| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what precisely is the rule question here?
It seems to be: "Why does a new character react badly when I spring houserules on them? Please validate my right to punish people for rolling a 1..."
Several of us have flagged this thread to move it. ;)
Well I wouldn't call it a critical failure as skills don't have that mechanic.
We established by RAW, yes. But if it's considered a critical failure... then it's going to likely be a (not-so)fantastic fail.
I really wish I had a mathematical mind, but it's filled with pop culture, history, martial arts and roleplay material (mostly). All I can say is, this;
Hypothetical 800ft Climb rolls (1):
18, 16, 16, 15, 15, 15, 14, 14, 12, 11, 11, 9, 8, 5, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 3
20, 20, 19, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 13, 10, 12, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2
19, 19, 19, 18, 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 15, 13, 13, 13, 11, 11, 10, 8, 8, 6, 3
19, 18, 17, 17, 15, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, 8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 5, 5, 2, 2
Hypothetical 800ft Climb rolls (2):
20, 20, 18, 17, 17, 16, 16, 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11, 10, 9, 9, 6, 3, 3
20, 20, 19, 19, 17, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, 8, 8, 7, 7, 6, 3, 3
20, 20, 19, 19, 18, 18, 15, 14, 13, 13, 12, 11, 9, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 3, 2
20, 20, 19, 19, 18, 17, 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10, 7, 5, 3, 2
So 160 or so rolls and according to you (and those here), I should have rolled a 1 at least 3-4 times and only rolled a 20 just as many times.
Organized the rolls high-low for reasons of neatness, that's all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My god you are sensitive, who the hell have I insulted again? Does everything offend you? I haven't once said anything that can be considered "offensive" despite asshats telling me I'm "hurting their feels" for disagreeing with them.*Facepalms.*
Can you go a minute without insulting everybody else in the thread?
Besides, most of the changes in new editions had a good reason.
Just to clarify, you're not an ass because we disagree with you or vice versa.
You an ass because the way your present yourself, the tone you have consistently used in your posts, is one of complete disregard for our opinions and complete disdain towards us. You've repeatedly insulted everyone here.
You're behaving as an ass.
Well, i think we are all done here.
Just when i saw that stadistic and probabilitys there...Dude, that's far away from the initial thread.
I also dont believe you should turn off your player's habilitys if its not for fun or some roleplaying purpose.
The thing is...we are all telling you that what you did was a bit weird, but you seem to have made the choice to believe you are right no matter what we all say so, it doesnt seem to be so much else to talk about here.
Just my opinion of course, if some mathematics whant to throw stadistics here please just feel free to start an useless and endless discussion about something that's already solved in the core rulebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The data, if tortured long enough, will confess.
Well I wouldn't call it a critical failure as skills don't have that mechanic.We established by RAW, yes. But if it's considered a critical failure... then it's going to likely be a (not-so)fantastic fail.
I really wish I had a mathematical mind, but it's filled with pop culture, history, martial arts and roleplay material (mostly). All I can say is, this;
Hypothetical 800ft Climb rolls (1):
18, 16, 16, 15, 15, 15, 14, 14, 12, 11, 11, 9, 8, 5, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 3
20, 20, 19, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 13, 10, 12, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2
19, 19, 19, 18, 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 15, 13, 13, 13, 11, 11, 10, 8, 8, 6, 3
19, 18, 17, 17, 15, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, 8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 5, 5, 2, 2Hypothetical 800ft Climb rolls (2):
20, 20, 18, 17, 17, 16, 16, 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11, 10, 9, 9, 6, 3, 3
20, 20, 19, 19, 17, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, 8, 8, 7, 7, 6, 3, 3
20, 20, 19, 19, 18, 18, 15, 14, 13, 13, 12, 11, 9, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 3, 2
20, 20, 19, 19, 18, 17, 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10, 7, 5, 3, 2So 160 or so rolls and according to you (and those here), I should have rolled a 1 at least 3-4 times and only rolled a 20 just as many times.
