|
are you sure it didn't fail to convince your 95%? or 99.999%? can you even truely know it didn't fail to convince you by only .0000358%?If anything could convince me that critical fumbles should be a thing, it WAS his attempt to convince me and seeing just how utterly it failed to do so: in fact I'm MORE against it that when I started out. Which IS kind of a paradox... ;)
Nope, you just critical fumbled on your will save and totally believe your point to be true. It will be too bad when you also believe your first level martial can beat that ancient dragon because you get a few more hit points as a starting character but it will be fun to watch. :)
|
|
I think gray is a she... I think so anyways. I'm mostly going by the avatar. So far I can't think of anything I've convinced her of but I haven't tried it 20 times yet so maybe...Just wait until she rolls a 1. It'll be a critical fumble and she will not only be convinced, but will also have to stab an ally. Keep trying! There's always a 1 in 20 chance.
That's usually how dominate creature spells work
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really though sarcasm is easy to miss in type. That's why I have an alias just for it.
|
|
even a Sorcerer or Oracle can simply take a different spell of a...missing an attack isn't the same as losing an action 5 percent of the time. i wouldn't want spellcasters to waste a spell slot 5 percent of the time either. fumbles for nobody. and before you say "casters have a limited amount of spells per day."
Spells ignore A Target's Armor, can be tailored to Target Lower Saving throws, Generally have the Capacity to Affect Several Targets at once, can be done at longer ranges, generally have effects more crippling than raw damage, can be tailored to the lowest resistance, and casters have more than enough spellpower to cast a meaningful spell every round of combat and still have enough utility spells to solve every issue out there.
a country having one or two nukes in thier arsenal doesn't change the devastation said country could do to a signifficant portion of the planet with merely a single nuke. if you look at the Stuff Moses did in the bible, those are all comparable to the power level of a 5th level wizard casting maybe 3rd level spells.
If you would be upset about a caster wasting a spell slot then how do you explain the reason for spell resistance still being a part of the game? Shouldn't it be sent to the scrap heap of game design since a failure wastes an action?
I also don't buy your arguement that spells can be tailored with precision so that they can overcome any weakness. If spellcasters all combined the flexibility of sorcerers for casting and the vast ability to know all spells as a cleric then you would have a valid point. However, since Vancian casting is still a thing so you have to memorize spells and you have to make choices. So you could have an enchanter being crippled when fighting undead and golems, fire wizards against devils, electrical weilders vs undead, etc. This is all hand waved away by the assumption that every caster is a wizard with a vast library or a cleric but this is not often the case.
Yes, but those are poor examples because a fighter can do the same for weapons. What if I wanted to role-play Chandra Naalar from Magic the Gathering? All I want to use is fire. I can't because immunity to fire is the most common immunity in the game. If its unfair to punish a fighter because he overspecialized in swords than it should be unfair to punish my fire mage as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are playing in a fantasy world where dragons shouldn't be able to fly due to the laws of physics and an arch lich can dramatically change the world by wishing it to be so. Where you can bring people back from the dead and take 100 points of damage from over ten sword hits and keep on swinging as if nothing happened to you? Yeah in a world like that I could see Hades saying to himself" Yeah that Graystone is full of hubris. He thinks martials can't fumble eh. Gonna have fun toying with him today." Guess what, like Hercules, you just made the a Greater God's short list of people he is going to make miserable for that day. I could very well see that happening often in a game world where magic and gods and the mysterious happen to adventurers on a daily basis.
This reads a lot like the "argument from personal (dis)belief" - you can easily see your scenario as plausible, and presumably as fun, but that doesn't mean everyone else does. But that's fine: if you want to have that as your house-rule in the games where you're GM, nobody is stopping you. I wouldn't be interested, but other players might well be.
But given the number of people in this thread who seem to be against the idea compared with the number of people who are in favour, it looks like most people wouldn't find it fun. I therefore hope that the PF2e design team don't include it as part of the basic rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Sarcasm seems to be lost on you. Same with the idea of making a rule fair in every situation I guess
Context in a text based communication is tough enough as it is without someone being sarcastic without anything to make that clear. [I use an emoji like ;)] As to the second part... Yeah, once again, that's what I think about you. Fumbles aren't 'fair' OR fun.
