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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 1,231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Firstly, it takes some skill as a GM to do fiat leveling. While I'd like to see it in the CRB as an option, fiat leveling as the base can cause pacing issues if the DM doesn't have a good handle on how fast the players should be advancing.
One solution to this is to simply be straightforward with the party in advance, and decide to play at 'X Level' until such time as it feels right to move on to the next level. Some will play fast (3-5 sessions) while some might drag a level out 10 sessions or more, depending on group preference.
The problem is that it puts it on the DM to do that, and a good DM will be able to do that well, while a less experienced one will have trouble with it. There are some cases where the "feels right" test for when the PCs should level is easy to determine, even for an inexperienced DM, but there are plenty where it's not. So, it's pretty easy for the DM to say, once the party has cleared the current subarc of a campaign, that they level, but with a more sandboxy game where there aren't really "arcs" it gets trickier, which is why I'm OK with them having XP rules.

For what it's worth, my campaigns (at least my online campaigns and campaigns with in-person groups I've had a chance to establish some rapport with) are always sandboxy. I just find the 'casual leveling' principle easy to work with. Plus with the advanced disscussion laying out the details on the presence of casual leveling, there's no 'leveling pressure' like you often see with EXP games.

It may require more DM experience to manage, I couldn't say. It was always pretty instinctive for me even as a new DM.

Everybody has different methods that work best for them though.


Even a Sandboxy campaign should have story arcs, just not as well defined as something like an AP.

The arcs would function more as guidelines though. Things like, "once the bandits are defeated, they level" and defeating the bandits could be done in any number of ways.

A fiat leveling in a sandbox campaign is more difficult than a none-sandbox campaign, but it shouldn't be too difficult as long as the GM is paying attention to what monsters they PCs are fighting.

It gets easier if you do the sandbox Kingmaker style with hexs and pre-determined encounter locations. This way, they tend to have a starting point, and you can do things like, "once they've cleared Hexes 1, 3, 5 and 7, they level" or something like that.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

You know, honestly I don't find any of the rules necessary. But that hardly helps this thread along. :)


Ssalarn wrote:
JiCi wrote:

So... you're saying that the summoner should be a 6th level caster while the magus should be a 9th level caster?

Well, if it would make the summoner able to use its summong monster ability WHILE BEING ABLE TO SUMMON ITS EIDOLON, then it would be decent.

Seriously, a summoner cannot summon its eidolon while using its sumon monster ability or vice-versa? What kind of joke is that?

No, I'm saying the Magus and Summoner should both have been 9 level casters balanced in a manner similar to the Warmage or Beguiler from 3.5; don't pretend they're not full casters, just control what they have access to so their spell lists are concentrated into a very narrow vein. Then you don't have weird crap that comes back to haunt later mechanics because you've got three arcane casters who all gain the spell at 3 different levels. Either they're 3/4 casters, or they're full casters; making a class that uses the 3/4 chassis but then giving him the 7/8/9 spells that are most useful to him as lower level spells is just silly.

(Just to note, it's a pretty rare day when I say anything in Pathfinder core should be more like 3.5; it's just these particular examples that I think could have been handled better.)

The major problem I see with full casters is that giving them 3/4 BAB would be "broken"; both the beguiler and warmage are full casters, but have 1/2 BAB.

I always wanted the magus to have a spell list like the duskblade. Dude, that class had Polar Ray and Clenched Fist, both 8th-level spells, as 5th-level spells (which was its highest level).

There's always that claim that full divine spellcasters are less powerful than arcane ones. I'm sorry, but tell that to clerics, druids and oracles who blast as much as the sorcerer and wizard.

