I think my least favorite game mechanic from D&D was level caps on non-human races. I mean why? If you expected a game to be long running you pretty much had to be a human or else you just stopped leveling after awhile.
That kind of reasoning is why I hate the cap placed on most damage spells (magic missile, fireball etc) that improve with caster level... why is a fireball cast by a 20th level caster more damaging than one cast by a mere 10th level one? Sure, the higher level guy has access to stuff like delayed blast and meteor swarm, but it doesn't change the fact that his lower level spells are less useful than they should.
If you're going to say "Technically" you best have your facts straight.Indeed, and luckily I did. You didn't.
The number you are describing is the mean of all possible results. it is neither the median, nor the mode.
What is the mode of all possible results? (hint: it's a flat distribution)
You are correct that I did not specify which of the three measures of everage I was talking about. However, the mean and median are both 10.5, which as I said, you cannot roll. The mode, as you hint, does not exist, so you cannot roll that either.
_
glass.
The median is not 10.5. It is the pair: 10, 11. The median can only consist of actual possible results.
But your missing the point. The reason I don't like the d20, is because rolling 1d20.... there is no mode. The fact that the mean is 10.5 is irrelevant, and implying that that is the "average" is misleading about the distribution of possible results.
I guess you can get uppity about why I don't like something, but so far you haven't convinced me that I should like it.
|
That kind of reasoning is why I hate the cap placed on most damage spells (magic missile, fireball etc) that improve with caster level... why is a fireball cast by a 20th level caster more damaging than one cast by a mere 10th level one?
I remember (vaguely) when that changed. The toughest monster in 1st edition was the ancient red dragon with 88 hit points, and the fireballs and lightning bolts went all the way up to 20d6. (Or, theoretically, higher, since 20th level wasn't assumed to be the end of the game, in the Forgotten Realms, which extended the charts all the way up to 30, and had 26th level NPC wizards.)
Then 2nd edition, IIRC, came along and fireballs were capped at 10d6, and 'great wyrm' red dragons had *hundreds* of hit points.
3rd edition (and PF) just kind of followed in that vein. Monsters got more and more hit points, and evocation magic fell further and further behind, essentially becoming kind of pointless, being potentially mitigated by saves, spell resistance, immunities, resistance and / or evasion, sometimes layered three or four deep on the same monster... (Which might still be better than what a Conjuror or Diviner faces in a dungeon like World's Greatest Dungeon where summoning or divination straight up doesn't work, or an Enchanter trying to get by in a series of encounters where everything is totally immune to their powers).
Which brings me to another pet peeve; total immunities. I'm made of meat, and yet can still be beaten up by fists, or killed by an angry bull. Why are fire elementals immune to fire? Why are undead or constructs or vermin *with minds* immune to mind-affecting effects? I don't like total immunities, at all, not thematically, and, theme or no theme, not mechanically.
Even when it would make sense, thematically, for some rare creature to be totally 100% not affected by a specific thing, it's still no fun at all, and I don't play this game to simulate reality, I play it to have fun. Let it work not as well. Let it work only a fraction as well. But never make it a total waste of time to expect the tools the game gave your character to do *something.*
interesting view, since red dragons are the last monster you'd use a fireball on ;). but yeah, you're right, monsters, especially dragons, outsiders and giants, (that I've noticed) got a big boost... and with the cap and whatnot, evocation magic HAS fallen behind. I don't know what happened between AD&D and 2nd ed, but I compared AD&D with 3rd ed.... I mean, I converted the Giants series to 3rd ed, and those modules were no longer suitable for lvl 8-12 characters... I would not put characters under lvl 12 in hill giants, and Fire has several lvl 19 or 20 encounters... which is problematic, since then I'd have to make the D&Q modules suitable for Epic characters, which they are definitely not, high level, maybe, epic, not, except, maybe, Lolth... but the D modules in between G&Q would be a cake walk for epic characters.
Okay. Thanks for the math lesson.
eh, what? that's why, when preparing a PF character, I generally try to foresee what options he'll take as he rises in level, I've seen plenty such builds on these forums, and the right way to do it, is to have the build ready at character creation, so you know in advance precisely where you are going, like it or not, that's how this game rolls... IIRC 3.5 PHB II had rules for retraining your mistakes into something better, as did 4ed... I don't remember if PF has those, are we trapped in our past mistakes?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My pet peeve (related to some other people have mentioned) is that Strength add to to hit AND damage AND grappling. There isn't a design space for big clumsy monsters that only hit occasionally, but hit really hard when they connect, or agile tentacle things that grab you, but can't keep hold.