He thinks martials can't fumble eh.
NO. You once again have failed to comprehend... It's NOT have a fumble is inconceivable BUT that they would happen as often as you're 'house-rule' would make them or the fact that the chances of fumbling increases based on your target and NOT on your own abilities: ei, making a target harder to hit makes you fumble more even when the cause by something not directly affecting you. The target raising a shield somehow makes it easier for me to shoot myself or their taking cover caused me to throw a knife into a teammate...
SO 'Hades' isn't very good at mind reading... There are times when you can fumble but that is completely different than combat looking like a slapstick comedy of errors...
the more i read this the more i think there's a false dichotomy here.
Attack roll \ Save
20 or DC +10 Critical hit/double \ No damage
Success-dc+9 Normal damage \ Half damage
Failure dc -9 No damage/min w feat \ Full damage
1 or dc -10 No damage/potential react \ Double damage
there's no need to modify the system because of 4 tiers. As far as it seems saves and attack rolls have basically the same levels of success (except the half damage option is probably better than min damage)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but those are poor examples because a fighter can do the same for weapons. What if I wanted to role-play Chandra Naalar from Magic the Gathering? All I want to use is fire. I can't because immunity to fire is the most common immunity in the game. If its unfair to punish a fighter because he overspecialized in swords than it should be unfair to punish my fire mage as well.
the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b@&$%*~@ creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.
instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really though sarcasm is easy to miss in type. That's why I have an alias just for it.
Very true indeed. So is this your sarcasm profile or your serious profile? :)
I trust you can figure it out.
the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b++*!%~! creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.
That sort of change would feel to both my players and me like playing the game on an annoyingly easy mode, so I hope it doesn't happen and if it does I will likely houserule it right back out as appropriate.
Unique reactions as well as immunities I could get with.
the unique reactions could easily be beefed up to replace a lack of immunity to make things less easy. just because a highly dedicated Pyromancer can burn a fire elemental's fuel supply as a means to damage it doesn't mean your average generalist would have that option. purely so the dedicated Pyromancer or dedicated Swordsman isn't useless. Dedication would come with the ability to treat immunities as merely resistances and eventually damage anything with thier signature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but those are poor examples because a fighter can do the same for weapons. What if I wanted to role-play Chandra Naalar from Magic the Gathering? All I want to use is fire. I can't because immunity to fire is the most common immunity in the game. If its unfair to punish a fighter because he overspecialized in swords than it should be unfair to punish my fire mage as well.
the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b$*%&!&$ creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.
instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Creatures should have immunities where it actually makes sense, where it fits their abilities, not just because they're an angel or demon and so are randomly immune to multiple different energy types and status effects they don't even use.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Creatures should have immunities where it actually makes sense, where it fits their abilities, not just because they're an angel or demon and so are randomly immune to multiple different energy types and status effects they don't even use.Yes, but those are poor examples because a fighter can do the same for weapons. What if I wanted to role-play Chandra Naalar from Magic the Gathering? All I want to use is fire. I can't because immunity to fire is the most common immunity in the game. If its unfair to punish a fighter because he overspecialized in swords than it should be unfair to punish my fire mage as well.
the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b$*%&!&$ creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.
instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.
sorry, piling on immunities doesn't make a creature interesting. immunities are one of the most bland and boring abilities you can give, just as boring as resistances. unique reactions would be more engaging than flipping an on/off switch.
sorry, piling on immunities doesn't make a creature interesting. immunities are one of the most bland and boring abilities you can give, just as boring as resistances.Agreed wholeheartedly. Creatures should have immunities where it actually makes sense, where it fits their abilities, not just because they're an angel or demon and so are randomly immune to multiple different energy types and status effects they don't even use.Yes, but those are poor examples because a fighter can do the same for weapons. What if I wanted to role-play Chandra Naalar from Magic the Gathering? All I want to use is fire. I can't because immunity to fire is the most common immunity in the game. If its unfair to punish a fighter because he overspecialized in swords than it should be unfair to punish my fire mage as well.
the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b$*%&!&$ creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.
instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.