I agree that a magus should have fewer spells per level, but make more specialized and accessible to all levels, not just "up to 6th level". The summoner could use a 6th level spell list instead of 9... in fact, ALL arcane spellcasters with 3/4 BAB SHOULD get only 6th level lists, but cherry picked from all 9 levels. The bard had it right, why not the summoner and magus? Beside, getting a high-level spell at a low-level spell reduces the DC by a good margin, making it weaker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You need to look again JiCi, the Warmage actually does get 3/4ths BAB, and its still by far the weakest combat full caster in the game. (Depending on your perspective, the Healer might be considered a weaker Full Caster overall)

And then there are the divine full casters at 3/4ths BAB who are supposedly balanced.

EDIT: Oh, you're talking about 'blasting' while discussing how powerful a casting class is...


JiCi wrote:


There's always that claim that full divine spellcasters are less powerful than arcane ones. I'm sorry, but tell that to clerics, druids and oracles who blast as much as the sorcerer and wizard.

Blasting is considered the weakest way of playing a full caster; I'm not sure why you are using that as a basis for comparison.

That said, Wizard and Sorc still do it much better. See Admixture for Wizard and the Bloodlines that add extra damage per spell damage di for Sorc.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
The major problem I see with full casters is that giving them 3/4 BAB would be "broken"***

Every single divine class with 9 level spells disagrees with this statement.

Screw the Duskblade. If a spell is a 9th level spell, it should be a freaking 9th level spell. Jumbling up the spell-lists creates all kinds of weird corner cases, makes it hard to assess spell balance, and acutally eats up pages that could be used to print more material instead of eating up word count and page space printing out unique spell lists and noting in every spell entry which classes get it as what level spell.
And besides, the Summoner is a 9 level caster list; they're just pretending he's not by hiding all his higher level spells in lower level slots because they wanted to leave the option for him to ride his Eidolon around and hit people with things open.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest... I'm not really sure why the Summoner is 3/4ths BAB to begin with. Sure seems a lot less combat themed than any of the other 3/4ths BAB classes, the Bard, the Inquisitor, the Magus, the Cleric, the Rogue(though I'm of the opinion the Rogue should be full BAB, along with the Monk)... the Summoner's 'fighting' is through his minion and his magic.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
To be honest... I'm not really sure why the Summoner is 3/4ths BAB to begin with. Sure seems a lot less combat themed than any of the other 3/4ths BAB classes, the Bard, the Inquisitor, the Magus, the Cleric, the Rogue(though I'm of the opinion the Rogue should be full BAB, along with the Monk)... the Summoner's 'fighting' is through his minion and his magic.

Someone decided that the Summoner was more just an excuse for people to play the Eidolon and decided to buff him up so that he could fight with it if he wanted to. But since he's an arcane class with 3/4 BAB apparently he can't have full casting progression, even on a limited spell list... So we'll just give him all the high level spells he needs as lower level spells!

I imagine that sounded like it made perfect sense when the idea was originally thrown out.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
You need to look again JiCi, the Warmage actually does get 3/4ths BAB, and its still by far the weakest combat full caster in the game. (Depending on your perspective, the Healer might be considered a weaker Full Caster overall)

Huh, what? Dude, YOU need to look again: in both the Miniature Handbook and Complete Arcane, the Warmage has 1/2 BAB.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
And then there are the divine full casters at 3/4ths BAB who are supposedly balanced.

O...k... even if they get arcane spells as divine spells from domains and mysteries?

The general "rule" is that arcane classes with 3/4 BAB usually have 6th level lists, like the bard. The bard has spells from levels 7, 8 and maybe 9, spread across 6 levels. It doesn't have much, mind you, but it does have some of the high-level spells.

The magus? They had the balls to give him a 6th level list WITHOUT any access to high level spells. Really guys? Because you're trying really hard to convince me that each and every magus class feature warrant trading for high-level spells.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
To be honest... I'm not really sure why the Summoner is 3/4ths BAB to begin with.

It's kind of a theme, arcane casters get 3/4th BAB when they have 6th level casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

The magus? They had the balls to give him a 6th level list WITHOUT any access to high level spells. Really guys? Because you're trying really hard to convince me that each and every magus class feature warrant trading for high-level spells.

