|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, don't let the title fool you. I like pathfinder . . . a lot. I play it a lot and have a great deal of fun, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. I'm not here to moan about a character I've lost or something. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I thought I'd put down some of the more glaring errors I've seen with the system. Like I said it isn't me saying the system's bad, really more like nitpicking.
As a side note, I'm speaking in generalities here. EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY HAS AN EXCEPTION OR TWO. I am not saying these are universals. I'm saying that, more often than not, these problems come up.
8)Taking control of characters away from players.
So, I don't know about you, but when I come to the role-playing table, I am there to role-play my character. That is why I hate it when the GM tells me what my character is doing. That's why I REALLY hate it when confusion/fear/charm/dominate tells me what my character is doing. My samurai bravely charges the dragon. Oh wait, he rolled a 1 on the fear aura, he runs away screaming (even though he was prepared to die to save his country) while the dragon eats the wizard. FUN TIMES! (eye rolls.)
7) "Required items." Okay, so we all know that you need magic weapons to hurt certain creatures. But lately, it seems like the game will assume that every character will have a full apothocary on your back at all times or else they will loose. Sure it makes sense for the cleric to carry holy water, but it has gotten out of hand. You need antiplague and antitoxin for particularly bad infections/poisons, alchemist fire/acid for things with regeneration, an alkali flask for oozes, sunrods or liquid sunlight to counteract deeper darkness, remember to always have a ready supply of oil of bless weapon (for those demons and devils) cold iron, mithril, AND adamantine weapons . . .
Listen, it makes sense for SOME characters to be like that. An alchemist or a ranger who's always prepared for everything, but unless EVERYONE in your party has ALL of that stuff, chances are that there are some bosses that the game expects you to beat that you JUST CAN'T. What if you are a barbarian? Or a sorcerer? Or a simple farmer-turned-fighter? There's no in-character reason you would even KNOW about those things, let alone carry them around. The game expects you to have all this stuff but doesn't tell new players how important each thing is.
6)The perception skill. The perception skill is bull. It is BY FAR the most useful skill in the game. Countering stealth, finding traps, noticing clues NEEDED TO PROGRESS THE GAME (in poorly written adventures.) It is widely regarded as the most useful, always-applicable skill in the game. And some classes just don't get it as a class skill. Why not simply make it a stat (like a saving throw bonus) if you are going to make it so gosh-darn required for everyone?
5)Stuff you can't fix (at your level)
Why does pathfinder hate players? Blindness/deafness is a level 2 spell (for most classes) but requires a level 3 spell to cure. Meaning you could contract it at level 3, and have to wait as long as level 5 to get it removed (if you can't find a higher-level person to cast it on you/can't pay them.) A vampire can be as low as CR 2 (lvl 1 peasant, CR 1/3, +vampire template) but requires a cleric that is at least level 7 to cure the the energy drain. A single wraith is CR 5, but you still need that level 7 cleric for the fourth level restoration to cure it. GOOD LUCK BUDDY!
4)Required magic items
Why does pathfinder even bother offering different magic items for the belt/cloak/headband slot? The game's DCs seem to assume that people will be running with cloaks of resistance and belts to improve your physical ability scores (default, CON) and mental ability scores (Default, WIS.) Sure, a paladin can get away without a cloak of resistance, and a rogue might grab a circlet of persuasion, but almost every fighter is gonna go for that belt of STR, almost every rogue wants that belt of dex, and every caster want to up their primary casting stat. Why even offer other magical items for those slots in the end?
3) Monsters with debilitating abilities on every attack.
Know why I hate ghouls? It's not the ghoul disease, it's the paralysis on ALL attacks. Three attacks a round, DC 13 fort save or ANY of them will paralyze you. Next round, coup de grace. Now, true, DC 13 isn't tough, but if you get hit with, say six attacks over 2 rounds, well that's a pretty good chance you're gonna fail one of them. There are others out there, I know there's a plant monster that has, like 3 attacks, with a chance to grapple you on every hit. Ghouls/Ghasts are just the most common.
2)"Save or suck"
I call these "save or might as well die." Starts at level 1 with sleep and color spray. Level 2, stinking cloud can pretty much just end an entire group if placed properly. Blindness/Deafness can stop most melee people in their tracks. Thing is, these will basically just kill people straight up if done poorly. Look, I understand that battlefield control is a thing, and that there should be spells that do that. Web, illusory terrain, entangle, these things control the battlefield but don't kill off players instantly. Constantly being one failed saving throw away from 'essentially death' is never fun. Anyone can roll a 1.
