Things that are harder than they should be.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

SmiloDan wrote:
Is there a reason there aren't any long gun revolvers (that I know of)?

There are long arm revolvers.

Or if you are looking for something a little more modern and tacticool, how about a revolving semi-auto suppressed bullpup shotgun that you can hang off a rifle. No, I'm not kidding.


^They do exist. As a related idea, some early-to-mid-20th Century machine guns had drum magazines.

Edit: Ninja'd!


Being able to specialize in a single element and not getting neutered later on in the game, without the able to change the damage type(like some bloodline arcana and Admixture Evokers).

Dark Archive

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:
As for revolvers...as long as you've got pre-packed cartridges, you can have revolvers. But there's a big difference between blackpowder weapons with spinning muzzles and the revolvers we have with spinning magazines and bullets in brass shells.

Revolvers are pretty easy once you have breech-loading as a concept and are using it. Before that, a pepperbox is the best you can do since you're muzzle-loading. Breech-loaders came along quite a while after guns as a concept.

And yes, paper cartridges...

You don't actually need breechloaders to have revolvers. Cap and ball revolvers, developed in the 1800s, were still loaded from the front of the cylinder. What you really need is percussion caps. Without percussion caps, revolvers aren't realy practical. Even if you could get a flintlock revolver working, there would be a serious risk of chainfires, and that's a good way to lose part or most of a hand.


Calculating magic item creation costs. I posted in the rules forums tonight about it and I got some good suggestions but I'm still utterly baffled. I tried to even break down the cost of existing items and couldn't do it because I completely can't understand the rules.

After not being able to fall asleep I've figured out the simple items. But the special items like the Cloak of the Wyvern crushes my soul.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Build a gunslinger, they're just too complex for me


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Equipment made out of adamantine.


I guess we can add 'Make Sense of Hitpoints' to the list. :)

Here's one that's way EASIER than it should be: A typical Pathfinder human can fully recover from having a vital organ ripped out of their body by an enraged barbarian in 1-4 days.
(Obviously, what's harder than it should be is understanding the meaning of the word 'vital'.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:
As for revolvers...as long as you've got pre-packed cartridges, you can have revolvers. But there's a big difference between blackpowder weapons with spinning muzzles and the revolvers we have with spinning magazines and bullets in brass shells.

Revolvers are pretty easy once you have breech-loading as a concept and are using it. Before that, a pepperbox is the best you can do since you're muzzle-loading. Breech-loaders came along quite a while after guns as a concept.

And yes, paper cartridges...

You don't actually need breechloaders to have revolvers. Cap and ball revolvers, developed in the 1800s, were still loaded from the front of the cylinder. What you really need is percussion caps. Without percussion caps, revolvers aren't realy practical. Even if you could get a flintlock revolver working, there would be a serious risk of chainfires, and that's a good way to lose part or most of a hand.

You don't need percussion caps to have revolvers either.

The oldest extant revolver was a flintlock manufactured in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. It's a real multiple chamber/single barrel revolver, not a pepperpot.
youtube link


Arbane the Terrible wrote:

I guess we can add 'Make Sense of Hitpoints' to the list. :)

Here's one that's way EASIER than it should be: A typical Pathfinder human can fully recover from having a vital organ ripped out of their body by an enraged barbarian in 1-4 days.
(Obviously, what's harder than it should be is understanding the meaning of the word 'vital'.)

I suppose we could always chock that up to that the barbarian "trying" to rip out your vital organ never reading a manual or diagram.

if he happens to succeed in finding one, you die... if not you recover in 1-4 days thanking your god/s he wasn't a doctor....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
M1k31 wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:

I guess we can add 'Make Sense of Hitpoints' to the list. :)

Here's one that's way EASIER than it should be: A typical Pathfinder human can fully recover from having a vital organ ripped out of their body by an enraged barbarian in 1-4 days.
(Obviously, what's harder than it should be is understanding the meaning of the word 'vital'.)