Organized the rolls high-low for reasons of neatness, that's all.
Nifty...
14 + 18 + 20 + 6 + 6 + 3 + 6 + 12 + 12 + 7 + 16 + 20 + 16 + 11 + 13 + 4 + 4 + 15 + 3 + 12 + 6 + 20 + 7 + 16 + 2 + 7 + 7 + 12 + 10 + 4 + 19 + 13 + 10 + 19 + 14 + 17 + 11 + 9 + 7 + 9 + 19 + 20 + 1 + 1 + 6 + 11 + 6 + 17 + 17 + 7 + 3 + 5 + 11 + 16 + 19 + 16 + 16 + 4 + 13 + 5 + 15 + 2 + 15 + 15 + 6 + 2 + 11 + 20 + 2 + 6 + 5 + 2 + 19 + 4 + 9 + 15 + 15 + 4 + 18 + 4
1 + 1 + 10 + 1 + 20 + 9 + 10 + 18 + 11 + 19 + 12 + 16 + 9 + 8 + 19 + 15 + 17 + 17 + 17 + 12 + 1 + 17 + 11 + 18 + 11 + 14 + 5 + 20 + 2 + 18 + 4 + 10 + 9 + 18 + 14 + 10 + 12 + 14 + 20 + 17 + 9 + 1 + 14 + 1 + 10 + 12 + 17 + 9 + 9 + 4 + 19 + 18 + 1 + 12 + 4 + 4 + 10 + 8 + 7 + 18 + 4 + 6 + 9 + 18 + 5 + 20 + 2 + 1 + 13 + 6 + 13 + 1 + 19 + 3 + 2 + 17 + 15 + 6 + 10 + 4
SO... I got 11 1's and somehow you got none... Either you have crappy rollers/dice or someone fudged the dice... :P And for the record, you should have rolled @8 1's.
1. Nobody was ever attacked... with exception of myself
2. Nobody was ever insulted... again just me
3. You can read through the thread yourself.
I say it again and again, but reading comprehension seems to be a dying skill. I don't know if it's because english isn't your language or if you get this imagined tone and name calling because of some kind of mental disorder... this however wouldn't surprise me because, fun fact; "kids" (teenagers-college kids) are eating "Tide Pods" and have to be told not to do it.
Trinity and I solved our issue, which was over the misunderstanding of a spell on my part (featherfall) which amounted to the fact a mage would be in the same specific situation. However a further fall would warrant time to course correct or gather your s@~~ mentally to cast. I'd probably have you roll a concentration check though, that's RAW anyway.
Someone then brought up realism which in itself is a fun topic to talk about when you are talking about a RPG because "how real" is going to come up at certain points if your group has that kind of mind to wonder. And then the Three Stooges comment which I can agree with, but I haven't seen anything that ridiculous. It's usually quite dramatic and often tends to be the players most talked about moments because despite hose failures they managed to pull through. The rest is me just answering posts as they come.
just Because:
11, 10, 9, 2, 17, 10, 18, 20, 20, 20, 19, 13, 14, 9, 19, 14, 7, 3, 7, 6
The fact is you don't understand probability is what it comes down to, but I use table dice (my dice, your dice, their dice; doesn't matter).
edit: assuming everyone is done being negative, I thank the rest who contribute(d).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact is you don't understand probability is what it comes down to, but I use table dice (my dice, your dice, their dice; doesn't matter).
I think your posting some dice rolls to 'prove' that anyone in your world that climbs any significant distance isn't doomed to 'critical failure' and imminent bodily harm is painting a very clear picture of who doesn't understand probabilities...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goemon: your statements that others cannot read, have no reading comprehension, or might have a mental disorder might be viewed as insults or attacks. Hope this helps you to put some responses in better context and to better craft your posts for the type of response you seek.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Nobody was ever attacked... with exception of myself
2. Nobody was ever insulted... again just me
3. You can read through the thread yourself.I say it again and again, but reading comprehension seems to be a dying skill. I don't know if it's because english isn't your language or if you get this imagined tone and name calling because of some kind of mental disorder... this however wouldn't surprise me because, fun fact; "kids" (teenagers-college kids) are eating "Tide Pods" and have to be told not to do it.