1) Save or die
What's worse than one save away from 'essentially death?" How about 'Actual death.' Starting with phantasmal killer at level 4 (admittedly it's two saves or death). Luckily, Pathfinder has 'mostly' done away with save or die effects (reducing them to 'save or massive damage effects) but then there's power word kill. It's not a save or die, it's just DIE. Sure, it only affects guys at 100 HP or below, but how much HP does your average 15th level wizard have? Maybe around 92 (assuming 14 con) Let's have your 17th level bad guy wizard just start off by murdering him . . . no save, no mater what magical defenses he has up (or almost no mater. I'm sure there's one or two spells that your wizard probably won't prep everyday.)
And NO, it's NOT just the side of the PCs having fun. Let's reverse that scenereo. Let's say your level 17 PC is going up against a group of conjurers. Nope, power word kill, on one of them goes down with no fight, and almost nothing he could have done. Now the GM isn't having any fun (unless he takes that spell away, or says now all bad guys have permanent death ward, which is just a cheap way to rob your wizard of some of his power. Either he doesn't get to have fun, or you don't.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, basically, you want that no real threats exists for the characters.
For the most part, all the things I say are for BOTH sides of the table. If the PCs use save-or-death effects or mind control all of my (the GM's) monsters, then I don't get to have any fun either. And if the PC concocts some spell combo or something that the Badguys need a specific alchemical item to solve, and there's no reason for them to have it, then the PCs just get to steamroller the monsters and I, as the GM, don't get any fun.
The fun for me, as a GM, comes from challenging my players, not from one-shotting them for ONE bad roll, or for them to one shot my story-arc boss from one bad roll on his part.
Number 8 doesn't bother me much because charm/dominate effects are classic fantasy abilities and usually offer multiple saves (often with a nice bonus too). Sure, it's annoying to get hit by one, but that's mostly because of their SoL nature.
I don't see Number 7 as a particularly harsh problem. My friends and I survived and thrived many games without "carrying an apothecary". Scouting/Gathering Information/Divination/etc can often tell you which consumables you'll likely need.
6 doesn't bother me... But I wouldn't mind seeing Perception going the way of the old Concentration skill...
5 can be a problem... Although the party chipping in tp buy a healing consumable or two for the affected character fixes most of that issue.
I agree with 4. It's boring and pointless, but fortunately easily fixed with simple house rules. Simply give those mandatory bonuses to the PCs and let them spend their money on cool gear instead.
3 doesn't bother me if the encounter is (well) designed with that in mind. Spammable abilities are always a serious threat, so the GM should always take his time to throughly think how they affect an encounter and how much they raise the difficultt.
1 and 2 are really freaking annoying and frustrating. I do what I can to fix them, but SoL are so f!&%ing ingrained in the game due to the binary nature of saving throws that it can be quite a task to try and fix (or at least alleviate) these issues. I do what I can, though...
Just a point about 5)
“Vampire” is an acquired template that can be added to any living creature with 5 or more Hit Dice (referred to hereafter as the base creature). Most vampires were once humanoids , fey , or monstrous humanoid s. A vampire uses the base creature's stats and abilities except as noted here.
So the lowest CR vampire is 5 (5th level NPC class is CR 3, +2 from template).
I think my biggest beef about Pathfinder is the sheer complexity of the rules. I run games that are focused on story and characters, while de-emphasizing combat. The complexity and "fiddliness" of the rules often seems to bog down my games more than they enhance it.
When I run my next game set in Golarion, I'm seriously thinking of taking a shot at running it using FATE rules instead of PFRPG. That would still allow me to use all of the rules-neutral Campaign Setting material, while still providing a robust conflict-resolution and success-determination mechanic. But FATE allows much more free-flowing storytelling that's not beholden to 2,000+ pages of rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
6)The perception skill. The perception skill is bull. It is BY FAR the most useful skill in the game. Countering stealth, finding traps, noticing clues NEEDED TO PROGRESS THE GAME (in poorly written adventures.) It is widely regarded as the most useful, always-applicable skill in the game. And some classes just don't get it as a class skill. Why not simply make it a stat (like a saving throw bonus) if you are going to make it so gosh-darn required for everyone?
This bothered me until I really read the rules for take 10/20.
Now my players walk up to a door and it goes like this:
"I search for traps - take 20"
me: you find the trap
them: I take 10 to disarm did it work (roll if not)
enter room
them: take 20 on search
me: "you find the following"
(with a bit more description and such - but really there is little that can't be found with a take 20 roll to search, and there is very literally no trap that can't be found this way outside of making a trap completely undetectable.
The only way you miss something is either not wanting to take the time (2 minutes per check) to look at something - which happens. It does make me (the GM) keep track of time for buff spells and such - and it does typically make sure that buffs that are shorter than 30 mins or longer only last for one encounter.
It also lets me determine random monster encounters - all of which I think are by design honestly.
The thing I hate most about PF is the poor quality of its FAQs.
Second is the caster martial disparity and the fact that it gets strengthened not lessened.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
8, 5, 3, 2, and 1 all, IMO, branch off of a single trunk problem, binary effects. Either X works, and the target is utterly hosed, or it doesn't work (saved, spell resistance, immunity), and somebody wasted an action doing nothing.
