|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Please keep your subjective opinion subjective. I'm jumping in because this is not flag worthy and I say this in all respect, Zhayne.
But the fact that you don't like it, and that you feel justified by a majority of other players not liking it, does not make you judge of what is inherently bad, nor who is a masochist.
RDM42 was generalizing a personal experience. A point has been made that this cannot be accepted as an argument in favour of fumbles - fair enough. But flawed does not inherently bad. People having fun with fumbles are not inherently wrong. People seeking to make fumbles work are not inherently masochists (or stooges for that matter).
If such is your opinion; that's cool. But please state it as an opinion.
I feel like it usually just screws over the player and the martials. Think about it, 1 player character rolls how many die over the course of his career? Vs the goblin they run up on and kill, he is going to roll the dice just a few times before his life is cut short.
True, but it's not PCs vs the goblin. It's the PCs vs the goblin army, the two dragons, the 5 ogres, the lonely troll, the 7 brigands, the boss and its two bodyguards etc.
Altogether, PCs have just as many rolls made against them them they make against their opponents, so fumbles balance out. Whether a fumble made by a player has the same 'weight' as a fumble rolled by one of the 12 goblins attacking the PCs is a legitimate question however, and you could easily win an argument on that point.
Fumbles, like all houserules, need to be something that the players find enjoyable and valuable to the experience of the game in order to be successful. Because yeah, even if everyone fumbles, it will affect PCs most in the end. In that regard, it is not unlike conditions (like fatigued), WBL, hit points, and other resources that PCs need to manage but NPCs have for granted and/or don't have to deal with the consequences.
I do think it's weird that magic is so reliable. I mean, it's okay for magic to be fairly reliable, but PF magic is extremely reliable. Unless someone is forcing you to make a Concentration check, your spellcasting is pretty much guaranteed to work. (snip)
someone, or something.
Magic is reliable in PF because the game wants it to be. The same way the game wants melee attacks to be reliable - fumbles are a houserule after all. It's a houserule about melee attacks turning into mishaps. This doesn't mean spells shouldn't turn into mishaps too, it's just not what the fumble houserule is about.
One could make a houserule increasing the frequency of concentration check (and even expand on it when a natural 1 is rolled if needed). As a spellcasting adventurer, concentration should be frequent, more than most games impose on their spellcaster PCs I bet. One could defend the theory that combat - any combat, not only being engaged in hand-to-hand - is enough stress and pressure to warrant a concentration check. Combine that with terrain, weather, active alertness because flying opponents are circling around and could be swooping down at any moment, the frequency and DCs of Concentration checks could easily be increased. Fear, intimidation, uncertainty; these could force more concentration checks than the do by RaW.
But that would be a different houserule from fumbles. A good sister-rule working toward the same intent, but a separate one nonetheless.
TL;DR: Fumbles are about melee combat. In order to represent the fact that "sometimes spells go wrong too", you need a different houserule.
A few solutions for those who like the idea of fumbles (or critical misses, whichever name you give them) but dislike the effects that the probability of natural 1s increase with # of attacks, which is pretty much linked with high levels of skills.
I keep a bunch of unruly half-printed, half hand-written documents, sketches and organigrams in a binder (or several, depending on the campaign).
I have several versions which I keep, go back to, revert to, rework from as I go.
Nothing like writing (with paper and pen and all, 20th century style) to cristalyse your thoughts. As a method it has its limits, especially when it's time to share this information with players, but that's the one that work for me.
Game mechanics apart, the 1E AD&D bard isn't like the 2E AD&D bard which isn't like the 3e D&D bard which itself isn't exactly like the Pathfinder Bard either.
From the Bard's description, under Spells...
A bard casts arcane spells drawn from the bard spell list presented in Spell Lists. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time. Every bard spell has a verbal component (song, recitation, or music)*.
This last part lead to believe that the Pathfinder bard *must* play a tune (or song, or verse) in order to cast a spell. Therefore, it is using music/rhymes/rhythmics to create magical effect (a rather quick tune in less than 6 seconds, but a tune nonetheless).
