Paper Cuts We Want To See Changed In 2.0


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes there are little things that just don't get changed between editions that probably should have been given an editorial or proof-reading pass. Sometimes something works well but isn't worded as clearly as it could be. Sometimes there is just something small that bugs you. These are paper cuts. Things that won't have a major impact if changed in the next edition, but also wouldn't have an impact if kept the same.

My paper cut has to do with the bag of holding, specifically the cost of the Type III bag. All other bags of holding use multiples of 2,500 in their cost, but the Type III is worth 7,400 gp. This started with 3.0, and as best as I can tell it was carried over by copy/paste through other editions, including Pathfinder. Changing it to 7,500 gp would put it in line with the other bag types.

(As a note, bags of holding need to be reexamined to make them easier to scale up and down but that's more a personal desire than a paper cut.)

Another paper cut is how coffee and tea aren't in the core rulebook. While it doesn't seem like much, what if my proper noble character wants something besides wine with his brunch? What if he wants to do business over coffee at a cafe instead of a rowdy tavern?

See, nothing that has any real impact on the game as a whole but might still be worth including, changing, or removing.

What is your paper cut?

Paizo Employee Designer

41 people marked this as a favorite.
CalebTGordan wrote:
Another paper cut is how coffee and tea aren't in the core rulebook. While it doesn't seem like much, what if my proper noble character wants something besides wine with his brunch? What if he wants to do business over coffee at a cafe instead of a rowdy tavern?

We appreciate all feedback given about our Playtest, but unfortunately many changes are too extensive to make at this point in the book's process.

However, we just added coffee and tea to the Playtest Rulebook. Harsk thanks you!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
CalebTGordan wrote:
Another paper cut is how coffee and tea aren't in the core rulebook. While it doesn't seem like much, what if my proper noble character wants something besides wine with his brunch? What if he wants to do business over coffee at a cafe instead of a rowdy tavern?

We appreciate all feedback given about our Playtest, but unfortunately many changes are too extensive to make at this point in the book's process.

However, we just added coffee and tea to the Playtest Rulebook. Harsk thanks you!

I'm a little disappointed you folks didn't already have coffee or tea in the book!

Next you're going to say that Jason forgot to have scotch* & beer in there!

*Note: I mean, it might be under a different name as its not going to be "Scottish," per se -- whiskey? burbon? "generic hard alcohol" etc.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
CalebTGordan wrote:
Another paper cut is how coffee and tea aren't in the core rulebook. While it doesn't seem like much, what if my proper noble character wants something besides wine with his brunch? What if he wants to do business over coffee at a cafe instead of a rowdy tavern?

We appreciate all feedback given about our Playtest, but unfortunately many changes are too extensive to make at this point in the book's process.

However, we just added coffee and tea to the Playtest Rulebook. Harsk thanks you!

I can't lie, I was not actually expecting anything to happen with this. Thank you for the little things!

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Logan Bonner wrote:
CalebTGordan wrote:
Another paper cut is how coffee and tea aren't in the core rulebook. While it doesn't seem like much, what if my proper noble character wants something besides wine with his brunch? What if he wants to do business over coffee at a cafe instead of a rowdy tavern?

We appreciate all feedback given about our Playtest, but unfortunately many changes are too extensive to make at this point in the book's process.

However, we just added coffee and tea to the Playtest Rulebook. Harsk thanks you!

*hugs Logan*

Paizo Employee Designer

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucus Palosaari wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
CalebTGordan wrote:
Another paper cut is how coffee and tea aren't in the core rulebook. While it doesn't seem like much, what if my proper noble character wants something besides wine with his brunch? What if he wants to do business over coffee at a cafe instead of a rowdy tavern?

We appreciate all feedback given about our Playtest, but unfortunately many changes are too extensive to make at this point in the book's process.

However, we just added coffee and tea to the Playtest Rulebook. Harsk thanks you!

I'm a little disappointed you folks didn't already have coffee or tea in the book!

Next you're going to say that Jason forgot to have scotch* & beer in there!

*Note: I mean, it might be under a different name as its not going to be "Scottish," per se -- whiskey? burbon? "generic hard alcohol" etc.

Sorry, scotch is mythic.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
Lucus Palosaari wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
CalebTGordan wrote:
Another paper cut is how coffee and tea aren't in the core rulebook. While it doesn't seem like much, what if my proper noble character wants something besides wine with his brunch? What if he wants to do business over coffee at a cafe instead of a rowdy tavern?