I would prefer if lower level spells and monsters had lower powered conditions. Less 'unconsciousness' with color spray or sleep, or 'make three saves or prepare to be coup de graced' with ghoul paralysis at CR 1. More conditions like staggered or dazzled or sickened, at lower levels, and more staged effects, where if you fail the save, bad thing happens (blinded), and if you make the save, somewhat less bad thing happens (a better version of dazzled that gives your foes concealment?).
And then, these effects be spread out among classes, as not just spellcaster options or monster options, but also becoming available to rogues and fighters, allowing them to strike at someone's eyes to dazzle/blind them, or at their legs to lame them/reduce their movement, or smack them with a Morningstar to the junk to nauseate/sicken them.
At higher levels / CRs, the spells that render folk totally paralyzed / unconscious / mind-controlled / etc. start to show up, not just for monsters and spellcasters, but also for those fighters and rogues. The fighter or rogue might never be able to toss down an effect that nauseates an entire room, like stinking cloud, so they won't be *identical* to a spellcaster (or a monster with a stench aura or breath weapon), but they won't be completely limited to whittling away hit points, and not able to impose other conditions.
But all of this is not so much a Pathfinder problem as something that came with the baggage of D&D. Sleep and color spray have been as they are for decades, and they've always been rough for their level. Running a 1st level game, giving the enemy 1st level Sorcerer either one of these spells can *easily* lead to a TPK. Giving that same 1st level Sorcerer magic missile or burning hands makes him a total pushover, by comparison. There's no real internal balance in this stuff, not just between classes, or between monsters and PCs, but even *within* classes, so that picking less than the optimal spells (or hexes, feats, talents, etc.) can cripple your effectiveness, while picking the *exact* optimal spell (or hex, etc.) can make your character 'too good.' (Such as the Slumber hex.) There shouldn't be 'no-brainer' options. There should be multiple equally attractive options, and none of them should be the obvious 'right' choice, or regarded as a 'trap' for the player with less 'system mastery,' or some such elitist gobbledygook.
|
+1 on number 6 for sure. I don't think it's a balanced skill if it is rolled as often as all the other skills put together. Personally, I think it would work best if it functioned kind of like CMB/CMD scores, with "perceptive" classes like rogues and monks getting a full bonus every level, and classes like spell casters getting a smaller bonus.
I also agree to some extent on saveR'suck or saveR'die spells. I don't like building characters around them because they either work (and end the encounter without the fighter even getting to draw his sword) or they do nothing. Its also more fun for a player if they get to act, even with a debilitating condition like blindness; then simply doing nothing for six rounds because they were paralyzed.
One that I would like to add is that I think the system makes it hard to make some very iconic warrior types viable. For example, sword and shield fighters, rapier and dagger fighters, and mounted knights.
| 27 people marked this as a favorite. |
My samurai bravely charges the dragon. Oh wait, he rolled a 1 on the fear aura, he runs away screaming (even though he was prepared to die to save his country) while the dragon eats the wizard. FUN TIMES! (eye rolls.)
I've been to war. Twice. In two different regions of the world. I've worked as an EMT in very dangerous situations. I've run into burning buildings risking my life to remove ammo so the ammo cache doesn't blow up and kill everyone. These are real things I've done in my life.
I've done a lot more than that.
I've aso seen full grown men claim that they ae brave, that they're willing to risk their life for something. And I've seen some of those men - when push came to shove - hide behind cover rather than advance. Too afraid to move. I've seen the bravado turn to fear when it really mattered.
Likewise, I'm afraid of heights. Despite the brave things I've done in my life, the first time I had to scale a wall that was five stories high, I froze half way up. I couldn't move. I couldn't go higher or lower until a friend climbed over to me a coached me to continue. I gathered up my strength and continued, but for a short while I was frozen on the side of a wall 30 feet off the ground. Since then, I've made active efforts to overcome my fear of heights; I've jumped out of a plane a few times, I've scaled cliffs and buildings, I've gone rappelling. Yet every time I climb something as simple as a ladder, fear still strikes me. I can continue, but it's an active effort.
And I live in a world without magic.
Your samurai who failed his save not only lives in a world with magical fear effects above and beyond our normal world, but can also succumb to normal fear of frightening situations (like warfare) that us mortals face all the time. We may say what we would do when the time came down to it, but until you try it for yourself, you'll never know what you're actually going to do.
Heck, you may have even experienced a mini-example in your own life. How many times have yo said to yourself, "this is what I should have done in that situation"? Maybe when the bully in school pushed you or insulted you, and you didn't stand up for yourself. Or when the bully pushed that weak kid in class and you didn't stand up for him. Remember that back in high school? I remember it well, because I was often the kid bullied and I was never able to stand up for myself. I was always too afraid. This is part of why I've spent so much of my life learning to defend myself, learning to overcome my fears, always self evaluating to assess where I need to improve (and whether I want to).