One could see this as proto-arcane magic, or some kind of primeval magic from which arcane magic will later be derived when early wizards learned to disconnect the magical patterns from the rhythmics of this primeval magic. The fact that music and songs contains magical powers isn't anything new and is at the root of words like "enchantment" or "incantation".
From this you can pretty much come-up with whatever fluff you want, but unlike the 2E bard who, as a jack-of-all-trades, "guessed" how to cast wizard's spells exactly in the same ways wizards do, the Pathfinder bard uses a different and partially incompatible type of magic.
But they were right. Languages do change. They always will.
That's true, and English is an easy language to adapt and play with.
But semantics are being tested every day in every domain. It's often resisted at first, and time tell us if it becomes accepted or not.
I'm curious to see whether toon will become universally accepted in TTRPG in general, or in some circles, or about one type of game/system, or about a certain type of players, or rejected altogether.
For me it comes with too much baggage, and it seems to be true with a majority of forum users here. Many will see 'toon' with a rather negative connotation or too strong a connection with MMORPGs, which is only reinforced by what you can read on sites like Urban Dictionary or TV tropes. So until users manage to clear 'toon' of that baggage and connotation, I don't believe it's going to make it beyond " a term that some people used in the early twenty-teens".
that is true.
But semantics is important. The choice of words we use has an impact.
One cannot start to replace words in one sector and expect to port their new definition in related fields without issues, resistance or reconsideration.
Comment was partially sarcastic due to how conveniently the carrier fell down into their hangar...
That being said, Stark's technology might be clean and sustainable as long as its runs smoothly, but not much is said about when it's damaged. Technically, a nuclear reactor runs perfectly clean... as long as all radioactive components are contained.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
His combat scene was indeed pretty awesome (more intense and acrobatic than any involving the winter soldier at any case); I'll give him that!
As form the quebec accent passing for a French-speaking Algerian, it leaves me rather cold. Somehow I wish they had made him a French Canadian bad guy...
nah, they conveniently fell from 8000 ft right into their hangar. Now all they have to no is clean-up the probably very hazardous residual chemical and/or radioactivity that will otherwise pollute the whole east coast...
Hey, bbt, if I came up to a group and asked them if they could help me flesh out a concept for my latest "toon," then proceeded to make it clear that I was talking about a PC, and a member of that group said, "Gee, I was going to help you until you used the term 'toon,'" how should I interpret their reaction?
I'd interpret it as a mixture of...
1) they're being rude and/or snob; find some friendlier gamers.
2) the term offends them and they think you're being rude to them - for legitimate or imagined reasons - enough to turn you down as a fellow gamer.
Dialogues intelligently written...
There may still be hope for Hollywood productions yet.
(but as a proud Quebecois, I'm sad to affirm that George St-Pierre hasn't exactly the most convincing acting skills...)
As a DM, I don't care so much about overpowered PCs. I care about the O-P player being a prick about it, or about the other players feeling cheated.
In my experience (which has been blissfully good, I admit), a good player can make the game fun for everyone even if the PCs are not perfectly balanced.
 That being said, I'm not in disagreement with your statement; the "wrong hands" don't even have to be that bad to ruin the summoner experience.
I actually like the Summoner class a lot.
1- Eilodon rules require that you master the rules rather well. Most abusive eilodon builds I see on these boards happen because of extrapolated or misread rules. As a DM I must know my stuff, but it annoys me to play the administrative lawyer.
2- Summoner is bit of a spotlight hogger. That is also true with most summoning-oriented or pet characters like the druid or conjurer, but that's especially problematic with the summoner because he has few tools to do anything else.
3- Summoner has a lot of disposable/expandable resources, meaning that it can take a lot more risks than most without real repercussions.
With the right player, the summoner can be a lot of fun but it suffers from the "but imagine if it falls in the wrong hands!" syndrome, and that turns many players/DMs off.