I suppose we could always chock that up to that the barbarian "trying" to rip out your vital organ never reading a manual or diagram.

if he happens to succeed in finding one, you die... if not you recover in 1-4 days thanking your god/s he wasn't a doctor....

That's not the only example of a totally survivable injury which should be guarenteed to be lethal.

Look at the rules for implanting a demonic heart (see here). The penalty for getting your heart cut out is 2d4 con damage and some con bleed, as well as immediately going into the negatives the next round. The entire ordeal is totally survivable if a guy is standing by with a wand of CLW to poke the heart amputee when they drop into the negatives(assuming they have a reasonable con score). Yay for having no heart?


I guess cure light wounds is just really good.


Atarlost wrote:
Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:
As for revolvers...as long as you've got pre-packed cartridges, you can have revolvers. But there's a big difference between blackpowder weapons with spinning muzzles and the revolvers we have with spinning magazines and bullets in brass shells.

Revolvers are pretty easy once you have breech-loading as a concept and are using it. Before that, a pepperbox is the best you can do since you're muzzle-loading. Breech-loaders came along quite a while after guns as a concept.

And yes, paper cartridges...

You don't actually need breechloaders to have revolvers. Cap and ball revolvers, developed in the 1800s, were still loaded from the front of the cylinder. What you really need is percussion caps. Without percussion caps, revolvers aren't realy practical. Even if you could get a flintlock revolver working, there would be a serious risk of chainfires, and that's a good way to lose part or most of a hand.

You don't need percussion caps to have revolvers either.

The oldest extant revolver was a flintlock manufactured in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. It's a real multiple chamber/single barrel revolver, not a pepperpot.
youtube link

Looks like the Winchesters are at it again, they keep doing Time travel to stop supernatural creatures, bring their weapons, and left that behind (TV show Supernatural).

Sigh, this is why Time travel is a bad idea.


SmiloDan wrote:
Is there a reason there aren't any long gun revolvers (that I know of)?

There were a few throughout history, but there are several reasons they never really became popular:

1) Cylinder gap. There is a small gap between the cylinder and the barrel through which some of the gas escapes, which can be quite dangerous to nearby body parts. It's not a problem with pistols, if you're aware of it, since both your hands will be well behind the gap. But with a long gun, the gap is pointed right at your forearm. It also means that some of the discharge blows right in front of your face rather than at arm's length; not generally dangerous but still a nuisance.

2) Black powder revolvers had a nasty tendency to fire off all the rounds in the cylinder at once if a wayward spark got into a loaded chamber. As dangerous as this is in a pistol, it would be even worse with a long gun since your face is closer to the action, your arm is next to it, and your off hand is in front of it.

3) The lever-action was invented not long afterwards, which in a long gun is superior to the revolver in nearly every way.

4) Militaries were slow to adopt revolving (or for that matter, any repeating) firearms due mainly to the cost, both of the weapons themselves and the increased ammunition consumption. By the time they got around to making repeaters standard-issue, technology had moved on to the bolt action, which is far superior to both the revolver and lever action.


Jumping while running/charging. Iirc in 3.5 you needed a feat with like 3 prereqs to do it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

ah, no. Jumping is part of normal movement.

To get EXTRA BENEFIT out of jumping while charging (i.e. +100% dmg), yes, you did indeed need some feats. But that was standard ubercharger stuff - Shock trooper, power attack, leap attack, go to town.

==Aelryinth

The Exchange

Arbane the Terrible wrote:

There's some things that are bizarrely difficult in Pathfinder.

1: Jumping high. At level 3, a Wizard can levitate to any height they like. At that level, good luck jumping higher than your height, anyone but a Gnome Monk!

2: Regeneration It is significantly easier to bring someone back from the dead than to restore a missing ear. (Do the rules make any allowances for if they died of decapitation?)

3: Surviving cold weather. By the rules, a skiing holiday is risking death, and a Minnesota winter should be a TPK.

Any others people can think of?