If your samurai has done something similar and doesn't want to be overcome with fear (especially magical fear), he would have invested in the feats that advance his will save and allows for rerolls. Or he could have used his Resolve ability to roll his will save twice and take the better result (which he gets at first level). But simply stating that he is brave without taking active abilities in skills and feats that allow him to ignore or overcome fear is like claiming that you're brave and then hiding when the time comes to show it. Or just letting that school bully continue to beat up the class nerd. Or so many other situations in life where we continue to move on and ignore te problem rather than face it directly to fix it. A simple statement doesn't prove bravery; and a simple statement doesn't mean your character can do the things you want it to do.
"Remember, courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is the presence of fear, yet still continuing on."
|
8)Taking control of characters away from players.
I understand the frustration with this, but at the same time, I think a few rounds of 'losing control' is made out to be much worse than it is. GM's shouldn't get spam happy with it by any means, but honestly, this is treated like a mortal sin when it's barely a besetting sin. Don't do it too often or too zealously and it's okay.
One of my solutions is I still let the player play their PC, but within certain parameters. 'OK, you've succumbed to the vampire's dominate attack and you hear a voice instructing you to help her besiege the village. How would your character do that with his abilities?'
7) "Required items." (Silversheen, Alchemist's Fire, etc.)
In AP's, you have a point. In home games, I think this is a GM failing. Too many GM's fall into the trap of trying to use everything they can find in the Bestiaries. Find a 'type' with a common weakness and (mostly) stick with it. Make your game about Shifters, or Undead, or Trolls or Dragons (with kobolds and Dragonkin lackeys) or humanoid masterminds and use variations on that instead of the kitchen sink approach. That's a personal preference of course - but I feel like themed games create a more cohesive story.
If you are the kitchen sink sort, this is also the easiest fix. Just stop using those abilities on monsters.
6)The perception skill.
Perception is balanced by the fact that only one person in the party actually needs it. So yeah, Acrobatics isn't used nearly as often, but you'll have to all roll it individually. It might be a bit frustrating if the Ranger is making every perception check ever and your Cleric isn't, but A) Clerics are still more powerful and B) if you're not working against each other, you'll still reap the benefits.
5)Stuff you can't fix (at your level)
I agree that nothing at that level should have a permanent duration (Looking at you, Blindness/Deafness) but I think it can be balanced out as long as any of those effects can at least by cured with a night's rest.
4)Required magic items
Agree completely. This is the biggest problem with numbers bloat --- when 5E brought everything back down to reasonable AC, HP, and saves the best part was that it took away the required magic items list. I get tired of magical treasure becoming mundane because everybody is expected to have 300,000gp+ worth of gear.
3) Monsters with debilitating abilities on every attack.
Agree mostly. I pretty much houserule every SoD effect on an attack has a 24-hour immunity on a successful save. Ability and level damage, whatever, but the paralyzing thing is so irritating. Grapple/grab aren't really the worst conditions you can be stuck in and PC's can pretty much do the same thing if they feel like.
2)"Save or suck" & 1) Save or die
Combined since it's pretty much the same thing. But I do hate the All-or-Nothing approach and I would also support moving to a system with less pronounced successful effects in exchange for weaker partial effects if saves are made. 'Cloudkill' is pretty much how I'd like every current SoS spell to work . . . because honestly, at a certain level, you should be able to straight up kill low-level minions or (in the villain's case) peasantry and the town guard without any resistance or saves whatsoever.
I agree with 4. It's boring and pointless, but fortunately easily fixed with simple house rules. Simply give those mandatory bonuses to the PCs and let them spend their money on cool gear instead.
I tested those yesterday in a level 12 one-shot. They seem to work as well in practice as they do in theory-craft. I had the PCs spend WBL on cool different gear instead.
|
|
I'm saying that, more often than not, these problems come up.
E6 fixes almost all of your problems. I'm starting to think that an official E6 conversion from Paizo would sell very well.
8) There are still some charm/fear type spells in E6 range, but on the bright side, their durations will never be very long.
7) Fixed. There just aren't many monsters or situations in E6 that require special materials. As long as your party's martial guy has a silver dagger tucked into his belt, you're pretty much good to go.
6) As I've discussed before, the issue of perception is largely a problem with DMs, not the core game system.
5) This problem still exists, but can be effectively limited by having a DM who is not a moron/jerk.
4) E6 cuts this way, way down. The difference between having a cloak of resistance and not having one isn't quite as painful when you top out at 6th level. Suddenly you have the leisure of choosing a "Cloak of [something fun]" instead of being forced to wear a Cloak of Resistance.
