|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From your personal experiences playing and/or running Pathfinder games, what are some things you've seen people doing blatantly wrong in terms of rules? I'm not talking about problematic attitudes, boring plots, or awkward house rules here, just people unintentionally messing up the actual rules of the game.
Another title for this thread could be: "What are some often overlooked or misunderstood Pathfinder rules?"
For me, it would be all the very popular spells that have a casting time of 1 round that are often allowed to be cast as a standard action because nobody remembers their actual casting times.
Another common mistake is that the Diplomacy skill is not an unlimited charm person spell, no matter how high your bonus is.
Also, in the ongoing debate about how arcane spellcasters can easily duplicate lots of traditional rogue skills, people always forget that stuff like knock and disguise self still require skill checks, they're not instant success win buttons.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forgetting that shooting through any other creature's space gives your target soft cover. And then complaining about how strong archery is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forgetting that shooting through any other creature's space gives your target soft cover. And then complaining about how strong archery is.
Oh yeah, this is another big one for me.
Another would be the commonly overlooked rules regarding corners, specifically with regard to line of sight, attacks of opportunity, and cover.
Forgetting that shooting through any other creature's space gives your target soft cover. And then complaining about how strong archery is.
Do multiple people providing soft cover from a single shot stack?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lesser restoration (and it's bigger siblings) takes 3 rounds to cast.
Forgetting that shooting through any other creature's space gives your target soft cover. And then complaining about how strong archery is.
Archery is strong even with that (I've never forgotten that rule of the one with corners and line of sight). What makes it so strong is the options available to it, which other ranged weapons do not have. Of course, I'd rather see the other ranged options get better than drag archery down.
As for the OP - grappling rules. They're so complex that it's difficult to get right. Even saw one player believe that she could initiate a grapple and do grapple damage on the first round. Then on the second round, confirm the grapple, do grapple damage, then do flurry of blows. And with all this, she couldn't understand why people thought monks were weak.
|
Mounted combat ... sometimes is just.... bit to complex for my mind to even point a finger on ppl that use it "wrong"
This will make it better, I promise.
As for the rest: encumbrance is just better off ignored for the most part. It provides zero fun in return for the bookkeeping effort involved.
I don't think I've ever seen anybody get the rules blatantly wrong outside of just ignoring rules that were inconvenient or otherwise got in the way of the fun.
(I've never forgotten that rule of the one with corners and line of sight).I'm curious what you mean by this, which rule are you referring to? I ask because a lot of people misunderstand the rules surrounding corners and line of sight/cover.
For ranged, any one corner of your square has to have a straight uninterrupted line to any corner of the opponents square, otherwise they have cover. Opposite is true for melee; if any corner of your square is blocked to any corner of their square, they have cover.
Edit: looked it up, and it looks like even I've been doing it wrong! So the rules text says that you pick one corner of yours and if it is blocked to *any* corner of the enemy's, then they have cover.
Encumbrance is fairly easy since everyone is my group uses Hero Lab for character sheets. When it flags that you have medium encumbrance you can go through your character and say "oh yeah, those 20 torches and a tent I have been carrying around since first level. And the wand I got at second and have never burned a charge. And all those potions I never drank. Now that I am 12th level I should sell some of this junk."
Forgetting that shooting through any other creature's space gives your target soft cover. And then complaining about how strong archery is.
At at 11th level, this goes away completely.
Forgetting that shooting through any other creature's space gives your target soft cover. And then complaining about how strong archery is.At at 11th level, this goes away completely.
Only for full BAB archers. My poor inquisitor has to wait for 15 lvls!
|
|
1) Holding the charge for a spell. Many, have a hard time realizing, or believing it exists.
2) Choosing to use Acrobatics to avoid an AoO moving through a threatened square, means that if you fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an AoO. You do not get to continue moving.
3) 5ft Steps can be made at any time during your turn, as long as you ave not used a Move action to move. Even between attacks, or after standing up from prone.
I've had a DM rule that I cannot hold a charge because it's overpowered.
I was playing a healer (the class) and I wanted to start combat with a cure spell held so I could dump it and cast a spell in the same turn to get two cures in the same turn.
Lulz really???
The only time I can potentially see any "abuse" is from life oracles who can literally over heal a person for temp hp...
But even that.. if a person is playing a dedicated healer Im happy as a DM... that means I can throw bigger beefsticks and that is 1 less guy potentially breaking the game... like every OTHER full caster...