1) high jumping is incredibly hard. The men's record is 8 ft. The woman's record is 6 ft. Levitation is a magic spell. It should break the rules. If you want to break rules, multi-class into a mage to get jump/levitate or get a magic item that does that. I cannot fly in real life without aid. I don't see that as being a problem IRL or a game either.

2) Regeneration is not needed unless a particular magic item such as swords or sharpness or vorpal blades come into play. If combat mimicked real life and you could easily lose an appendage or organ than I suspect regeneration would be a much lower spell. Probably around third to correspond with cure blindness/deafness or cure disease. It would likely make the paladin mercy list as well.

3)Surviving cold weather can be done with appropriate cold weather gear and feats. Most people in cold weather have adapted and wear appropriate clothing and have cold feather feats like endurance. Take a warm weather person and stick them in Minnesota during winter or take a Minnesotan and stick them in the desert. The person may adapt but they will not perform optimally like an adventurer would.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Talek & Luna wrote:

3)Surviving cold weather can be done with appropriate cold weather gear and feats. Most people in cold weather have adapted and wear appropriate clothing and have cold feather feats like endurance. Take a warm weather person and stick them in Minnesota during winter or take a Minnesotan and stick them in the desert. The person may adapt but they will not perform optimally like an adventurer would.

Indeed, my adaptive blubber helps in the winter, but my time in Reno was less than pleasant.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

Except, if you extend that to the obvious conclusion, with "ears and fingers could be flying" applied to all combats, a character could be completely out of ears and fingers by the time he hits level 2, certainly level 3.

If it's only done occasionally, say, once per boss fight with, say, exactly one boss per character level, then even if you restrict it to fingers and ears, a character will lose all 10 fingers and both ears before they reach 13th level and can cast Regenerate (but now they can't cast it because they can't do the somatic components).

In fact, long before that, they probably don't have enough fingers left to hold their weapons.

Unless you're expecting near-fingerless heroes to pop into local temples and purchase Regenerate spells two or three times in their early to mid adventuring careers.

None of which is consistent with anything said in the HP rules I quoted in my last post.

Yes, you're free to describe whatever you want, but the way you're suggesting to describe it is very inconsistent with the actual rules.

Wrong! Your ears you keep and I’ll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, “Dear God! What is that thing,” will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.

Dark Archive

Atarlost wrote:
Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:
As for revolvers...as long as you've got pre-packed cartridges, you can have revolvers. But there's a big difference between blackpowder weapons with spinning muzzles and the revolvers we have with spinning magazines and bullets in brass shells.

Revolvers are pretty easy once you have breech-loading as a concept and are using it. Before that, a pepperbox is the best you can do since you're muzzle-loading. Breech-loaders came along quite a while after guns as a concept.

And yes, paper cartridges...

You don't actually need breechloaders to have revolvers. Cap and ball revolvers, developed in the 1800s, were still loaded from the front of the cylinder. What you really need is percussion caps. Without percussion caps, revolvers aren't realy practical. Even if you could get a flintlock revolver working, there would be a serious risk of chainfires, and that's a good way to lose part or most of a hand.

You don't need percussion caps to have revolvers either.

The oldest extant revolver was a flintlock manufactured in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. It's a real multiple chamber/single barrel revolver, not a pepperpot.
youtube link

As I mentioned, that thing looks like a recipe for chainfires. Avoiding having a gun blow up in my hand is high on my list of priorities. I like my hands. I don't like them full of gun fragments.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

Except, if you extend that to the obvious conclusion, with "ears and fingers could be flying" applied to all combats, a character could be completely out of ears and fingers by the time he hits level 2, certainly level 3.

If it's only done occasionally, say, once per boss fight with, say, exactly one boss per character level, then even if you restrict it to fingers and ears, a character will lose all 10 fingers and both ears before they reach 13th level and can cast Regenerate (but now they can't cast it because they can't do the somatic components).

In fact, long before that, they probably don't have enough fingers left to hold their weapons.

