Misread Rules That Worked Better


Running the Game

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm wondering who has misread a particular rule and ended up having a better (or at least more enjoyable) result because of it.

For example, while running last night, I couldn't find how many charges wands were supposed to have. This came up because the druid had a 1st level wand of heal and wanted to use it to heal up the party's tank, a monk. So, I ran it as: As long as it is on your spell list, you need to spend a point of Resonance each time you cast the spell from your wand.

It wasn't until afterward I found the rule buried that wands have 10 charges, but everyone at the table was really happy with wands working that they just needed to spend Resonance to cast the spell if it was already on their spell list.

I also remembered that the 3.5 Eberron setting had a similar item called eternal wands that let the user use the spell in it unlimited times over the life of the item, but only so many times per day (3 if I recall correctly).

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Shield.

The proper rule made them as resistant as toilet paper.


Eternal wands are 2/day.


I love Eberron so much. I'm wondering if there will be a way to play it with PF 2E.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I was promised Resonance would get rid of a thousand separate charge counters on my magic items. Hell yeah I want wands that just require Resonance and nothing else to work.

Although that would mean they blow up sorcerers' spells per day and known tables. Which... I can live with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of my monsters had a weapon that allowed him to grab right after the attack. I played it as a free manoeuver to grab needing an Athletic check, PF1 style (instead of an action to grab automatically). It was funier this way :) I tried to grab as Attack of Opportunity and missed several times, but when I managed to grab it made some intense moments.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Initially we were doing the Paladin's retributive strike before determining if the Ally was hit by the attack, and the applied condition could therefore cause it to miss. On a subsequent reread of the ability we decided it was intended to happen after the ally was hit, but before damage was rolled. This is much less satisfying compared to jumping in and occasionally saving an ally from a hit, and the condition affects far fewer rolls.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I misread armor Hardness as functioning as Damage Reduction. When I realized my mistake during chapter 2 and attempted to correct it, my players threatened to leave because using Hardness as DR had made all monster damage numbers make sense.

I have yet to have a TPK but have had 2 instances of a Fighter going to Dying 2 and the Rogue and Cleric drop to <10% HP, even with using Hardness as DR on Armor.

Grand Lodge

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

This is closer to the current design of staffs - charges per day but unlimited total uses.

That said, wands currently are essentially just scrolls with a "Buy 9 get 1 free!" card so making wands a more specialized staff (1 spell, no base bonuses) might actually be more interesting/varied.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Administer First Aid.

With the new 1.2 death changes. I thought that the person who is dying had the higher DC based on what took them down.
but anyone attempting a Heal Check to administer first aid was still against a DC15.

Which made sense, it was representing how much harder it is for a person to magically.. stop bleeding/dying. than it is for some 3rd party to help them.

Of course.. that was incorrect. The DC for administer first aid is the same raised value.
and with it being untrained skill, and how relatively low value most classes/characters get out of medicine. (much less the need for the Kit, which is expensive)
Realistically most people will fail that one.

the static 15 worked far better for the 3rd person untrained skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my group, the GM didn't notice for most of the session that the Paladin's Retributive Strike doesn't have the "ignore multiple attack penalty" option that Attack of Opportunity has.

After it was noticed, monsters no longer took paladin's tanking with any seriousness. Although there were 10 more attempts at Retributive Strike from her, she didn't hit once. Adding MAP to the -2 is just too much unless you waste your turn hoping for a reaction that you -may- be able to use, and without any spells or ranged attack (no Gunladins so far, and we all miss those in our group) there wasn't anything for her to do outside of trying to hit them with the slashy end.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CXM wrote:

In my group, the GM didn't notice for most of the session that the Paladin's Retributive Strike doesn't have the "ignore multiple attack penalty" option that Attack of Opportunity has.

After it was noticed, monsters no longer took paladin's tanking with any seriousness. Although there were 10 more attempts at Retributive Strike from her, she didn't hit once. Adding MAP to the -2 is just too much unless you waste your turn hoping for a reaction that you -may- be able to use, and without any spells or ranged attack (no Gunladins so far, and we all miss those in our group) there wasn't anything for her to do outside of trying to hit them with the slashy end.

You had it right, assuming enemies weren't somehow attacking the paladin's allies on the paladin's turn:

Multiple Attack Penalty, p 305 wrote:
The multiple attack penalty applies only on your turn and resets at the end of your turn. Attacks you can make outside of your turn might include their own penalties

Also, one that I didn't misread but multiple others have: 'Spell rolls' being used for 'spell attacks', i.e. spell attacks being off your casting stat instead of Dex.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After reading the thread, I have no idea how to handle starting wealth past 1st level, nobody else seems to be having this problem, and it is driving me crazy; please send help, I saw that I had misread the rules for starting magic items on a higher-level character. I had simpliifed them and avoided many of the problems mentioned in the thread.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monk's flurry makes sense if both attacks have the same bonus (however they don't.)


Tony Larkin wrote:
Monk's flurry makes sense if both attacks have the same bonus (however they don't.)

Why shouldn't it make sense? It's still 2 attacks for one action with combined damage even if the second strike has MAP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:
Tony Larkin wrote:
Monk's flurry makes sense if both attacks have the same bonus (however they don't.)
Why shouldn't it make sense? It's still 2 attacks for one action with combined damage even if the second strike has MAP.

