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


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Such as the distance you fall in a single round.


20 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see any rules that say "this works like that other thing but isn't quite that other thing" burned out of the rulebook with a flame thrower avoided.


22 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I would like to see any rules that say "this works like that other thing but isn't quite that other thing" burned out of the rulebook with a flame thrower avoided.

That's a specific thing they're working on. They've actually called that out as a problem and they're actively trying to fix it.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

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 umambiguously define stuff like held, wielded, and free.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

more charts and similar figures to illustrate concepts, and just overall less giant blocks of text for rules.


28 people marked this as a favorite.

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


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.

YAAASSSSSS!!!!


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Stealth. Please figure out if someone can stealth while you look at them or not.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A majority of the issues I want to see, other than like making Paladin an Archetype of Cavalier, fall around the names of things.

Two-handed weapons could be called Heavy Weapons, Prestige Classes (if they're even kept around) could just be Secondary/Advanced/Expansion Classes. Things like that.

But not modes...


Can't think of anything off the top of my head, tbh. Hah.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Decide whether or not they want spellcasters to be able to cast spells in a grapple,or put clear limitations on which ones can and cannot be cast, and put it somewhere prominent where everyone can see it.

Paizo Employee Designer

13 people marked this as a favorite.
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 umambiguously define stuff like held, wielded, and free.

We've certainly put work into this and really want you to put it through its paces.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Clear rules on how we are supposed to calculate HP for any animal companions/cohorts etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Switch to hex grids so we can ditch the 5-10-5-10 diagonals


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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Spell/effect sub-school/sub-types for negative/positive energy.

CONSISTENT spell statblocks. Basically NOTHING should be cut/paste in the entire book. Look at and properly apply standards to EVERYTHING.

And do not ever truncate a spell stat block because it "works as x", I would prefer shorter, simpler spell descriptions; then repeat in similar spells.

Speaking of which: I will second in the strongest terms, BigNorseWolf's sentiment for less wall-o-text rules, and more bullet points.

Unified system of ranges for spells and weapons.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Clarity on what spells can benefit from feats associated with weapons. For example: The discussion of Weapon Focus for "Rays" vs "Orbs", or any spell that includes a ranged touch attack.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner 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 umambiguously define stuff like held, wielded, and free.
We've certainly put work into this and really want you to put it through its paces.

No thats footwork...


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

Stealth definitely needs to be clearly defined. I would like to see the following addressed in particular, or in places where they have been addressed made much more clear and have much more logical modifiers:

* Can you stealth when using alternate modes of movement like swimming or flying? The answer should be yes but it's not always clear.
* Does "light concealment" (standing in shadows or thin mist) allow you to stealth even if you still have line of sight to the person you are hiding from?
* If you start your turn in stealth behind cover or concealment, move out in the open, but end your move behind the next piece of cover or concealment, do you remain stealthed that whole time provided you don't do anything blatantly obvious / attention drawing?
* Does firing a ranged weapon from behind cover or concealment break stealth? Assuming it has a chance to, do people get a bonus on their check to notice you? Hopefully this isn't a +20 bonus like in Pathfinder / Starfinder because that is completely insane unless it's a gunpowder weapon with glowing tracer ammo.
* If someone notices you but the rest of their group doesn't, can they point you out to their compatriots? How does this work? Do they automatically notice you or does that just give them a new Perception check and with what bonus?
* If you were about to make an attack on someone who is flatfooted against you because you are hidden from them, can they actually react fast enough on being told you're there to not be flat-footed anymore?


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Please please please get rid of the distinction between "1 round" and "full action" spell casting times. If a spell actually costs all 3 actions, please make it very clear whether that still goes off on your turn or happens at the beginning of your next turn, and make it consistent for ALL spells with that casting time. This probably causes more questions at the table than anything except Stealth and 5 Foot Steps.

