Stupid little things you'd like to see - such as single line clarifications


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Best thing I have done in years for this hobby is to ditch the grid.

I still play with map, just gridless. We use some sticks for movement and that's it. It also means you can choose to move less than 5 feet if you want to, and you can place yourself in the middle of a 10 feet corridor, among other pleasant adventages. To move in diagonal, we just move in diagonal. We can even move in diagonal at angles different than 45 degrees.


Tristram wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Pronunciation guides in Bestiaries so I can be confident of not mangling the names of creatures from real-world traditions I'm not familiar with.

Punctuation guides in everything. When playing a game that borrows from all manner of written fantasy and real-world mythology you can't expect people to grasp the varied pronunciations.

Same for the names of outsiders and dragons. Over the years I have come to haaaaaate having to run encounters with some of the unique enemies. It can spoil the immersion when No one can figure out what the creature is named.

Personally, I would love if the bestiary entries also had a chart/sidebar for knowledge checks. It'd make for a faster reference for the DM and serve to help establish how known different creatures are, without tying it in to CR. Because really, why are older dragons harder to ID than younger ones (And if you decide that they're less common in your setting, you can easily bump the DCs by a bit)

Especially the last. Initially reading how Knowledge checks re: monsters work, one can only know All of the Things about a 'standard' vampire on a DC 45 Knowledge (religion) check, which seems a wee bit extreme for a critter that one starts seeing at about 5th level...

Knowing how to permanently kill a Spawn of Rovagug is far more in line with such a high DC...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking about it, DC for monster lore should be based on frequency/obscurity of the monster, not CR. Almost everybody knows what a dragon is. Few people will probably know about Ochre Eurypterids.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Overall this ties into the issue that Pathfinder 1E does not have any sort of Rarity mechanic outside of flavor text. I would appreciate the second edition to have something for this, so it can be stated in the rules how commonplace a spell like Magic Missile is compared to something like Blood Money. Or how common a big giant is compared to an Eldritch Horror, when they both have the same CR. This could also apply to equipment, alchemical formulas, even bits of information.


The Strike Back feat in both P1E and Starfinder have rules text that doesn't match what the feat is supposed to be doing.

The feat should be (based on the fluff text) modifying what you can do on your reaction AFTER you have readied your action. But based on the actual benefit text, all it does is modify your ability to ready an action (it takes you from "being able to ready an action to melee attack someone who melee attacks you but only while they're within your reach" to "being able to ready that same action with that same trigger regardless of how far away they are" and does nothing to enable what you can and can't do once the actual reaction comes into play.

What the feat (however it manifests in P2E) should say is something along the lines of: "If you have readied an action to melee attack a foe that melee attacks you, you may make that attack even if the foe is outside your reach". To make it clear that the part of the process that the feat is improving is the reaction-attack, not the readying.

If Strike Back makes it to P2E, that is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Please get rid of spells that protect against all effects of type X, while another spell of type X ignores all such protections.

Example, Mind Blank: "the subject is protected from all devices and spells that gather information about the target through divination magic" and True Seeing: "the subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects". With this wording, if a character goes invisible with Mind Blank and another uses True Seeing, it's impossible to adjudicate.

Generally I recommend getting rid of all kinds of absolutes, full immunity, and everything purporting to be invincible. It always ends with contradictions, or ridiculous outcomes, or both.

I also vote for distance = 1 square even diagonally. It doesn't even need a supernatural explanation to be plausible. Squares are used for tactical combat, so you can easily explain mathematical inconsistencies with the fog of war. In real life situations, a nominal distance of X feet for some weapon or effect is never going to be an absolute number. It's perfectly plausible to factor in an uncertainty range of slightly over +/-20%, for a total 41.4% swing that just happens to be the difference between a diagonal and a horizontal course.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

To the devs : please make sure any significant PF1 FAQ needs not rear its ugly head in the PF2 playtest ;-)


Jhaeman wrote:
I've used the "one square is one square, whether in a straight line or a diagonal" approach as a house rule for years. It works great and simplifies things for new players. As long as PCs and monsters follow the same rules, the end result is the same. After all, we allow the abstraction that a gnome with a dagger and a hobgoblin with a great sword each need exactly 5' square of fighting space, so why not another minor abstraction that speeds things up?

