What mechanics in PF just don't sit well with you? What inconsistencies pull you out of the experience?
For example magic items may increase to-hit by +8, while they can increase AC by 15 or more. Why are defenses dependent on items when offense actually does increase with level?
Another example, Why is the concentration check to avoid AOOs independent of your foe (baring the existence of one feat)? Why is it harder to cast defensively next to a lvl 6 fighter with disruptive than it is when standing next to Cthulhu?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff that's not explicitly magic but stops working if you stop holding it. While technically magic, the ratfolk's alchemist archetype is one that really gets me here. You craft a a deadly plague... that doesn't work at all if someone else ingests it.
1/day mechanics that neither require strenuous effort, a lot of time, or magic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The inexplicable 5% chance to utterly fail in every aspect at literally everything you do.
Well, every attack. There is no auto-success or failure on skill checks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^^^
Or saves...
Personally "Vancian" Style casting just does not sit right with me...
When I picture mages I tend to pictures guys that can just kinda conjure stuff willy nilly if you will (i.e. the Warlock type classes) or have a sort of "mana" pool (like Psionics)...
In fact, I love how the Wilder works because THAT just screams awesome magic (the ability to make a spell super awesome with sheer willpower but it leaves you drained or have the potential to lash back at you will a feedback loop)
Kitty, you might try adopting the feat based casting from "Blue Roses" for your casters and ditch the vancian.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level progression.
Let me put it to you this way:
Why can't my 2nd lvl Rogue stab a guy in the throat and kill him in an instant? The same Rogue at lvl 20 can decide weither his attacks deal extra damage or kill them instantly. What's the diff?
Another example: Tower-Shield Specialist gains the Evasion ability against Spells and SLA at 16th lvl, which replaces Weapon Training 4. At 20th lvl, it acts as Improved Evasion, which replaces Weapon Mastery. Isn't it obvious the character should know how to do this earlier than that? That's almost end game for him.
Kitty, you might try adopting the feat based casting from "Blue Roses" for your casters and ditch the vancian.
Blue Roses? What is that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play with a lot of new players and nothing saps the immersion more than character generation and level progression. The hype dies the minute you get into skills, feats, and traits and how some concepts simply don't translate well into Pathfinder. I literally observe the fun of the game being sucked out of them as they look at feats and traits.
The fact I have to watch all these great and amazing ideas from people just getting into the hobby get deferred is heartbreaking. My good friend has been struggling since level 3 trying to play an arcane trickster. He's eclipsed by the slayer and witch in the party in his two fields of expertise. How is one supposed to express playing this amazing concept isn't "viable" ? It's sad.
PM sent to Kitty so as to not de-rail the thread.
Rolling dice. Why do I need to roll a d20 to simulate how well I can hit something?
Is all RNG the issue or is it the d20 in particular?
Level progression.
Let me put it to you this way:
Why can't my 2nd lvl Rogue stab a guy in the throat and kill him in an instant? The same Rogue at lvl 20 can decide weither his attacks deal extra damage or kill them instantly. What's the diff?
Another example: Tower-Shield Specialist gains the Evasion ability against Spells and SLA at 16th lvl, which replaces Weapon Training 4. At 20th lvl, it acts as Improved Evasion, which replaces Weapon Mastery. Isn't it obvious the character should know how to do this earlier than that? That's almost end game for him.
Do you dislike using levels as a way to gauge strength or are you more annoyed at abilities being gated behind slews of progression paths?
Would levels be OK if they weren't essentially gatekeepers to particular abilities?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
bards...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanics, per say, are not what get me. It's stopping to figure the mechanics. It's not anything specific, but any time you have to stop to get the math together, or look up how something works, etc. Mainly a lack of preparation can really destroy immersion because just when you're getting into it you have to pause things to "figure it all out." It totally throws off whatever "in the game" head you have.
I hate having to wait while the martial goes "Okay, so it's +9 to hit, +2 from charge, -2 from power attack, +1 from that bless spell, oh, +2 from bardic music, oh, yeah, and +2 from rage..." and on and on and #%^*ing on, every single round!
An unprepared summoner (the descriptive noun, not the class specifically; anyone who can summon) can kill immersion instantly as we all have to wait while they look up a monster's stats, modify it with the appropriate templates, etc.