On the same note, make it clear whether or not you can start casting a 2+ action spell with the last action on your turn and finish it with the first action(s) of your next turn, or if this is no go.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Please very clearly define which actions are "mental actions" and can still be used while paralyzed. Can a cleric channel energy if their holy symbol is already "presented" (on their shield or as an amulet) and they are paralyzed? Can a monster with eye rays fire them if paralyzed? Can a creature switch an aura on or off while paralyzed?


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?

Not as far as I'm aware. Just a relatively simple houserule.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

This came up in starfinder discussion.

Please be aware of Expressio unius

[New Latin, the explicit mention of one (thing) is the exclusion of another]
: a principle in statutory construction: when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded

Which basically means that if you say "no purple dragons" and don't mention any other dragons, you're implying that other colored dragons are fine (even though technically you haven't said that). so if you do something like say "spells affect this creature normally" you've implied, or at least left the door open to, the idea that spell like abilities supernatural abilities feats etc don't. if something is or is not supposed to work a certain way spell it out. the more you require rules lawyering to read the exact text the more the exact text gets away from the rules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Burrow rules. I brought this up at the PaizoCon Rules Q&A and the joke was made that it might make it into Ultimate Wilderness. Earth Glide is defined but not burrow, which causes some issues for PCs and animals in particular.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Switch to hex grids so we can ditch the 5-10-5-10 diagonals

Please no.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Switch to hex grids so we can ditch the 5-10-5-10 diagonals
Please no.

Seconded - hex grids come with their own baggage. They are not an instant fix.

I imagine this is one of those things that will depend on what you are more used to though :)

Silver Crusade

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just treat one square as one square no matter whether in a straight or diagonal. No reason for Pathfinder to exist in a Euclidean universe especially with all those elder things chipping away at the edge of reality.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

This came up in starfinder discussion.

Please be aware of Expressio unius

[New Latin, the explicit mention of one (thing) is the exclusion of another]
: a principle in statutory construction: when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded

Which basically means that if you say "no purple dragons" and don't mention any other dragons, you're implying that other colored dragons are fine (even though technically you haven't said that). so if you do something like say "spells affect this creature normally" you've implied, or at least left the door open to, the idea that spell like abilities supernatural abilities feats etc don't. if something is or is not supposed to work a certain way spell it out. the more you require rules lawyering to read the exact text the more the exact text gets away from the rules.

If I remember correctly from the KnowDirections podcast, spells, spell-like abilities, and the like all are considered spells period. They are working on getting rid of the "functions as" terminology. This would fix the whole "spells affect this creature normally" because all of the spells and the abilities are spells. Don't quote me but I am pretty sure that is how Logan put it. If you haven't heard the podcast it is really informative for the little bits we know.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Carry Capacity, Encumbrance & Containers get reworked to be more intuitive and less bookkeepy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Please get rid of "monstrous humanoids" and "magical beasts" and "vermin" as types. Humanoids and Beasts are sufficient. You don't need to artificially limit Beasts/Animals to Int 2 or say humanoids can't have intrinsic hit dice and magical powers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Coherent weight/cost rules for special materials at all sizes. Actually all the rules that affect size should be coherent and complete. Don't assume PCs are always small/medium, or that the GM won't want that information.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Please get rid of "monstrous humanoids" and "magical beasts" and "vermin" as types. Humanoids and Beasts are sufficient. You don't need to artificially limit Beasts/Animals to Int 2 or say humanoids can't have intrinsic hit dice and magical powers.

Hmmm. I'm not sure about that. I think it would be kind of weird to have trolls and elves be the same creature type. While we are on the subject of creature types, giants have been a strange classification since 3.5. I think they belong more in the monstrous humanoid category, rather than humanoid. At the very least, they should get weapon and armor proficiency for free, (I think storm giants get this).

I would leave humanoid as being medium size creatures that generally don't have racial HD. For the most part these are races that could or almost could be PCs. Gnolls and bugbears should be about the most "exotic" humanoids. Ogres, trolls, giants, etc should be monstrous humanoids or something like that.

The Exchange

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Darkness rules that are understandable.

This effects:
Lowlight Vision, Darkvision, normal vision, See-in-Darkness (Devil sight?), Blindsight, Blindsense, heck - marmot vision for that matter.