In an ideal world Dex = chance to hit and Strength = damage done.
given that you NEED your gold to buy equipment, and theoretical WbL isn't that great, it's still better to be a good planner and know in advance what options you'll take... of course, this doesn't take into account in-campaign shenanigans that might void some of your chosen options or require some others you hadn't counted on.
I'd say my biggest pet peeve is the lack of real tactical choices for martial characters, given how static melee is. It's why I like the swashbuckler, despite its flaws, because at least there's the possibility of lots of movement within melee. Making the improved versions of combat maneuvers not feats might help with this, actually.
My second biggest peeve is how a first level spell makes it very difficult to be an effective enchanter: protection vs. ____ alignment.
I hate the XMas tree effect of requiring PCs to get the items that give them the essential bonuses. I'm really loving playing with automatic bonus progression.
People really like the concept of rogues, but the actual experience of playing them is a disappointment, even the unchained one.
Other peeves:
Fiddliness in spell durations: I would vastly prefer simplifying spell durations to either one combat or all day.
The complexity of summoning: I'd rather it be summon ______ monster, where you choose a specific kind of spell or even individual monster.
you mean stuff like hold person and petrification?
|
|
I have a few gripes, some are just me though.
1. I always preferred the d6 system over the d20. Maybe because I started by playing Shadowrun first. It is much more efficient, averages better and seems to me to be more adversarial in nature when you roll against the enemy. Plus, you get to roll more dice.
2. How does it work that you spent an entire lifetime studying magic just to forget the spells the second you cast them? Sorcerer should have straight up replaced the wizard.
3. There are way too many feats. Some of them are awful, but you have to take anyway to qualify for better feats. Somebody mentioned earlier about feat progression with character level. Seems interesting.
4. I am all for having discussions about how certain rules apply in different situations, but there should be more input from Paizo to make the rules more "standardized". Especially how feats work together.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People really like the concept of rogues, but the actual experience of playing them is a disappointment, even the unchained one.
Yeah, I love the idea, but a game built around encounters scaled for four people, any character that has features that revolve around going off by themselves (like swimming or flying movement types) or stealth not shared with all of their allies, is just asking to get insta-killed by yourself by an encounter-for-four that you ran into by yourself. (And the probabilities become 'inevitable' as die rolls accumulate. An entire party rolling stealth checks just increases odds that someone is going to roll bad...)
It's also a poor choice from a meta standpoint, as the GM runs a solo scene for you sneaking ahead and scouting, while the other three players sit around holding their cheese and *not gaming* during the four hours a week they can book for gaming.
It's not what anybody wants when they pick Rogue as a class, but from the start, perhaps there should have been some sort of abstracted 'scouting' subsystem where the Rogue gets a class ability to roll a die and learn something about what's in the next room/encounter (like how Knowledge checks work in 3.X/PF). If it was baked into the game when it launched, it would just be one of those 'abstracted' game-mechanic/ease-of-play things we complain about, yet accept, like spell slots or hit points.
given that you NEED your gold to buy equipment, and theoretical WbL isn't that great, it's still better to be a good planner and know in advance what options you'll take... of course, this doesn't take into account in-campaign shenanigans that might void some of your chosen options or require some others you hadn't counted on.
If the GM rubber-bands Wealth by Level the way it was intended, retraining is effectively free.
I've pretty much always run character builds the same way one fights a war: Copious amounts of preplanning followed by rapidly trashing most of the planning when the campaign in practice necessitates a change in strategy.
I hated the grappling rules in 3.5. In Pathfinder I don't like that they felt the need to have two attack and defense systems: To Hit and Armor Class and CMB/CMD.
Grappling does suck. Every time it happens in my games the whole table lets out a collective groan.
and one of my own pet peeves is with ability point buy... neve enough points for a well rounded char.
I actually find the point buy system to be pretty good. Seems to encourage balanced characters as it's less efficient to spend more points to boost single stats really high.
Not really sure what you're seeing there, but maybe i'm just misunderstanding.