Sorry i'm Immune to your comment.
Sorry i'm Immune to your comment.sorry, piling on immunities doesn't make a creature interesting. immunities are one of the most bland and boring abilities you can give, just as boring as resistances.Agreed wholeheartedly. Creatures should have immunities where it actually makes sense, where it fits their abilities, not just because they're an angel or demon and so are randomly immune to multiple different energy types and status effects they don't even use.
instead of giving angels or demons a mountain of resistances or immunities because "Lol it is an Angel" "Lulz it's a Demon." how about we replace the XP budget spent on those immunities with unique reactions that inflict a unique consequence instead of "Lulz, your fireball autofails."
this makes resistances and immmunities more special when they do show up. and frees up monster XP budget. if a monster truly depended on immunities? how about you just increase the hit points and add engaging reactions.
Look at Monster Hunter, Dark Souls or Kingdom Hearts to see examples of unique monster reactions with specific triggers.
I think the occasional immunity is deserved but I'lm ok if its sparing I think devils immunity to fire and creatures that are element based should remain (or become in some cases) immune to their element.
I think the occasional immunity is deserved but I'lm ok if its sparing I think devils immunity to fire and creatures that are element based should remain (or become in some cases) immune to their element.
i believe the only things that should be immune to thier element are element based crreatures that are exclusively defined by thier element such as elementals for example.
So I'm just resistant to your comment then.
So I'm just resistant to your comment then.
resistant is finesies.
I think the occasional immunity is deserved but I'lm ok if its sparing I think devils immunity to fire and creatures that are element based should remain (or become in some cases) immune to their element.i believe the only things that should be immune to thier element are element based crreatures that are exclusively defined by thier element such as elementals for example.
Generally most outsiders are immune to an element native to their home plane. Elementals (including para- and quasi-) are self-explanatory. Devils being typically immune to fire is because they are from Hell. Most layers have copious amounts of environmental fire. Some layers are hideously cold, so ice devils are immune to cold.
Not sure what the environmental reasoning is for most outsiders, so I agree that this discussion could become a fascinating expansion/revision/alteration of the status quo in a different thread. :D
Fire elementals needing to have fuel supplies rather than just being amde of elemental fire would be a change I would not support.
the unique reactions could easily be beefed up to replace a lack of immunity to make things less easy. just because a highly dedicated Pyromancer can burn a fire elemental's fuel supply as a means to damage it doesn't mean your average generalist would have that option.
See, there's finesse here too though. A fire elemental should not require fuel sources to /live/... But it should be able to /buff itself/ if it does get fuel. The same fire elemental summoned into a forest should be more terrifying than if summoned into the desert sands, and not just because of environmental collateral damage, because by actively burning fuel it will get stronger.
See, there's finesse here too though. A fire elemental should not require fuel sources to /live/... But it should be able to /buff itself/ if it does get fuel. The same fire elemental summoned into a forest should be more terrifying than if summoned into the desert sands, and not just because of environmental collateral damage, because by actively burning fuel it will get stronger.Fire elementals needing to have fuel supplies rather than just being amde of elemental fire would be a change I would not support.
the unique reactions could easily be beefed up to replace a lack of immunity to make things less easy. just because a highly dedicated Pyromancer can burn a fire elemental's fuel supply as a means to damage it doesn't mean your average generalist would have that option.
Sounds awesome ... for a different thread. wink, wink, nudge, nudge
sorry, piling on immunities doesn't make a creature interesting. immunities are one of the most bland and boring abilities you can give, just as boring as resistances. unique reactions would be more engaging than flipping an on/off switch.Agreed wholeheartedly. Creatures should have immunities where it actually makes sense, where it fits their abilities, not just because they're an angel or demon and so are randomly immune to multiple different energy types and status effects they don't even use.
the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b$*%&!&$ creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.
You realize I was basically agreeing with you, right? XD Flavorful reactions are good, less random immunities are good.