We appreciate all feedback given about our Playtest, but unfortunately many changes are too extensive to make at this point in the book's process.

However, we just added coffee and tea to the Playtest Rulebook. Harsk thanks you!

I'm a little disappointed you folks didn't already have coffee or tea in the book!

Next you're going to say that Jason forgot to have scotch* & beer in there!

*Note: I mean, it might be under a different name as its not going to be "Scottish," per se -- whiskey? burbon? "generic hard alcohol" etc.

Sorry, scotch is mythic.

Couldn't you at least include 10 year in the CRB?! I mean it could still be a very high level purchase... I just don't want to wait until Mythic until we can drink Scotch at the gaming table!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Something I want to see fixed? Weapon weights. Things like 12 pound halberds and so on make me go "WHAT?!" My arms try to imagine wielding a 12 pound polearm and I cringe.

Pathfinder 1E's weapon weights are about 1.5x to 2.0x higher than the real things. A typical 'heavy polearm' is 6-8 pounds, and is quite bulky as it is.

With the wider availability of information on medieval weaponry today, I'd love to see this fixed!


AFAIK They're moving away from "weight" towards "bulk" rating which is not directly related to weight anymore.


That sounds good, then.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Simple weapons being awful "because they're simple weapons" should be gone now with the profiency system change. I hope they fix multiple instances of natural attacks not interacting at all, even just increasing damage die would be better than making existing natural attacks wasted if you get attacks via an ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Add comprehensive rules for hitting people with doors and jumping on people. Also make falling object rules better. My rogue thanks you.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Spell areas described in needlessly convoluted terms; eg 'X no of targets, no two of whom may be more than 30 feet distant'...

Why not just say '15 foot radius'? Since that's what it amounts to, if NO combination of two targets may have 30 feet between them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I miss the old consolidated Creature Size and Scale table from 3.x and the updated Creature Size one on d20pfsrd.com. It's really handy to have all that info in one table.

Likewise, I'd like some official burrowing movement rules in either the Corebook or first Bestiary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
Why not just say '15 foot radius'? Since that's what it amounts to, if NO combination of two targets may have 30 feet between them.

Yah the Mass Cures are like that - it's a weird way of phrasing it, but um, half of the stuff in the books is phrased in a way that I feel is weird.

Hopefully they'll tidy that up.


Snorter wrote:

Spell areas described in needlessly convoluted terms; eg 'X no of targets, no two of whom may be more than 30 feet distant'...

Why not just say '15 foot radius'? Since that's what it amounts to, if NO combination of two targets may have 30 feet between them.

That's not true. If there are three targets, each 30 feet from the other two, you need a 35-foot diameter circle. to fit all three (well, 34.6, but same thing).

I'm also not convinced that "in a 15 foot radius" is simpler, at least not unless you have some form of template to put on your battle map to see how many targets you can fit into it. With "no targets can be more than 30 feet away from one another", it's easy to look and say that no, you can't fit Amiri, Valeros, and Kira all in the spell, because Amiri and Valeros are 40 ft distant from one another


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Strip out the rule that requires a +1 BAB to draw a weapon as part of a move action -- it affects a few characters for one level (maybe 2-3 if they're dipping multiple classes). It's just an extra bit of annoyance to remember early in one's career and then never again.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
That's not true. If there are three targets, each 30 feet from the other two, you need a 35-foot diameter circle. to fit all three (well, 34.6, but same thing).

Wat? Oh is this one of those thingies that has to do with the spell effect emanating from a grid intersection etc? Or some limitation of the grid itself?

Otherwise though um the largest area those peoples could be in using that wording is an equilateral triangle with 30-foot edges..and that would definitely fit inside a 30-foot-diameter circle.

If you move anybody further from anybody else, it breaks the 30 feet thingy..

Staffan Johansson wrote:
I'm also not convinced that "in a 15 foot radius" is simpler, at least not unless you have some form of template to put on your battle map to see how many targets you can fit into it. With "no targets can be more than 30 feet away from one another", it's easy to look and say that no, you can't fit Amiri, Valeros, and Kira all in the spell, because Amiri and Valeros are 40 ft distant from one another

There are templates in the CRB for spell areas. Right now there's no 15-foot radius, but they could just use a 20-foot radius, or add the 15 in. There's rules for calculating new areas given a radius..

tonyz wrote:
Strip out the rule that requires a +1 BAB to draw a weapon as part of a move action -- it affects a few characters for one level (maybe 2-3 if they're dipping multiple classes). It's just an extra bit of annoyance to remember early in one's career and then never again.