I hated the grappling rules in 3.5. In Pathfinder I don't like that they felt the need to have two attack and defense systems: To Hit and Armor Class and CMB/CMD.Grappling does suck. Every time it happens in my games the whole table lets out a collective groan.
One of my players ONLY plays unarmed fighter types. He also grapples anything he can get his arms around. I had a lot of opportunities to work out the grappling rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that strength shouldn't play a big role in Grappling. Grappling is mostly about technique. I bet somebody out there has house-ruled that the grappling bonus is an average of Dex and Int. Some of the best Jiu-Jitsu guys in the world are skinny, nerd assassins.
Yeah, I think there's more than one skill and other abilities that would be better represented by an average of two or more ability modifiers than just one, but I can also understand why few designers would want to go down that slippery slope. I like that the game has tried to compensate by offering feats and traits to allow a PC to switch out an ability modifier to power a skill or ability if it fits the concept.
Oh, sorry! That's something I like about the game. THREAD DRIFT! My bad.
Also, I love the term "nerd assassins."
Yeah, I think there's more than one skill and other abilities that would be better represented by an average of two or more ability modifiers than just one, but I can also understand why few designers would want to go down that slippery slope. I like that the game has tried to compensate by offering feats and traits to allow a PC to switch out an ability modifier to power a skill or ability if it fits the concept.
Oh, sorry! That's something I like about the game. THREAD DRIFT! My bad.
Also, I love the term "nerd assassins."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People really like the concept of rogues, but the actual experience of playing them is a disappointment, even the unchained one.
The problem is that many people really like the concept of rogues (as in the personality type), and, understandably, think they should/need to play a Rogue (as in the class) for that. The thing is that the Pathfinder Rogue is pretty much the opposite of a rogue!
A rogue is generally a bit of a loner, stealthy, good at many things, and a master of precice, deadly attacks. A Pathfinder Rogue is extremly dependent on teamwork *, is not particular good at skills (and especially not at the stuff you want to use skills for) **, way worse at stealth than almost any arcane caster, and can't hit the broad side of a barn without an ally on the other side of it saying "strike this way" ***.
*) Flanking is the best way to get Sneak Attack, plus Unchained Rogue's main Debilitating Injury is only really a good thing if others profit from it.
**) Sure, a Rogue has a lot of skill ranks, but I presume that a big number in "total skill points" in the character sheet is not the ultimate goal - the ultimate goal is to be good at many things. Yes, he has more skill points to put in climb, stealth etc. than a Sorcerer, but that guy can simply use Spider Climb/Fly and Invisibility. Also, he doesn't have the attributes for a good charisma without crippling his combat capability, so he'll never be as good a suave, charismatic guy as for instance a bard.
***) Despite the main damage source being "precision damage", the rogue is extremly geared towards many inaccurate attacks. Even more so for Unchained Rogue (which is a straight upgrade but doesn't really fix the problems).
To put this post a bit more in-line with the thread's intend, a game mechanic that I've always disliked is Sneak Attack. Let's be honest, how high is the percentage of sneak attacks made where it's actually the character being sneaky that triggers it? Most of them are triggered by flanking, so shouldn't it be called "gang-up attack" or "teamwork attack"? Other common methods are Greater Invisibility (there's that teamwork again), Circling Mongoose (since when is "you circle around threateningly" sneaky?), and Shatter Defenses (intimidation is sneaky?). Sounds more like an "exploit-an-opponent's-position-of-weakness attack" than a "sneak attack" to me.
I dislike traits too, but for a more practical reason : most of them come in short splatbooks, and while I've managed to grab some few rules books, I'm utterly lacking in the short softcover department, meaning I'm not at all informed about traits, which is a definite hindrance in character design for most games.
My own collection is mostly hardcover rulebooks, with very few softcover splatbooks, so I often share your frustration about not knowing what obscure bits of crunch are available.
But in my case, one of those hardcovers is Ultimate Campaign, which expands the trait list from Advanced Player's Guide. It also provides an optional system for generating character backgrounds that ties into the trait system (X event in your past gives you access to Y trait, and so on).
For my home games, Ultimate Campaign's trait list is pretty much all I need--and is often all that I'll allow. And I've found that it's a pretty solid range of traits to choose from for PFS, too. (Sure, another player might have some killer combo that pulls elements from six different splatbooks you've never heard of, but IME, most characters like that tend to be one-trick ponies, and have serious shortcomings in other areas.)