Unless you're expecting near-fingerless heroes to pop into local temples and purchase Regenerate spells two or three times in their early to mid adventuring careers.

None of which is consistent with anything said in the HP rules I quoted in my last post.

Yes, you're free to describe whatever you want, but the way you're suggesting to describe it is very inconsistent with the actual rules.

Wrong! Your ears you keep and I’ll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, “Dear God! What is that thing,” will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.

*look that's equal parts cynical and terrified* I think you're bluffing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rennaivx wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

Except, if you extend that to the obvious conclusion, with "ears and fingers could be flying" applied to all combats, a character could be completely out of ears and fingers by the time he hits level 2, certainly level 3.

If it's only done occasionally, say, once per boss fight with, say, exactly one boss per character level, then even if you restrict it to fingers and ears, a character will lose all 10 fingers and both ears before they reach 13th level and can cast Regenerate (but now they can't cast it because they can't do the somatic components).

In fact, long before that, they probably don't have enough fingers left to hold their weapons.

Unless you're expecting near-fingerless heroes to pop into local temples and purchase Regenerate spells two or three times in their early to mid adventuring careers.

None of which is consistent with anything said in the HP rules I quoted in my last post.

Yes, you're free to describe whatever you want, but the way you're suggesting to describe it is very inconsistent with the actual rules.

Wrong! Your ears you keep and I’ll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, “Dear God! What is that thing,” will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.
*look that's equal parts cynical and terrified* I think you're bluffing.

It's possible, Pig, I might be bluffing. It's conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. But, then again...

I use "conceivable" once. This word means what I think it means.

Shadow Lodge

Athaleon wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
Is there a reason there aren't any long gun revolvers (that I know of)?

1) Cylinder gap. There is a small gap between the cylinder and the barrel through which some of the gas escapes, which can be quite dangerous to nearby body parts. It's not a problem with pistols, if you're aware of it, since both your hands will be well behind the gap. But with a long gun, the gap is pointed right at your forearm. It also means that some of the discharge blows right in front of your face rather than at arm's length; not generally dangerous but still a nuisance.

The Nagent M1895 solves this through a complex chamber system and specialized bullets, at the cost of being slow to load the cylinder and a VERY high trigger pull weight. But hey, you can even put a silencer on it.

In theory, you might be able to apply it to a black powder revolver, maybe? But you'd still have the other problems with black powder.


Talek & Luna wrote:

1) high jumping is incredibly hard. The men's record is 8 ft. The woman's record is 6 ft. Levitation is a magic spell. It should break the rules. If you want to break rules, multi-class into a mage to get jump/levitate or get a magic item that does that. I cannot fly in real life without aid. I don't see that as being a problem IRL or a game either.

3)Surviving cold weather can be done with appropriate cold weather gear and feats. Most people in cold weather have adapted and wear appropriate clothing and have cold feather feats like endurance. Take a warm weather person and stick them in Minnesota during winter or take a Minnesotan and stick them in the desert. The person may adapt but they will not perform optimally like an adventurer would.

1) So you are saying it's OK for an adventurer to shrug off falls from any height at higher levels, but not jump higher than they could IRL? At no point is a PC in Pathfinder a normal human in any way, they are slower than an athelete, stronger than the strongest animals on Earth, have perfect recall, and can withstand impossible conditions unharmed from level 1.

3) Cold weather gear is a +2 to the save which is already staggeringly high. There is literally 0% chance for an Inuit people to exist by RAW with any combination of feats unless they give infants some sort of magical item.


Speaking of.

Moving faster. There's the fast movement class feature, magic and a few other specific options and outside of those you'll never move any faster. There's a couple feats, but they only apply to special movement (Run works for Running, Outslug Sprint for 5 foot steps).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Speaking of.

Moving faster. There's the fast movement class feature, magic and a few other specific options and outside of those you'll never move any faster. There's a couple feats, but they only apply to special movement (Run works for Running, Outslug Sprint for 5 foot steps).