If you want to playa full arcane caster there are already 3 optiosn for that.

The magus is not intended to fill that role.


Ross Byers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:


Again, that comes from the fact that, even if a dragon is moving about and such, IT IS STILL A DRAGON. I.e. IT IS STUPIDLY HUGE. It would literally be easier to miss the broad side of a barn.
It's hard to miss an M-1 tank, too. Doesn't mean my handgun is going to hurt it much just because I'm 20 feet away.

No but my anti tank rifle isn't going to worry much about that tank armor. I have no problem with people who dislike the touch ac rule but there is a reason it is done that way. Firearms punch holes in historical armor, it's the whole reason people stopped wearing plate armor. Now when shooting a dragon it does get a bit odd, but that is an issue with the dragons ac not with guns.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This also gets compounded with the abstraction of HP. Losing HP doesn't necessarily mean physical damage was done, so it's entirely possible the dragon was narratively missed, even if it was mechanically hit.

Honestly, I would think dragons, of all creatures, would have DR of some sort.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ice Tomb


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
JiCi wrote:

The magus? They had the balls to give him a 6th level list WITHOUT any access to high level spells. Really guys? Because you're trying really hard to convince me that each and every magus class feature warrant trading for high-level spells.

If you want to play a full arcane caster there are already 3 optiosn for that.

The magus is not intended to fill that role.

If you're talking about the sorcerer, wizard and witch, then no, I don't want to play as a character with low HP, low AC, low BAB, low saves AND that can't cast spells without getting smacked.

Sure, these classes are powerful... provided that smart enemies don't close on you and squish you down.

A magus should be your typical fighter/mage: a competent melee combatant with powerful spells at his disposal, only difference being the number of spells available per day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, the gun rules were taken from James Jacobs' Unspeakable Futures setting. However, the design team changed it from an AC penetration mechanic, to touch AC to 'simplify' things. James stated his original mechanic had different guns able to 'penetrate' a certain amount of armor.

Also, armor did still function against early firearms, but the armor that still worked was extremely expensive and impractical to try and outfit large number of troops with.


That would be the Eldritch Knight.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Or Scarred Witch.


Zhayne wrote:
That would be the Eldritch Knight.

Which would require multiclassing, an underwhelming mecanic

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Or Scarred Witch.

Orc-exclusive... could work though...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
JiCi wrote:

The magus? They had the balls to give him a 6th level list WITHOUT any access to high level spells. Really guys? Because you're trying really hard to convince me that each and every magus class feature warrant trading for high-level spells.

If you want to play a full arcane caster there are already 3 optiosn for that.

The magus is not intended to fill that role.

If you're talking about the sorcerer, wizard and witch, then no, I don't want to play as a character with low HP, low AC, low BAB, low saves AND that can't cast spells without getting smacked.

Sure, these classes are powerful... provided that smart enemies don't close on you and squish you down.

A magus should be your typical fighter/mage: a competent melee combatant with powerful spells at his disposal, only difference being the number of spells available per day.

So you want high Hp, High AC, High BAB, High saves and 9th level spellcasting?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
JiCi wrote:

So... you're saying that the summoner should be a 6th level caster while the magus should be a 9th level caster?

Well, if it would make the summoner able to use its summong monster ability WHILE BEING ABLE TO SUMMON ITS EIDOLON, then it would be decent.

Seriously, a summoner cannot summon its eidolon while using its sumon monster ability or vice-versa? What kind of joke is that?

No, I'm saying the Magus and Summoner should both have been 9 level casters balanced in a manner similar to the Warmage or Beguiler from 3.5; don't pretend they're not full casters, just control what they have access to so their spell lists are concentrated into a very narrow vein. Then you don't have weird crap that comes back to haunt later mechanics because you've got three arcane casters who all gain the spell at 3 different levels. Either they're 3/4 casters, or they're full casters; making a class that uses the 3/4 chassis but then giving him the 7/8/9 spells that are most useful to him as lower level spells is just silly.