All classes are full BAB now...so it will either be based on something else, or go away entirely.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I miss the old consolidated Creature Size and Scale table from 3.x and the updated Creature Size one on d20pfsrd.com. It's really handy to have all that info in one table.

I kind like the notion of one more formal size category beyond Colossal, because there are a non-trivial number of high-end monsters more than twice as big as the Colossal/gargantuan boundary.

This doesn't need to turn into a pile of Colossal+, Colossal++ and so on categories, because one more than Colossal would make ten in total, and then those of us who think in metric can just make the one beyond Colossal+ into KiloFine, KiloTiny and so on, and then MegaFine, MegaTiny... and likewise the size smaller than Fine is MilliColossal+. And then we can give appropriate size modifiers to viruses and bholes alike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rope Trick and Mirror Image. These are so full of questions that they need a complete overhaul.

Stirges' blood drain directly draining Constitution (make it 1d4hp/r, to 10 max). Consider stirges and a blue whale. Actually, stirges having touch attacks.


Kerrilyn wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
That's not true. If there are three targets, each 30 feet from the other two, you need a 35-foot diameter circle. to fit all three (well, 34.6, but same thing).

Wat? Oh is this one of those thingies that has to do with the spell effect emanating from a grid intersection etc? Or some limitation of the grid itself?

Otherwise though um the largest area those peoples could be in using that wording is an equilateral triangle with 30-foot edges..and that would definitely fit inside a 30-foot-diameter circle.

Staffan Johansson has the number right. A circle circumscribed around an equilateral triangle with sides 30 feet long has diameter 34.64101615... feet. It is calculated as 2*(2/3)*(squareroot(3)/2)*(30 feet), which simplifies to 20*squareroot(3) feet.


Snorter wrote:

Spell areas described in needlessly convoluted terms; eg 'X no of targets, no two of whom may be more than 30 feet distant'...

Why not just say '15 foot radius'? Since that's what it amounts to, if NO combination of two targets may have 30 feet between them.

Wording is different because of the limited number of targets that you get to Pick. Guess they could make it like. "1 creature/level in a 15' radius area" but its kinda starting to sound ambiguous...

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.
tonyz wrote:
Strip out the rule that requires a +1 BAB to draw a weapon as part of a move action -- it affects a few characters for one level (maybe 2-3 if they're dipping multiple classes). It's just an extra bit of annoyance to remember early in one's career and then never again.

End the arbitary distinction, between 'weapons' and 'objects', that allows someone to unsheath an oversized, vicious, twisted, spiky, great weapon from a back scabbard on the move, but not slide a smooth wand from a pocket, or pull a potion from a bandolier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
tonyz wrote:
Strip out the rule that requires a +1 BAB to draw a weapon as part of a move action -- it affects a few characters for one level (maybe 2-3 if they're dipping multiple classes). It's just an extra bit of annoyance to remember early in one's career and then never again.
End the arbitary distinction, between 'weapons' and 'objects', that allows someone to unsheath an oversized, vicious, twisted, spiky, great weapon from a back scabbard on the move, but not slide a smooth wand from a pocket, or pull a potion from a bandolier.

For better or worse, I think this is happening. The 3 action system seems to encompass almost anything you can think of as a distinct action, even stuff that would have part of a move action like hopping up on a log or drawing a weapon on the move.

Though we don't know how there will be things like the quickdraw feat to alter that paradigm yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
End the arbitary distinction, between 'weapons' and 'objects', that allows someone to unsheath an oversized, vicious, twisted, spiky, great weapon from a back scabbard on the move, but not slide a smooth wand from a pocket

You already can do that.

FAQs wrote:

Drawing and Sheathing a Weapon-like Object: I know I can draw or sheathe a weapon-like object as a move action using the "Draw or sheathe a weapon" action, but if I have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, can I draw a weapon-like object with a regular move?

Yes. As shown on the chart on page 183, when you have a BAB of +1 or higher, you are combining the regular draw or sheathe a weapon action (to draw a weapon) with a move action. Thus all rules for draw or sheathe a weapon apply, including the ability to draw a weapon-like object.
Core Rulebook wrote:
This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The grapple and the trip weapon traits. Neither are helpful or provide something worth using.