Do you see the irony?
You insult us in your post talking about how you haven't insulted anyone
I'm interested to see how you guys would handle Basic/1st/2nd AD&D, seems like many of you would flip your s+~+ because there's no confirmation rolls.
Point of order. There were no confirmation rolls in 1e/2e because criticals were not a part of the core rules. There were a number of optional systems in various sources (most far more unwieldy than a simple confirmation roll - it struck me as quite streamlined), but it was never a core rule.
A surprising number of players here have a lot of experience with older editions. It is ...unwise... to make assumptions about your audience and especially in such a brash manner.
I'm interested to see how you guys would handle Basic/1st/2nd AD&D, seems like many of you would flip your s+~+ because there's no confirmation rolls.
Point of order. There were no confirmation rolls in 1e/2e because criticals were not a part of the core rules. There were a number of optional systems in various sources (most far more unwieldy than a simple confirmation roll - it struck me as quite streamlined), but it was never a core rule.
A surprising number of players here have a lot of experience with older editions. It is ...unwise... to make assumptions about your audience and especially in such a brash manner.
Some of us are from far enough back that we played the blackmoor pamphlets... ;) [and still have them!]
I'm interested to see how you guys would handle Basic/1st/2nd AD&D, seems like many of you would flip your s*$~ because there's no confirmation rolls.
Different games have different expectations. Just because we dont agree with something in Pathfinder that doesn't mean we'd disagree with it in another system.
PS: Many of us such as myself did play the earlier systems. I only played 2nd edition, but some people here have been playing longer. Don't make assumptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Facepalms.*
Can you go a minute without insulting everybody else in the thread?
Besides, most of the changes in new editions had a good reason.
My god you are sensitive, who the hell have I insulted again? Does everything offend you? I haven't once said anything that can be considered "offensive" despite asshats telling me I'm "hurting their feels" for disagreeing with them.
It's called comparison... everyone is losing their minds over crit rolls and lack of confirmation. Most of the flavor is all there and very much the same, as I told my new player a lot of the terminology has been around since day 1. They just take some things and polish them renamed them or removed them altogether.
Thac0 = BAB
AC = AC
Save Throws = Save Throws
HP = HP
Movement = Speed
Proficiencies = Skills/Feats
Kits = ArchetypesAttributes are still the same, but their bonuses got changed to a straight +bonus vs hit probability/damage adjustment/Bend Bars/Lift Gates etc. for Strength. Sadly has the best modules to date as I haven't found many that can compete in the newer stuff.
edit: the point is that contrary to belief, your game isn't ruined because due to lack of confirmation rolls.
You speak as if anyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant child who cannot handle the purity of old school D&D, and ignorant of basic math.
Yes. Yes, I am well aware of the incoherent mess that is AD&D. Yes, I'm aware that most of the mechanics are refined from AD&D. Calm down, and stop patronizing us. Many of us have every bit as much experience as you. We just disagree with you. Oftentimes for good reason.
I've got a civil engineering degree and a great deal of experience with over a dozen systems, including AD&D (which I found inane and clunky and promptly set aside), and I take exception to being spoken to as if I were an ignorant child.
And in case you haven't noticed, I haven't said a word about confirmation rolls, so this tells me you're just lumping every one of us together.
Also, you cannot claim that confirmation rolls slow down the game when you call for rolls on skill checks that a character should be able to pass on a one (meaning you should skip the roll outright and carry on with the narration) just to reintroduce the 5% chance that they fail at what to them is a trivial task.