Except fleet, the feat that raises your base speed by 5 feet, and is stackable. Of course it is from an obscure source, the CRB.


Oh right. I forgot about that one.

It's horrible though and you need to spend a ton of feats to get any mileage out of it so I'm still saying it's too hard to do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Java Man wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Speaking of.

Moving faster. There's the fast movement class feature, magic and a few other specific options and outside of those you'll never move any faster. There's a couple feats, but they only apply to special movement (Run works for Running, Outslug Sprint for 5 foot steps).

Except fleet, the feat that raises your base speed by 5 feet, and is stackable. Of course it is from an obscure source, the CRB.

Everyone who hasn't forgotten that feat exists is actively trying to.


The thread is "harder than it should be" and if you say it's not bad if you focus feats into it, it's probably harder than it should be.

I can outrun an unarmored rogue in a foot race easily. A top athelete can move twice as fast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh. Taking Fleet and Run, a first level not-barbarian human can get within less than a second of the women's world record for the 100m dash. A first level human barbarian gets in the top 5 of men's records. At third level with another Fleet, the not-barbarian human hits the top 10 of men's records, while the barbarian surpasses current records.

The ~16.4 second 100m for a character without any special feats is probably somewhat slow however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Archive wrote:

...

The ~16.4 second 100m for a character without any special feats is probably somewhat slow however.

It's probably forgivable considering that PCs are normally in combat gear. Normal people don't run 100m dashes in chain shirts.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

hiiamtom wrote:
3) Cold weather gear is a +2 to the save which is already staggeringly high. There is literally 0% chance for an Inuit people to exist by RAW with any combination of feats unless they give infants some sort of magical item.

Cold weather gear gives a +5, not a +2. A reasonably easy Survival check gives a +2. The Tundra Child trait gives a +4, so for one skill point and a trait you have a +9 on the checks before your base save and Con mod.

From 0 to 40 degrees, you only need to make checks if unprotected. Wearing warm clothing is not unprotected, so if you dress appropriately you are fine.

Below 0 degrees, even wearing cold weather gear you have to make a check each hour. That seems reasonable to me, having lived in northern Michigan for four years. Below 0 is pretty darn cold to be outside for a lengthy period of time. Remember that any exposure to shelter and fire resets the clock.

Below negative 20 is "why the &*^& am I out in this" cold, and I say that as someone who wears shorts when it's 40.

Is it a perfect simulation of cold weather? No. But it's far from an instant death sentence to people trying to live in those conditions.


Again "harder than it should be" does not mean you can't get there using a high level monk or by committing to useless feats. The top athletes in Pathfinder are slower with better strength and conditioning than on Earth, and it's just a minor example of the many many ways Pathfinder doesn't even come close to reflecting the real world.

A high level monk can run a 5.5s 100m without fleet, which is faster than a cheetah while a cheetah runs a 3.96s (with several attacks available) 100m which is about 1.5x faster than real life. An awakened monk/barbarian cheetah with as much cheese as possible can get to about 100m in ~0.9s with a cursory glace.


hiiamtom wrote:

Again "harder than it should be" does not mean you can't get there using a high level monk or by committing to useless feats. The top athletes in Pathfinder are slower with better strength and conditioning than on Earth, and it's just a minor example of the many many ways Pathfinder doesn't even come close to reflecting the real world.

A high level monk can run a 5.5s 100m without fleet, which is faster than a cheetah while a cheetah runs a 3.96s (with several attacks available) 100m which is about 1.5x faster than real life. An awakened monk/barbarian cheetah with as much cheese as possible can get to about 100m in ~0.9s with a cursory glace.