I'm just not hardline against immunity. I think immunities have a place. But they should be much less prevalent and restricted to creatures that actually heavily use the elements and status effects in question, or otherwise have a /really good/ justification for it. Such as oozes and swarms being immune to weapon crits and precision damage. Or a nightmare being immune to fire because it snorts fire and its hooves are on fire and its mane and tail are literal fire.
|
|
1) Sarcasm seems to be lost on you. Same with the idea of making a rule fair in every situation I guessContext in a text based communication is tough enough as it is without someone being sarcastic without anything to make that clear. [I use an emoji like ;)] As to the second part... Yeah, once again, that's what I think about you. Fumbles aren't 'fair' OR fun.
He thinks martials can't fumble eh.NO. You once again have failed to comprehend... It's NOT have a fumble is inconceivable BUT that they would happen as often as you're 'house-rule' would make them or the fact that the chances of fumbling increases based on your target and NOT on your own abilities: ei, making a target harder to hit makes you fumble more even when the cause by something not directly affecting you. The target raising a shield somehow makes it easier for me to shoot myself or their taking cover caused me to throw a knife into a teammate...
SO 'Hades' isn't very good at mind reading... There are times when you can fumble but that is completely different than combat looking like a slapstick comedy of errors...
No, Graystone. You don't get it. A 5% chance is NOT a huge deal. Its an incredibly small deal. You also don't get what I am going for with a critical hit with a fumble so I will EXPLAIN it to you again. A critical fumble from my post does not result you in harming yourself. It is a danger from exposure as I have stated TIME and TIME AGAIN. You grow frustrated or overconfident and expose yourself to danger, there for the attacker would have to make an attack roll. Its not a guarantee. It could very easily happen when you fight a far more experienced fighter. If I fought an professional boxer I would be destroyed. Not only would that fighter be stronger, faster and have more endurance but his defenses would be heightened and his counters much quicker than mine. Floyd Mayweather is a great technical boxer and he punishes his opponents with counterattacks. So yeah if I, can't hit a boxers AC due to being level 1 and him being level 15 I should get destroyed by critical failures just as much as critical successes. Good fighters CAPTLAIZE on the mistakes of the opponents and my proposal, while imperfect, attempts to mimic this reality. Stop trying to imply that my ruling turns you into one of the Three Stooges because I have never stated or implied that this was the case.
Hades can read minds. He is a GOD after all and there is a difference between a comedy of errors and being completely outclassed by a superior opponent. Critical failures are not a comedy of errors unless you are played a light hearted game. They are examples of bad luck, ill omens, doom or fate.|
|
sorry, piling on immunities doesn't make a creature interesting. immunities are one of the most bland and boring abilities you can give, just as boring as resistances. unique reactions would be more engaging than flipping an on/off switch.Agreed wholeheartedly. Creatures should have immunities where it actually makes sense, where it fits their abilities, not just because they're an angel or demon and so are randomly immune to multiple different energy types and status effects they don't even use.Yes, but those are poor examples because a fighter can do the same for weapons. What if I wanted to role-play Chandra Naalar from Magic the Gathering? All I want to use is fire. I can't because immunity to fire is the most common immunity in the game. If its unfair to punish a fighter because he overspecialized in swords than it should be unfair to punish my fire mage as well.
the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b$*%&!&$ creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.
instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.
Thank you for understanding my point of view. It is appreciated
|
|
I think the occasional immunity is deserved but I'lm ok if its sparing I think devils immunity to fire and creatures that are element based should remain (or become in some cases) immune to their element.i believe the only things that should be immune to thier element are element based crreatures that are exclusively defined by thier element such as elementals for example.
I don't ever think anything should have a total immunity to magical elements. Normal fire vs a fire elemental, sure. Now I do think that a fire attack against a fire elemental should be extremely weak, like one quarter damage for example. I just find it funny that people can justify a metal sword or a monk's fist doing full damage to an fire elemental but a fireball can't damage it at all.
|
|
sorry, piling on immunities doesn't make a creature interesting. immunities are one of the most bland and boring abilities you can give, just as boring as resistances. unique reactions would be more engaging than flipping an on/off switch.Agreed wholeheartedly. Creatures should have immunities where it actually makes sense, where it fits their abilities, not just because they're an angel or demon and so are randomly immune to multiple different energy types and status effects they don't even use.
the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b$*%&!&$ creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.