(Just to note, it's a pretty rare day when I say anything in Pathfinder core should be more like 3.5; it's just these particular examples that I think could have been handled better.)

So in essence, you're saying the Summoner, one of the most powerful classes in the game... needs a buff?! You do realise that he does get access to spells like Gate, Greater Planar Binding, Teleportation Circle, the and Summon Monster NINE?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:


Orc-exclusive... could work though...

No reason it should be. I'd let anybody take it.


Zhayne wrote:
JiCi wrote:


Orc-exclusive... could work though...
No reason it should be. I'd let anybody take it.

Racial Heritage.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
JiCi wrote:

The magus? They had the balls to give him a 6th level list WITHOUT any access to high level spells. Really guys? Because you're trying really hard to convince me that each and every magus class feature warrant trading for high-level spells.

If you want to play a full arcane caster there are already 3 optiosn for that.

The magus is not intended to fill that role.

If you're talking about the sorcerer, wizard and witch, then no, I don't want to play as a character with low HP, low AC, low BAB, low saves AND that can't cast spells without getting smacked.

Sure, these classes are powerful... provided that smart enemies don't close on you and squish you down.

A magus should be your typical fighter/mage: a competent melee combatant with powerful spells at his disposal, only difference being the number of spells available per day.

So you want high Hp, High AC, High BAB, High saves and 9th level spellcasting?

Actually, more like mid/medium/average for everything and 9th level spellcasting.

In short, just give the magus a list from 0 to 9, and it'll be perfect.

The other 3 have 1/2 BAB, barely any weapon proficiency, no armor proficiency leading to wasting their spells to buff themselves, high Will saves when most special abilities need a Fortitude or Reflex saves... and of course, no being able to cast spells without getting screwed.

Provoking attacks of opportunity as a cleric in full plate armor isn't bad, but not an unarmored wizard.


Tels wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
JiCi wrote:


Orc-exclusive... could work though...
No reason it should be. I'd let anybody take it.
Racial Heritage.

Not following. There's nothing in that archetype's mechanics that relate to anything about the orc. There's no reason for it to be racially restricted.


Ross Byers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:


Again, that comes from the fact that, even if a dragon is moving about and such, IT IS STILL A DRAGON. I.e. IT IS STUPIDLY HUGE. It would literally be easier to miss the broad side of a barn.
It's hard to miss an M-1 tank, too. Doesn't mean my handgun is going to hurt it much just because I'm 20 feet away.

Except that the M-1A2 Abrams tank has a hardened armor that is specifically designed to take the fire from things like RPGs. It would effectively be like running around in Super-Admantine (the actual armor is a alloy of steel, and depleted uranium). Additionally, the armor is MANY inches thick. You are comparing apples to Watermelons at this point.


If you want something to compare to a dragon...there's always the A-10.


JiCi wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
You need to look again JiCi, the Warmage actually does get 3/4ths BAB, and its still by far the weakest combat full caster in the game. (Depending on your perspective, the Healer might be considered a weaker Full Caster overall)

Huh, what? Dude, YOU need to look again: in both the Miniature Handbook and Complete Arcane, the Warmage has 1/2 BAB.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
And then there are the divine full casters at 3/4ths BAB who are supposedly balanced.
O...k... even if they get arcane spells as divine spells from domains and mysteries?

My apologies, I made the mistake of going off what turns out to have been faulty memory. (For what it's worth the only Warmage I ever saw in play was in a game that picked up at high level where it was already prestige-classed into Rainbow Servant and therefore didn't really play like a Warmage.)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:


Again, that comes from the fact that, even if a dragon is moving about and such, IT IS STILL A DRAGON. I.e. IT IS STUPIDLY HUGE. It would literally be easier to miss the broad side of a barn.
It's hard to miss an M-1 tank, too. Doesn't mean my handgun is going to hurt it much just because I'm 20 feet away.
Except that the M-1A2 Abrams tank has a hardened armor that is specifically designed to take the fire from things like RPGs. It would effectively be like running around in Super-Admantine (the actual armor is a alloy of steel, and depleted uranium). Additionally, the armor is MANY inches thick. You are comparing apples to Watermelons at this point.