Useless feats? Fleet is far from it, battlefield positioning can be incredibly important. I've grabbed fleet on a number of my characters and it's been very useful. I'd like to say about 1/3 of fights involve some use of it, whether it allow me to avoid an attack of opportunity or take more diagonal or allow me to get an extra attack in because they were 35 feet away or 40 with reach. Also being able to chase down people who are at 30 is always useful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

fleet is +5 ft if you're in light armor.
Tribal scars is +5ft, +2 acrobatics and +6 hp.

one of these seems better than the other.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In all fairness, i've thought Tribal Scars was a cool choice since i first saw it. its just a random grab bag of nice to haves at low levels.


If 1/3 of all your fights get use from an extra 5ft of movement, you must be really kicking yourself for not being an archer or even just investing in UMD for longstrider.

Fleet obviously has some use, so do other really bad feats like Weapon Focus or Critical Focus... but static bonus feats are a waste of resources in terms of how much of your character's potential is tied up in that feat. Fleet is no exception. It's a tiny, tiny bonus to speed that can easily be more than overcome by basic magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:

If 1/3 of all your fights get use from an extra 5ft of movement, you must be really kicking yourself for not being an archer or even just investing in UMD for longstrider.

Fleet obviously has some use, so do other really bad feats like Weapon Focus or Critical Focus... but static bonus feats are a waste of resources in terms of how much of your character's potential is tied up in that feat. Fleet is no exception. It's a tiny, tiny bonus to speed that can easily be more than overcome by basic magic.

16% increase in speed is tiny? Especially when it's on all the time, I don't have to burn a round and resources casting a spell. Also don't your enemies tend to place themselves at a really good distance (like 35 ft away) where you have to advance and not do anything? And 40' rooms are super common in how I play, 20' and 40' rooms are like my standard dungeon rooms because they're good sizes for lots of things. 35' of movement means I can go from one wall to the other and attack a medium creature on that wall.

Also I don't play out of the player's companion books or the adventure path books, many of the choices in there are objectively the best which makes them a bit OP in my book.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure it's the CRB that makes archery objectively the best DPR, and magic objectively the best method of ending a combat encounter.

And an overloaded gnome can chug out 40' in a charge, let alone a medium humanoid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pinkycatcher wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:

If 1/3 of all your fights get use from an extra 5ft of movement, you must be really kicking yourself for not being an archer or even just investing in UMD for longstrider.

Fleet obviously has some use, so do other really bad feats like Weapon Focus or Critical Focus... but static bonus feats are a waste of resources in terms of how much of your character's potential is tied up in that feat. Fleet is no exception. It's a tiny, tiny bonus to speed that can easily be more than overcome by basic magic.

16% increase in speed is tiny? Especially when it's on all the time, I don't have to burn a round and resources casting a spell. Also don't your enemies tend to place themselves at a really good distance (like 35 ft away) where you have to advance and not do anything? And 40' rooms are super common in how I play, 20' and 40' rooms are like my standard dungeon rooms because they're good sizes for lots of things. 35' of movement means I can go from one wall to the other and attack a medium creature on that wall.

Also I don't play out of the player's companion books or the adventure path books, many of the choices in there are objectively the best which makes them a bit OP in my book.

1 or 2 1st-level spell slots per day from a druid (Longstrider) vs a feat is really no contest, particularly at 6+, where that's effectively "this is on all day." Additionally, a 40' room can still hold charge lanes.


hiiamtom wrote:
Again "harder than it should be" does not mean you can't get there using a high level monk or by committing to useless feats. The top athletes in Pathfinder are slower with better strength and conditioning than on Earth, and it's just a minor example of the many many ways Pathfinder doesn't even come close to reflecting the real world.

There's an issue with that complaint. Why should an adventurer that hasn't specifically trained for running match or beat an olympic runner? A top weight lifter isn't going to match a top runner simply on the virtue of being a top athlete and vice versa. It's not much of an issue when special training beats the lack of special training.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Archive wrote:


There's an issue with that complaint. Why should an adventurer that hasn't specifically trained for running match or beat an olympic runner? A top weight lifter isn't going to match a top runner simply on the virtue of being a top athlete and vice versa. It's not much of an issue when special training beats the lack of special training.

