems as a rust monster. It tends to make the game un-fun for PCs.


That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Sunder has a goose/gander problem. Even leaving aside the crazy paranoid players who don't want to 'destroy the loot' using it offensively, when used by NPCs/Monsters on the players it has a lot of the same problems as a rust monster. It tends to make the game un-fun for PCs.

Yes, I despise Sunder for that reason. Should be deleted and replaced with Disarm, then if you need to, you can destroy it later.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?

Supposed to, yeah.


Ross Byers wrote:
Sunder has a goose/gander problem. Even leaving aside the crazy paranoid players who don't want to 'destroy the loot' using it offensively, when used by NPCs/Monsters on the players it has a lot of the same problems as a rust monster. It tends to make the game un-fun for PCs.

That was from a game where loot was an utter non-issue. We wouldn't have been able to take the shield anyway. I took the trick (sundering cleave) because it sounded really cool. The fact that I could make enemies easier to hit for my allies was a bonus.

And then it flat didn't work.

Anyway, there was another system that had an entire class dedicated to doing sunder-like options. I'm blanking on the name (Iron Heroes?) where armor was DR (not penalty on the hit) and the sundering options would reduce the benefit armor gave. So you could pull off an attack that reduced an enemy's DR by 1d4 or you could swing for 1d6+strength hitpoint damage.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
TOZ wrote:
The sad fact is that combat maneuvers are best used against targets that don't threaten you.
Which, last I heard, was the system working as intended.

Just because it's intended doesn't mean it's a good idea.


Ross Byers wrote:
Dosgamer wrote:

I don't like that colossal monsters are trapped inside 30' x 30' boxes when some of their descriptions indicate they are several times that size. They are rare occasions, though, so when they occur I just ignore the 6x6 square box they say they are in and adjudicate according to their description.

Similarly, I don't care for the 2D aspect of size and how it doesn't relate very well into the third dimension (height). Frost giants are 15' tall but fit in a 10'x10'x10' box.

Who said their box is only 10' tall? Maybe it's a 10 x 10 x 20 box.

The game is really awful at handling the third dimension, for all it hands out flying and reverse gravity and whatnot.

For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever found a system that handles 3D well.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Just because it's intended doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Did I imply it was?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Zhayne wrote:
For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever found a system that handles 3D well.

Fair enough.


Ross Byers wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever found a system that handles 3D well.
Fair enough.

It's been ages since I played Champions, but from what I recall it handled 3D pretty well. They didn't have static size classes in the version we played. Not sure if they do these days or not.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?

Irony

Liberty's Edge

Zhayne wrote:
For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever found a system that handles 3D well.

Not ones with concrete movement rules, anyway. More abstract ones can manage it pretty well, IME.

The Exchange

Note to self: patent enormous Jell-O mold that can be used to accurately project 3-D combat (with the assistance of large syringes that can be used to insert and remove miniatures).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
And of course the problem with doing so is that trip becomes increasingly pointless as you encounter more and more enemies which can fly and/or teleport or are simply too large and therefore have a very high CMD to reliably trip.

I know we hate everything about 4e... but in that game if you trip a flying enemy they fall their flight speed and take falling damage/get knocked prone if they hit the ground when their fall stops.

Was kinda cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

4e monster statblocks were very nice.

OT: Mounted Combat was pretty awful for a long time and Grapple still needs a flowchart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Auto-hit, auto-fail, auto-succeed mechanics. If we throw enough people at it, one of them is bound to roll a 20!

In my games, for situations where 20 would be an auto-succeed, instead it's counted as a 25. In situations where it would be an auto-fail, it's instead counted as a -4. In most cases, this amounts to the same thing, but it prevents, say, the world's greatest weapon master from being disarmed by having 20 goblins try at the same time.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?

this post is funny


swoosh wrote:
andreww wrote:
And of course the problem with doing so is that trip becomes increasingly pointless as you encounter more and more enemies which can fly and/or teleport or are simply too large and therefore have a very high CMD to reliably trip.
I know we hate everything about 4e...

Speak for yourself.


Rudy2 wrote:

Auto-hit, auto-fail, auto-succeed mechanics. If we throw enough people at it, one of them is bound to roll a 20!

In my games, for situations where 20 would be an auto-succeed, instead it's counted as a 25. In situations where it would be an auto-fail, it's instead counted as a -4. In most cases, this amounts to the same thing, but it prevents, say, the world's greatest weapon master from being disarmed by having 20 goblins try at the same time.

I just disregard that rule entirely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For natural 20 vs natural 1 I use a suggestion from the ELH (it was in a sidebar, though, so it isn't on the srd):
When you roll a natural 20, reroll and add an extra 20 to your new roll. Any modifiers which affected the first roll affect the reroll. If the reroll is also a natural 20, reroll again and add 40, etc.
Similarly, for a natural 1, reroll and subtract 20.
The thing that is a mild annoyance about Zayne's method is that after a certain point, increasing your bonus has no effect. The default rules have the same problem, though (and they also have the much greater problem where a deity misses a commoner 5% of the time). Using the ELH "open ended rolls" variant, there is always a chance of success or failure, but it decreases exponentially as your skill improves.
If I were short on time during a session, though, I'd probably just do what Zhayne does and treat a 20 as a 20 and a 1 as a 1, with no special rules. The open-ended rolls variant works out the same a vast majority of the time, anyways.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Laurefindel wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?
this post is funny

Why? I think it's pretty cool you can sunder someone's weapon and leave it with only 1 HP. Penalize their attacks and still get the treasure.

With the right feats, you even hurt them at the same time!


Ravingdork wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?
this post is funny

Why? I think it's pretty cool you can sunder someone's weapon and leave it with only 1 HP. Penalize their attacks and still get the treasure.

With the right feats, you even hurt them at the same time!

I think he was referring to the irony of a status effect called 'broken' actually being a fix for something.


Cerberus Seven wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
That's what the "broken" condition was supposed to fix, isn't it?
this post is funny

Why? I think it's pretty cool you can sunder someone's weapon and leave it with only 1 HP. Penalize their attacks and still get the treasure.

With the right feats, you even hurt them at the same time!

I think he was referring to the irony of a status effect called 'broken' actually being a fix for something.

yes, ironic funny, not sarcastic funny.

I actually like the broken condition. But I appreciate the humour behind "broken" fixing a broken rule.

Made me smile :)


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Note to self: patent enormous Jell-O mold that can be used to accurately project 3-D combat (with the assistance of large syringes that can be used to insert and remove miniatures).

I actually went out and purchased some plexiglass and a carbon fiber rod (square, about 3/16th of an inch in cross section) and was going to make 2"x2" platforms at various heights; 1", 2", 3" and 4" so that flying could be managed with relative ease.

I got one made, and haven't needed them since.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

lol, I get it now. Thanks.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Scavion wrote:
Grapple still needs a flowchart.

I keep hearing this comment from people, but I don't get it. Grapple's not that complicated; does it even have enough steps to make a flowchart? Is there something I'm missing?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is a flowchart. If you ask me, it actually makes grapple even more complicated.

(I also think it might be wrong about a few things.)


Jiggy wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Grapple still needs a flowchart.
I keep hearing this comment from people, but I don't get it. Grapple's not that complicated; does it even have enough steps to make a flowchart? Is there something I'm missing?

Compared to other combat maneuvers? YES, it is the rocket science of CMB checks.

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,231 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Which rules (if any) do you find absurd and / or unnecessary? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.