Yes, you SHOULD be prepared if you ever even choose to use SM or SNA, but frankly it's my experience that most people do not.
I don't know, it really grinds my gears when people don't do their homework as a player. The GM goes through so much work to put a game together, (even with an AP there's significant studying required to make it flow seemlessly) yet players get so lazy that I've seen people look up class abilities, etc, mid-game, and it ruins things for everyone.
If you're playing a swashbuckler or gunslinger, learn your deeds before you come to the table. If you're playing a caster, look up your spells before your turn comes up (or before you come to the game, preferably). If you're a barbarian, write down your rage and non-rage stats, modifiers, etc, where you can find them easily. It's just common courtesy, and it helps keep the game flowing. At the very least, bookmark the page it's on and have it ready to roll.
Most people have a week or more between sessions. That is plenty of time to read the less than 10 pages that most classes have in their write-up. Yeah, spellcasters can take a bit more work because of the multitude of spells available, but, hey, that's why I don't recommend them to newbies.
/rant
It's not really a problem, but it's more the entire question. There is no immersion in the game, there is imagination.Rolling dice. Why do I need to roll a d20 to simulate how well I can hit something?Is all RNG the issue or is it the d20 in particular?
Ah, so you don't see why the d20 has anything to do with hitting a foe?
Now that I think about it, I have to agree. The d20 seems unrelated to hitting foes. The ability to hit foes comes from flat modifiers but the d20 is just sort of there in the process for no explicable reason. hmmmm.
bards...
What specifically?
Now that I think about it, I have to agree. The d20 seems unrelated to hitting foes. The ability to hit foes comes from flat modifiers but the d20 is just sort of there in the process for no explicable reason. hmmmm.
The d20 is a mechanical representation of luck, chance, circumstance, fate, or any other word for "because #%^& happens sometimes."
Now that I think about it, I have to agree. The d20 seems unrelated to hitting foes. The ability to hit foes comes from flat modifiers but the d20 is just sort of there in the process for no explicable reason. hmmmm.The d20 is a mechanical representation of luck, chance, circumstance, fate, or any other word for "because #%^& happens sometimes."
Yes, it's there to be an RNG factor. But that doesn't really explain why THAT rng factor is there in relation to hitting.
|
To break predictability? Without RNG, at some point your to-hit would either be constantly hitting or constantly missing. That would be boring.
You can replace the RNG with something else, for example a system where you and the opponent secretly bid resources to modify to-hit and AC, and that can be interesting. RNG isn't the only way.
One for me is max size modifiers. How you cant trip/bull rush/grapple creatures that are too large instead of just increasing the DC. If i can turn into a dragon or be a 2-foot-nothing halfling swinging a 10 foot rock on a pole, and i am mr strongman who can lift a building, why cant i grab a giant by his ankle and pin him to the ground?
Oh, and you cant hit a fly to save your life, but you can snatch it out of the air, no problem.
Feat taxes. What do you mean my 20th lvl fighter cant trip someone propperly because he isnt smart enough to have the expertise? Isnt 20th lvl expert enough?
Alignment as a restriction/prereq instead of flavour, fluff and backstory.
D20 as a variable. The only time a fighter is garanteed to be stronger then the 8str wizard rolling a 20 is if he, himself has 48str. Otherwise the wizard still has a chance of outpreforming the massive muscled brute in a strength contest.
Jump being a part of acrobatics and dex based. What do you mean the hulk can only jump 3 ft?
Actually just some skills and class skills in general, expecially perception.
The absolute need for armor (and often a weapon). Even a leather shirt can be enchanted with+6 AC and a slew of useful abilities but an unarmored non-monk is exceedingly difficult to build effectivly :(
Kirin strike. Neat idea! Takes 3 turns to activate :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hit points and xp/levels bug me. I can't think of anything better though. :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hit points are the worst, in my opinion.
The idea that one can get jacked up by all manner of awful things and be perfectly functional right up to the moment that one falls over and begins dying is just bizarre. I prefer Rolemaster-style systems where HP loss rarely adds up to lethal damage, and death more often occurs due to catastrophic wounds, which can be delivered even by low-level characters, with sufficient luck.