1. Nobody was ever attacked... with exception of myself
2. Nobody was ever insulted... again just me
3. You can read through the thread yourself.
I do believe I shall.
In your own words...
2. I've covered this above, so this proves you are ignorant or don't bother to read.
Is this the part of the thread where you are the only person ever insulted or attacked?
I especially love the part where you compare everyone who disagrees with you to teenagers eating laundry detergent. That's just class right there.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@OP: Did the failed Acrobatics check to leap a certain distance fail to get the character within "arm's reach" (reasonably interpreted as an Adjacent Square, or within 5 of the DC 20 check)? Given that the character was a monk, did you guys also factor in the bonus to Acrobatics checks made to jump that a Monk gets for having higher movement speed?
If you did all the math right, and on a 1 the monk did not get at least a 15 on his check, you could argue, reasonably, that Slow Fall doesn't kick in. Otherwise, you removed a class feature for no reason, which is mostly unfair because it represents exactly the kind of situation that, for RP reasons, his character has trained, which would be poor form.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is anyone still engaging with this thread anymore?
It's kind of like a truck wreck that's then hit by a meteor that sets fire to the fireworks in the back... You have places to go and you WANT to move along but you can't help yourself...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he critically failed his jump then he basically just tripped over the side...which means he is within arms reach of the wall he just tried to jump away from....
If it was a running jump he might of just fallen prone BEFORE he got there. You know how often people forget how to run... [5%]...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it was a running jump he might of just fallen prone BEFORE he got there. You know how often people forget how to run... [5%]...If he critically failed his jump then he basically just tripped over the side...which means he is within arms reach of the wall he just tried to jump away from....
Oh, yeah, and those seven hundred and twenty times yesterday that my heart got a natural 1 on their beat checks for the round and I died!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, yeah, and those seven hundred and twenty times yesterday that my heart got a natural 1 on their beat checks for the round and I died!If it was a running jump he might of just fallen prone BEFORE he got there. You know how often people forget how to run... [5%]...If he critically failed his jump then he basically just tripped over the side...which means he is within arms reach of the wall he just tried to jump away from....
Sorry what did you say? I must have rolled a 1 on my linguistics and forgotten how to read...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, a fun exercise: Dice rolling, in theory, should produce fixed results in a vacuum. No matter what happens in practice, the odds of rolling a 1 on a d20 are always 5%.
That having been said, dice aren't perfect, and they aren't rolled in perfect systems, so there are variances that can't be accounted for. There are a few ways to test this:
1) The 400 test. Pick a surface, roll your die 400 times, and find the average and weigh the die results. I have one die that rolls high on average (goes around an 11.5), but does so because it rolls a disproportionate number of 1s and 20s, leaning towards the later. All of my dice tested differently, and relatively predictably, this way.
2) The salt water test. Fill a cup with a salt solution, adding enough salt to allow a die to become buoyant. Then, push the die beneath the water, allowing it to bob. You may be surprised how various dice are weighted towards certain numbers that come up.
So dice results are unhelpful for 2 reasons: 1) because the hard math is 100% accurate in a vacuum, and 2) because the amount of variance that could be present isn't really shown or measured. Since die variance isn't really something that should be accounted for in-play, the best we can do is assume that the fundamental math of the game works, which means that any action taken in-game which requires a die check has a 5% chance of rolling a 1.
Since you're here and this isn't a rules question can you move it to another area?
1. Nobody was ever attacked... with exception of myself
2. Nobody was ever insulted... again just me
3. You can read through the thread yourself.I say it again and again, but reading comprehension seems to be a dying skill. I don't know if it's because english isn't your language or if you get this imagined tone and name calling because of some kind of mental disorder... this however wouldn't surprise me because, fun fact; "kids" (teenagers-college kids) are eating "Tide Pods" and have to be told not to do it.
Do you see the irony?