3) Again, this issue doesn't entirely go away, but the durations are much more manageable. Also, on a cynical note, losing a 6th level character isn't quite as painful as losing a 20th level character. :)
2) There are far fewer of these in E6 than in a normal game, their save DCs are much more reasonable, and their durations are usually limited to just a few rounds, making them much easier to deal with.
1) I'm not sure if there are any save or die spells in E6...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is really "Stuff I hate about 3.5 D&D"
Most of the things you mention were worse back then, and have improved steadily throughout the versions.
I think this is really "Stuff I hate about 3.5 D&D"
Most of the things you mention were worse back then, and have improved steadily throughout the versions.
Well, he can hate these things in both systems. In fact, it would be really weird if that wasn't the case... Pathfinder alleviated some of these problems, but didn't solve any of them.
Besides, it's very possible to like (or even love) something and still hate some of its aspects... Nothing is perfect, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is really "Stuff I hate about 3.5 D&D"
Most of the things you mention were worse back then, and have improved steadily throughout the versions.
Well, he can hate these things in both systems. In fact, it would be really weird if that wasn't the case... Pathfinder alleviated some of these problems, but didn't solve any of them.
Besides, it's very possible to like (or even love) something and still hate some of its aspects... Nothing is perfect, after all.
Indeed. I often see people saying things like "clearly the Devs meant it to be this way", or "3.5 rulings have no bearing on Pathfinder". And then when a discussion of the root failings of the system comes up it becomes "well, it's not so much PF as 3.5 baggage", etc.
3.5 Rulings and FAQs are directly applicable where the rules (or root of a rule) overlaps, except in official rulings for PFS, and are a great source of information and inspiration for house rulings.
At the same time, when Paizo chose to bring forward most of the 3.5 rules set intact for backward compatibility, they made that baggage part of Pathfinder. So, it IS really Pathfinder, and not 3.5 baggage that causes these issues.
I struggle often with these rules, and wish many things were different (and constantly plot to spend the rest of my waking hours rebuilding them)...
...but I do love to play it.
Long live Pathfinder.
So, basically, you want that no real threats exists for the characters.For the most part, all the things I say are for BOTH sides of the table. If the PCs use save-or-death effects or mind control all of my (the GM's) monsters, then I don't get to have any fun either. And if the PC concocts some spell combo or something that the Badguys need a specific alchemical item to solve, and there's no reason for them to have it, then the PCs just get to steamroller the monsters and I, as the GM, don't get any fun.
The fun for me, as a GM, comes from challenging my players, not from one-shotting them for ONE bad roll, or for them to one shot my story-arc boss from one bad roll on his part.
Damn, you were too quick. I deleted my comment again because I though it came across a bit rude and inflammatory, and I didn't actually feel like that.
|
|
My samurai bravely charges the dragon. Oh wait, he rolled a 1 on the fear aura, he runs away screaming (even though he was prepared to die to save his country) while the dragon eats the wizard. FUN TIMES! (eye rolls.)I've been to war. Twice. In two different regions of the world. I've worked as an EMT in very dangerous situations. I've run into burning buildings risking my life to remove ammo so the ammo cache doesn't blow up and kill everyone. These are real things I've done in my life.
Snip
And I live in a world without magic.Your samurai who failed his save not only lives in a world with magical fear effects above and beyond our normal world, but can also succumb to normal fear of frightening situations (like warfare) that us mortals face all the time. We may say what we would do when the time came down to it, but until you try it for yourself, you'll never know what you're actually going to do.
Heck, you may have even experienced a mini-example in your own life. How many times...
Hey man, listen. I certainly don't mean to belittle what you've done. And I know that I, personally, couldn't hope to do even half of that. Let me try and explain what I really meant.
Role-playing games are there to have fun. It is escapist fun-time between all the terrible stuff in life. So a fighty-type (let's go with a slayer), who has no problem charging T-rexs or purple worms, or whathaveyou will suddenly run away from a dragon, possibly leading to a TPK? That doesn't sound fun to me. This is coupled with the fact that most fighty-type classes (except paladins) usually have poor wisdom and poor will saves. So it is almost impossible to have a dragon-slaying knight, 'cuse those fear effects are just too high.
I was going by pure numbers. Let's say a group of level 11 PCs stumble upon a CR 14 Adult red dragon. Before the cleric can even think of getting off a remove fear, the Slayer in the party must make a DC 21 will save. His base will save is +3. Let's be generous and say he has a +3 cloak of resistance and 10 wisdom. He needs to roll a 15 on the die or run away screaming, along with the rogue of the party and the alchemist, all running off in random directions (as long as it is away from the dragon) making it difficult to get them all within range of remove fear (if the cleric even thought to prep it that day.) Looks like the cleric and the wizard are hosed. That is not fun. For anyone (that is to say that I, as a GM, do not get a kick out of 'turning off' three PCs and then roflstomping the severely under-prepared wizard/cleric.)