The grapple trait, for example, would make it impossible for a whaling industry to function if the whaler needed to make a grapple check against a whale's CMD.

Trip provides no bonus but allows someone to drop the weapon to avoid being tripped themselves.

I am pretty certain we are getting a whole new combat maneuver system, or at least have them handled in a different way. If so, my papercut with those traits should be resolved anyway.


Kerrilyn wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
That's not true. If there are three targets, each 30 feet from the other two, you need a 35-foot diameter circle. to fit all three (well, 34.6, but same thing).
Wat? Oh is this one of those thingies that has to do with the spell effect emanating from a grid intersection etc? Or some limitation of the grid itself?

No, it's a geometry thing.

Quote:
Otherwise though um the largest area those peoples could be in using that wording is an equilateral triangle with 30-foot edges..and that would definitely fit inside a 30-foot-diameter circle.

No. Let's start with the simpler case: two targets, 30 ft distant from one another (let's ignore the grid and the fact that targets occupy space for the moment, and treat them as points). These two targets do fit in a 30 ft diameter circle, but only just barely. They have to be at the very opposite ends of a line drawn through the center of the circle - let's call them the West and East points.

Now add a third target. The furthest this can get from any of the previous two and still remain in the circle would be at the North or South points of the circle, and those would only be ~21 feet away from East and West (15 * sqrt(2)).

Mathmuse has the math for calculating the diameter of a circle circumscribing an equilateral triangle.

Quote:
There are templates in the CRB for spell areas. Right now there's no 15-foot radius, but they could just use a 20-foot radius, or add the 15 in. There's rules for calculating new areas given a radius..

I meant a physical template you can hold over the battle map and see "Oh, this covers Alice, Bob, and either Cecil or Diana." Without one of those, I'm not convinced that "up to 6 targets in a 15 ft radius" is faster than "up to 6 targets, no two of which can be more than 30 ft apart".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Snorter wrote:
End the arbitary distinction, between 'weapons' and 'objects', that allows someone to unsheath an oversized, vicious, twisted, spiky, great weapon from a back scabbard on the move, but not slide a smooth wand from a pocket

You already can do that.

FAQs wrote:

Drawing and Sheathing a Weapon-like Object: I know I can draw or sheathe a weapon-like object as a move action using the "Draw or sheathe a weapon" action, but if I have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, can I draw a weapon-like object with a regular move?

Yes. As shown on the chart on page 183, when you have a BAB of +1 or higher, you are combining the regular draw or sheathe a weapon action (to draw a weapon) with a move action. Thus all rules for draw or sheathe a weapon apply, including the ability to draw a weapon-like object.
Core Rulebook wrote:
This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands.

I think some of the confusion comes from things like Quick Draw (disallows wands, among other things), and wondrous items like the Scabbard of Many Blades (can hold rods, staves, one handed weapons, two handed weapons, and light weapons, but CANNOT hold wands).


Staffan Johansson wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
That's not true. If there are three targets, each 30 feet from the other two, you need a 35-foot diameter circle. to fit all three (well, 34.6, but same thing).
Wat? Oh is this one of those thingies that has to do with the spell effect emanating from a grid intersection etc? Or some limitation of the grid itself?

No, it's a geometry thing.

Quote:
Otherwise though um the largest area those peoples could be in using that wording is an equilateral triangle with 30-foot edges..and that would definitely fit inside a 30-foot-diameter circle.

No. Let's start with the simpler case: two targets, 30 ft distant from one another (let's ignore the grid and the fact that targets occupy space for the moment, and treat them as points). These two targets do fit in a 30 ft diameter circle, but only just barely. They have to be at the very opposite ends of a line drawn through the center of the circle - let's call them the West and East points.

Now add a third target. The furthest this can get from any of the previous two and still remain in the circle would be at the North or South points of the circle, and those would only be ~21 feet away from East and West (15 * sqrt(2)).

Mathmuse has the math for calculating the diameter of a circle circumscribing an equilateral triangle.

Quote:
There are templates in the CRB for spell areas. Right now there's no 15-foot radius, but they could just use a 20-foot radius, or add the 15 in. There's rules for calculating new areas given a radius..

I meant a physical template you can hold over the battle map and see "Oh, this covers Alice, Bob, and either Cecil or Diana." Without one of those, I'm not convinced that "up to 6 targets in a 15 ft radius" is faster than "up to 6 targets, no two of which can be more than 30 ft apart".