Gaming with fumbles (critical misses, whatever you call them) does not equal "The Three Stooges RPG"
Fumbles would be a great rule to reinforce A 3 Stooges RPG game/theme, but it would also be a great rule to reinforce a gritty fantasy theme, or a Hollywood cinema theme, or a realistic simulationist theme etc.
It all depends on how the rule is used, to what degree it influences the action and how it is described by the DM.
True, but failing to take origins into account may end-up insulting people. Toon make sense as an animated, colorful MMO character, 'casue that's what a toon is.
I don't think people would have such a problem with "toon" if it didn't refer to something goofy, often clown-ish and cartoonesque; Not all players take their hobby with the same level of "aloofness".
Kirth Gersen wrote:
funny, up to the second paragraph, I thought you were about to suggest ditching WIS for a super CHA stat...
Altogether, I have an issue with having a different amount of built points based on the class. Seems sketchy. I see the logic behind, but there's got to be better solution...
As far as I'm concerned, "Toon" has a pejorative baggage when applied to Table Top RPG. It ain't that insulting nor discriminating, nor do I buy into the "tabletop RPG is superior to MMO or computer RPG"; it just isn't a term I deem appropriate, and one that doesn't sound very "serious" (as serious a hobby can be).
Let's just say I would quickly loose interest in a conversation using Toon instead of character, or PC. Don't have much argument other than "please use the right lingo for the right context".
For the records, while I dislike Toon, I find Murderhobo much more insulting and revolting. What people do with their characters ain't my business, but it doesn't need become the definition of what my character is (or any character must be).
- Bitter cold / severe heat deal automatic damage, as per RaW.
- Fort save, rolled once at the beginning of day, provide a certain amount of damage reduction / energy resistance vs those attacks. You could event scale it, such as DC 15 Fort save = resist 1, DC 20 Fort = resist 2, DC 25 = resist 3 etc.
- Proper winter/desert gear, and survival skill either provide bonus on Fort save above, or provide an extra DR on their own in such ways that someone equipped for the environment, succeeding on Survival check and Fort save is virtually immune to environmental damage.
Matt Thomason wrote:
I want a game supporting a world (including its inhabitants) with which I can relate to a minimum. I'm not all for realism but I refute the "but dragons!" and "PCs are gods amongs men" arguments as default and sole assuption, without being told "shut-up and play E6!" (although I'm willing to let go of level 16-20). I'm grateful that the game can do mundane easlily and that most magic/supernatural is more or less equivalent to good tech, so that pruning is realatively easy when necesary.
Does your table have unspoken rules?
My table doesn't speak; it's just a table. If it has rules, they're definielty unspoken...
But more seriously, there was kind of an unspoken rule with my old group that nastiness will be answered with nastiness. If the group started to pull dirty moves and nasty tricks, monsters would suddenly become equally nasty.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I was thinking option 2, but I guess option 1 could work for a very theamtic game.
If "immersion in lava should be fatal" and "character didn't die", then logically there was no immersion. Momentary lava bubble, bit of rock, cooled crust etc. Anything goes. Otherwise it doesn't change anyting by RaW. Character will still have to swim its way through on the following round, taking more damage and most likely succumb.
As a playstyle, it works well in a very cinematographic, somewhat exagerated hollywood movie style, but not all players and/or DMs are willing to roll with it. If the players are unprepared for this style, you quickly get into the "but if I wasn't immersed, why did I take 20d6 points of damage" type of circular logic. Damage goes with the threat, concequence happens after the expentidure of plot immunity points.
In my experience, believability is only stretched that far in very few and distant situations. It's easier to narrate the haywagon below the thrid floor where the PC fell, the in-extremis parry of the orc's falchion, the timely dodge of the giant's thrown rock, the sheild's protection against the flames of the dragon and other common situations.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If the game devs had intended lava to obey real world sense, or had wanted hp to be 'plot immunity' when it comes to lava, they wouldn't have assigned it a damage value. They would've just said "Some extreme hazards, like lava, don't deal damage or allow saving throws. They just kill characters." Like the 2e devs did.
I don't think the devs saw hp as plot immunity, but it doesn't make them less compatible with damage values.