The fun for me, as a GM, comes from challenging my players, not from one-shotting them for ONE bad roll, or for them to one shot my story-arc boss from one bad roll on his part.
What are your thoughts on crits then, since 1 shot crits are definitely a thing.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having played & GMed pen and paper RPGs since 1981, I've been exposed to more than a few different styles of game, not to mention rules engines.
With that in mind, my complaints with Pathfinder include:
#1: The player empowerment paradigm. I'm not just old school, my favorite game is Paranoia where the players aren't even allowed to know the rules. I don't enjoy "Player, May I?", I'm all about the "GM, May I?" approach that so many Pathfinder players object to. And yes, this includes whichever side of the GM screen I'm on. When I'm playing, I want the GM to run the game. I don't want to tell a GM his business, and I especially don't want my peers to dictate the game to the GM. Pen and Paper roleplaying games are gems because of the uniqueness that non-computer, human GMs bring in presentation. GMing is an art form; let the artist work. If you cajole the GM into doing things the way "you want", then you're cheating yourself of the unique presentation you otherwise could have enjoyed.
#2: Characters' capability being tied to magic gear. Having played plenty of other games where one's power is not defined by one's lootz, it's a bitter pill to have to swallow in Pathfinder (or any version of D&D). Paizo (and 3.0) made an admirable effort to diminish this quality, but it goes all the way back to D&D's core. You can't get rid of it without a complete break from tradition, which Paizo is probably unlikely to do.
#3: Particular to Paizo's Pathfinder as it is today is rules bloat. Holysplatbooks, Batman! It was due for a reboot after APG, and it's only gotten criminally overdue since then. It's not necessarily a critique of Paizo... RPGs have lifecycles. They make money by issuing new books, and issuing new books introduces power creep and rules bloat. If they're trying some experiment to keep "everything you've bought can always be used!", I can point to other game companies' past attempts to avoid reboots. They always end up having to reboot. Paizo, keep your Unchained and give me 2.0 instead. I'd rather give you money to rebuy books than to keep a dying beast on life support.
6)The perception skill. The perception skill is bull. It is BY FAR the most useful skill in the game. Countering stealth, finding traps, noticing clues NEEDED TO PROGRESS THE GAME (in poorly written adventures.) It is widely regarded as the most useful, always-applicable skill in the game. And some classes just don't get it as a class skill. Why not simply make it a stat (like a saving throw bonus) if you are going to make it so gosh-darn required for everyone?This bothered me until I really read the rules for take 10/20.
Now my players walk up to a door and it goes like this:
"I search for traps - take 20"
me: you find the trap
them: I take 10 to disarm did it work (roll if not)
enter room
them: take 20 on search
me: "you find the following"(with a bit more description and such - but really there is little that can't be found with a take 20 roll to search, and there is very literally no trap that can't be found this way outside of making a trap completely undetectable.
The only way you miss something is either not wanting to take the time (2 minutes per check) to look at something - which happens. It does make me (the GM) keep track of time for buff spells and such - and it does typically make sure that buffs that are shorter than 30 mins or longer only last for one encounter.
It also lets me determine random monster encounters - all of which I think are by design honestly.
Remember that taking 20 takes 2 minutes, so if they are on a time crunch they might not want to take 20. Taking 10 however is simply a safety precaution, and it saves time in real life. Unless they have really high modifiers they may not want to take 10, and if they do have a really high modifier they are very likely to pass anyway. As an example I had a character with a +30ish perception by level 10. It would be a waste of my time to roll in most situations so I just took 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2.0 plox yes.
I find myself agreeing more with Deusvult than the OP...
- 1. Magic items all over. I don't mind the magic sword or the magic armor, but when you get to the point where you are using metamagic rods and ioun stones and there's this belt for stats and this book for attributes... you lose me there. I'd rather have strong characters with a couple of items that boost their powers, but I'd like something like 3 or 4 max items on each person, not make each character a bling boat.
- 2. Terrible scaling of skill ranks. To me, lots of feat/talent effects should naturally come from high skill ranks. So my Rogue has a 40+ bonus to Stealth... but he still can attempt a stealth check while observed in dim light? The Bard also have a 40+ bonus to Sleight of Hand... but he needs a rogue talent to use SoH for Disarm checks? Those things should be contemplated.
- 3.15 minute workday. I'd rather have powers take definite, in game time to recover rather than it being a function of "let's go to bed quick before the boss". Sometimes I can rush the players as a DM, sometimes it just seems too forced.