Since a 30-30-30 triangle is a valid configuration, that particular circular template dosn't match the set. Effectively, you would look a 30' circle around A. B can lie anywhere within this circle. C can lie anywhere this circle overlaps with the 30' circle around B, and so on. It looks like every valid point within all three equidistant circles is within the adequate distance to all outer points, thus making the required shape the "fat triangle" that the three circles form.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
However, we just added coffee and tea to the Playtest Rulebook. Harsk thanks you!

This makes me tempted to make an angry British elf that must have his afternoon tea. If he doesn't get his fix, the world could end for all he cared.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Using Leadership to get a Geisha archetype bard cohort is a good way to do that in PF1.

I'd like to name 'Unarmed Strikes and Unarmed Attacks being two different things' as a thing that needs to not make it across to PF2. To this day I can't remember the difference between them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
CalebTGordan wrote:
Another paper cut is how coffee and tea aren't in the core rulebook. While it doesn't seem like much, what if my proper noble character wants something besides wine with his brunch? What if he wants to do business over coffee at a cafe instead of a rowdy tavern?

We appreciate all feedback given about our Playtest, but unfortunately many changes are too extensive to make at this point in the book's process.

However, we just added coffee and tea to the Playtest Rulebook. Harsk thanks you!

Now THAT is responsive customer care. Thanks! The vast majority of my characters are going to be a lot less grumpy in the morning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can we eliminate the whip/scorpion whip distinction and just let people do lethal damage with whips without having to invest heavily in them, because adventurers are good at using the weapon they choose to use?

Like sure it doesn't make a lot of sense that you can hurt someone in plate mail with a whip, but it also doesn't make a lot of sense that you can load, aim, and fire a heavy crossbow really fast. We should just allow unrealistic things to let PCs be good at their schtick.

Also, I want to use telekinesis (or something similar like a telekineticist's schtick) to open a stuck door. How does this work? I think this should work but there's no text anywhere that suggests it does.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Change the lore on golems

Pathfinder has worked to establish all undead as wholly evil, even stating that the unintelligent undead, that in most editions are generally depicted as simple souless automotons animated by negative energy, steal a portion of the soul for the animating force, and default to wanton murder if undirected.

Golems have, since D&D second edition (And probably earlier) been stated as being animated by an enslaved elemental spirit bound to the body. Indeed, the berserk chance that golems have is said to be the spirit rebelling. Despite this, golems are always shown as neutral, made by good wizards as much as evil, and having no requirement of evil alingment to make, even though I'd think most good-aligned creatures would be repulsed at the idea of enslaving a spirit to power their construct.

I believe I've seen James Jacobs state that this was kept to stay consistent with 3rd edition. Something they wanted to change, but didn't want to rock the boat at the time. Well, no time like the present to change the lore and make Golems animated purely by magic, no lore of bound spirits.

I also think flesh golems need to have an inherit intelligence, since they're obviously inspired by Frankenstein. Clay golems as well, for similar classical inspiration. And adjust the berserk chance. Who'se going to spend tens of thousands of gold on something that has a significant chance of going on a rampage?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Can we eliminate the whip/scorpion whip distinction and just let people do lethal damage with whips without having to invest heavily in them, because adventurers are good at using the weapon they choose to use?

Like sure it doesn't make a lot of sense that you can hurt someone in plate mail with a whip, but it also doesn't make a lot of sense that you can load, aim, and fire a heavy crossbow really fast. We should just allow unrealistic things to let PCs be good at their schtick.

Also, I want to use telekinesis (or something similar like a telekineticist's schtick) to open a stuck door. How does this work? I think this should work but there's no text anywhere that suggests it does.

I would make it so if you are an expert in whips they can do lethal damage. I think they should do a similar thing with other weapons. Instead of taking weapon specific feats you unlock more abilities with that weapon as you gain proficiency. Ex: lethal unarmed strikes/considered armed, whips have grapple, dorn-dergar is one handed etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
That's not true. If there are three targets, each 30 feet from the other two, you need a 35-foot diameter circle. to fit all three (well, 34.6, but same thing).
Wat? Oh is this one of those thingies that has to do with the spell effect emanating from a grid intersection etc? Or some limitation of the grid itself?

No, it's a geometry thing.

Quote:
Otherwise though um the largest area those peoples could be in using that wording is an equilateral triangle with 30-foot edges..and that would definitely fit inside a 30-foot-diameter circle.