You realize I was basically agreeing with you, right? XD Flavorful reactions are good, less random immunities are good.
I'm just not hardline against immunity. I think immunities have a place. But they should be much less prevalent and restricted to creatures that actually heavily use the elements and status effects in question, or otherwise have a /really good/ justification for it. Such as oozes and swarms being immune to weapon crits and precision damage. Or a nightmare being immune to fire because it snorts fire and its hooves are on fire and its mane and tail are literal fire.
I disagree. Just because a nightmare has hooves that generate fire does not mean its whole body is immune to fire. Perhaps the hooves just are resistant due to the fact that heat is conducted there. Also, polar bears are resistant to extreme cold weather, however, I am sure there is a cold enough temperature where the polar bear's resistance to the cold can be overcome. I feel the same exact set of circumstances can apply to a nightmare.
|
|
the more i read this the more i think there's a false dichotomy here.
Attack roll \ Save
20 or DC +10 Critical hit/double \ No damage
Success-dc+9 Normal damage \ Half damage
Failure dc -9 No damage/min w feat \ Full damage
1 or dc -10 No damage/potential react \ Double damagethere's no need to modify the system because of 4 tiers. As far as it seems saves and attack rolls have basically the same levels of success (except the half damage option is probably better than min damage)
No, its not the same because there is no difference between a failure and a critical failure unless you take a feat in the left column. There is a difference between a critical success and a regular success in the right column regardless of whether you have a feat or not (incidentally if you have a feat aka evasion, you get bumped one tier in the stages of success for each stage of succession). So no, it is not an apples to apples comparison at all.
|
|
We are playing in a fantasy world where dragons shouldn't be able to fly due to the laws of physics and an arch lich can dramatically change the world by wishing it to be so. Where you can bring people back from the dead and take 100 points of damage from over ten sword hits and keep on swinging as if nothing happened to you? Yeah in a world like that I could see Hades saying to himself" Yeah that Graystone is full of hubris. He thinks martials can't fumble eh. Gonna have fun toying with him today." Guess what, like Hercules, you just made the a Greater God's short list of people he is going to make miserable for that day. I could very well see that happening often in a game world where magic and gods and the mysterious happen to adventurers on a daily basis.This reads a lot like the "argument from personal (dis)belief" - you can easily see your scenario as plausible, and presumably as fun, but that doesn't mean everyone else does. But that's fine: if you want to have that as your house-rule in the games where you're GM, nobody is stopping you. I wouldn't be interested, but other players might well be.
But given the number of people in this thread who seem to be against the idea compared with the number of people who are in favour, it looks like most people wouldn't find it fun. I therefore hope that the PF2e design team don't include it as part of the basic rules.
Actually, someone started another thread regarding critical fumbles. The OP even acknowledged my thread in the opening remarks. I do think that there should be SOME kind of penalty for a critical failure in combat, since the four stages of success are going to be a core concept in PF2. I am not saying that MY suggesstions have to become core but that they should be some type of penalty for a critical failure. The many negative responses I have received boil down to "NO, I don't want it because I roll more often than you!" or "critcal failure tables in past editions of role playing games had terrible self inflicted wounds that made my martial character feel humiliated." I don't buy either argument because everyone makes lots of rolls so fumbles effect everyone evenly, you have the chance to get far more critcal success than I ever will be a) you roll more often & b) the math is skewed to give you more crits in combat than fumbles by a HUGE margin. Also, I NEVER stated that a critical failure be interpreted by you being incompetent in your abilities and the results of a critcal fumble being interpreted as self harm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about you stick that to your own games then Talek & Luna? The general dislike for the fumbles seems to outweight those who likes it, and its to a far minority to the point you might be better off just houseruling it rather than making it a general rule.
Martials in general is already F'd by the power balance wastly favoring casters to the point they can easily be replaced by either summons or Gishes. You dont see any martial end a encounter with a single action, unless its a single enemy standing wide open, and the Barbarian runs in and crit it with his battleaxe. To drag the favor into the martials shall we then also enforce the wild magic rules onto every caster? We might aswell play 40k at this point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, its not the same because there is no difference between a failure and a critical failure unless you take a feat in the left column.