Special training should make you faster, but so should training in general. Yeah, a weight lifter won't be faster than a sprinter, but should a master thief really be no faster than an overweight noble who's never had to exert himself in his entire life?

An archetype defined entirely by swiftness and agility. Fat guy who's literally never even gone for a jog in his entire life. No difference in speed whatsoever.

That goes to another issue where characters like rogues and swashbucklers are horrible at battlefield movement despite having that be a core part of the imagery associated with them too. It's kind of hilarious how bad they are at fighting while moving.

So I'd add mobile combat to the list of things that are unnecessarily hard too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
The Archive wrote:


There's an issue with that complaint. Why should an adventurer that hasn't specifically trained for running match or beat an olympic runner? A top weight lifter isn't going to match a top runner simply on the virtue of being a top athlete and vice versa. It's not much of an issue when special training beats the lack of special training.

Special training should make you faster, but so should training in general. Yeah, a weight lifter won't be faster than a sprinter, but should a master thief really be no faster than an overweight noble who's never had to exert himself in his entire life?

An archetype defined entirely by swiftness and agility. Fat guy who's literally never even gone for a jog in his entire life. No difference in speed whatsoever.

That goes to another issue where characters like rogues and swashbucklers are horrible at battlefield movement despite having that be a core part of the imagery associated with them too. It's kind of hilarious how bad they are at fighting while moving.

So I'd add mobile combat to the list of things that are unnecessarily hard too.

How does this sound as a fix.

A) full attack on standard action

B) spring attack as a mechanic

C)you can move before, after and between attacks.

Well?


The Archive wrote:


There's an issue with that complaint. Why should an adventurer that hasn't specifically trained for running match or beat an olympic runner? A top weight lifter isn't going to match a top runner simply on the virtue of being a top athlete and vice versa. It's not much of an issue when special training beats the lack of special training.

I didn't say they should be Usain Bolt, I said I could beat their 100m dash times. So epic in their guile and agility that a commoner and rogue move at the same saunter across a battlefield. Not to mention a flying or retreating wizard is already faster than the world record with magic. Not to mention the many, many ways that human ability and character ability already don't mesh. Also horses move at half speed on Golarion, so there is no thought to realism in the design at all.

Dark Archive

Guile and agility don't directly translate into ability to run fast. In fact, how does guile affect your ability to run at all? Or how is your ability to dodge and pick locks/disable traps helping you run quickly? Your agility and ranks in acrobatics (and light encumbrance) however are letting you outpace those guards. You're doing so by running across rooftops, jumping between buildings, and generally being faster then the people in heavy armor with less training then you.

I see this as the difference between a parkor expert and a distance runner going from point A to point Q in an difficult to navigate area. The distance runner has to go around many things, while the parkor expert goes over, under, through, and around. All depending on what route would be fastest using the skills they picked up.


PRD wrote:
When the speeds of the two concerned characters are equal, there's a simple way to resolve a chase: If one creature is pursuing another, both are moving at the same speed, and the chase continues for at least a few rounds, have them make opposed Dexterity checks to see who is the faster over those rounds. If the creature being chased wins, it escapes. If the pursuer wins, it catches the fleeing creature.

In the cases of speed actually mattering in some form, the Rogue is going to beat the Commoner (theoretically) more often than not, so long as the Rogue has 12+ Dex.

Not a perfect system, but PCs and Heroic NPCs do have the advantage over mere Commoners.

Dark Archive

And again, I see the dex check as doing parkor style stunts to make shortcuts where there were none before. The rogue (who probably has 16 dex) is agile enough to scamper up and over various things the guard or overweight commoner can't. And is nimble enough to slide under or through things the guard or noble can't. Thus can usually out run the person they're chasing or being chased by.

Personally, I'd definitely apply armor check penalties to that opposed dex check.


I will second the cold/hot weather rules.

I will be using myself as an example.