2) Choosing to use Acrobatics to avoid an AoO moving through a threatened square, means that if you fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an AoO. You do not get to continue moving.
Not exactly correct BBT, =) It's not his threatened square where you stop, it's his actual square, the square he is in, like rolling through his legs or trying to vault over him. You are not stopped by moving through a threatened area, you just provoke.
Zen archer monks are nice like that too...
Zen archer monks are rediculous archers...
Ten foot pits.
'mental actions' while paralyzed (see the thread about Fly spells while paralyzed).
Spell components. Eschew Materials is a feat, but every Wizard I have seen plays as if they got the feat for free...
|
|
2) Choosing to use Acrobatics to avoid an AoO moving through a threatened square, means that if you fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an AoO. You do not get to continue moving.Not exactly correct BBT, =) It's not his threatened square where you stop, it's his actual square, the square he is in, like rolling through his legs or trying to vault over him. You are not stopped by moving through a threatened area, you just provoke.
Sorry, I meant to say enemy space.
|
That if you get hit while using acrobatics you need to make a second check or be knocked prone.
This is true, to a point. It is worth pointing out that this is only while using acrobatics to cross a narrow surface or uneven ground. That clause isn't in the avoiding AoO section or the jumping section.
|
|
(I've never forgotten that rule of the one with corners and line of sight).I'm curious what you mean by this, which rule are you referring to? I ask because a lot of people misunderstand the rules surrounding corners and line of sight/cover.For ranged, any one corner of your square has to have a straight uninterrupted line to any corner of the opponents square, otherwise they have cover. Opposite is true for melee; if any corner of your square is blocked to any corner of their square, they have cover.
Edit: looked it up, and it looks like even I've been doing it wrong! So the rules text says that you pick one corner of yours and if it is blocked to *any* corner of the enemy's, then they have cover.
The aspect of cover that I see folks get wrong a fair bit is when you have an attacker just around the corner from a target down a long hallway. There is no cover for the target down the hallway in that case. If the guy in the hallway makes a ranged attack at the creature around the corner there is cover however.
I couldn't find a good image to illustrate, but this image shows the same concept.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not knowing you can take 10 on anything (but UMD).
Thinking that taking 10 takes ten minutes for some reason.
Not allowing taking 10 on knowledge (only needs to be trained >10)
In my experience, 'taking 10' is seen as a dirty word to DMs, that "ruins the spirit of the game"
In my experience, 'taking 10' is seen as a dirty word to DMs, that "ruins the spirit of the game"
That's too bad.
Maybe you need better DM's so you'll have a better game spirit...
Side note: the only Take-10 case that I morally object to (but still don't actually disallow in-game) is on crafting magic items. This is because there are actually rules for what happens on a very bad roll (cursed items) and those cursed items exist in-game (I see them in many adventures and APs) which means some people are actually failing hard enough to create cursed items. But nobody EVER fails that bad if they Take-10, so logically there should be ZERO cursed items in the world. I would have preferred if the magic item crafting rules prohibited Take-10 on this particular use of Spellcraft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, 'taking 10' is seen as a dirty word to DMs, that "ruins the spirit of the game"That's too bad.
Maybe you need better DM's so you'll have a better game spirit...
Side note: the only Take-10 case that I morally object to (but still don't actually disallow in-game) is on crafting magic items. This is because there are actually rules for what happens on a very bad roll (cursed items) and those cursed items exist in-game (I see them in many adventures and APs) which means some people are actually failing hard enough to create cursed items. But nobody EVER fails that bad if they Take-10, so logically there should be ZERO cursed items in the world. I would have preferred if the magic item crafting rules prohibited Take-10 on this particular use of Spellcraft.
You would still roll if you are making an item well above your level.
It actually explains why the vast majority of items are not cursed. Only those foolish or desperate enough to push their capabilities and take the risk will create cursed items. If you can't take 10 then you would expect a significant fraction of items to be cursed - something like between 1 in 5 to 1 in 20.
Wendy is creating a 3,000gp item with a CL of 15 (what item is that, anyway?) and she only has 5 ranks in spellcraft? Who is only 5th level trying to make CL 15 items? That's already a bad idea.
And on top of that she decides to risk all these raw materials on a 60% chance she fails and wastes everybody's time and money?
That doesn't sound like something a person with 20 INT would do; is Wendy's WIS just a 4 or something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not properly accounting for, or using, material components (and then complaining about how overpowered casters are) when a spellcaster wants to cast a spell.
I don't care if it is extra book keeping, that is one of the balance factors of the class.