So are a dragon's scales.

I'm not saying a dragon is as indestructible as a modern tank. (Though, frankly, I'd bet on the dragon in a head-to-head contest.)

I'm saying that I understand having a low touch AC means you're hard to miss. But being hard to miss doesn't mean guns should automatically hurt you. A +30 natural armor bonus is crazy tough. An Elder Earth Elemental that is literally made of rock only has a +16. An Iron Golem has a +20. Heck, an Adamantine Golem only has +26.

You should absolutely, positively, have an easy time touching a dragon with your bullet. Or an arrow. Or a sword. Or a touch spell. But that doesn't mean your bullet should hurt it any more than the arrow or the sword should.


Ross Byers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:


Again, that comes from the fact that, even if a dragon is moving about and such, IT IS STILL A DRAGON. I.e. IT IS STUPIDLY HUGE. It would literally be easier to miss the broad side of a barn.
It's hard to miss an M-1 tank, too. Doesn't mean my handgun is going to hurt it much just because I'm 20 feet away.
Except that the M-1A2 Abrams tank has a hardened armor that is specifically designed to take the fire from things like RPGs. It would effectively be like running around in Super-Admantine (the actual armor is a alloy of steel, and depleted uranium). Additionally, the armor is MANY inches thick. You are comparing apples to Watermelons at this point.

So are a dragon's scales.

I'm not saying a dragon is as indestructible as a modern tank. (Though, frankly, I'd bet on the dragon in a head-to-head contest.)

I'm saying that I understand having a low touch AC means you're hard to miss. But being hard to miss doesn't mean guns should automatically hurt you. A +30 natural armor bonus is crazy tough. An Elder Earth Elemental that is literally made of rock only has a +16. An Iron Golem has a +20. Heck, an Adamantine Golem only has +26.

You should absolutely, positively, have an easy time touching a dragon with your bullet. Or an arrow. Or a sword. Or a touch spell. But that doesn't mean your bullet should hurt it any more than the arrow or the sword should.

I think it has been mentioned time and time again that Nat Armor has NOTHING to do with how tough its hide is. Nat Armor has more to do with level and CR than anything. Additionally, the fact that a basic steel sword can cut into a dragon should say something. DR is a closer representation to sheer hardness.


Ross Byers wrote:


I'm saying that I understand having a low touch AC means you're hard to miss. But being hard to miss doesn't mean guns should automatically hurt you. A +30 natural armor bonus is crazy tough. An Elder Earth Elemental that is literally made of rock only has a +16. An Iron Golem has a +20. Heck, an Adamantine Golem only has +26.

You should absolutely, positively, have an easy time touching a dragon with your bullet. Or an arrow. Or a sword. Or a touch spell. But that doesn't mean your bullet should hurt it any more than the arrow or the sword should.

Yeah, I've been toying with the idea of Marksmanship(DEX) as a skill, with a DC based on the size of the target in order to hit it, then using an AC/Penetration mechanic. While that means it's then separate to a character's hand-to-hand ability that may actually be a good thing.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
I think it has been mentioned time and time again that Nat Armor has NOTHING to do with how tough its hide is. Nat Armor has more to do with level and CR than anything. Additionally, the fact that a basic steel sword can cut into a dragon should say something. DR is a closer representation to sheer hardness.

A basic steel sword can also hurt that adamantine golem if you swing it hard enough.

You're right natural armor isn't just sheer toughness. It can also be thickness, or an ability to turn aside, rather than absorb, blows. Or a bunch of other things. Really, anything about the outer layers of a creature that makes it hard to damage things that actually matter.