Gnarly critical hits tend to make the game more lethal, in general, though, so they're not for every table or every story.
Daily use mechanics, Vancian spellcasting, hit points, and Charisma.
Charisma is just too ... scattered of a stat, and nobody can decide what it means. Supposedly, in addition to being your basic social ability, it's your innate magical power ... that makes no sense to me, especially since Charisma is useless to most spellcasting classes.
bards...What specifically?
it's just a joke
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grappling, because I need to break out the flowchart to make sure everything is going by RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Experience points best to ditch them and keep progression under the hood. YMMV.
They also serve absolutely no purpose, save as a pacing mechanism. "I got 500 experience points! I learned stuff ... except I didn't level up, so nothing changed."
There's one which came up recently in a game. Slow will reduce you to one attack or move per round. However it has no effect on AOOs. If you have something like Come and Get me coupled to Combat Reflexes, you can get piles of attacks while slowed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hit points are the worst, in my opinion.
The idea that one can get jacked up by all manner of awful things and be perfectly functional right up to the moment that one falls over and begins dying is just bizarre. I prefer Rolemaster-style systems where HP loss rarely adds up to lethal damage, and death more often occurs due to catastrophic wounds, which can be delivered even by low-level characters, with sufficient luck.
Gnarly critical hits tend to make the game more lethal, in general, though, so they're not for every table or every story.
Personally I like how World of Darkness actually has penalties associated with damage.
If you have so much damage (it is compared to your HP, not a set amount) then you start taking penalties to everything... because you are actively hurt xD
I always hated death spirals. Making it even harder to come back from a bad situation just makes everything worse, plus it's not really all that heroic ... the good guys always do better in a tight spot, not worse.
Hit points are the worst, in my opinion.
The idea that one can get jacked up by all manner of awful things and be perfectly functional right up to the moment that one falls over and begins dying is just bizarre. I prefer Rolemaster-style systems where HP loss rarely adds up to lethal damage, and death more often occurs due to catastrophic wounds, which can be delivered even by low-level characters, with sufficient luck.
Gnarly critical hits tend to make the game more lethal, in general, though, so they're not for every table or every story.
Personally I like how World of Darkness actually has penalties associated with damage.
If you have so much damage (it is compared to your HP, not a set amount) then you start taking penalties to everything... because you are actively hurt xD
Of course, it's not even that much more realistic.
Every injury I've ever had has either been immediately incapacitating, at least to the body part in question or something that only really became a problem at least a few minutes later. Broken ribs, hairline fractures, some pretty deep cuts, all were things I could ignore for at least a couple minutes, especially with a good surge of adrenaline.
5 or 10 minutes later, things start to swell and hurt and then I'd hard-pressed to do anything serious.
Or you've got a major broken bone or you're losing serious blood and you're going down.
That is why I like to work with Cherion Group and Develop my Thaurmatechnology to get the regernerative node :P... I can heal my own damn self! xD
Flanking rules as it applies to invisible creatures and illusions. As I understand it, the reason you're taking penalties from being flanked is because you have two guys on each side of you and you're splitting attention trying to defend against both yeah?
Which sorta makes sense why you couldn't flank with someone invisible or greater invisible since the enemy doesn't know they're there, but don't you think they would think something is up as soon as they start getting stabbed in the back repeatedly?
What bothers me more is when you bring in illusions. If someone believes it's real, they should think the image of a guy trying to swing at him is legit and therefore be distracted. But they're not distracted because it's not real even though they honestly truly believe it's real. Which means you can't flank with things they can perceive and can't flank with things they can't perceive but know are there and... I don't get it.
Actually invisible creatures do count as flanking which makes no sense to me because they should not count. Even if they are flanking you, then you won't know that you are flanked, and since they are invisible you can't really react(denied dex to AC) to their attacks, and flanking represents trying to react to two different opponents.
As for illusions, until you know they are an illusion they should count for flanking, but by the rules they don't. That is another one that I am thinking about houseruling.
You know you're flanked because you hear the weapon of the invisible guy whistling past your head, to say nothing of other nonvisual cues.