You insult us in your post talking about how you haven't insulted anyone
The irony is, people can attack me and accuse me of being a bad GM/cheating or whatever nonsense and while I refrained from saying anything until now; you through (I can only assume autism) have mommy Sara come to your rescue for some imagined insults because, lord behold, you lack reading comprehension. It's not an insult when you continually miss the point of everything. English is my language and I have written numerous essays without error. I can't talk any more clearly unless you want me to treat you as a child. Which is quite likely for the three of you.
Point of order. There were no confirmation rolls in 1e/2e because criticals were not a part of the core rules. There were a number of optional systems in various sources (most far more unwieldy than a simple confirmation roll - it struck me as quite streamlined), but it was never a core rule.
A surprising number of players here have a lot of experience with older editions. It is ...unwise... to make assumptions about your audience and especially in such a brash manner.
So a 20 on an attack roll was never a critical hit? This is what some of you are complaining about far as confirmation rolls are discussed. Someone made some big deal about x3-4 crit attacks like it's some big game ending catastrophe. Just like you shouldn't make accusation that having such rules automatically makes you a bad GM/cheater And then berate the guy for defending his playstyle with rational thought as being unreasonable and dismisive? Just checking on the double standards ruling.
@OP: Did the failed Acrobatics check to leap a certain distance fail to get the character within "arm's reach" (reasonably interpreted as an Adjacent Square, or within 5 of the DC 20 check)? Given that the character was a monk, did you guys also factor in the bonus to Acrobatics checks made to jump that a Monk gets for having higher movement speed?
If you did all the math right, and on a 1 the monk did not get at least a 15 on his check, you could argue, reasonably, that Slow Fall doesn't kick in. Otherwise, you removed a class feature for no reason, which is mostly unfair because it represents exactly the kind of situation that, for RP reasons, his character has trained, which would be poor form.
I unintentionally treated it as the no fail rule, while treating it as a critical fail. So I believe that's exactly how it went... covered it more clearly somewhere above. But that's the idea, contention aside from what "Arm's Reach" is. You didn't say it but to cover, you can't do a running jump standing at the edge but he counts as geting a runnign jump anyways, so he wasn't going to just tumble over the edge. Far as dice rolls, I can do it with anyone's dice and most dice rollers if it's not the Wizards one.
But this hold part to what I was talking about, all dice aren't the same and perfectly balanced which is why that 5% chance/odds has just as high a chance of being a 10, 15, 14 or 12. It however is less likely that you'll get the same number back-to-back. The point was to show, a 1 will not always how up 1/20 rolls in the above scenario that graystone proposed.
Oh, yeah, and those seven hundred and twenty times yesterday that my heart got a natural 1 on their beat checks for the round and I died!
It's posts like these that prove my point, nothing of this sort was ever said but you and the others insist on peddling it... Where was it ever said by me that you had to roll for breathing and natural faculties? This is what we call a troll kids... stick around long enough and they expose their intentions.
Again, reading comprehension. You assume that having critical failures and not rolling confirmation rolls somehow make you a bad gm. This is exactly what you have been saying. So by comparing systems which worked perfectly fine, anyone who plays AD&D is s~@* by your thought process. Or I'm somehow s%#% for making my games more dynamic and entertaining for MY players who actually enjoy it. In their words, "it spices things up from the simple, your turn my turn" mechanics. They want to know they can fail, not be told how they effortlessly climbed a mountainside. They want to roll to see if they can do it.
Fact is, I'm the sole GM of the group because nobody else wants to do it despite all these years of gameplay. Seems to me if there was an issue they'd pick up and go.
Goeman, you need to stop the insults. Consider what your words are actually saying, not what you intend them to mean. Text based mediums for communication often make conveying tone difficult. Sarcasm, snark and hyperbole are not always clear and can easily negatively escalate a conversation.
It's the English language, I've written essays all my life without fail and no confusion. I can't dumb it down anymore then talk as if it's to a child; I'd like to assume I'm talking to adults or at the very least people in their mid-late teens.