You're also right that sometimes those numbers are pretty arbitrary: I raised that point myself, earlier in the thread. It can be hard to justify the numbers on a creature: What is it about an Angel's skin that lets it turn aside a sword or an arrow? But the numbers are there, and they do mean something.

Once again, my point isn't that a dragon should be unkillable. My point is that it makes no sense that the guy with the pistol gets to completely ignore that +30 natural armor bonus and the guy with the longbow doesn't.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Yeah, I've been toying with the idea of Marksmanship(DEX) as a skill, with a DC based on the size of the target in order to hit it, then using an AC/Penetration mechanic. While that means it's then separate to a character's hand-to-hand ability that may actually be a good thing.

I like the Armor as DR rules (Unearthed Arcana version, the Ultimate Combat version has some weird baggage) to help reconcile some of the sheer weirdness that happens when something has high natural armor and no DR or vice versa. (E.g. the 'didn't the armor at least slow it down?' problem.)

And personally I prefer to treat firearms as just another ranged weapon, not some 'extra special' thing that gets to overcome DR or hit touch AC or whatever. The fact that they do more damage than the similar crossbow is enough mechanical reason for them to be Exotic. Longbows and crossbows are also known for punch holes in armor plate. Generally speaking, that's what piercing weapons DO: put lots of pressure on very small points. (Heck, that's why the Roman Legion were equipped with gladius short swords - The thrusting stab was rather good at putting holes in the chain armor worn by the celts and germans they spent so much time conquering. More effective than a longer sword that had to be swung.)


Honestly 2+int skill classes make me cringe across the board.

Especially since most of the classes that have it don't really justify it in any mechanical way and dump int.

It's not like fighters are so amazing in combat that they need to be kept in check by not giving them out of combat options or something.

Quote:
And personally I prefer to treat firearms as just another ranged weapon, not some 'extra special' thing that gets to overcome DR or hit touch AC or whatever. The fact that they do more damage than the similar crossbow is enough mechanical reason for them to be Exotic. Longbows and crossbows are also known for punch holes in armor plate. Generally speaking, that's what piercing weapons DO: put lots of pressure on very small points.

Because Gunslingers, Holy Gun paladins, Black Powder Inquisitors (etc) aren't hard enough to justify already?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Quote:
And personally I prefer to treat firearms as just another ranged weapon, not some 'extra special' thing that gets to overcome DR or hit touch AC or whatever. The fact that they do more damage than the similar crossbow is enough mechanical reason for them to be Exotic. Longbows and crossbows are also known for punch holes in armor plate. Generally speaking, that's what piercing weapons DO: put lots of pressure on very small points.
Because Gunslingers, Holy Gun paladins, Black Powder Inquisitors (etc) aren't hard enough to justify already?

If I had it my way, those wouldn't need to be archetypes: they'd just be characters who took an Exotic Weapon Proficiency. You know, like a guy with a spiked chain or a bastard sword. (I am not a big fan of the Pathfinder firearm rules.)


Ross Byers wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Quote:
And personally I prefer to treat firearms as just another ranged weapon, not some 'extra special' thing that gets to overcome DR or hit touch AC or whatever. The fact that they do more damage than the similar crossbow is enough mechanical reason for them to be Exotic. Longbows and crossbows are also known for punch holes in armor plate. Generally speaking, that's what piercing weapons DO: put lots of pressure on very small points.
Because Gunslingers, Holy Gun paladins, Black Powder Inquisitors (etc) aren't hard enough to justify already?
If I had it my way, those wouldn't need to be archetypes: they'd just be characters who took an Exotic Weapon Proficiency. You know, like a guy with a spiked chain or a bastard sword. (I am not a big fan of the Pathfinder firearm rules.)

My general point being that as is guns require a lot of feats and money and specialized options to work well (plus wonderful things like 1-3 misfires) and even after all that specialized gun users still are generally considered poor choices WITH touch-AC.

Something else would have to give if you were to make them a "normal" ranged weapon.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
(I am not a big fan of the Pathfinder firearm rules.)

