Hayato

Goemon Sasuke's page

42 posts. No reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I noticed after the fact that I may have repeated myself; mix of heat and lack of sleep. There was supposed to be a question of "if there's anything to accommodate" but would seem you got the idea.


Note: I would've done an edit but I for the life of me can't find the damn thing.

So as stated above, I tried throwing a bunch of ideas and it comes down to them wanting all the spells for that level with no spells per day or uses per day limited by crafting during downtime.

They also want to slow things down by asking you on every action if what they do works and why it can't... instead of you know, doing a spell or spell-like action with established rules to keep the game moving.

He's basically avoiding making a progression for some reason, insisting that his class should basically be able to do whatever the hell it wants with alleged self imposed limits for the sake of "creative freedom".


So we've all dealt with the player at one point or another is so in love with their class, they just can't admit it's a broken hot mess.

Case in point, I have a player that wants to do a custom class which I'm fine with. What I'm not fine with is needless complication and a caster that has;

-no spells per day limit
-knows all spells & need no preparation
-unlimited spells based on some wonky & needlessly complicated crafting
-----------------------------

To further elaborate, said player wants to cast spells based on crafted runes which revolve around 4 elements (earth, fire, water, wind).

Crafting said runes takes 10 minutes per level of the rune in question at no monetary cost, the level of the rune determines the spell effect. To do certain effects you have to mix & match certain runes. What makes this utterly ridiculous is there is no limit on how many runes he can carry outside of carry limit and containers to do so. For perspective, this allows him to create & use 24-48 lvl 1 spells pending on its needlessly complicated use of mixing spell runes.They somehow don't see this broken or simply won't acknowledge it is.

Now I broached the subject that while he does not want to use the spell list, the effects he's trying for is the exact effects of spells that already exist. So instead of trying to make things needlessly complicated just say "X" spell functions with your flavor of wording. The issue is that (god forbid) using spells & list is limiting...you know, like the other casters.

I put together a Pro & Con list to see if I was missing something maybe... but I can't nail it for the life of me and just see a giant hot mess of BS.

Pros:
+More Spells Known than raw casters (wants to know them all)
+No Spells per day limit (this makes no sense whatsoever)
+Has x2-x4 the amount of spells at minimum per day via rune crafting
+Crafting runes cost nothing
+Because of runes spell effects he can do everything (see above)

Cons:
-the only con is the fact I can't think of a Con for the runelord class
What I'm trying to illustrate is why would you play any other caster if a runelord can do it all without any limitations the others suffer.

------

Aside from my rant, am I missing something or is the player clearly being an unreasonable douche wanting access to everything at no penalty of others?


It was THE boss for a dungeon, in its lair, that took 4+ games to reach at 6-7hrs per game. We also use armor as DR so Natural armor of dragons and those types are quite high. I stressed the dangers of said dragon through npc interaction and other things they should've picked up on through observation like a swamp underground covered in plague.

edit: my world is basically a living sandbox; where a lvl 1 could get lost or if he were lucky/determined enough could fight lvl 10+. I won't put them in these situations during planned scenarios but I won't tell them no either if they want to attempt suicide.

edit 2: if your mission is to save the world in X days/weeks etc. but you want to crusade for equal rights or fight a kingdom who supports slavery, that's fine. You better hope someone else is taking care of that world ending event.

I recall many dragon fights for 1st and 2nd taking a couple of sessions, if not the entire session. It helps when the dragon isn't stupid trying to fight toe-to-toe vs the entire party. Or multiple dragons.

I believe it would be collision damage until the wall broke. That is unless you mean specifically in 1st/2nd AD&D when it was unbreakable if I'm not mistaken.


Pizza Lord wrote:
Goemon Sasuke wrote:

I would go with that if we didn't go over the wording of the spell itself, I believe I even stated it may have for D&D but not so for PF.

It does state that the wall is opaque, so it's not exactly invisible.