- 4. Feats/talents aren't exciting. Feats like Intimidating Prowess are awesome, since they enable certain builds. Feats like Iron Will are really useful, because they allow you to patch up character flaws with time/levels. But what's the point of stuff like Combat Expertise, which only serves to gate builds and give dead levels to the progression, or the lack of any good progress to Feint builds at higher levels (where's the swift action feint at a penalty or something like that?) Feats should be more focused in creating build possibilities (whether it is in covering flaws or improving potential), and not so much about things that characters ought to have by baseline (wait, so the Bard with +40 Sleight of Hand can't quickly stash something into his body because he doesn't have the Scavenger Rogue Talent?)
- 5. Rocket tag. Seriously. Make battles grindy, long affairs... give some drama... this whole INFINITEBAB vs. Save-or-Suck thing is a little bit anticlimatic. I think this is a function of infinitely scaling attributes. I'd rather see a level 30 cap or something like that.
- 6. Racial Favored Class Bonus. Seriously. Seriously. Make Race a one-off decision at character creation, don't add so many strings to it.
I do love the rest of the game, but these things make me consider other systems.
I think you can't take 20 to look for traps.
I agree.
Hey man, listen. I certainly don't mean to belittle what you've done. And I know that I, personally, couldn't hope to do even half of that. Let me try and explain what I really meant.
No offense taken at all. I certainly have done a lot, but that's because I spent most of my childhood being bullied (by other kids and my older brothers) and getting beat up a lot. I spent high school as a nerdy coward who was bullied by almost every social clique we had. I didn't want to be like that anymore. So I spent a lot of time working to not be a coward. I actively work to challenge myself and challenge my fears, to continuously improve, to question my assumptions, and learn and grow.
So not only do I not take offense, but I thank you for the unspoken compliment you've given me by trying to not to belittle me. Seriously, thank you.
I was going by pure numbers. Let's say a group of level 11 PCs stumble upon a CR 14 Adult red dragon. Before the cleric can even think of getting off a remove fear, the Slayer in the party must make a DC 21 will save. His base will save is +3. Let's be generous and say he has a +3 cloak of resistance and 10 wisdom. He needs to roll a 15 on the die or run away screaming, along with the rogue of the party and the alchemist, all running off in random directions (as long as it is away from the dragon) making it difficult to get them all within range of remove fear (if the cleric even thought to prep it that day.) Looks like the cleric and the wizard are hosed. That is not fun. For anyone (that is to say that I, as a GM, do not get a kick out of 'turning off' three PCs and then roflstomping the severely under-prepared wizard/cleric.)
There are plenty of feats to boost saves vs fear or your will save in general (and some traits). Plus magic items. So a character that wants to be able to charge headlong into a magically inducing frightful opponent would have to work at overcoming their fears. This is simulated in game by gaining feats and abilities to their will save. This is what I mean by having the character actively work to overcome it. And remember, my own experiences are just what happens with normal fear, not magically induced fear.
I think you can't take 20 to look for traps.I agree.
You can; there's no penalty for rolling a 1 on a perception check. It's disabling the trap that you can't take 20 on.
Uh, dragon's only make you panicked if you're under level 5. At 5HD or more, you just get shaken (although I suppose they could make you frightened next round if you fail the save again).
He probably misread that as "four or fewer hit dice than the dragon," which is exactly how I misread it when I looked up the dragon's fear effect. Still wrong, but an easy mistake to make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been...
HOLY CRAP Bookrat! That is awesome!
Every once in a while, these forums amaze me and a post makes my day.
Thanks!
Okay, so you can't take 20 on something with a big failure state (like falling from a climb). Wouldn't failing the perception check to notice a trap potentially include triggering the trap? I think that's a valid, by rules reason to disallow Take 20 on a trap search.
|
|
Well, you're certainly within your right to institute that as a houserule, but that's not the default.I think you can't take 20 to look for traps.I agree.
Why would it need to be a houserule?
You can't search for secret doors without tapping on the walls. You can't search a desk without opening the drawers. You can't search a bookshelf without flipping through the books.
Depending on the nature of the trap and trigger in question, the very act of performing a perception check can provide sufficient stimulation to set it off. If the skill roll under those circumstances wasn't high enough to detect the trap, there's no reason to say the trap doesn't go off.
So, yeah. Searching for traps IS something that can have harmful consequences for failure, and as such can fairly be ruled as not qualifying for take-20.
Edit: Ninja'd by Albatoonoe.
|
|
Because "perception" is not "search."
Ever since 3.5, yeah, searches are Perception checks.
As for:
And because there's nothing in perception that says a failed check sets off a trap on its own.
That's that player empowerment paradigm I don't agree with. It's a roleplaying game, not a video game. Common sense still applies. If you pick up an object to check out the underside, but whoops it was on a trigger and you didn't realize this as part of your search, you just set off the trap.
|
|
Perception is also "spot" and "listen." And seriously, your argument means that just checking for traps at all sets them off.
Would you argue that "I search, but don't touch anything" said as part of the perception check should not impose a serious penalty for a potential object or trap element that is not in plain view? Heck, I'd say it even makes the attempt impossible and dice irrelevant.