Square fireballs must look mighty weird...

EDIT: Also, decide whether you want effects to start from corners of squares or from a square itself (both were possible in PF1E). I'd recommend the second, as it's more straight-forward to calculate distance.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
tivadar27 wrote:


Square fireballs must look mighty weird...

Not really--at least not any weirder than the funky geometric shape that the current area of effect templates have. It's all an abstraction. I agree that counting from an intersection is the fastest--for a fireball with a normal 20' radius, you just count four squares in every direction and you're done.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

After a discussion in our Strange Aeons game this week which ended up with the ref throwing the book down in frustration...

...Speed of sailing ships.

I know this isn't Master & Commander the RPG (*), but please can someone have a look at the speed of ships, time taken to sail from point A to point B and come up with some numbers that don't mean that a fast ship is slower than a leisurely walk. We had the same issue in Skull & Shackles where I had to ref-fiat all the timescales in the AP.

(*) Does this exist? If not, can someone write it please?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How many creatures can a monster with swallow-whole swallow before it's full.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Allow a grace period/distance for removing ability boosting items, so characters can bath, sleep ect. without wearing a belt 24/7.

As for the rarity thing mentioned upthread, if they added a symbol or character in each monster entry and said in the monster rules these added or subtracted from the difficulty of IDing them there'd be a game purpose for it. Call them something like "Well Known" (so an iconic creature like a red dragon can be easily IDed without being "common"), "Uncommon", "Rare" and "Esoteric"

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:
Allow a grace period/distance for removing ability boosting items, so characters can bath, sleep ect. without wearing a belt 24/7.

They actually did this with Resonance. Instead of waiting 24 hours such items just cost a point of Resonance per day. Take it off or put it on as many times as you like, the Resonance still attunes it to you for the day.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Such as the distance you fall in a single round.

It's not PF1, but 5th Ed pegs it at 500 ft.


Weather Report wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Such as the distance you fall in a single round.
It's not PF1, but 5th Ed pegs it at 500 ft.

Which is actually pretty close to real life, at least for the first round. A good approximation of reality which is easy to remember and adjudicate is that you fall 500 feet in the first round, after which point you reach terminal velocity, and fall 1000 feet per round thereafter.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Such as the distance you fall in a single round.
It's not PF1, but 5th Ed pegs it at 500 ft.
Which is actually pretty close to real life, at least for the first round. A good approximation of reality which is easy to remember and adjudicate is that you fall 500 feet in the first round, after which point you reach terminal velocity, and fall 1000 feet per round thereafter.

Nice, in 5th Ed it continues at 500 ft. per round, but a flying creature than can move (not paralysed/stunned), can spend movement to stop falling in the second round of falling (like standing prone).

They also have a rule that a flying creature falling, but can still move (not paralysed/stunned), can reduce the distance it falls by its fly speed to reduce falling damage.

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Allow martials to ground a winged creature with a trip or grapple.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:

Generally I recommend getting rid of all kinds of absolutes, full immunity, and everything purporting to be invincible. It always ends with contradictions, or ridiculous outcomes, or both.

Yes!

It seems that sort of design invariably leads to exception abilities, like this class ability or feat allows your fire to burn people who are immune to fire, or this spell is half divine power, or this type of fire is half electricity, or this feat allows you to use wild empathy on vermin, or cast mind-affecting spells on vermin (or undead) or whatever. Vermin Heart. Threnodic Spell. Flame Strike. Winter Witch/Unearthly Cold. Hellfire. I'm calling all a y'all out!

So boring. And annoying for those who want to play, for instance, an Enchanter or Mesmerist, and not bang their heads against the ridiculous amounts of creatures out there that have minds, and yet are immune to mind-affecting effects because of their Type.

I'm fine with fire elementals being affected by extreme levels of fire. I'm made of meat, and I can still be beaten to death by fists made of meat. Being made of meat apparently didn't make me immune to being attacked by meat... Why shouldn't I be able to fight fire with fire (assuming I brought enough fire to beat through it's fire resistance!)? (And it's not like fire elementals don't have physical bodies, they aren't incorporeal creatures made exclusively out of actual fire!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Water elementals are made entirely of elemental water yet have no special resistance to effects with the water descriptor. That makes sense too.