Maybe I am misreading and you are imply that you house-ruled it to not be an issue in your game, but I am almost positive that the first sentence states that the wall of force is invisible. (Wall of fire is stated as being opaque.)

Now, as for whether that means it's invisible for purposes of see invisibility or true seeing is up for debate. I tend to view it as a force, not unlike gravity, which, while not visible (to typical creatures, which is how the game rules and spells and their effects are meant to be read from the point-of-view of), is not something that shows up under effects that reveal invisibility. Just like I don't suddenly state that a caster of see invisibility can now see the normally invisible air, wind currents, gravity fields, and ultraviolet spectrum of light.

That's what I get for listening to them... unless SRD left out something from the book which isn't uncommon.

@Scott, you are correct the two are unrelated. The first was addressing the fact that Pathfinders use of Wall of Force is strictly a vertical wall as worded and can't be used to make floors/ceilings, horizontal or diagonal. It even states that the spell can be circumvented by ghosts in its example by going through said floor/ceiling.

The second part referenced that I read somewhere or they said it was an invisible wall but slightly opaque. This one wasn't really the issue so much as they tried to use it to TRAP a dragon with no save who was 30ft in flight mid-combat without any save what so ever.

I just now got a message saying that he could have pinned it down (somehow) by using an incline, and of course still argues/denies that there would be a save.

It turned what was supposed to only be a 4-5 hour battle into 12 hours of questioning everything the dragon did and trying to use spells in unintentional ways that aren't within reason or mechanically possible.


I would go with that if we didn't go over the wording of the spell itself, I believe I even stated it may have for D&D but not so for PF.

It does state that the wall is opaque, so it's not exactly invisible.

generally as a rule of thumb, an attack (spell or otherwise) either requires one of these criteria if not all of them;
-attack roll
-reflex save
-spell resistance

I know if I pulled that on them they would've rage quit then and there.


I believe he's in his 30's, I know D&D allowed for some insanity but PF either simplified spells or took them out all together.

Genius plans are one thing, I welcome them. But to make up something that isn't in the rules is another thing. Especially when I stated multiple times it's not possible but you insist it's legal because your other GM allowed something broken.

I did send them to refer them to Force Cage but that didn't fit his criteria. What he wanted from it was to basically build a box with exits/entrances just big enough for medium sized creatures... they basically wanted to create a kill box.

edit: I should also add that the dragon was 30ft in the air at the time as well.


They try to make various arguments despite wording to contradict me as GM now & then, but it's usually resolved rather quickly. But a dragon comes in and they have to argue with every single action and meta-game to hell with questions like;
-what's the DR?
-How long does its fear effect last?
-What's it's strength etc. etc.

Just play the damn game for f**! sakes, you've beaten everything else I've thrown at you, trust you can beat it or that you have a way to escape...


That's possibly the best thing I've read in a while.

They kept being a smart ass about how it was such a "genius plan" and others used it, and their past groups used it without complaint; while others have used it in such a fashion or in ways to crush people in a pit, that's NOT how it's supposed to be used. He then continued on how it was such a worthless spell after that... T_T;;


It was as I thought, people trying to argue that a "horizontal plane" could be applied as to mean vertical plane despite the choice word Vertical being used. And then they argue that others did it; it's the usual situation of players trying to rules lawyer despite the GM saying what the rules are.

edit: said player was trying to box in said dragon and couldn't understand how it rubbed me wrong.


As the post states is this intentional?


The loot buy-in works fairly well since brought up to my attention, good bit faster and no b&!*@ing over who got more money because said player chose to grab the most expensive item in the pile.


They finally read it a few times and they saw what everyone else did. I however agree that if you insist on standing in fire round-to-round, yes you will get burned.


They still seem to think otherwise, based on how they did things in their group or quoting other spell effects that function as such. I mean you play PFS games so I assume you know what you're talking about.

However seems I need to show them otherwise, aside from the "I'm the GM" ruling.


So if you cast the spell on a living target, on their square it's clear they take damage.