You, just like everyone else, have not seen what all Classes get and what all monsters from the Bestiary get that takes advantage of Critical Failures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See id rather not have the lose spell slot and I'm willing to give up a fighter getting a critical fumble for that to happen.
Cast spell on target make concentration check followed by spell resistance followed by him rolling save *shudder*
lol In fact I'm even willing to let fighters do damage on a miss if i can side-step that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly missing your target is bad enough in the most of situations, having your enemy live another round is devestating enough considering a combat encounter normally last around 3 turns.
Then we could look at the standard fumbles like losing your weapon or hitting yourself. The case of losing your weapon lose your turn, next turn you have to spend action to pick it up again, same case with the fumbles that put you prone, both of these cause attacks of oppertunity. Then hitting yourself is basically giving the enemy a free hit at your expense.
Yay 5% chance that you will inflict the player debuffs that normally takes 2 turns to cause if used by an enemy! Fumble rules sure are fun guys, i mean look at all of this epic roleplay of me playing the role of a legendary fighter accidentally my magical sword into the aether.
I disagree. Just because a nightmare has hooves that generate fire does not mean its whole body is immune to fire. Perhaps the hooves just are resistant due to the fact that heat is conducted there. Also, polar bears are resistant to extreme cold weather, however, I am sure there is a cold enough temperature where the polar bear's resistance to the cold can be overcome. I feel the same exact set of circumstances can apply to a nightmare.I'm just not hardline against immunity. I think immunities have a place. But they should be much less prevalent and restricted to creatures that actually heavily use the elements and status effects in question, or otherwise have a /really good/ justification for it. Such as oozes and swarms being immune to weapon crits and precision damage. Or a nightmare being immune to fire because it snorts fire and its hooves are on fire and its mane and tail are literal fire.
If it was just the hooves generating fire I'd actually agree with you. (And I do agree about the polar bear - resist is fine, doesn't need immunity.) But it also breathes fire, and its mane and tail are also made of fire, unless I'm now conflating with other media and the PF nightmare doesn't do these things. It's like an evil demonic horse-shaped fire elemental.
Immunity isn't a dirty word. It can be a valid design choice and be interesting. It just shouldn't be everywhere like in 3.x / PF1. It's fine as long as it is intuitive and makes sense, it's not fine if it's just being tacked on randomly to meet some CR-based ability quota.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, its not the same because there is no difference between a failure and a critical failure unless you take a feat in the left column. There is a difference between a critical success and a regular success in the right column regardless of whether you have a feat or not (incidentally if you have a feat aka evasion, you get bumped one tier in the stages of success for each stage of succession). So no, it is not an apples to apples comparison at all.the more i read this the more i think there's a false dichotomy here.
Attack roll \ Save
20 or DC +10 Critical hit/double \ No damage
Success-dc+9 Normal damage \ Half damage
Failure dc -9 No damage/min w feat \ Full damage
1 or dc -10 No damage/potential react \ Double damagethere's no need to modify the system because of 4 tiers. As far as it seems saves and attack rolls have basically the same levels of success (except the half damage option is probably better than min damage)
So your stance is that because you already have to pay a feat tax for parity with saving throw based attacks, weapon attacks should be made even worse?
Sounds like a crap game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 5% chance is NOT a huge deal. Its an incredibly small deal.
If that's true then that also means that any feature that interact with it is ALSO not a huge deal and/or an incredibly small deal and is easily ignored... If it happen so little, why add a new subsystem to punish people with it?
Secondly, it isn't 5%. It's also miss by 10 too so the percentage rises as AC does.
Secondly, I don't agree with you as to why fumbles increase with AC, especially with ranged targets. It JUST plain doesn't make sense: no matter HOW many times you state your opinion, it continues to offer no logical reason for it. Repetition if the same point isn't very helpful.