Having a significant resistance to water effects makes sense - they're not easy to shove around with a magically evoked jet of water that for many would send them tumbling tucas over teakettle. A water elemental should not be immune to cold - they are pure water, so freezing them solid should be a valid tactic. It may not directly harm them - freezing them solid (via sufficient hp damage) may instead render them vulnerable to being shattered, sundered or melted via application of sufficient heat.

Interesting!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:

Water elementals are made entirely of elemental water yet have no special resistance to effects with the water descriptor. That makes sense too.

Having a significant resistance to water effects makes sense - they're not easy to shove around with a magically evoked jet of water that for many would send them tumbling tucas over teakettle. A water elemental should not be immune to cold - they are pure water, so freezing them solid should be a valid tactic. It may not directly harm them - freezing them solid (via sufficient hp damage) may instead render them vulnerable to being shattered, sundered or melted via application of sufficient heat.

Interesting!

Yeah, a water elemental hit with cold damage should be slowed or something.


deuxhero wrote:

Increase the area of Purify Food and Drink when dealing with liquids. You currently need to cast it repeatedly over multiple minutes for minimum drinking water for one person.

Purify Food and Drink affects 1 CUBIC FOOT of food and water per level. Even a first level caster can affect 7.4 GALLONS of water. Being conservative, that's also about 20 or more POUNDS of food. And it has a 1 standard action casting time.

Not sure what you were seeing, but I think you can rest easy on this one.


graystone wrote:
RedXian wrote:
Carry Capacity, Encumbrance & Containers get reworked to be more intuitive and less bookkeepy.
Of just get rid of them and/or leave them for an optional rule in 2e unchained MANY years from now.

You need something for carrying capacity. Otherwise the GM has to invent the rules himself when players start hauling absurd weights.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
Take 10 wrote:
Removal of the Take 10 rule.
Nope, nothing wrong with take 10 as long as you accept the GM has right of veto.

When does the GM not have the right of veto?

If you mean text explicitly recommending GMs veto sometimes, I rather not have that. "GM may I" is not fun.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:

Water elementals are made entirely of elemental water yet have no special resistance to effects with the water descriptor. That makes sense too.

Having a significant resistance to water effects makes sense - they're not easy to shove around with a magically evoked jet of water that for many would send them tumbling tucas over teakettle. A water elemental should not be immune to cold - they are pure water, so freezing them solid should be a valid tactic. It may not directly harm them - freezing them solid (via sufficient hp damage) may instead render them vulnerable to being shattered, sundered or melted via application of sufficient heat.

Interesting!

Yeah, a water elemental hit with cold damage should be slowed or something.

Enlarged.


Tallow wrote:
Fergie wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'd like to see less emphasis on "what you are doing with your hands" and if they need to publish things that require free hands, please unambiguously define stuff like held, wielded, and free.

This!

Held, wielded, used, possessed, used, etc. should be clearly defined. I would also like to see a little more definition around things like defending weapons, fighting defensively, etc.

And can I threaten with both a pole arm and armor spikes? Or is holding a pole arm in two hands (so-as to wield and threaten) it negates my ability to threaten with armor spikes? Or if I do, its considered a secondary weapon like a Boulder Helmet, Bite Attack, or Boot Knife? And if that's the case, why aren't armor spikes considered a secondary attack when holding/wielding something in both hands?

I strongly suspect we will get a Starfinder style combat system where it doesn't matter how many hands you have or how many weapons you wield.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would really like to have a single word carry a single meaning. In particular, overuse of the word "level" adds a layer of difficulty when explaining certain core aspects of the game to new players. I have seen too many new players struggle with the difference between "spell level" and "caster level", for example.

"I'm a fifth level wizard, it's a fifth level spell, so why can't I cast it?"

It's the sort of problem that can be solved by judicious application of a thesaurus.


bookrat wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Switch to hex grids so we can ditch the 5-10-5-10 diagonals
Isn't that already an option in the base game?

It is. I only use hex grids. Converting square-based dungeons to hex is pretty easy once you get used to it. Hexes also offer a more believable aesthetic for natural terrains (such as tree placement in forests). Some liberties do need to be taken when converting a cone-shaped spell from square to hex.