Flanking rules as it applies to invisible creatures and illusions. As I understand it, the reason you're taking penalties from being flanked is because you have two guys on each side of you and you're splitting attention trying to defend against both yeah?
Which sorta makes sense why you couldn't flank with someone invisible or greater invisible since the enemy doesn't know they're there, but don't you think they would think something is up as soon as they start getting stabbed in the back repeatedly?
What bothers me more is when you bring in illusions. If someone believes it's real, they should think the image of a guy trying to swing at him is legit and therefore be distracted. But they're not distracted because it's not real even though they honestly truly believe it's real. Which means you can't flank with things they can perceive and can't flank with things they can't perceive but know are there and... I don't get it.
Actually invisible creatures do count as flanking which makes no sense to me because they should not count. Even if they are flanking you, then you won't know that you are flanked, and since they are invisible you can't really react(denied dex to AC) to their attacks, and flanking represents trying to react to two different opponents.
As for illusions, until you know they are an illusion they should count for flanking, but by the rules they don't. That is another one that I am thinking about houseruling.
That is something that really irks me -.-
As a person who loves Illusionists (2nd only to enchanters) the way Illusions are held kind of bug me. There are a lot of things that really don't make sense and lots of ambiguous rules (like how a person can still believe the illusionary wall is is real as they are actively pushed THROUGH THE NON-EXISTANT WALL)
You know you're flanked because you hear the weapon of the invisible guy whistling past your head, to say nothing of other nonvisual cues.
That is assuming you make the perception check, and even then you may not know their location, only that they are in the area. That is different than knowing that you are actually flanked.
Now they could call out, "hey I am behind you" so you know where they are, but I have never seen that in a game.
Flanking rules as it applies to invisible creatures and illusions. As I understand it, the reason you're taking penalties from being flanked is because you have two guys on each side of you and you're splitting attention trying to defend against both yeah?
Which sorta makes sense why you couldn't flank with someone invisible or greater invisible since the enemy doesn't know they're there, but don't you think they would think something is up as soon as they start getting stabbed in the back repeatedly?
What bothers me more is when you bring in illusions. If someone believes it's real, they should think the image of a guy trying to swing at him is legit and therefore be distracted. But they're not distracted because it's not real even though they honestly truly believe it's real. Which means you can't flank with things they can perceive and can't flank with things they can't perceive but know are there and... I don't get it.
Actually invisible creatures do count as flanking which makes no sense to me because they should not count. Even if they are flanking you, then you won't know that you are flanked, and since they are invisible you can't really react(denied dex to AC) to their attacks, and flanking represents trying to react to two different opponents.
As for illusions, until you know they are an illusion they should count for flanking, but by the rules they don't. That is another one that I am thinking about houseruling.
That is something that really irks me -.-
As a person who loves Illusionists (2nd only to enchanters) the way Illusions are held kind of bug me. There are a lot of things that really don't make sense and lots of ambiguous rules (like how a person can still believe the illusionary wall is is real as they are actively pushed THROUGH THE NON-EXISTANT WALL)
I thought the wall actually felt real if you did not disbelieve, or maybe I was compensating for the rules, which is hard not to do at times.
OK, after checking the rules and certain spells they do not really say that.
You know you're flanked because you hear the weapon of the invisible guy whistling past your head, to say nothing of other nonvisual cues.
That is assuming that there even is such a sound for some weapons...
Or if they are aiming for your head. I can tell you right now, if I was an invisible guy in combat, I would be aiming for his neck or for the large, gaping weaknesses in his armor (like between teh belt and the breast plate for anything other than full plate...)
I thought the wall actually felt real if you did not disbelieve, or maybe I was compensating for the rules, which is hard not to...Flanking rules as it applies to invisible creatures and illusions. As I understand it, the reason you're taking penalties from being flanked is because you have two guys on each side of you and you're splitting attention trying to defend against both yeah?
Which sorta makes sense why you couldn't flank with someone invisible or greater invisible since the enemy doesn't know they're there, but don't you think they would think something is up as soon as they start getting stabbed in the back repeatedly?
What bothers me more is when you bring in illusions. If someone believes it's real, they should think the image of a guy trying to swing at him is legit and therefore be distracted. But they're not distracted because it's not real even though they honestly truly believe it's real. Which means you can't flank with things they can perceive and can't flank with things they can't perceive but know are there and... I don't get it.