The issue of contention is if he moves out on his turn immediately after, does he suffer damage again since he's leaving the affected area?


Saashaa wrote:

I truly can't fathom that situation. Such behavior honestly doesn't make sense to me.

Another option/addition is for any person who gets something out of the pool of loot 'pays' for it. All items get sold at half price, so whenever someone gets a loot item they pay the community loot pool the amount equal to half the market price of the item. This way, monetarily, loot will be divided evenly.

Yeah, it's certainly a first for me. For all the years I've played it usually goes to "need vs greed" so there was no issues. But bringing in new people is bound to bring up some new issues here & there.

If the above proves to be ineffective, maybe hitting them in the pocket will solve any group hostility.


The issue is, it's only a feint if you intend to benefit from it. Feinting otherwise serves no purpose if you don't intend to follow up. The problem is the OP hasn't stated what specifically he asked the question for. Only that he wants to know if you can purposely miss.


@Saashaa, I agree being adults (for my group anyway) any arguments, specifically those over imaginative items should be fully avoidable. Come to find out thought it goes a bit deeper, apparently their GM was for lack of a better word horrible when it came to magic item drops. For example, the monk who is now in my game never got a single item in 7 levels... not even a +1 ring of protection. The campaign had lots of maghic items I'm told so I assume they just ripped each other apart. Could also be why magic items were so scarce in his game though.

Rathendar wrote:


My group generally works together for loot split.
- If multiple people want item X, they generally roll off for it.
- If the item is an AC item, melee tends to be deferred for.
- Big 6 items when upgraded tend to hand-me-down the previous to another PC if it would benefit them.
- If you gained an item already from that loot split, you don't roll against another PC who hasn't yet.
- Anything leftover is sold and split evenly.
Sometimes this means a character may not get an item for a few sessions, and other times they can get a couple. My group is ok with this aspect.

This makes sense, essentially an informal adventuring charter. I was debating on having them write one up but we can see what this brings. The group works great together, lots of fun to be had. But the second treasures rears its ugly head, watch out.


So we got some new players in the group and they fit the dynamic quite nicely so far. However, when loot makes an appearance it's almost a free-for-all. Our group usually just takes note of what's there and when the adventure is done (unless an item really is needed) everything gets divvied up.

My proposed method was to simply put the item as a community item if it becomes a point of contention or just turn it into gold value.

So I'm wondering what some of you guys do or would in such a situation?


May I ask what the specific situation is?

Assuming it's to be used as a warning shot or something of the like, you could roll vs an AC 10 assuming you don't expect any other effects. If you want something more, then you are closer to the territory of maneuvers which would require CMB vs CMD rolls.

But that's my two cents on the matter without any specifics.


Claxon wrote:
Goemon Sasuke wrote:


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.

dragonghunterq wrote:

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.

Davor wrote:


@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.

Omnius wrote:
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.

Sara Marie wrote:


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!


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).


Dave Justus wrote:

If you were to houserule it, I would suggest a new material rather than a generic rule for combining multiple ones. With a generic rule, you would have to figure out how it would work for every material, and be sure their weren't any broken exploits. With a new material it is just one thing.

For example:

Mithrilantium: This alloy of Mithral and Adamantium provides superior protection and reduced weight. Armor made of mithrilantium only ways 75% as much as normal and medium and heavy armor made out of mithrilantium provides DR 1/- etc.

This is probably the best idea so far, certainly more simplified to an extent. Thanks Dave. Certainly holds to the criteria I placed.


graystone wrote:
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.


Omnius wrote:

*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 = Archetypes

Attributes 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.


Graelsis wrote:

The question here is: Was the monk too far from the wall due to that critical failure? If the answer is "yes", then he could not benefit from his aptitude even if he wanted to.

However, if the answer is "no, he was close enough but i still blocked that skill", then i think you nerfed your player because you wanted him to suffer due to that 1 in the dice, even if his class allowed him to land safely in a worse case scenario.