Still, for people who like square grids (and humans, unlike bees, do tend to build square structures), it's more practical to include the square-grid rules (such as 5/10 diagonals) than to leave them out and make players guess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Abilities that affect "allies" need clarification regarding whether they affect the caster as well.

The FAQ says that they do, but there are some abilities, e.g. the Community Minded trait, that by the description seem like they should not.

It would be good if this was well defined in PF 2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Monster and NPC Statblocks

I'd like to be able to run a monster or NPC from just their statblocks for the most part - perhaps consider reprinting the text of it's "best" or "most thematic" standardized Offensive, Defensive, and Reactive abilities, feats, spells, items, and whatnot.

More to the point: During a staged fight moment, any amount of time you can "save" the DM can enhance the pace and flow of gameplay.


Yaba wrote:
Some liberties do need to be taken when converting a cone-shaped spell from square to hex.

Out of curiosity, how do you do it?


gustavo iglesias wrote:
To move in diagonal, we just move in diagonal. We can even move in diagonal at angles different than 45 degrees.

I think my head just exploded?!


Khudzlin wrote:
Yaba wrote:
Some liberties do need to be taken when converting a cone-shaped spell from square to hex.
Out of curiosity, how do you do it?

Pick one hex adjacent to the caster, draw out two lines at a 60 degree angle starting from that hex, fill it in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Falling distance in a single round is pretty much it for me.

More to the point, I want to know how far I have to fall before I get to do stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
Yaba wrote:
Some liberties do need to be taken when converting a cone-shaped spell from square to hex.
Out of curiosity, how do you do it?
Pick one hex adjacent to the caster, draw out two lines at a 60 degree angle starting from that hex, fill it in.

The cone starts at either a corner or an edge of the caster's hex. This is accurate when starting at a corner.

When starting at an edge, start with a single hex. Advance the cone forward, then outward, then forward, then outward, repeat.

Demo Image


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's two:

1) When a spell requires that two individuals cannot be more than X distance or the spell ends, make that assessment after each has had a turn. If they can move side by side outside of combat and maintain the spell, it's nonsensical to make that impossible during combat.

2) Alternative, allow two individuals the ability to move simultaneously during combat.


N N 959 wrote:


1) When a spell requires that two individuals cannot be more than X distance or the spell ends, make that assessment after each has had a turn. If they can move side by side outside of combat and maintain the spell, it's nonsensical to make that impossible during combat.

Yes please!


Yaba wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
Yaba wrote:
Some liberties do need to be taken when converting a cone-shaped spell from square to hex.
Out of curiosity, how do you do it?
Pick one hex adjacent to the caster, draw out two lines at a 60 degree angle starting from that hex, fill it in.

The cone starts at either a corner or an edge of the caster's hex. This is accurate when starting at a corner.

When starting at an edge, start with a single hex. Advance the cone forward, then outward, then forward, then outward, repeat.

Demo Image

Ah, so you make the cones 60° instead of 90°.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Clarify mounted combat, especially the share the squares shenanigans

Rarity of monsters is needed

3D combat (water, air, whatever) should be clear and consistent

Size rules should be relative to the difference in Sizes and not the absolute Size


Another thing that has also bugged me in PF1: Why the heck are there no magical holy symbols for clerics anywhere in the game? I mean, every conceivable piece of clothing, every tool under the sun, however minor, has some sort of magical version - all the way down to horseshoes. Why don't we have a holy symbol that gives +1 to channeling die rolls, or +1 channel or lay on hands use per day, +1 to the turn undead DC, etc.


gwynfrid wrote:
Another thing that has also bugged me in PF1: Why the heck are there no magical holy symbols for clerics anywhere in the game? I mean, every conceivable piece of clothing, every tool under the sun, however minor, has some sort of magical version - all the way down to horseshoes. Why don't we have a holy symbol that gives +1 to channeling die rolls, or +1 channel or lay on hands use per day, +1 to the turn undead DC, etc.

Symbol of Luck, Redemptor's Blessing, Recondite Holy Symbol, Barbed Pentacle of Asmodeus, Brilliant Flash Symbol, Charlatan's Symbol, Desna's Coin, Golden Holy Symbol, Malleable Symbol, Pantheistic Clasp, Symbol of Sanguine Protection, Ornament of Healing Light, Talisman of True Faith...