No. Let's start with the simpler case: two targets, 30 ft distant from one another (let's ignore the grid and the fact that targets occupy space for the moment, and treat them as points). These two targets do fit in a 30 ft diameter circle, but only just barely. They have to be at the very opposite ends of a line drawn through the center of the circle - let's call them the West and East points.

Now add a third target. The furthest this can get from any of the previous two and still remain in the circle would be at the North or South points of the circle, and those would only be ~21 feet away from East and West (15 * sqrt(2)).

Mathmuse has the math for calculating the diameter of a circle circumscribing an equilateral triangle.

Quote:
There are templates in the CRB for spell areas. Right now there's no 15-foot radius, but they could just use a 20-foot radius, or add the 15 in. There's rules for calculating new areas given a radius..

I meant a physical template you can hold over the battle map and see "Oh, this covers Alice, Bob, and either Cecil or Diana." Without one of those, I'm not convinced that "up to 6 targets in a 15 ft radius" is faster than "up to 6 targets, no two of which can be more than 30 ft apart".

Since a 30-30-30 triangle is a valid configuration, that particular circular template dosn't match the set. Effectively, you...

If it takes that much explanation, for God's sake, cut it. :) Trying to describe and argue that at the game table, even though it's correct, would eat five minutes of time, easy, whereas "up to X targets in a 15 foot radius circle" or even better, "up to X targets in a 20-foot radius circle" (to match fireballs, Cloudkills, Etc.) would allow everyone at the table to very quickly understand the area of effect involved. I'd rather speed up play than to conform for its own sake to a spell effect that was decided 20 years ago.


Trigger Loaded wrote:


Golems have, since D&D second edition (And probably earlier) been stated as being animated by an enslaved elemental spirit bound to the body. Indeed, the berserk chance that golems have is said to be the spirit rebelling. Despite this, golems are always shown as neutral, made by good wizards as much as evil, and having no requirement of evil alingment to make, even though I'd think most good-aligned creatures would be repulsed at the idea of enslaving a spirit to power their construct.

Even if the spirit isn't sentient? Even paladins get to ride horses.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Trigger Loaded wrote:

Change the lore on golems

Pathfinder has worked to establish all undead as wholly evil, even stating that the unintelligent undead, that in most editions are generally depicted as simple souless automotons animated by negative energy, steal a portion of the soul for the animating force, and default to wanton murder if undirected.

Golems have, since D&D second edition (And probably earlier) been stated as being animated by an enslaved elemental spirit bound to the body. Indeed, the berserk chance that golems have is said to be the spirit rebelling. Despite this, golems are always shown as neutral, made by good wizards as much as evil, and having no requirement of evil alingment to make, even though I'd think most good-aligned creatures would be repulsed at the idea of enslaving a spirit to power their construct.

I believe I've seen James Jacobs state that this was kept to stay consistent with 3rd edition. Something they wanted to change, but didn't want to rock the boat at the time. Well, no time like the present to change the lore and make Golems animated purely by magic, no lore of bound spirits.

I also think flesh golems need to have an inherit intelligence, since they're obviously inspired by Frankenstein. Clay golems as well, for similar classical inspiration. And adjust the berserk chance. Who'se going to spend tens of thousands of gold on something that has a significant chance of going on a rampage?

I believe this is being addressed in Construct Builder's Handbook.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
River of Sticks wrote:
I think some of the confusion comes from things like Quick Draw (disallows wands, among other things), and wondrous items like the Scabbard of Many Blades (can hold rods, staves, one handed weapons, two handed weapons, and light weapons, but CANNOT hold wands).

That is indeed the source of my understanding.

It seems as though a generation of designers have gone out of their way, to enforce an arbitary distinction between weapons and objects, in the rules as written.
I wasn't aware of that FAQ, which does alleviate the issue.
Though a pedant could still argue that to be a weaponlike object, it must contain offensive magic, so no drawing cures/buff items on the move.

Can this be another paper cut?
That Paizo cease relying on their customers to search an FAQ, rather than print/post an actual errata?
Many players/GMs don't consider FAQs to be official changes; it's 'just the opinion of some guy on the forums'.

Having a policy that errata can only be compiled, if a book goes to a new printing, means many books will never see their content formally clarified and corrected.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Also:

Please have a simple system for what happens if you can't see an enemy, not lots of scattered rules for blindness and invisibility and darkness and +20 bonuses to stealth.