Everything should have a damage value as RaW; that's when you know if you have enough hp (plot immunity points) not to die.
Lava deals 20d6 damage. That's RaW. If you still have hp left after; your DM describes how you likely survived. If that killed you, there's no immunity there; you're dead.
Hp as plot immunity points simply changes perspective. Instead of saying "I cut off your head; 35 points of damage", you say "35 points of damage; I cut off your head". Having your head cut off should kill you. Period. It's much easier to adjust whether the head was cut-off or not after damage is dealt and subtracted from hp than to try to figure why you are still alive after having your head cut off.
Same goes with immersion in lava. Survive the 20d6 damage? Then you weren't immerse in lethal ways. Dead after those 20d6 damage; yeah, you probably were immerse in ways that would sensibly kill you. I find this applies well to falling damage as well. Survived the fall; you most likely landed on something that allowed you to get-up fresh, bouncing off Hollywood style. Fall killed you; your legs got crushed into your lungs as you landed on rocks.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Actually I don't think it matters what kind of points they are, if it was intended that lava should kill instantly when submerged, why not just say that?
Interpreting hp can matter, especially as plot immunity points. Then it would go something like:
If total immersion in lava should kill you, and the character has enough hp not to die, then surely "something" made it possible for the character to survive. The character spends hp not to be immersed into lava in ways that would be lethal, otherwise he/she wouldn't be alive no matter how many hp he/she has etc.
That isn't a play style that satisfies every group, but one that can reconcile hp and common sense.
Aeris Fallstar wrote:
Action Cards: I think someone mentioned (Evil Lincoln?) that they were given out on Critical Fumble rolls. I would love to hear what these Action Cards are, or anyone else's ideas on good cards.
This one was me.
I've experimented a lot with the concept of cards, probably made 6 or 7 different decks. I like them because they allow a wide variety of possibility without the bother of cross-referencing charts. Cards as a concept however, are better used lightly; you're better of with several charts that with several different decks IMO. I don't think I ever used more than two in a single game.
The one you're referencing was the Battle Event Deck. When a PC, "boss"/main NPC/encounter's leader would roll a natural 1, a card was drawn.
Cards included random events/situations that affected the person drawing the card, its team or the whole battlefield. Things like change of weather, distracting/blinding light, reshuffle of initiative etc. affected everyone. Things like morale check, sudden ending of mass effects, second wind etc affected the whole party. Fumbles (none of which involved losing your weapons!), equipment malfunction, tricky complications such as mud or brambles affected the person responsible. Not all events were bad, but all included some kind of unexpected complication.
Unfortunately, I lost the document when my laptop was stolen (along with my backed-up files), otherwise I'd gladly post them here.
Ultimately, natural 1s became too frequent, so Event Cards became used only on a confirmation roll, then only once per game, then ultimately dropped altogether. It did however showed me how complications can contribute to make combats memorable. Afterward, I started to plan using heavy rain, wind etc a lot more in my encounters.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
That's if you see hit points as "buffer for physical injuries" as opposed to "plot immunity points", or a mix of the two.
That's where the take 10/take 20 rule comes.
I'm with Damian on this one (except that he got ride of the take 10/20), when you are under rushed or threatened conditions, there should be a chance of failure; even if the task is trivial. Is there are no rush or threat, then there shouldn't be a test at all IMO.
Put a gun on 20 people's head. Ask them to tie their shoes or else they're shot. Guarantied one will fail... (Damian is generous enough to say that 1 in 100 will fail).
Matt Thomason wrote:
I think if we take Stormwind at it's spirit, that the ability to RP/Optimize doesn't affect your ability to do the other, then there's no issues with it.
That I can agree with
It's mostly the assesment that one has absolutely no impact on the other that I refute (unless you get a very felxible definition of either RP or optimisation)
Yet unlike a bullet, an electrical arc doesn't keep going in a straight line if you move the electrode. I agree that modern conception of electricity does not apply here, but having electrical attacks behaving differently from fire attacks is an interesting mechanical concept.
RP also includes character development. This include, among other things, choice of skills, feats etc.
The Stormwind Fallacy is true insofar as one (RP vs. Optimisation) does not necesarily prevent the other, but they can also conflict with each other. The only way around this is to allow optimisation to consider the chosen concept, and work with those basic premices.
So the character is sickly and has 6 CON; take that as initial concept and optimise that 6 CON character.
Still, optimisation usually involves planning ahead, sometimes several levels in advance. RP may take your character places you wouldn't have guess at character creation. Therfore for the Stormwind Fallacy to be true, optimisation must accept that charater can evolve in non-linear ways. Again, there's a way to optimise that, even if the charcter isn't overall optimal.
TL;DR: The Stormind Fallacy is true or false depending on your definition of optimisation.
While we're in the Vancian casting paradigm, lets point at spontaneous casters.
Another fundamental concept of Vancian magic is that spells are too complicated to cast be in the mist of battle or in rushed situations. That's why casters prepare spells in advance, otherwise they'd be killed before they get halfway through casting their fireball. Long and difficult casting is a reality casters have to cope with, spellcasters don't just prepare spells just for fun.
Again, spontaneous casters conveniently ignore this reality as well... But again, I understand the demand to play without spell preparation, and spontaneous Vancian casters are balanced enough to be player side by side their prepared casters counterprats which is an awesome feature on the game-designer's part.
Crossbows pack a lot of punch. At least that's the accepted trope about them.
In D&D, "punch" is usually represented by a higher crit multiplier. Interestingly, the crossbow has a higher threat range but a lower critical than the bow. I've seen people upping the crossbow's crit from 19-20/x2 to 20/x4 to give them more oomph. However, that's not what I'm sugggesting here.
Crossbows are also unique weapons insofar as, unlike all other weapons (except perhaps firearms, which have their own quirky rules), the crossbow's "punch power" is independent from the user's STR. As manually triggered, portable and resetable war machines, crossbows could have a STR bonus of their own. After all, the basic arrow trap has a STR of 12-13 (deals 1d8+1 points of damage), and crossbows are not far from "movable arrow traps" in design.
I could see a smaller base die (shorter bow, smaller die; that's always been the logic of D&D) but with a high-ish inherent STR rating.
I don't have a lot of experience with Snap Shot, but exclusivity for crossbows looks good on paper. Not sure about about implications for bow-users vs melee fighters etc however.
I don't think it's silly (well, I think that a game where 20th-level characters are attacking 1st-level commoner in sufficient amount to find the 5% auto-fail rate problematic is silly), but I can get behind the design philosophy that "if you can't take 10, then there shouldn't be any auto succeed/autofail". But Pathfinder is exactly the opposite.
The problem however is that this regularity happens much sooner than level 20. You get into situations where fighters can't miss a commonnner ever at level 8th-9th, and heaviliy armoured fighters that cannot be hit by weak opponents at even lower levels.
True, which means it wouldn't hurt archers much then. Regardless of who it wouldn't hurt, the question remains: "who would it help?"
Versimilitude to real-life experience perhaps, or to closer simulation of historical combat... I agree that it wouldn't add much to the game.
(but I still think it would give something to the crossbow, which atm is just an inferior choice)
Justify the existence of crossbowmen?
Protective gear usually is a handicap at pretty much everything you do, except for not-bleeding. Can't speak about modern military, but I know that Hockey players are better/faster/stronger without all their equipment. Off course they wouldn't last one good check...
I know for sure I'm better at everything I do without my suppostedly top-of-line harness when working in heights, but I guess I'll be thankful for all those lost minutes worth of lost efficiency when I do fall and live to tell the tale.
But beyond the penalties it already gives, I doubt that making armours even more restrictive would add anything to the game.
Ash ketchum is a bum. Having finaly gone home to pallet town (which amounts to a cluster of five small farms and professor oaks lab) he hands his mother a bag of dirty laundry, Stays overnight, and is now off to a new region...
No worse than most college students I knew...
 Did he also ask for money and ready-made food for the weekend? Because if not, then he's actually better than most college students I knew...