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Fix Spears. Please.

At the very least allow a martial character to use one handed spear - like spears have been used in reality for thousands of years.

Sovereign Court

Removal of the Take 10 rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RedXian wrote:
Carry Capacity, Encumbrance & Containers get reworked to be more intuitive and less bookkeepy.

I think it was confirmed that carrying capacity/encumbrance is being moved to the Bulk system like Starfinder. It's waaaaaaaaaaaay easier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

* Sometimes things are written like "1d4+1/level". Is that 3d4+3 or 1d4+3 a third level? Other times it's written more clearly, like "1d4, which increases by 1 for every level the character has"
* Sometimes I think the difference between character level and class level isn't clearly stated
* A lot of the examples given are often very basic and don't push the corner cases much
* the stuff about flat footed/losing bonus to AC from dex/etc could be a bit clearer at times
* because of the nature of the campaigns I'm in, I usually have Improved Unarmed Strike, and the text around Attacks of Opportunity and IUS are .. complicated and make kerries sad. "Armed" Unarmed Attacks? -_-...
* Vehicles and hauly stuffs (how much in weight, volume, how fast) needs to be handled better in the CRB.

Most of the text which has issues seems to come as copy-paste from 3.5e D&D, btw.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Take 10 is one of the best rules for speeding up gameplay and not failing at trivial checks because your dice decided to screw you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*Guide lines for effects of terrain and furniture.
I really hate every table variation of "I'm big, I want to jump on the this table" or "I'm small, I want to run under the table".

*Please, please do something to standardize special material items. I have some character concepts that would just love mithral weapons but it's just cheaper to buy adamantine weapons.


Fergie wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Please get rid of "monstrous humanoids" and "magical beasts" and "vermin" as types. Humanoids and Beasts are sufficient. You don't need to artificially limit Beasts/Animals to Int 2 or say humanoids can't have intrinsic hit dice and magical powers.

Hmmm. I'm not sure about that. I think it would be kind of weird to have trolls and elves be the same creature type. While we are on the subject of creature types, giants have been a strange classification since 3.5. I think they belong more in the monstrous humanoid category, rather than humanoid. At the very least, they should get weapon and armor proficiency for free, (I think storm giants get this).

I would leave humanoid as being medium size creatures that generally don't have racial HD. For the most part these are races that could or almost could be PCs. Gnolls and bugbears should be about the most "exotic" humanoids. Ogres, trolls, giants, etc should be monstrous humanoids or something like that.

Trolls are already humanoids....

Liberty's Edge

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Take 10 is one of the best rules for speeding up gameplay and not failing at trivial checks because your dice decided to screw you.

If the check is trivial, why are you rolling at all?


3 people 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.

I'd like to see the removal of "the GM has right of veto" for take ten. The non-faq for take ten was IMO pretty bad and left players never knowing when the ability to take ten could be ripped away because of 'pacing issues' or whatever other reason really. Either it's possible or not, don't leave it as a 'mother may I' ask on each and every attempt.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JRutterbush wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Take 10 is one of the best rules for speeding up gameplay and not failing at trivial checks because your dice decided to screw you.
If the check is trivial, why are you rolling at all?

That’s literally why Take 10 exists as a rule.

Paizo Employee Designer

23 people marked this as a favorite.

By my very quick count of what I decided counts as a "unique request", I believe we have specifically addressed roughly 28 out of the 35 "unique requests" in this thread (whether we handled it well enough for you will require playtesting, but it at least came up in discussion and has some solution implemented). 80% is much better than I expected before reading this thread!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Take 10 is one of the best rules for speeding up gameplay and not failing at trivial checks because your dice decided to screw you.
If the check is trivial, why are you rolling at all?
That’s literally why Take 10 exists as a rule.

If there's a task that's trivial, where success or failure isn't important, there's no reason to make any checks at all. What about someone who could only succeed in an 11? It takes time for something that, in the end, doesn't matter.

If it's trivial in the first place, just let people decide how it turns out.

1 to 50 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