As you first idea is a bust, maybe try to figure out another perspective or maybe stop trying to convince others that your logic overrides theirs.
|
|
How about you stick that to your own games then Talek & Luna? The general dislike for the fumbles seems to outweight those who likes it, and its to a far minority to the point you might be better off just houseruling it rather than making it a general rule.
Martials in general is already F'd by the power balance wastly favoring casters to the point they can easily be replaced by either summons or Gishes. You dont see any martial end a encounter with a single action, unless its a single enemy standing wide open, and the Barbarian runs in and crit it with his battleaxe. To drag the favor into the martials shall we then also enforce the wild magic rules onto every caster? We might aswell play 40k at this point.
Why don't you just take a deep breathe and relax Dracoknight? Asking martials to follow the same four degrees of success is not cementing caster supremacy. The game will survive if you critical fail an attack roll.
|
|
No, its not the same because there is no difference between a failure and a critical failure unless you take a feat in the left column.You, just like everyone else, have not seen what all Classes get and what all monsters from the Bestiary get that takes advantage of Critical Failures.
Same applies to you Rysky. You can't refute my concerns by saying don't worry about it. Monsters will be able to capitalize on critical failures in combat when we have seen no examples of such monster capabilities.
|
|
A 5% chance is NOT a huge deal.Depends on the transaction.
We are talking about transactions in the role-playing game called Pathfinder. In that context a fixed 5% chance that does not stack with any other 5% circumstance is not a big deal at all. For example, rolling a natural 20 to confirm a hit regardless of armor class or making a save regardless of the roll required does NOT imbalance the impact of the game and DOES NOT disqualify the value of High Armor Class or saving throw difficulty by virtue of its extremely narrow possibility.
Seriously Rysky. If you are attempting a strawman arguement. You need to do MUCH better than that! :)
|
|
We already have critical failures. Nat 1s always miss.
You're going to have to justify why MORE than that should happen. So far, you have not.
My justification is that PF2 is going four degrees of failure to success for all rolls but combat. I have not heard a honest to goodness reason beyond "It would be so unfair!" You need to give me a reason why its such a true hindrance to combat rolls. Nothing anyone has said here leads me to believe otherwise.
If they take critical successes away from saving throws (especialy the evasion sucess on a critical save. Then fine, I will stop harping on needing a critical failure in combat to balance that out. However, I doubt that is happening anytime soon so I want the balance of a crit failure to balance a crit success. Just like it happens for spell casters.
LOL okay.
Sure. Let us have critical misses for Marials.
For Casters then, we should put in "Critical Casting Failures" every time you want to cast a spell you roll 1d20+Casting Stat (no other bonuses) vs DC 10+Spell level
So a level 1 spell is DC 11, a level 10 spell is DC 30
If you roll a 1, or miss the target by 10 or more, you suffer a critical casting failure. Lose the spell and have some negative consequence occur.
I have that as a houserule for PF1/3rd Ed D&D:
When casting a spell, you must make a concentration check vs. DC 10 + spell level.
Concentration Check: d20 + 1/2 hit dice + spellcasting ability score modifier.Success: Spell cast, lose slot.
Failure: Spell fails.Success by 10 or more: Spell cast, keep slot.
Failure by 10 or more: Spell fails, lose slot.
That would be awesome! No more saving throws! Full effects and a chance to get my spell back on a critical success! Access to implements that would increase my chances of success (e.g. Staff+3 ) Sign me up!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't you just take a deep breathe and relax Dracoknight? Asking martials to follow the same four degrees of success is not cementing caster supremacy. The game will survive if you critical fail an attack roll.How about you stick that to your own games then Talek & Luna? The general dislike for the fumbles seems to outweight those who likes it, and its to a far minority to the point you might be better off just houseruling it rather than making it a general rule.
Martials in general is already F'd by the power balance wastly favoring casters to the point they can easily be replaced by either summons or Gishes. You dont see any martial end a encounter with a single action, unless its a single enemy standing wide open, and the Barbarian runs in and crit it with his battleaxe. To drag the favor into the martials shall we then also enforce the wild magic rules onto every caster? We might aswell play 40k at this point.
The game will survive if we have to jump 20 times before rolling a dice. The question is if it will be more fun.