Actually invisible creatures do count as flanking which makes no sense to me because they should not count. Even if they are flanking you, then you won't know that you are flanked, and since they are invisible you can't really react(denied dex to AC) to their attacks, and flanking represents trying to react to two different opponents.
As for illusions, until you know they are an illusion they should count for flanking, but by the rules they don't. That is another one that I am thinking about houseruling.
That is something that really irks me -.-
As a person who loves Illusionists (2nd only to enchanters) the way Illusions are held kind of bug me. There are a lot of things that really don't make sense and lots of ambiguous rules (like how a person can still believe the illusionary wall is is real as they are actively pushed THROUGH THE NON-EXISTANT WALL)
Yeah pretty much... My GM decided that Illusions were, for all intents and purposes, REAL until you disbelieved them....
One illusion that does tend to create issues is Shadow Conjuration...
While the SM line is easy enough, there are other Conjuration spells that are a bit wierder with the 20% real thing... like Create Pit... or mage armor...
While the SM line is easy enough, there are other Conjuration spells that are a bit wierder with the 20% real thing... like Create Pit... or mage armor...
For the pit spells I just say they do 20% of the damage. For mage armor, uh yeah... I don't know. One could say it provides one point of AC, or there is only a 20% chance that it works. I know neither is RAW, but that is all I have. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the SM line is easy enough, there are other Conjuration spells that are a bit wierder with the 20% real thing... like Create Pit... or mage armor...For the pit spells I just say they do 20% of the damage. For mage armor, uh yeah... I don't know. One could say it provides one point of AC, or there is only a 20% chance that it works. I know neither is RAW, but that is all I have. :)
Well with the Create Pit line I am mainly looking at Create Pit the spell... I mean, do you end up with a kind of real hole? Do you only fall in 20% of the time( and that opens a whole different can of worms) is it only 20% as deep(at which point it is less a hole and more a speed bumb)?
Evocation has some weird abilities but they tend to be a bit more rare than the Non-SM conjuration spells...
Oh and Shades opens a WHOLE NEW can of worms right there.... (a semi real PLANE??? or the oh so fun, semi real Maze? Oh and apperantly you can, kind of sort of, trap a person's soul... kind of xD
I thought the wall actually felt real if you did not disbelieve, or maybe I was compensating for[
As a person who loves Illusionists (2nd only to enchanters) the way Illusions are held kind of bug me. There are a lot of things that really don't make sense and lots of ambiguous rules (like how a person can still believe the illusionary wall is is real as they are actively pushed THROUGH THE NON-EXISTANT WALL)I thought the wall actually felt real if you did not disbelieve, or maybe I was compensating for the rules, which is hard not to do at times.
OK, after checking the rules and certain spells they do not really say that.
"Felt real" is one thing. Physically stopping you when someone pushes you through it, is another.
Can you walk on an illusionary bridge if you don't disbelieve?
I do belive I do believe I do Belive!!!!
I thought the wall actually felt real if you did not disbelieve, or maybe I was compensating for[
As a person who loves Illusionists (2nd only to enchanters) the way Illusions are held kind of bug me. There are a lot of things that really don't make sense and lots of ambiguous rules (like how a person can still believe the illusionary wall is is real as they are actively pushed THROUGH THE NON-EXISTANT WALL)I thought the wall actually felt real if you did not disbelieve, or maybe I was compensating for the rules, which is hard not to do at times.
OK, after checking the rules and certain spells they do not really say that.
"Felt real" is one thing. Physically stopping you when someone pushes you through it, is another.
Can you walk on an illusionary bridge if you don't disbelieve?
I doubt it. With the wall, it is not really holding you back. Your mind is holding you back*, but you think it is the wall. However if you were bullrushed into the wall then you are going through because the wall does not have any real substance.
*I think that is the intent, but the written rules don't portray it well.
Can you walk on an illusionary bridge if you don't disbelieve?
No.
Unless it's a shadow conjuration or something."A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw." So at the point someone shoves you into the imaginary wall, you can probably figure out it isn't really solid.