And I didn't say checking for traps at all sets them off.. read it again.
Depending on the nature of the trap and trigger in question, the very act of performing a perception check can provide sufficient stimulation to set it off. If the skill roll under those circumstances wasn't high enough to detect the trap, there's no reason to say the trap doesn't go off.
Bolded for emphasis.
And aren't passive and active perception checks different? Taking 20 is an active thing, right? So you're "searching" which could potentially set off the trap. I guess there isn't specific rules text I can cite. I'm just kinda using common sense here.
For those arguing that a perception check may be able to set off a trap, does this mean that you can sometimes Take 20 on perception or that you can never Take 20 on perception?
I only agree with items 7 and 4.
For those arguing that a perception check may be able to set off a trap, does this mean that you can sometimes Take 20 on perception or that you can never Take 20 on perception?
I'm certainly for sometimes taking 20. It's just that, when there is a trap around, I feel like the "auto-fail" that accompanies Take 20 would set off the trap. Like, you're looking around the room and "whoops, I stepped on a trap!"
|
|
For those arguing that a perception check may be able to set off a trap, does this mean that you can sometimes Take 20 on perception or that you can never Take 20 on perception?
That's an excellent point that touches on stage-craft for the GM. If you tell the player you're not letting him take 20, then he knows something is up. If you NEVER let him take 20, he's probably got a fair gripe with how you're running it. You have to adapt and overcome, if you're going to say that searching might set off a trap.
Personally, I'd probably make a secret roll on behalf of the character to see if he accidentally set off the trap in the process of taking 20 that included a trapped area/thing that would be plausibly set off by searching it. When he tells you his take 20 result, it's pretty easy to subtract 20 and figure out what his bonus is.
However, I don't often have to deal with characters taking 20 though on searches. When I point out that a 2 minute search involves a 10' area that's relatively devoid of details, and when I figure out how much more than a move action it'll take to search an entire room/wall/whatever and remind them about the durations remaining on their buffs, they rarely want to take 20 times that amount.
7) "Required items." Okay, so we all know that you need magic weapons to hurt certain creatures. But lately, it seems like the game will assume that every character will have a full apothocary on your back at all times or else they will loose. Sure it makes sense for the cleric to carry holy water, but it has gotten out of hand. You need antiplague and antitoxin for particularly bad infections/poisons, alchemist fire/acid for things with regeneration, an alkali flask for oozes, sunrods or liquid sunlight to counteract deeper darkness, remember to always have a ready supply of oil of bless weapon (for those demons and devils) cold iron, mithril, AND adamantine weapons . . .
and just the other day people were complaining that DR was useless now.
(you can ignore most DR with a weapon with a sufficient enhancement bonus)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most partys I played with in the distant past (3.X days) did well because I used to play clerics that took their role seriously (buffing the party, undoing mental control on fighters, etc.)
However I recently gave the GM hat to a fellow player and I now find myself a player. I'm trying a gunslinger, and the first game I played I saw myself charmed by an enemy sorcerer two levels lower than my character. Gunslingers have a sucky will save, but I knew that going in. What I didn't know was that the gent supposed to play a cleric came up with a battle oracle instead, and he basically uses spells as an afterthought between battle. During combat, he's mostly buffing himself or swinging a two-handed weapon (he's all Cha and STR, everything else has been dumped).
Now, I worry about the fact that every PC is now its own island, and that all these cool classes are supposed to come up with their own 'self-buffing kit'... this makes the game a bit longer and less fun. I wish I could rely on a good cleric or wizard to pull our asses out of the fire but it seems highly unlikely at the moment...
|
|
What I don't like
Save or suck spells/effects.
Both as a DM and player they are simply not fun. In one session I had to alter some of the outcomes of a spell as most of the group failed their saves. A high level npc casting Prismatic Spray. One of the options for that spell is being struck twice. Imagine being insane and gated to another plane.
Skills
Why does a fighter not have Perception. The frontline character. The one taking the damage. As well they don;t offer much as one levels up. It would be nice for a skill to improve or time as well. Higher ranks means it takes a move action to notice something.
Feats.
Either feats need to be taken because of feat taxes. Which I don't like. Mostly a lack of feats that hit the proper middle ground. What i mean is that either a feat is really good. Perhaps too good. Or simply not worth taking. With the description of the feat not matching what the feat can actually do.
Art
I'm finding that the art is start to look too alike for my tastes. Nothing stand out. At least with 3.5. and having different artist it was not a problem.
Faq/Errata
That instead of helping resolve a issue make it even worse. As well too often at the whims of Pathfinder society. When a rule/feat/trait gets banned before the book containing is even released their is a problem. Not to mention sometimes it feels like the devs simply don't listen. We ask for a feat that allows us to apply dex to damage. What we get is either not worth taking. Sometimes confusing and not worth taking.