There isn't a real lack of magic holy symbols: some even modify channels. They generally don't offer a straight modifier to those checks though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

]Symbol of Luck, Redemptor's Blessing, Recondite Holy Symbol, Barbed Pentacle of Asmodeus, Brilliant Flash Symbol, Charlatan's Symbol, Desna's Coin, Golden Holy Symbol, Malleable Symbol, Pantheistic Clasp, Symbol of Sanguine Protection, Ornament of Healing Light, Talisman of True Faith...

There isn't a real lack of magic holy symbols: some even modify channels. They generally don't offer a straight modifier to those checks though.

Great examples, but I wasn't aware of a single one of them. Probably because they appear in later books?

[Goes for a quick check on pfsrd] Yep.

So - changing the suggestion to: Such devices would be nice to see in the core book, or maybe in a follow up book within 1 year or so.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I wish for alignments to be clearly and only described along the 2 axes with no further descriptions of full alignments that confuse things even further

So that Lawful Good = Lawful + Good rather than its own thing


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

I wish for alignments to be clearly and only described along the 2 axes with no further descriptions of full alignments that confuse things even further

So that Lawful Good = Lawful + Good rather than its own thing

Or go the reverse route and remove alignment as a game mechanic. There are plenty of alternatives if one wants a spell or effect to target a specific subset of creatures. (Example: rather than bane vs evil outsiders, use bane vs devils, or maybe just bane vs outsiders.)

I would suggest breaking down Protection from Alignment spells into more practical effects anyway. (Example: Protection from Possession and Mental Control, Protection from Summoned Creatures, and leave the numerical bonuses for other spells.)

Personally, I usually replace Good vs Evil with Life vs Death. A creature that would be 'good' is a creature that favors preservation of life. A creature that would be 'evil' is a creature that favors extinction of life, or killing without need. Any other interpretations just seem extraneous. But that's my personal opinion. I do feel it explains why a mindless undead would be labeled 'evil' when a mindless anything else is 'neutral'.


Khudzlin wrote:
Yaba wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
Yaba wrote:
Some liberties do need to be taken when converting a cone-shaped spell from square to hex.
Out of curiosity, how do you do it?
Pick one hex adjacent to the caster, draw out two lines at a 60 degree angle starting from that hex, fill it in.
The cone starts at either a corner or an edge of the caster's hex. This is accurate when starting at a corner. When starting at an edge, start with a single hex. Advance the cone forward, then outward, then forward, then outward, repeat. Demo Image
Ah, so you make the cones 60° instead of 90°.

Typically, yes. A 90° cone would be difficult to aim in hexes, and a 120° cone seems like it would make damage spells cover a bit too much area.

Thinking about it, the total area covered would be more comparable to a square grid if starting the cone from the back of the caster's hex, which would count as a zero-foot range space. For obvious reasons the caster would not be struck by his/her own cone effect.
Demo Image


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Assuming the concepts are relevant in 2E, is Intimidate a "mind-affecting effect" and are coup de grace and death from massive damage considered death effects? (I know there's some FAQs and lengthy conversations that deal with these, but a quick one-line clarification would solve a lot of problems).

The Exchange

10D6 fireballs and lightning bolts at base and then spell scaling from there

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I wish for Animals and maybe Vermins to have Alignments other than True Neutral. Also INT level should not have a specific ruleset just for Animals


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is the weird situation, where if you have one square with 4 Tiny creatures, and an adjacent square with 4 other hostile Tiny creatures, none of the creatures in one square can attack creatures in the other square, as they have reach 0 ft., and cannot enter the other square as it is full.


Proper and CONSISTENT universal keywording where a "Sneak Attack" work the same everwhere that is mentioned, and not redefined for every class and archtype avaliable, and ofcourse keep yourself to the same name so you dont have "Backstab" "Sneak attack" or "Ambush" is just different ways of saying "sneak attack" (Like Rogue, to Unchained Rogue, To Stalker, to Vivisectionist, to Croccodile domain etc.)

Also i would also like a stricter quality check to have rules more consistent over "main-line" Paizo additions in hopes we dont get more weird erratas.

Scarab Sages

Backstab is a weapon trait that works independently from sneak attack, so they shouldn’t have the same name.

101 to 150 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Stupid little things you'd like to see - such as single line clarifications All Messageboards