EDIT: I just read what you wrote about reach and adjacents squares...Well, i'm afraid that in this game the answer is "yup", andjacent squares means you can reach something if your reach is 5'

You should not enter in that kind of...

The first part is correct, he was not within arm's reach. Adjacent (i.e. not even the same square) does not mean arm's reach, thus he was nowhere near a wall and couldn't slow his fall.

The point of the 5ft square description was for people to visualize that even though by game rules you can attack someone in a 5ft square, it assumes that you move in and out to attack your target. Someone in a adjacent square is not per-se, within "arm's reach".

meyerwilliam wrote:
Guys, I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here. I'm pretty impressed with the lack of need for confirmation rolls for crits. A monster with a x3 or x4 weapon crits 5% of the time, regardless of pcs ac. That sounds very dangerous. Much worse than the 1 damage the monk took

Crit confirmation is a BS mechanic they made up for D&D 3.0. Anyone who played before this abomination of a rule understands that it just slows thigns down and is only there to rob players of their critical rolls in the first place.

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.


As stated I see it more for armor use than weapons, you can easily argue the weapons being nothing more than very pretty and expensive masterwork items due to the metal in question not being pure enough; the mix of metals likely being used for ingraving and fittings.

Though if you wanted, you could do separate fittings I suppose. Pommel/Guard bashing is realistically a viable option, not sure what the rules are for damage on that but that's my two cents on that specific subject.

I'm just trying to flesh things out, got curious on the subject and how best to handle it. Though odds are if I don't bring it up at some point, I'm sure another player/gm will.


toastedamphibian wrote:

... how is this still here?

Re: cartoon physics
Okay, go outside. Try and jump from the roof of one building to another, but fail. How far apart are those buildings going to need to be for you to hit the ground before the wall comes within "arms reach"

Re: reach
Game reach is 5ft. Go outside, draw two 5ft squares on your lawn. Set a brick in the center of one, on the ground, then headbutt it while standing in the center of the other.

Can't reach it? Should be easy to hit, the brick is prone.

Arms' reach is how far your arms reach, and for a normal pathfinder person, that is "anywhere in an adjacent 5ft square".

1. You prove my point here more than anything, I have a good 7-9ft long jump standing. Running I can maybe do 8-11(?) which leaves in either case a gap of 12-15ft, this is assuming I don't slip for whatever reason. If the car is parked, I may land on top of that but most cases it's being used so I'd drop 30ft down.

2. I've covered this above, so this proves you are ignorant or don't bother to read. But in any case, in your example I assume you have to lunge/step forward to reach you representation. "Arm's reach" is not the same as adjacent in english or any other language.

graystone wrote:

I could make a lot of comments here but it would just feel like dogpiling on the OP. I'll just say, critical failures for skills is a VERY, VERY bad idea in any context as it makes even SUPER SIMPLE tasks fail 5% of the time... If that happened in real life, every 20th slice of bread you bought would be mangled and every 20th time you bought gas the pump would malfunction and every 20th time you walk outside your door you'd trip and fall over your paper... Professional swimmers don't start to drown 5% of the times they try to swim...

It's worse than paralyzed or unconscious... He rolled a ONE!!!! He's lucky he didn't choke on his tongue because he forgot how to breathe when he jumped!!! :P

We've actually talked about this before in our group, the issue is people are confusing probablity with percentage.. or something like that. One of our players is a math teacher so I'm not keen on the language, but there's a difference anyhow. Thus why not everyone rolls a 1 every 20 rolls much as they don't roll a 20 every 20 rolls.

And jokes aside, yes it is worse. You can fail without rolling a 1, but a 1 is a critical failure. You don't call it a critical failure and say you just failed... it's called CONSISTANCY but more to the fact he was NOWHERE near a wall.