Make fear... fearfull. A few levels and poof, the paladin ain't scared of nuthin.

Review spell resistance so that 10th level casters don't find most of their offensive spells useless against foes of that level. Personally I prefer the old percentage magic resistance systance. At least you could cause some damage...

rework the all or nothing spell effects which are avoided with a easy to make saving throw at higher levels.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gondolin wrote:
Make fear... fearfull. A few levels and poof, the paladin ain't scared of nuthin.
The Paladin, yes. Every single other class? Not so much.
Gondolin wrote:
rework the all or nothing spell effects which are avoided with a easy to make saving throw at higher levels.

Good news for you (maybe)! Spell DC is based on the caster level, not the spell level, and formerly SoD spells now have a range of effects depending on how have a range of effects depending on how well/poorly you do on the save.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:

Can this be another paper cut?

That Paizo cease relying on their customers to search an FAQ, rather than print/post an actual errata?
Many players/GMs don't consider FAQs to be official changes; it's 'just the opinion of some guy on the forums'.

Having a policy that errata can only be compiled, if a book goes to a new printing, means many books will never see their content formally clarified and corrected.

On a somewhat related note:

Have errata be actual errata, not stealth rule changes. A large number of the "errata" that Paizo has issued have NOT been correcting mistakes, it's been flat-out changing a rule. This is actually a good way to DISCOURAGE the sales of physical books, in my opinion. Why by a physically book that will have more and more of it's rules altered, when you can buy the PDF that will be updated to whatever the "new" rules are?


Shadow Kosh wrote:
Snorter wrote:
Why by a physically book that will have more and more of it's rules altered, when you can buy the PDF that will be updated to whatever the "new" rules are?

To fill up the empty space in your bookcase that was caused by getting rid of your obsolete books?!?..... LOL

All kidding aside, I just love those errata stating things like : cross out the last sentence of the last paragraph and write in this whole new paragraph. My core and complete books look like a mess with all of that poorly written scribble.

Reminds me, back in the old days, Unearthed Arcana had so many corrections I just Elmere'd the corrections directly over the errors but realised I could no longer proberly turn the pages. Big mistake there.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Kosh wrote:
Have errata be actual errata, not stealth rule changes. A large number of the "errata" that Paizo has issued have NOT been correcting mistakes, it's been flat-out changing a rule. This is actually a good way to DISCOURAGE the sales of physical books, in my opinion. Why by a physically book that will have more and more of it's rules altered, when you can buy the PDF that will be updated to whatever the "new" rules are?

So much this. Paizo, you aren't just extending someone else's system anymore. Please take a more professional approach to your rules.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mainly just clear up the language.

Weapon Training
Rapier Training
Spear Training

Why there was ever a need to name these abilities something other than weapon training and needing errata to say they are in fact the same ability is silly.

The archtypes should have simply read

Weapon traiing: This class gets weapon training as a fighter does EXCEPT it only works with "X" weapon.

Basically clear up any ambiguous language, because there are tons of situations like that and it'll give you the death of a thousand cuts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Shadow Kosh wrote:
Have errata be actual errata, not stealth rule changes. A large number of the "errata" that Paizo has issued have NOT been correcting mistakes, it's been flat-out changing a rule. This is actually a good way to DISCOURAGE the sales of physical books, in my opinion. Why by a physically book that will have more and more of it's rules altered, when you can buy the PDF that will be updated to whatever the "new" rules are?
So much this. Paizo, you aren't just extending someone else's system anymore. Please take a more professional approach to your rules.

Oh, man I'm really pissed about Ultimate Equipment, especially as it seems they were already working on PF2, and they still took the time to nerfbat those items into oblivion, but not enough time to make them reasonable, balanced options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

BARBARIAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO SOLO EVERYTHING AT LEVEL ONE


AM BARBARIAN TOO wrote:
BARBARIAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO SOLO EVERYTHING AT LEVEL ONE

Everything at CR1 with decent odds of losing, everything below CR1 fairly reliably


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Please just say NOPE! to "childlike" feats for halflings. Because creepy is, apparently, a thing beyond what I'd seen at my table, especially to halfling females. I am not the only one to have run into this. I'm sure I'll be told "they'll do it anyway," but it's a big, fat NOPE! from me.

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paper Cuts We Want To See Changed In 2.0 All Messageboards