Pathfinder 2nd Edition's method of modeling Two-Weapon Fighting in the fighter and ranger feat Double Strike is by combining the two Strikes, one with each weapon, into a single double-sized action. Both Strikes have the same multiple attack penalty.

The monk's Flurry of Blows has no such statement about both Strikes using the same multiple attack penalty. Nevertheless, they take place in the same action and combine their damage and enhancements for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses, which is extremely much like Double Strike. And in Pathfinder 1st Edition, the monk's Flurry of Blows was a variant of Two-Weapon Fighting, "When [using Flurry of Blows], he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."

Which leads to two different interpretations:
(1) the benefit of Double Strike is two attacks at the same multiple attack penalty and the benefit of Flurry of Blows is two attacks costing only a single action slot, and both get the secondary benefit of combining damage together before applying resistance; or
(2) Combining two Strikes into one action means simultaneous strikes, so they have the same multiple attack penalty and combine damage together before applying resistances automatically.

Option (1) is the correct one.

If the Playtest Rulebook were perfectly organized, we could 100% rule out option 2. But the rulebook does hide some rules in unexpected chapters. If the intuitive rule about simultaneous strikes having the same multiple attack penalty is not found, the reader could decide that he or she simply has not found it yet and assume it holds regardless. Or that the writer was careless and forgot to mention the rule explicitly.

The rulebook could clarify Flurry of Blows by adding the word, "consecutive":

[[A]] FLURRY OF BLOWS
Monk
Frequency Once per round.
Make two consecutive unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage and enhancements for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses.


In one of the early playtests we misinterpreted Nimble Dodge and Divine Grace to be triggered after the dice roll rather than before.

It was so much more satisfying to spend the reaction and know in advance that it was going to be successful and therefore not spend the reaction if it was not going to work, rather than spend your reaction to sometimes have a 20% chance that it would do anything at all...

I'll 100% houserule Nimble Dodge, but Divine Grace should just be constant.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

During a recent epic fight our Dwarf Alchemist was swallowed by a gargantuan creature. He was both frightened and excited that this happened. Frightened for the obvious reasons and excited because he thought he would be able to make an awesome ingested poison. After reading through the descriptions of the options he had available he was disappointed to learn that they all had long onset times and did very little damage.

Then he noticed that he could make Quicksilver Mutagen, which does 20 hit points of damage in order to get the buffs. Neither of us noticed the onset time of one minute, I think because we had been looking at ingested poisons that have the onsets listed in a slightly different place and because it never occurred to us that it wouldn't be right away. Turns out mutagens typically have a one minute onset :(

So we played that the mutagen acted right away effecting the monster and it was one of the most fun fights I've ever run as a DM.

Player: "Don't worry this monster doesn't have a ranged attack..."

DM: "...Turns out he does :)"

Given the alchemist seems so underwhelming and also given that the transition to encounter mode from exploration mode would typically preclude Mutagens from ever being useful. I can't think of a reason to have their onset be anything longer than 1 round.


Snickersnax wrote:

During a recent epic fight our Dwarf Alchemist was swallowed by a gargantuan creature. He was both frightened and excited that this happened. Frightened for the obvious reasons and excited because he thought he would be able to make an awesome ingested poison. After reading through the descriptions of the options he had available he was disappointed to learn that they all had long onset times and did very little damage.

Then he noticed that he could make Quicksilver Mutagen, which does 20 hit points of damage in order to get the buffs. Neither of us noticed the onset time of one minute, I think because we had been looking at ingested poisons that have the onsets listed in a slightly different place and because it never occurred to us that it wouldn't be right away. Turns out mutagens typically have a one minute onset :(

So we played that the mutagen acted right away effecting the monster and it was one of the most fun fights I've ever run as a DM.

Player: "Don't worry this monster doesn't have a ranged attack..."

DM: "...Turns out he does :)"

Given the alchemist seems so underwhelming and also given that the transition to encounter mode from exploration mode would typically preclude Mutagens from ever being useful. I can't think of a reason to have their onset be anything longer than 1 round.

"So, how many acid flasks/alchemical fires can I dump in his gut in one round?"


RealAlchemy wrote:


"So, how many acid flasks/alchemical fires can I dump in his gut in one round?"

Well that sounds a bit more risky. Now if you had a high resistance to one of those maybe.

But I think the answer is less than you would hope given grabbed plus slowed 1

Cool thoughts though. I think alchemists should be able to make creatures that swallow them regretful

Sovereign Court

Oh here's one. I misread the heightening rules in cantrips to refer to character level instead of spell level.

So you'd get the Heightened (3rd) boost at level 3, instead of 5, and so forth. Cantrips seemed scaled enough to be worthwhile at level 4. Was a rude surprise when I realized my error :(

Dark Archive

It took me awhile to notice spellcaster classes don't get feats at level 12 or 16 and instead get +1 to their spell attacks. I had been enjoying extra customization in my theorycrafted characters up to that point.


Broken items don't work at all (except armour), unlike in PF1e when they worked badly.

I had ruled otherwise, which made the sword and board fighters happier, since it meant they could Shield Block an extra time per fight.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Game Master Rules / Running the Game / Misread Rules That Worked Better All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Running the Game