So, correct me if I am wrong, but how many of you have heard the following and not thought anything was up:
when did he pull out the 250 GP worth of diamond dust and granite? That isn't part of a normal Spell Component bag after all... Unless he took it out last round as part of a move action he doesn't have the spell component ready to use..."
The CRB does not specify that manipulating material components requires an action (which it definitely WOULD if that were the case). At best, you could argue that manipulating material components is a free action taken as part of the specified amount of time it takes to cast a spell - IE a standard action.
Additionally, the CRB specifically tells you not to bother tracking material components less than 1 gp.
So no, Paizo does not consider MC a balancing factor of the class (except for very narrow circumstances). MC of more than 1gp are a balancing factor of WBL, not spellcasting power. Which is why people complain about OP spellcasters not being restricted by much of anything.
You're right.
It's an example.
Of a professional (not just a student, but a skilled professional) taking on a task way over her head, then screwing up, then trying to fix it by risking everything on an even worse (and very unprofessional) idea.
And you're right. It could happen. As an ultra-rare corner case that has a 1/3 chance of spawning a cursed item. Three such corner cases and a cursed item comes into the world, and three highly-skilled professionals are financially ruined and more-or-less out of business for gambling everything on a terrible and seriously unprofessional idea.
(for example, a true professional would have set the CL at 12 and made sure to create a successful item)
(and if the CL had to be 15 then the professional was using an 8th level spell that they couldn't cast on their own, compounding the lack of professionalism ten-fold)
(for that matter, poor Wendy doesn't even have Spellcraft as a class skill - if she did, she'd still be using Take-10 despite all these setbacks; maybe she's not the skilled professional she seemed to be after all)
I would be highly surprised if this corner case ever happened, let alone 3 times.
But it is an example. It could happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like when people ignore restrictions built into spells - Charm, Dominate, and Gate have come up recently as they have specific restrictions built in that tons of people ignore, plus the restrictions based on material components.
Also - I greatly dislike the way wealth by level is handled by a bunch of people. It's supposed to be a general guideline of the maximum treasure a character in a standard magic game has gained over his/her career. A character at a particular level will nearly always have significantly less because they're consuming portions, using scrolls, selling items they don't want for half price, etc.
|
Also - I greatly dislike the way wealth by level is handled by a bunch of people. It's supposed to be a general guideline of the maximum treasure a character in a standard magic game has gained over his/her career. A character at a particular level will nearly always have significantly less because they're consuming portions, using scrolls, selling items they don't want for half price, etc.
No, actually:
Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.
Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items.
Yes, you're expected to invest some wealth in consumables, and sell some stuff for half value, but the WBL chart is an estimate for how much you'll have after consuming and selling some of the stuff you get. That's why you can use it to equip a character starting at a higher level - otherwise a character created with the WBL chart would be too rich compared to their teammates who had been using consumables since level 1.
You are of course completely entitled to diverge from WBL, but it's usually polite to let your players know at the start that the game will be low-fantasy or low-wealth so they will set expectations appropriately.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like when people ignore restrictions built into spells - Charm, Dominate, and Gate have come up recently as they have specific restrictions built in that tons of people ignore, plus the restrictions based on material components.
Man, I totally agree. In fact, I said something very much like this in another one of those "martials vs casters" threads and the angry mob almost tore my head off. It boggles my mind how many people can casually say, in the same breath: "I either don't understand, am unaware of, or disregard all the rules that are intended to help balance casters with martials, but I also think casters are overpowered."
I wonder how these people would feel after playing in a single campaign with a draconian DM who strictly enforces all of these rules...
WBL is not a guideline
WBL is as much a "guideline" as how much XP it takes to reach the next level, to the point that when a scroll or expensive spell component is spent the GM should be awarding that money back to the party.
Not sarcasm?
WBL is a guideline (as is XP progress - the GM is encouraged to use slow or fast progression as fits their campaign, or ignore it altogether). It is very loosely followed by Adventure Paths - I know Jade Regent hands out artefacts probably worth hundreds of thousands of gold pieces in the first couple of books. You are not supposed to award the money back to the party when the party uses a scroll or spell component. If you did, scrolls and spell components would be effectively free. And that would exacerbate Martial/Caster disparity.
I've had a DM rule that I cannot hold a charge because it's overpowered.
I was playing a healer (the class) and I wanted to start combat with a cure spell held so I could dump it and cast a spell in the same turn to get two cures in the same turn.
How did you plan to deliver a held charge to an ally for less than a Standard action?