Heard of double-standards? So if I cry to you, I can toss out insults left and right so long as I paint myself as the victim while antagonizing other players? Gotcha. Double-standards for the win!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have chosen a nonproductive method to present your point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Friend, have you stopped and considered the point at which you are actively antagonizing mods for politely telling you to calm down and declaring people have mental disorders that certain members of the community actually have to deal with in their lives, maybe you've made a bad decision somewhere?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh wow. I've seen a lot of threads where an OP got upset that they didn't get the echo chamber they wanted, but this is the first time I've seen one resort to claiming everyone who disagrees with them has a mental condition and start disregarding and insulting moderators.
I get the feeling OP won't be here much longer.
But hey Goemon, good job convincing yourself that you're the victim here. That's genuinely some impressive mental gymnastics.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@OP: It seems like you're focused primarily on anecdotal evidence, which may suffice for your worldview, but is wholly unconvincing in a believable sense. As an example, I once ran a game where my players agreed to play pre-made characters (the idea being that they had amnesia, and so had to learn their abilities as they played). One of my players got mad at me because I rolled badly for his stats. But it wasn't just that I rolled badly (Hint: I rolled above average stats), but that he claimed he could have rolled better stats, and that I was terrible at rolling them.
This is utter nonsense, and if you roll as often as you say, and consistently get results as far off of the average as you say, you must either be A) Fudging die rolls (Cheating, depending on the context), or B) using dice so skewed it doesn't even get close to reasonable probability. You may be unaware of that, which is fine, but the game itself assumes these percentages are accurate, which is way it is perfectly reasonable to say that an expert "X" will fail at his chosen schtick 5% of the time, and unreasonable to say otherwise at least in regards to Pathfinder. Math may not be your thing, but that doesn't mean that Math doesn't work, and deviations from mathematically predictable outcomes is just that: a deviation, not the norm, or in this case, the standard.
Now, if your players had a good time with your ruling, great. I'm glad they did. Without knowing the actual roll/total, the best we can offer is blanket rulings.
Are you aware that you didn’t lock the thread.
As she specifically called out a poster, I don't think the intention was to lock the thread, but possibly a temporary ban for the specific poster.
Arms reach for someone who can use an unarmed strike without reach is literally their square or the adjacent square, to prove, ask, is there anywhere in the adjacent square I cannot attack? (Raw is no: you can attack the adjacent square)
Yep, for slow fall to not work, the jump had to be successful enough to get more than 5' away from the 1st wall but not successful enough to come within 5' of the other wall before they hit the ground... It's not what I'd call a crit fail but a very specific 'punishment for rolling a 1' fail that threads the needle to fall JUST so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to write this but hopefully it helps...
Goemon, I hope you have taken time to reconsider your actions and presentations of your arguments. While I don't at all agree with your arguments or position, I could at least respect the difference of opinion. At first. But then you denigrated everyone in this thread and conducted yourself in a manner that is not acceptable. You even went so far as to insult the moderators. Regardless of whether or not you agree with them, you should know the mods control a message board and it is unwise to quarrel with and upset them.
I hope time has helped you gained some personal insight into your interactions with people and that in the future you can have more productive interactions on this board.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well...i finally undestand the point of this gentlemen here.
For all the others of you, i will write this so your low comprehension capabilitys dont feel overwhelmed by the pressure.
This guy just rolled a natural 1 in diplomacy and it all ended up like this.
The monk did the same with a jump
Compare both situations and you would see how possible and convenient his movement as a DM was.
My repects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In games of chance, gameplay arises from playing with respect to probability and non-deterministic outcomes. This gameplay takes the form of tactics and preparation in Pathfinder where players create characters, buy items, and use tactics that either help them overcome/avoid dice rolls or mitigate the impact of losing a roll. Denying such perfectly legitimate options for a completely arbitrary reason goes against how these games are designed.