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


Prerelease Discussion

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

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

I agree, the point is that what is alike is named alike. Backstab might have been a bad example to use in this since its ties to PFE2, but i hope the point came across regardless.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Simplify the rules for creature vision:

Normal vision allows creatures to see normally in normal lighting.

Low-light vision allows creatures to see normally in normal lighting and dim lighting.

Darkvision allows creatures to see normally in normal lighting, dim lighting, and darkness.

Liberty's Edge

Jhaeman wrote:

Simplify the rules for creature vision:

Normal vision allows creatures to see normally in normal lighting.

Low-light vision allows creatures to see normally in normal lighting and dim lighting.

Darkvision allows creatures to see normally in normal lighting, dim lighting, and darkness.

Based on the Ancestry Blogs this seems to be exactly what they're doing. Which is good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Last night I was struggling running some higher level play with spells in conjunction with Incorporeal, Ethereal...

All these things need some consolidation, simple, concise language and a structure in which mechanical effects are written in.

Dark Archive

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?

It's kind of a holdover from AD&D that the people who create magic items (wizards and clerics, mostly) seem to ignore the most common items that they use daily (spellbooks and holy symbols), while pumping out boots and belts and headbands. I mean, really, if you could make a magical item, would it be a dagger that you are probably never going to use, or a spellbook or holy symbol that you are going to use at least daily, if not many times during the day?

There are some magical spellbooks and holy symbols out there, but I would have expected them to be a major area of development decades ago, since it's not like holy symbols and spellbooks are new things to the game. (Ditto other cleric/wizard accessories, like magical altars or magical spell component pouches.)

Back in 1st edition, it sometimes felt like the designers of the game were busy trying to make sure that all of the magic items we'd seen in Lord of the Rings, like cloaks and boots of elvenkind, or ropes of climbing, or gems of brightness, were in the game, and not really thinking about the mechanics and tropes of the game-setting itself, and the things that would be more useful and applicable to the PCs.

Other classes and roles have similar 'must-have' items that may or may not exist, like magical lockpicks for a rogue, or magical stirrups for a paladin or cavalier that store your mount (and barding, and lance, and saddlebags full of food) so that you don't have to tie it to a tree and pray that it's still there when you get done in the dungeon.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jhaeman wrote:

Simplify the rules for creature vision:

Normal vision allows creatures to see normally in normal lighting.

Low-light vision allows creatures to see normally in normal lighting and dim lighting.

Darkvision allows creatures to see normally in normal lighting, dim lighting, and darkness.

Yeah, the darkvision ranges in particular have always felt a little gamist to me. Is it like, 'I see everything!' at 60 ft, and then the person steps back a foot and the whole world disappears?


Following up on official clarifications/F.A.Q.s made, (I cannot find it anywhere in the Bestiary 4 Universal Monster Rules section, nor anywhere else).


BENSLAYER wrote:
Following up on official clarifications/F.A.Q.s made, (I cannot find it anywhere in the Bestiary 4 Universal Monster Rules section, nor anywhere else).

Following up in general with their own PRD would be nice. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Bullet points. If a sentence runs on and has more clauses than a chelaxian labor contract, bullet points.

This a thousand times. Also, The 5x5 Rule.

* Five bullet points
* Five words per bullet

While a rough guideline, it refers to the tendency of words to blur when they get past this rough estimate. If you don't believe me, watch someone's PowerPoint sometime. >.>

Other areas: The WBL brokenness of crafting. Can we find a way to balance/reign this in other than GM Fiat and Downtime? Mind, this is less a single line than an overall issue. Please address this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Possession. There's a couple of effects that do it, and they end up having to reuse words. It's complicated system, but so is Polymorph. Can we treat it the same way, with a description elsewhere? Ideally you could get Necromancy (soul swap effects) and Enchantment (mind swap effects) etc - but I'd be happy to have it as a Necromancy sub-school.

Other spells could then go "Provides a +4 save against possession effects" or the like. A possess construct spell could go "this bypasses construct's normal immunity to possession".

I realise the effects are very similar, but with the section in one place spells only need to spell out the difference, without just chaining "see x" spell descriptions.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have so many burning questions for wonky rules in the game that could be clarified in the next edition (if they're still around of course). Spoiler for length.