My general point being that as is guns require a lot of feats and money and specialized options to work well (plus wonderful things like 1-3 misfires) and even after all that specialized gun users still are generally considered poor choices WITH touch-AC.

Something else would have to give if you were to make them a "normal" ranged weapon.

As I said, I'd reduce that to one feat (an exotic weapon proficiency.)

And I'd get rid of misfires. If guns can jam, then bowstrings should be able to break, and we handwave that. Nobody has to spend a weapon enchantment on a unbreakable bowstring.

Ammo is expensive, but I'd consider that a throttle for how many guns you actually want to see in your campaign, since everyone has a different level of fondness for firearms.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Natural Attack rules are absurd in my opinion. Why have an iterative attack system in place via BAB when you can instead have multiple attacks from the start at no penalty?

I get that the house cat has claws and teeth, but why can it attack with all three in one round, when a warrior can't pull off two punches and an elbow strike in the same time?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You know, honestly I don't find any of the rules necessary. But that hardly helps this thread along. :)

This comment wins.


When I saw that you can use a composite longbow while mounted, my mental image of shortbow-wielding horseback archers were utterly shattered. Now, I have trouble thinking of reasons why the composite shortbow exists in the pathfinder universe at all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:


It is impossible for all options to be exactly equal. That means there will always be good choices and bad choices.

You may be interested in this article about why there need to be bad cards in Magic: The Gathering. Most of it applies to options in games like Pathfinder and D&D.

Hi, thank you for linking possibly the worst article he has ever written!

That article would be much more clear if you added every 2 lines
"What if you printed less cards?"

It shows that everything in the article is about making MONEY, not about balance or whatever nonsense. It is all about money, plain and simple. Adding bad options is bad for the game AND bad for the players, but good for the people producing the bad options


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Post got eaten by bad connection, so I'll keep it short and sweet:

Two more I thought of,

Curses being mandatory. They're too restrictive on RP, and would serve better as a feat (modified) anyone could take, but oracles get for free if they want, so people who aren't oracles can take them for flavor reasons. Alternatively, if Paizo put out more low-impact curses, this could be better, but optional would be preferred.

Secondly is more of a "lack of rules" than a rules that bug me, issue, but it's the lack of a Sorc/Oracle, Bard/Inquisitor or Magus/Warpriest option for Druids. I thought the Shaman in the ACG would be it, but no, it's still a prepared caster (who, honestly IMO, should have been an archetype). I get that the base flavor is less open than for clerics and wizards, but there are a lot of spells unique to the druid, or hard to get otherwise.


Ravingdork wrote:
Tels wrote:

I don't like Shields. I find it completely ridiculous that a heavy shield only provides a +2 bonus to AC.

I've seen shield used before, and used them myself in mock fights (like SCA). When you have a large shield (like a shield the size Link typically uses in Legend of Zelda) those things are a very difficult to get around.

When you look at something like a shield the Spartan's used, they were able to hide under or behind the thing almost entirely, and they could shield bash with them. It's like a mixture of tower shield and heavy shield but no such thing exists.

Even the simple wooden shields used in ancient times (some of which were basically improvised barrel lids) were very difficult to get passed. Sometimes, it's easier to simply break the shield, than to get passed it. In fact, many weapons had to be designed specifically to strip the shield away, or break it entirely.

I don't like the fact that a chain shirt is a better defensive item than a heavy shield. When the reverse should be true.

I've always felt that bucklers should offer +1, light +2, heavy +3, tower +4 to AC.

We apply shield bonus to touch AC (except in a exception cases like metal shield vs shocking grasp), and have the bonuses as normal against melee and +1/+2/+4/+6 vs ranged.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tribalgeek wrote:
Firearms punch holes in historical armor, it's the whole reason people stopped wearing plate armor.

Is that true? I thought the earliest firearms where stopped by a lot of armor (at least to the point where the bullets where far less lethal), and even matchlocks where drastically impaired by the thickened plate armor used by that time.