I dislike that as warriors get more skilled, they apparently forget how to move. Skilled warriors in our imaginations tend to be highly mobile - how many fights can you think of in movies where they just stand still? In most popular depictions, half the action is in how the combatants move around the battlefield and take advantage of terrain features. It holds in real world combat as well. You almost never see skilled fighters standing still; in boxing, in fencing, and in martial arts, footwork is often cited as one of the most important skills.
And yet, in pathfinder, combat gets less mobile as warriors level up. At low levels, moving and attacking is common. Combatants have the ability and incentive to move around the battlefield. But that stops at 6th level when full-attacks become a common thing, and no terrain advantage can outweigh the benefits of more attacks.
I dislike the rules for a lot of the multi-target spells, primarily bursts/blasts. Rolling a separate attack against each target never made sense to me. I caused one large explosion in the middle of three targets, not three tiny explosions centered on each target!
When I GM, I usually just go for one attack roll against each target's AC/Save. Quicker, easier, and makes more sense.
|
|
And yet, in pathfinder, combat gets less mobile as warriors level up. At low levels, moving and attacking is common. Combatants have the ability and incentive to move around the battlefield. But that stops at 6th level when full-attacks become a common thing, and no terrain advantage can outweigh the benefits of more attacks.
One design choice I like from M&M was just getting rid of iterative attacks (and two-weapon attacks) as individual rolls and just giving the player more damage on the 'multiple' attacks. No 'full attacks' at all. Just a move action and an attack action (which can also be a move, if one wants to double move).
In PF beta, I agitated for something like 'Vital Strike for all,' just making it a combat option, rather than something you blew a bunch of feats on, and allowing someone to replace all the die rolling from iterative attacks with one big attack (putting all their eggs in one basket), but even that wouldn't necessarily deal with your issue with dynamic movement dropping off once it becomes more effective to stand and full attack, unless the 'Vital Strike' maneuver only required a standard attack and not a full attack...
People really like the concept of rogues, but the actual experience of playing them is a disappointment, even the unchained one.Yeah, I love the idea, but a game built around encounters scaled for four people, any character that has features that revolve around going off by themselves (like swimming or flying movement types) or stealth not shared with all of their allies, is just asking to get insta-killed by yourself by an encounter-for-four that you ran into by yourself.
You're absolutely right. I learned that all the way back in 3e, though. My specific table's issue is that the rogue just doesn't play well in combat at all.
I dislike the rules for a lot of the multi-target spells, primarily bursts/blasts. Rolling a separate attack against each target never made sense to me. I caused one large explosion in the middle of three targets, not three tiny explosions centered on each target!
When I GM, I usually just go for one attack roll against each target's AC/Save. Quicker, easier, and makes more sense.
I'd like to know which spells you mean. Spells with saves don't usually have attack rolls, unless you're using some house rules like 'Players roll all the dice'.
Got a few more...
- Unarmed strike; It's not as powerful for monks and brawlers and there are STILL no way to scale the damage up for other classes. I know that oracles have a mystery about it, but not for fighters, barbarians and other martial classes. Just give me a feat similar to Superior Unarmed Strike.
- Monks; there are several problems with the class:
* Not proficient with every single weapon from the Monk weapon group.
* The speed enhancement is useless, because there is nothing to do with it.
* Unarmed strikes are often swapped for manufactured weapons.
* Too many stats to manage.
- Any low-level ability with daily uses; I'm referring to granted powers and school powers. They're pretty weak, as they are 1st-level abilities, but they have daily uses. Please note that the Kineticist has a much more powerful Blast that can be used at will.
Like others, staves. My experimental solution with a new group we are sandboxing is to houserule their gp value at 65% of RAW across the board (creation, sell, buy.)
Like others also - Crafting magic. My houserule is that all spell requirements MUST be met, there is no taking a -5 for each requirement not met. Using extremely rare and exotic materials can mitigate - discuss with DM ahead of time.
This increases RP & potential hooks as they need to obtain special ingredients or scrolls (UMD) or a cooperative caster to assist them in crafting if they don't have what they require. The players respect the process more instead of just pouring ranks-per-level into a slot and taking the right buffs.
I have a problem with a Fighter that can take a Trait giving them 1 cantrip and therefore meets prerequisites to craft uber-powerful wondrous items by him or herself.