No seriously. Lots of things.:

1. Do spells give off noticeable signs even when the caster uses silent/still spell?
2. To identify a spell, do you need to see the spell or the caster? (ie If an invisible/hidden wizard casts a spell, can you identify it)
3. Does casting a spell prevent you from then shifting your grip on a weapon to 2H and making an attack?
4. Is it possible to sneak up on someone without cover/concealment outside combat? It seems odd that everyone is always assumed to be able to perceive everything in all directions even when they logically wouldn't be so vigilant.
5. What's the DC to jump over a 10' pit? (kidding)
6. How does movement work while underground/underwater in a 3-dimensional circumstance?
7. What checks do a bonus to disguise "to look like a member of X race/ancestry" actually apply to? Knowledge: Local, I presume?
8. How often do you need to eat/drink/sleep to survive? At what point does refraining from doing so become dangerous?
9. Can we get rid of effects that spread from a point on the grid and just have everything hit a target square plus the listed range? Targeting grid intersections has always been weird.
10. Can we make cones actually cone-shaped? The diagonal cones work pretty well but cones facing the edge of a square are actually diamond-shaped (presumably for balance but it's confusing).
11. While looking up the cone shapes I noticed that there's actually a difference in reach for Large (tall) and Large (long) creatures, which I swear I've never seen before but somehow missed. The weirdest part is that Huge (long) creatures with a reach of 3 squares apparently only threaten 2 squares out in reality, which is very confusing.
12. Are the social uses of Diplomacy and Intimidate intended to work against players when used by NPCs? Can this be explicitly spelled out?


Firing ranged weapons up and down has no penalties or bonuses in PF1 and takes the same distance. Indeed, the rules (for whatever reason) explicitly restrict high ground bonus to melee only (What???????????).

To illustrate this absurdity:
a: A longbow fires at a gryphon flying 105 feet above him. He does not take a range penalty as this is within his first incriment.
b: The same longbow man fires from a battlement that's 40 feet tall at a horse 105 feet away from the base of the battlement. He does take penalties because he's shooting a distance of 112+decimal feet away.

It would solve most of the issues if high "ground" bonus/penalties applied to ranged attacks and the rules said something like "distance upward costs double for determining range incriments and distance down costs half as much, and does not count at all if the distance forward is greater than the distance down."


deuxhero wrote:

Firing ranged weapons up and down has no penalties or bonuses in PF1 and takes the same distance. Indeed, the rules (for whatever reason) explicitly restrict high ground bonus to melee only (What???????????).

To illustrate this absurdity:
a: A longbow fires at a gryphon flying 105 feet above him. He does not take a range penalty as this is within his first incriment.
b: The same longbow man fires from a battlement that's 40 feet tall at a horse 105 feet away from the base of the battlement. He does take penalties because he's shooting a distance of 112+decimal feet away.

It would solve most of the issues if high "ground" bonus/penalties applied to ranged attacks and the rules said something like "distance upward costs double for determining range incriments and distance down costs half as much, and does not count at all if the distance forward is greater than the distance down."

I don't think a bonus due to elevation should be a thing, getting too granular.


Weather Report wrote:
deuxhero wrote:

Firing ranged weapons up and down has no penalties or bonuses in PF1 and takes the same distance. Indeed, the rules (for whatever reason) explicitly restrict high ground bonus to melee only (What???????????).

To illustrate this absurdity:
a: A longbow fires at a gryphon flying 105 feet above him. He does not take a range penalty as this is within his first incriment.
b: The same longbow man fires from a battlement that's 40 feet tall at a horse 105 feet away from the base of the battlement. He does take penalties because he's shooting a distance of 112+decimal feet away.

It would solve most of the issues if high "ground" bonus/penalties applied to ranged attacks and the rules said something like "distance upward costs double for determining range incriments and distance down costs half as much, and does not count at all if the distance forward is greater than the distance down."

I don't think a bonus due to elevation should be a thing, getting too granular.

Agreed. I think it's easier to demonstrate the advantages of higher ground by giving the archer cover against return fire.