Starting with cold. That applies to extreme cold rules, so 1d6 automatic no save lethal damage every minute. I suppose we people in the north have fast healing or something. And we get colder than the -20F every single year.

Now the hot environment rule numbers are bit more sane but hardly good. I regurarly stay in sauna for 20 to 30 minutes in 90-100C, so I should be dead by PF rules with every trip.

To be fair, the only issue with the rules themselves is that the numbers for what applies to what level of heat/cold are way off. The mechanics themselves are decent enough. If you changed the stuff by a step or two they would be fine.


Kahel Stormbender wrote:

Guile and agility don't directly translate into ability to run fast. In fact, how does guile affect your ability to run at all? Or how is your ability to dodge and pick locks/disable traps helping you run quickly? Your agility and ranks in acrobatics (and light encumbrance) however are letting you outpace those guards. You're doing so by running across rooftops, jumping between buildings, and generally being faster then the people in heavy armor with less training then you.

I see this as the difference between a parkor expert and a distance runner going from point A to point Q in an difficult to navigate area. The distance runner has to go around many things, while the parkor expert goes over, under, through, and around. All depending on what route would be fastest using the skills they picked up.

You are combining everything I said into one jumble. I'm not talking about acrobatic ability at all, though that is also not well represented - mostly because there is no "athletics" skill that is common in most other rules systems.

First issue: Top speed of a character.
The Archive is right in saying that moving the same speed in a chase a PC has a slight advantage over a commoner, and a high DEX class has an even further slight advantage. The d20 is so swingy compared to the +2-4 modifier in a pure DEX check.

However, in a foot race across flat land a Pathfinder character moves about as fast a mildly athletic human being on Earth. Just gaining a PC level means these are supposed to be the top few percent in athletic ability and there is almost nothing to reflect that in the rules aside from acrobatics giving some mild boosts in some narrow circumstances.

Moving on to other creatures, an animal like a cheetah is much faster in Golarion while a horse is much, much slower than real life. There's a lot of evidence pointing to the speed of a creature being arbitrary. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this but it does make areas where is important it means the only "easy" method is relying on spells. Saying there should be something easier to use than dedicating a feat to running is not an extreme stance to take.

Second Issue: Base speed of a character
The base movement speed of a character is a slow walking pace. I walk at 35ft without a second though pretty much whatever I'm carrying. It's not a hard pace to maintain, making the speed of a dwarf hilarious. They literally walk at a pace that is almost impossible to keep because it is so slow. At least small races are supposed to be the size of children.

This is fine for a tactical movement, because it just gives a representative number to work with in the abstraction of battle. But suddenly your party moves at a crawl compared to something like soldiers or other professional explorers that are the most like what an adventuring party is.

And even with magic this walking speed is extremely hard to adjust for that long. The abilities that increase movement speed are surprisingly far apart and now you are talking about dedicating class levels to get boosts instead of feats. Sure, eventually longstrider makes a difference but what else is there besides Fleet or Fast Movement?

Yes, I know mounts are generally what make up for this and it's why it's not really an issue in games. But this is a thread literally about minor gripes with how difficult something can be so nitpicking is the entire point.

Original point: High jumping DCs are silly high
This is 100% just because skill ranks range from 0-20 and DCs are set to that number. It also means that until like level 10 you better have a great ability score or trait to meet the harder DCs like acrobatics. Sure, the actual act is very difficult - but the world record jump is DC 32 which would require more than an Expert with no magical items (a level 12 Expert focusing on acrobatics has like a 50% shot at the jump).

At least 3.5 gives specific instruction on how jumping can reach a ledge that is hard to reach by saying a medium creature can reach an 8ft ledge without a check so jumping to a first story roof becomes a set DC16 with Pathfinder acrobatics which basically means it's hard to get to at early levels but with a few ranks it's decently achievable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The speed issue used to be even worse: Many years ago, I remember calculating the air speed of a White Dragon under 1st Edition AD&D rules, and it was about 1 mph.

101 to 150 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Things that are harder than they should be. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.