I know for a fact that plate armors got thicker to more effectively stop bullets, and that led to dropping parts of them until first there where just breastplate and helmet (conquistadors and occacionally later too, didn't some officers wear breastplate during WW1?) and then just the helmet (standard during at least WW1 and still used occacionally).

If firearms just punched holes through armor why go to the trouble of continue making them?

I don't know that much about weapon history but my impression has been that it was largely a cost issue - the cost and effort of making plate armor is huge, while the cost of recruiting new soldiers and equipping them with the (very cheap) muskets where much lower?

Basically the same main reason bows replaced slings (easier training, closer ranks) and crossbows replaced bows (easier training, cheaper), not because they are so good compared that they invalidate the other equipment but because they are logistically much easier to make use of?


Petty Alchemy wrote:

Natural Attack rules are absurd in my opinion. Why have an iterative attack system in place via BAB when you can instead have multiple attacks from the start at no penalty?

I get that the house cat has claws and teeth, but why can it attack with all three in one round, when a warrior can't pull off two punches and an elbow strike in the same time?

Fully agreed. I've several times thought about converting natural weapons to become more like standard weapons using the standard iterative system, but there's a lot of math for balancing and I'm nost sure I'm up to the task.


Ross Byers wrote:

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

Yes - lots of magical critters should have inherent Deflection bonuses and possibly inherent Magic Armour bonuses, not a huge wodge of Natural Armour that can then have Deflection, Magic Armour, and Enhancement bonuses stacked on top of it to make something ridiculous.

The rules I disliked most were
1. The critical hit confirmation roll; wastes time and just causes unhappiness for the player whether they fail to confirm or suffer a confirmed crit. So I switched to no confirm roll and reduced, flat, crit damage (x2 > max normal, x3 > 1.5 max normal, x4 > 2 max normal).
2. Saving throw bonus system that turns high level Fighters into a joke. Fixed that by giving everyone Base Save Bonus = Level (or hit dice) for all saves. Works wonderfully; a high level caster remains scary but save-or-suck is no longer a guaranteed I Win button.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
Is that true? I thought the earliest firearms where stopped by a lot of armor (at least to the point where the bullets where far less lethal), and even matchlocks where drastically impaired by the thickened plate armor used by that time.

Depended a LOT on range. Muskets were horribly inaccurate and lost punching power fast... rifles were more accurate at farther range. At a certain distance musket balls would leave horrible welts, but rifles would blow off limbs. muskets however were very fast to load.

It's why the revolutionary war always shows soldiers lining up in rows and firing at XXXXX range. During the civil war rifles got a new kind of bullet and could load as fast as musket, so the civil war was extrememly bloody.

At close range armor would have been pretty useless, but throw 20-30 yards in there and the muskets wouldn't have done much damage.

Rifles though? they would still be punching holes in things. Cost was always a factor in things too, as was training, Lots of reasons why some weapons were popular and others got replaced.

Everytime in history that person A finds a way to not die.... Person B is finding a way to make that person die. It's the escalation of warfare.


Personally as far as crummy rules go... I HATE the whip Feats. One or two may be fine... but it is SUCH a sub-par weapon that requiring Whip Mastery, Improved Whipmastery and Greater Whip mastery is just a joke.

WAY too expensive for what you get.

AND a fundamental confusion on what the term 'Mastery' means....

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:


Other rules that I think are absurd/unnecessary:
(...)
- Perception isn't a class skill for every class: Again, no-brainer.

I disagre with this one. I think certain classes are supposed to be more alert than others, such as the classic "scout" classes: rogue, ranger, and to some degree monk. If you gave everyone Perception as a class skill, then you'd have to give these classes a bonus to Perception.

Just because it's useful for everyone doesn't mean everyone should automatically be top-tier in it. Wizards wouldn't mind having d10 HD, but that doesn't mean they should have it.

251 to 300 of 1,231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.