Talek & Luna wrote:
10D6 fireballs and lightning bolts at base and then spell scaling from there

you mean doing 10d6 at lvl 5 in a 20' radious?


Something for which the common sense interpretation is obvious, but any attempt at following through on actual rules text produces an error: Heal and Harm on undead targets.

Heal wrote:
If used against an undead creature, heal instead acts like harm.
So far so good, now we check the details of Harm.
Harm wrote:
If used on an undead creature, harm acts like heal.

And we have a circular reference. Again, it's extremely obvious what the effect should be.

Since Harm only does damage to living creatures, I would change the spells to state the healing and condition removal first in both cases, then have a line resembling "if the target is Undead(Heal)/living(Harm), the spell instead does X damage"


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Adding on to the above. A Trait or tag to indicate whether something is "positive", "negative" or neither might be useful. All the base types could just have "[positive], unless stated otherwise", and then things like Dhampir could be marked seperately.
Then effects could just say "against [negative] creatures this does damage equal to..."
At the moment Undead is sort of used as this, but you run into trouble with non undead things that are treated like undead.
This would help with things like Command Undead and Dhampir. If Command Undead say "negative" then they'd be effected. If it explictly says "undead" then they would not be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Stealth. Please figure out if someone can stealth while you look at them or not.

YES!! CLARIFICATIONS ARE SORELY NEEDED, PLEASE!


I'm not sure it has been mentioned, or if clarified in PF1, but when do you fall?

Bad guy on his turn pulls the pit trap lever, opening the trapdoor under you, and you fall into the pit. Do you fall on his turn, or on your turn?


Goofy "Buff" spells will hopefully be simplified. prayer is a prime example of a spell that could be vastly simplified instead of its current incarnation of 'bonuses to me and my buddies/penalties to my enemies'.

As if we did not already have enough junk to track.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I always thought prayer was pretty easy.

I want you to explain how battlemind link works


CWheezy wrote:

I always thought prayer was pretty easy.

I want you to explain how battlemind link works

For the players, sure. Less easy for the GM.

battlemind link ... never used it, but:

  • better of the pair's initiative check roll (not total) is used;
  • the other three are if/then for one of three identical actions against the same target;
  • benefits cease re: second line if one of the pair is killed or KO'd or LoS is lost between the pair. If LoS is re-acquired/ the KO'd/dead member is resuscitated the benefits can once more operate.

An arcane trickster-y/fighter-y pairing are the ideal users of battlemind link. Unfortunately, it is of sufficiently high SL that it is less than ideally available to the classes best able to directly utilized battlemind link.


Hello:
So I am making attack rolls not on my turn? The first person who makes an attack while linked get's no benefit or some benefit? Do the attacks have to be in the same round, or can i attack the goblin on turn 1, then my linked friend attacks on turn 5 and gets the double roll bonus? If I attack the goblin, then my friend attacks the goblin, do I get an extra roll on my previous attack because we both attack the same creature?


CWheezy wrote:

Hello:

So I am making attack rolls not on my turn? The first person who makes an attack while linked get's no benefit or some benefit? Do the attacks have to be in the same round, or can i attack the goblin on turn 1, then my linked friend attacks on turn 5 and gets the double roll bonus? If I attack the goblin, then my friend attacks the goblin, do I get an extra roll on my previous attack because we both attack the same creature?

If the intent is not clear, then go with "during the same turn".

When it doubt, go with Keep It Super Simple.

Think of it as a magically enhanced flanking type of thing. The linked pair get the bonus effects when they perform the same thing against the same creature or area of effect on the same turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Not quite a ruling or clarification, but I'd like armor and weapons to be more unified, not every weapon or suit of armor needs its own entry, a messer can be a longsword, a cutlass can be a scimitar, and lamellar can be scale mail.

This.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Stealth. Please figure out if someone can stealth while you look at them or not.

And if you can ever attack more than once from stealth. Maybe now that full round actions are dead and multiple attacks are part of your 3 actions, if you start in stealth, you could move once and still attack twice from stealth, losing the surprise bonus only at the end of the round... [at least once you have a certain level]

151 to 176 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
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion