So, I don't really think that rolling dangerous dice is very fun. I realize that this is an uncommon position, and many people seem to love "critical success", "fumble" rules and crit decks. My GM does. I don't. I think they destroy the already fragile verisimilitude of the system, turning elite warriors into inept clowns who stab themselves in the foot and then drop their swords. Twice. In one combat. Oh, and you better not cast any ranged touch spells, 'cause you'll end up teleporting yourself into Asmodeus's kitchen or something equally ridiculous.
Last session I played, I nearly (I roll all my attacks at once, but luckily dropped the creature on the first hit) had to make a save against strength drain (Drain! From "pulling a muscle". WTF?!) because I rolled a natural 1 on my second attack and that is what came up on the cards. I'm playing a bloody fighter and so naturally I try to set up as many full attacks as I can. Yet, what this means is that as my fighter gains more iterative attacks, and in theory greater competence, He actually increases the chances of "fumbling" and therefore looking like a fool.
I can handle the routine of full attack 5-foot step repeat. I can also handle not being being able to scry the enemy and then fly around while directing my troll zombie minion, dropping glitterdust and stinking cloud spells (and that is what I could be doing at this level). What I can't handle is being forced to take vital strike if I don't want to have higher odds of crippling my character at seventh level than I would at first level. Just from making attack rolls.
Basically I think that the whole "oh noes a natural 1!" automatic failure thing (that gives rise to stuff like fumble decks) needs to be exiled from the actual rules into the realm of house rules.
Basically I think that the whole "oh noes a natural 1!" automatic failure thing (that gives rise to stuff like fumble decks) needs to be exiled from the actual rules into the realm of house rules.
So you think an official rule should be removed not because of the rule itself but because it inspires house rules you don't like?
critical fumbles are already only house rules. They're not aloud in Pathfinder Society at least.
In the normal core rules a roll of a natural one on attack rolls and saving throws is an automatic failure.
PFS in no way actually resembles pathfinder according to the core rulebook anyway (imo).
In the normal core rules a roll of a natural one on attack rolls and saving throws is an automatic failure.
Have you maxed out your attack bonus to the point where you're hitting on a 2 on all your iteratives and would be hitting on a 1 were it not for that rule? Because if not, that rule has no effect on your iteratives; it turns a miss into a miss.
So you think an official rule should be removed not because of the rule itself but because it inspires house rules you don't like?Basically I think that the whole "oh noes a natural 1!" automatic failure thing (that gives rise to stuff like fumble decks) needs to be exiled from the actual rules into the realm of house rules.
I think that the official rule is outdated nonsense anyway, that also happens to give rise to give rise to a style of play that I find nearly intolerable.
Maybe if we rolled d100's instead of d20's there would be a large enough number base to include the chance of random absolute failure.
PFS in no way actually resembles pathfinder according to the core rulebook anyway (imo).
Really? In my opinion, PFS is the true Pathfinder system to which I base everything else off of (which the exception of xp and acquiring equipment). To each his/her own.
Maybe if we rolled d100's instead of d20's there would be a large enough number base to include the chance of random absolute failure.
I think Middle Earth Role Playing uses a d100 system. I haven't played it since the mid-90s, though. I think this page is a list of d100 system games. Here's a wiki page with a bunch of d100 systems.
If you really like the d100 system, try out some new systems. Don't stick with a game where you don't enjoy the rules.
Happy gaming is good gaming.
In the normal core rules a roll of a natural one on attack rolls and saving throws is an automatic failure.Have you maxed out your attack bonus to the point where you're hitting on a 2 on all your iteratives and would be hitting on a 1 were it not for that rule? Because if not, that rule has no effect on your iteratives; it turns a miss into a miss.
That is not the point. An anecdotal example of what I'm talking about is that about or just over half of the tables I've played at, there is what I call a "crit culture". Rolling a 20 a joyous moment, and rolling a 1 is a calamitous event ('cause the GM breaks out the fumble deck). That's ridiculous. There is a 5% chance per roll of a 1 coming up. heaven forbid that someone casts haste on you.
I don't think that this kind of (fighter-type punishing) statistical absurdity would occur so often if the default rules didn't link rolling a 1 with automatic absolute failure.
That is not the point. An anecdotal example of what I'm talking about is that about or just over half of the tables I've played at, there is what I call a "crit culture". Rolling a 20 a joyous moment, and rolling a 1 is a calamitous event ('cause the GM breaks out the fumble deck). That's ridiculous. There is a 5% chance per roll of a 1 coming up. heaven forbid that someone casts haste on you.
I don't think that this kind of (fighter-type punishing) statistical absurdity would occur so often if the default rules didn't link rolling a 1 with automatic absolute failure.
Precisely. The actual official rule is not the point. The point is the house-rule. You're trying to fix a problem with a house-rule by asking that the actual rules be changed just to slightly discourage that house-rule, and that completely baffles me.
Have you tried, you know, talking with your group?
PFS in no way actually resembles pathfinder according to the core rulebook anyway (imo).Really? In my opinion, PFS is the true Pathfinder system to which I base everything else off of (which the exception of xp and acquiring equipment). To each his/her own.
Maybe if we rolled d100's instead of d20's there would be a large enough number base to include the chance of random absolute failure.I think Middle Earth Role Playing uses a d100 system. I haven't played it since the mid-90s, though. I think this page is a list of d100 system games. Here's a wiki page with a bunch of d100 systems.
If you really like the d100 system, try out some new systems. Don't stick with a game where you don't enjoy the rules.
Happy gaming is good gaming.
Well, I'm not really clamoring for a different system or D100s. I like pathfinder and I like D&D, I just think that you need more than 20 numbers if one is going to include a number that results in absolute failure based on luck. I'm saying ditch the auto-fail mechanic, not the D20. One of the benefits of level progression are iterative attacks. It seems weird to me that a level 20 character has higher chance of a "critical fail" than a level 1 character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group doesn't use a critical fumble table, nor is critical fumble in pathfinder RAW.
Additionally, in Pathfinder RAW, in order to score a crit, not only do you have to roll a 20 (or a 18-20 or some such depending on the weapon), you have to confirm it by rolling a successful attack again.
So if you were to critically fumble on a Nat 1 (which would be a house rule), why wouldn't you have to confirm the fumble with another roll (perhaps another miss on a attack roll)?
On the one hand, I agree that the frequency with which crazy, lousy stuff happens when dice and crit cards are involved is way higher than it ought to be for a practiced professional.
On the other hand, the term "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" comes to mind.
Precisely because no matter how good one is at something, success is never guaranteed, and history is replete with masters, geniuses, professionals, and gods-amongst-men who blew it in a crucial moment, blew it bad, exploded with idiocy and lousiness, and died in the process.
Go ahead and refuse to use them. But don't go so far in opposition to the concept that you become of a mind that you should be guaranteed anything. That's my advice.
That is not the point. An anecdotal example of what I'm talking about is that about or just over half of the tables I've played at, there is what I call a "crit culture". Rolling a 20 a joyous moment, and rolling a 1 is a calamitous event ('cause the GM breaks out the fumble deck). That's ridiculous. There is a 5% chance per roll of a 1 coming up. heaven forbid that someone casts haste on you.
I don't think that this kind of (fighter-type punishing) statistical absurdity would occur so often if the default rules didn't link rolling a 1 with automatic absolute failure.
I understand your dislike of the fumble deck, but that's an extra option, not the basic rule, so it shouldn't reflect on the rule itself, just the table that chooses to use the deck. The basic rule is that you fail, and leave yourself open to attacks of opportunity. Even the most skilled combatant does that every once in a while. Does that mean they fail so bad that they would always get hit by a much less skilled opponent? No, and that is represented by your normal AC protecting you in against such an attack.
Does said skilled combatant make such a mistake 5% of the time? Probably not, but since in statistics, we usually treat 5% as the boundary between rare and merely uncommon, it's fair enough for an abstract representation of such an event. When your fighter fumbled twice in one combat, that is rare. If it isn't rare, you should check your dice.
P.S. if you dropped that creature in one hit, you shouldn't be pulling from the deck for fumbling an attack you never made. If that mistake is happening a lot, not rolling all your attacks at once helps avoid that.
That is not the point. An anecdotal example of what I'm talking about is that about or just over half of the tables I've played at, there is what I call a "crit culture". Rolling a 20 a joyous moment, and rolling a 1 is a calamitous event ('cause the GM breaks out the fumble deck). That's ridiculous. There is a 5% chance per roll of a 1 coming up. heaven forbid that someone casts haste on you.
I don't think that this kind of (fighter-type punishing) statistical absurdity would occur so often if the default rules didn't link rolling a 1 with automatic absolute failure.
Precisely. The actual official rule is not the point. The point is the house-rule. You're trying to fix a problem with a house-rule by asking that the actual rules be changed just to slightly discourage that house-rule, and that completely baffles me.
Have you tried, you know, talking with your group?
I will, And I am also going to run a game for them in which rolling a 1 is no worse than rolling a 1. That being said, I don't see what is so baffling about wanting game developers to take the lead in combating a culture of statistical absurdity.
I thought you didn't critically fumble if you have weapon focus.
Maybe I am wrong, but that would be a nice benefit of the feat, shows you are too skilled with the weapon to have that level of random mishap.
I think you could do the same thing with spell focus, then that school is upgraded.
Just a thought
I will, And I am also going to run a game for them in which rolling a 1 is no worse than rolling a 1. That being said, I don't see what is so baffling about wanting game developers to take the lead in combating a culture of statistical absurdity.
Just out of curiosity (and we're taking this in the other direction, here), how would you remove the statistical likelihood of characters who never fail, ever, because their bonus is so good?
Basically (and I hope I'm explaining this clearly), if a 1 is no longer an auto fail, then higher level characters could advance to the point where they will never miss.
I can think of some sort of system where you confirm a failure. For example, if a 1 is rolled (which would actually hit because the bonus is that high), roll again, and if another 1 is rolled, then it's a miss. So instead of a 5% miss chance, it's not 1 in 400.
I thought you didn't critically fumble if you have weapon focus.
Maybe I am wrong, but that would be a nice benefit of the feat, shows you are too skilled with the weapon to have that level of random mishap.
I think you could do the same thing with spell focus, then that school is upgraded.
Just a thought
By RAW, I don't think a nat 1 is an auto fail for spells and saves. I think it's just attacks and skills. Could be wrong; can't find the rule on this at the moment.
So if my group decides taking Weapon Focus (Greatsword) means I've focused my training exclusively on greatswords to the point where I no longer count as proficient with weapons other than greatswords, is the correct response for me to go on the internet and demand that the Weapon Focus feat be excised from the rulebook?
By RAW, I don't think a nat 1 is an auto fail for spells and saves. I think it's just attacks and skills. Could be wrong; can't find the rule on this at the moment.
You're got them backwards; it's a fail for saves, but not for skills.
I always liked Rolemaster. A fumble meant experience points. You always learned from your mistakes, even if only a little. Then there was the wopping Rolemaster Critical tables:
One from Krushing Critical: "Slap foe's arm and elbow around like string. Joint is shattered. Arm is useless. Foe should have stayed in bed." :D
For the brief time I played that game I loved it. Now, you get these cards and they are boring. Hmmmm, maybe I will introduce these books next game session....
I never played Pathfinder Society. Every time I read a topic on 'Society I get the impression that it is a watered down version of of the Core Rules. I'll have to look it up to get my story straight.
I will, And I am also going to run a game for them in which rolling a 1 is no worse than rolling a 1. That being said, I don't see what is so baffling about wanting game developers to take the lead in combating a culture of statistical absurdity.
Just out of curiosity (and we're taking this in the other direction, here), how would you remove the statistical likelihood of characters who never fail, ever, because their bonus is so good?
Basically (and I hope I'm explaining this clearly), if a 1 is no longer an auto fail, then higher level characters could advance to the point where they will never miss.
I can think of some sort of system where you confirm a failure. For example, if a 1 is rolled (which would actually hit because the bonus is that high), roll again, and if another 1 is rolled, then it's a miss. So instead of a 5% miss chance, it's not 1 in 400.
I don't really have a problem with a high level well equipped fighter never missing their first attack against a target with relatively mediocre AC. the possibility of missing still exists in the form of targets with exceptional defense. I don't mind your confirm the 1 idea either, though.
Every time I read a topic on 'Society I get the impression that it is a watered down version of of the Core Rules. I'll have to look it up to get my story straight.
If by "watered down" you mean "removed crafting, a handful of archetypes, and almost nothing else in the Core Rules", then yes, yes it is.
Our group confirms critical fumbles.
If you roll again and this roll hits AC or higher you simply miss if you miss the AC you confirm the fumble and then something bad happens. Because of the confirmation roll your chances of actually critically failing drops from 1:20 to something like 1:200. Which I feel is pretty good.
Edited: Ninja'd! I knew I should have just posted this right away instead of watching Sportscenter... I blame the NFL officials.
|
I've played using game systems where there were critical hit & fumble decks/tables. Personally I never cared for them - I felt that throwing in things like hitting your ally, dropping your weapon, falling down, ... (and those are just the mild examples) got too close to a cartoon feel.
But even then, it was necessary to confirm a fumble (much like critical hits have to be confirmed in Pathfinder). And for the confirmation roll, there was no automatic failure - if your to hit bonuses were high enough, even a second '1' would fail to confirm.
FWIW: I'm not sure if the Pathfinder rules for confirming a critical hit auto-confirm if a second '20' is rolled, or only confirm if a roll of 20 would be good enough to hit normally (20 + applicable bonuses >= target AC).
|
|
Every time I read a topic on 'Society I get the impression that it is a watered down version of of the Core Rules. I'll have to look it up to get my story straight.If by "watered down" you mean "removed crafting, a handful of archetypes, and almost nothing else in the Core Rules", then yes, yes it is.
And a couple of other signifcant things like evil PCs, house rules, ...
A good way to think of PFS play, actually, is as if it is a set of house rules. It's just that those rules aren't set by the guy sitting at the table - they are laid down by the campaign coordinator (Mike Brock). From a player perspective it should be just as if you were playing at a table being run by Mike Brock. It's a bit more restrictive for the guy running the table - there are a few things I can't do when running a PFS game that I'd do without a second thought if it were my own home game.
So if my group decides taking Weapon Focus (Greatsword) means I've focused my training exclusively on greatswords to the point where I no longer count as proficient with weapons other than greatswords, is the correct response for me to go on the internet and demand that the Weapon Focus feat be excised from the rulebook?
By RAW, I don't think a nat 1 is an auto fail for spells and saves. I think it's just attacks and skills. Could be wrong; can't find the rule on this at the moment.You're got them backwards; it's a fail for saves, but not for skills.
No, that is an incorrect response because your example is absurd and non-existent. I'm talking about the actual issue of "Crit decks" and "fumble decks" (Which only exist because of an old, poorly thought out mechanic in earlier D&D editions that has been carried on) that are so commonly used that they are stocked in most comic shops that I've been in, could turn and have turned what could otherwise be, just for example, a serious, meaningful showdown with a tyrant and his turncoat lieutenant who has terrorized your people for years, into a farcical, slapstick parody of combat.
I'll remove those comic shops from the Pathfinder CRB immediately.
|
Our group has long rejected Critical Fumbles for a number of reasons and we're perfectly fine with auto-misses on a 1. We don't get bothered by other folks liking or using fumbles though.
Personally I'd either just politely pass on a game that used them or admit up front that I couldn't invest much in any character I'd play in it. Diff'rent strokes.
Same thing for the three-20's rule. It works for some folks. It doesn't for others. That's all. Don't see any need to change the actual rules in the book to discourage those that like their houserules. After all, they can't force them on me. Live and let live.
Or live and let accidentally slash a rift in reality through which they fall into an eternal limbo from which there is no escape. Whatever works for their group.
Every time I read a topic on 'Society I get the impression that it is a watered down version of of the Core Rules. I'll have to look it up to get my story straight.If by "watered down" you mean "removed crafting, a handful of archetypes, and almost nothing else in the Core Rules", then yes, yes it is.
The absence of crafting alone completely changes the experience. there are whole lot of other small differences add up as well.
I don't mind your confirm the 1 idea either, though.
So wait, your GM draw a card from the fumble deck as soon as you roll a 1, without any kind of confirmation roll? Well, I would be pissed off too if I were in your shoes.
I do like to use a reasonable fumble mechanic in my game, but any fumble has to be confirmed with a saving Reflex throw (fixed DC 15), which means that a high-level fighter will almost never fumble, as well as Dex-based characters (monk, rogue, ranger, etc.) The word "reasonable" is also very important here: there's no "you hit yourself in the face" fumble when I'm the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind your confirm the 1 idea either, though.So wait, your GM draw a card from the fumble deck as soon as you roll a 1, without any kind of confirmation roll? Well, I would be pissed off too if I were in your shoes.
I do like to use a reasonable fumble mechanic in my game, but any fumble has to be confirmed with a saving Reflex throw (fixed DC 15), which means that a high-level fighter will almost never fumble, as well as Dex-based characters (monk, rogue, ranger, etc.) The word "reasonable" is also very important here: there's no "you hit yourself in the face" fumble when I'm the GM.
Yeah, our TWF rogue actually got two different fumble cards that both caused him to drop a weapon during a significant encounter because of this. He wasn't happy either.
In the heat of life and death combat, there should always be a chance of failure IMO. The designers obviously felt the same. Thus I feel that a 5% automiss is fairly crucial to Pathfinder combat.
This has no bearing on the fact that your group likes critical fumbles. A 5% miss chance is realistic, critical fumbles arguably are not.
Don't conflate the two. They are not the same issue. My players hate crit fumbles, so we don't use them. Simple. None of them have ever mentioned anything about the 5% automiss.
What you have is a compatibility of gaming aesthetics problem. You don't like the same houserule your mates like. Okay, that's an issue.
But it's not a RAW issue.
Simple answer? Live with it, convince them to drop the crit fumbles, or run your own game without their houserule and add your own that does away with the automiss. But I think it's a bit of a stretch to start telling people on the Internet their views, and the decisions of the devs, are wrong because you don't like your tables' houserule.
FWIW: I'm not sure if the Pathfinder rules for confirming a critical hit auto-confirm if a second '20' is rolled, or only confirm if a roll of 20 would be good enough to hit normally (20 + applicable bonuses >= target AC).
CRB's not in front of me, but I'm pretty sure 20 doesn't confirm unless it would hit. Could be wrong though.
I get where you are coming from.. but it seems to be more along the lines of
"I can't get my group to ditch the deck so maybe the designers will change the rule" kinda thing.
really- missing one in 20 times isn't a big deal. thats what, one in four full round attacks for someone getting a full 5 in? Even then- its a miss. Nothing more, nothing less.
And as likely to be at your max as to be at your worst.
As long as 20 auto hits, I'm fine with a 1 auto missing. And tbh, i see that 20 far more often than I see a 1 come up. (at least for attack rolls. Don't even ask about saves. )
In short- if you want your group to ditch the fumble deck talk to them about ditching the fumble deck. But, if they are going to house rule in the deck anyway they'll probably houserule in the 1 that gets them do it even of the devs write it out of the game.
-S
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action on page 182).
Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target’s Armor Class, and you have scored a “threat,” meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or “crit”). To find out if it’s a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target’s AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn’t need to come up 20 again.) If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.
See the bolded part, it is a second attack roll. Since it is a second attack roll natural 1 or 20 applies.
For incidental confirmation:
Destiny Realized (Su): At 20th level, your moment of destiny is at hand. Any critical threats made against you only confirm if the second roll results in a natural 20 on the die. Any critical threats you score with a spell are automatically confirmed. Once per day, you can automatically succeed at one caster level check made to overcome spell resistance. You must use this ability before making the roll.
If a natural 20 on the confirmation die is not an auto-confirmation then the wording would have been something like: natural 20 on the die if a 20 hits normally.
Again: that is just incidental confirmation.
- Gauss
In short- if you want your group to ditch the fumble deck talk to them about ditching the fumble deck. But, if they are going to house rule in the deck anyway they'll probably houserule in the 1 that gets them do it even of the devs write it out of the game.-S
This.
Since it is a second attack roll natural 1 or 20 applies.
Yep, that's pretty definitive.
I get where you are coming from.. but it seems to be more along the lines of
"I can't get my group to ditch the deck so maybe the designers will change the rule" kinda thing.
That is not true at all. I'm confident that I can convince my group to change their ways eventually. But I've played under quite a few GMs, and in shared campaigns and frankly I'm sick of trying to convince people to ditch "casino D&D" where the odds are actually stacked against you in a certain sense, because high level PCs are more likely to "fumble" or miss due to luck than low level ones. Which I must repeat is a style of play implicitly encouraged by RAW.
I have played at a table where rolling a 1 or 20 just added a penalty or bonus respectively, on top of you're roll. The result was that combat functioned as it should, and AC was actually valued. would that be so bad? Why is everyone defending the antiquated "5% spaz-out miss chance"?
I get where you are coming from.. but it seems to be more along the lines of
"I can't get my group to ditch the deck so maybe the designers will change the rule" kinda thing.
That is not true at all. I'm confident that I can convince my group to change their ways eventually. But I've played under quite a few GMs, and in shared campaigns and frankly I'm sick of trying to convince people to ditch "casino D&D" where the odds are actually stacked against you in a certain sense, because high level PCs are more likely to "fumble" or miss due to luck than low level ones. Which I must repeat is a style of play implicitly encouraged by RAW.
I have played at a table where rolling a 1 or 20 just added a penalty or bonus respectively, on top of you're roll. The result was that combat functioned as it should, and AC was actually valued. would that be so bad? Why is everyone defending the antiquated "5% spaz-out miss chance"?
I would have no problem with removing the 5% auto-miss chance (natural 1), as long as you also remove the 5% auto-hit chance (natural 20).
I have played at a table where rolling a 1 or 20 just added a penalty or bonus respectively, on top of you're roll. The result was that combat functioned as it should, and AC was actually valued.
Expand on that, please.
So a 1 isn't an auto miss, and a 20 isn't an auto hit, right?
What kind of penalty/bonus? Does this create scenarios where a person can never miss or never be hit? For example, low level characters might be in a scenario where they need a 20 to get that auto hit in order to do damage, but if it's reduced to just a bonus and the bonus still isn't good enough, then that character will never be able to hit.
Since the whole thing is a combat abstract, the 5% missing is fine with me. You have to look at it this way. You attack does not represent one attack in a 6 seconds (swing that broom handle around for 6 seconds see how many attack you can get off untrained), it represent a series of attacks, feints, parries, etc. High higher you BAB (and for that matter multiple attacks) means you getting better chance to hit a target. That 5% measures skill, luck, the gods shining upon that lowly kolbold in the heat of a 6 second round.
Crit tables/decks add something to the game, while that might not necessarily be good it is still a house rule. As such, and after years of playing MERP (which had RAW Crit Tables and Fumbles)I would only use a crit deck/table if you confirmed the miss, if you don't confirm you just miss.
When one of my players rolls a 1 I have the
Roll again to confirm the fumble. 1-4 on the d20 confirms. I feel that allows it to happen less often that critical hits by a large margin but is still a moment of tension.
We play with the 'On a 1, reroll with same attack bonus, and if you miss, you get a critical fumble' rule. It doesn't happen too often.
As for the wider issue of "always a 5% chance of failure", I've found it to be very rare that you're in a situation where there's only a 5% chance of failure. CR-appropriate enemies will normally have attacks and ACs that lead to success chances of 20% to 80%.
I have played at a table where rolling a 1 or 20 just added a penalty or bonus respectively, on top of you're roll. The result was that combat functioned as it should, and AC was actually valued.Expand on that, please.
So a 1 isn't an auto miss, and a 20 isn't an auto hit, right?
What kind of penalty/bonus? Does this create scenarios where a person can never miss or never be hit? For example, low level characters might be in a scenario where they need a 20 to get that auto hit in order to do damage, but if it's reduced to just a bonus and the bonus still isn't good enough, then that character will never be able to hit.
It was either +-5 or +-10, It has been a while. Anyway, It didn't start to become apparent in CR balanced encounters until higher levels or mid level fully buffed, and turned a couple of natural 1s into hits. I don't think that GM threw anything at the party that the fighters that couldn't hit on 19 anyway. That would vary from table to table though.
Obviously this has potential to create situations where it is impossible hit, miss or be hit, but if there is that much of a disparity something unusual is going on. Or a situation where hitting or missing should be practically written in stone anyway. Like a very high level anti-paladin making an example out of an outspoken peasant.
We play with the 'On a 1, reroll with same attack bonus, and if you miss, you get a critical fumble' rule. It doesn't happen too often.
As for the wider issue of "always a 5% chance of failure", I've found it to be very rare that you're in a situation where there's only a 5% chance of failure. CR-appropriate enemies will normally have attacks and ACs that lead to success chances of 20% to 80%.
I Would be content with the rules you outline above. I am also fine with characters having anything from 0-100% chance of success or failure, if that chance is based on the relative offensive and defensive merits of the combatants. 5% is way too high a number for failure or success based on luck alone, it is ridiculously high, for representing the role that chance plays between combatants of disparate skill, And if we are talking about combatants of roughly equal skill then the variability of rolling a D20 is plenty enough to represent the effect of luck in combat.
I think I've more or less said my piece for now, though I will continue to read further comments.
I thought this was a tread on rolling dice vs. apping dice. I'm for apping dice if available. Phones, and ipods do a great job of rolling dice and adding up the damage for you. (didn't read thread) arrr hijack
|
I thought this was a tread on rolling dice vs. apping dice. I'm for apping dice if available. Phones, and ipods do a great job of rolling dice and adding up the damage for you. (didn't read thread) arrr hijack
I tried a dice-rolling app once. My GM rejected it on sight and refused to let me use it.
When I started DMing, I had a good run my first session and my players decided the app was biased in my favor and threatened to quit if I didn't go back to normal dice. I deleted it from my phone.
Anyway, back on-topic: my group tried the critical fumble/crit decks for a while, and the fighter types liked it because it meant swinging with a weapon had a chance to do more than simple damage-- it allowed you to deal Strength damage, deafen targets, etc., which made the game more exciting.
Of course, these same players are big fans of randomness and actually enjoyed fumbling just to laugh at the mess they'd get themselves into. Some people find straight-up dice-based melee boring and enjoy it seeing turned into an impromptu Three Stooges skit.