Cyrad wrote:


The stated interpretation of how slow fall works is also highly contentious. Professional extreme sports athletes train themselves to mitigate dangerous falls by pure instinct and reflexes, a skill that saves lives in even the most unexpected of catastrophes. I fail to see how slow fall couldn’t work the same, especially when the ability requires no action economy (unlike feather fall). I could agree with you if the monk was paralyzed or unconscious, but that’s not the case.

And yet, many professional athletes get injured or killed on said falls. I understand what you mean, it shouldn't happen because they are trained. But s~$# happens to the best of us.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Kind of sounds like you don’t particularly care for this player. Are you certain you’re not punishing him because he doesn’t bow down to your greater game knowledge?

I feel that reading comprehension is a lost skill these days. If you bothered to read you'd see it was to highlight the hypocrisy of the "GM is right mindset" he praises so highly, only to do the opposite.

He's a great player, a little shaky on his character background and his abilities for the time being but he's getting into it and figuring out what he wants to do long term.

I'm surprised this thread is still going, but mostly for the fact that people insist on telling me I'm looking for validation when I had already summarized everything and gave thanks. Or I'm somehow a dick for responding with rational answers that people don't like.


Thanks for the input, as stated I assumed I missed it. And apparently I kept skipping over that bit of text for some reason. Okay then...

So if I were to house-rule it, does the above work as a technically balanced option or what does everyone think would be a better way? RAW being the case, it's just a really pricey standard piece of armor at that point.

I mean if you can turn Boots of Elven Kind into "Elven Spider Climb Boots of Springing and Striding" what's wrong with statistically functional composite-material armors? Albeit at a pretty penny.


The rules question, was if it's covered and I just happened to miss it. As stated the closest thing I've seen is the piecemeal rules but that's not exactly the same thing.


So with metallurgy and the advancements we have today, composite metals are quite common and more often than not beneficial, though that comes into debate pending on your use and what metal in question.

This brings me on to how to handle composite armors, I'd like to say the "piecemeal armor" rules kinda give a good start but there's likely a better way.

Like for Tatami-Do, which is in real life closer to medium or heavy armor, but I digress... you could use Mithral for the chain links and Adamantine for the plates.

For something in this case as an example, I believe maybe a total of 1/3 or 1/4 weight knocked off the usual half for Mithral (IIRC). And for the adamantine treat the DR as 1 grade lower and either combine the armor penalty bonus or take the better/worse of the two. Suppose it depends on the construction in question?

With all the crazy crafting you can do in Pathfinder, it's interesting it's not really touched on.


Cyrad wrote:
I can't help but feel like you're being overly dismissive despite creating a thread that welcomed comments and criticism.

I don't see how, I've only stated my pointed of view and why. You can't expect me to be criticized/questioned about why I do something and then say I'm dismissive when I explain in a rational manner.

Claxon wrote:


1) Critical failures typically unfairly punish martial characters
2) You can only critically succeed on saves and attacks rolls, so you should only be able to critically fail on them the same.
3) If you going to use crit failure are you having them roll to confirm failure like you do on a crit success?

If not you're just setting up players to fail unfairly.

1. I've stated my reasons above.

2. This is what at least half the player base believes, yes.
3. We don't do confirmation rolls for sake of gameplay speed. I'm of the school that if it's something within your character abilities and game world's physics; if you roll a crit success, you did it.

Omnius wrote:


Pathfinder has no rules for critical fumbles beyond auto-miss on an attack or auto-fail on a save. Not only does a natural one not deny class features, a natural one on a skill check is still entirely capable of succeeding.
Natural 1's happen. They happen 5% of the time, no matter how good you are, and as more dice get thrown around, they happen more often. They are a normal, natural part of the game. They should not be "punished." They should proceed quite normally.
A hero should not fail in their area of competence because they suck. If a hero fails in their area of competence, it should be because they face a worthy obstacle or there is unfortunate circumstance preventing them from performing to their fullest; they are still a hero, and a capable individual.
What's more, the ability you denied this player was slow fall. It exists precisely for this circumstance. And it is an extremely niche ability that seldom comes up, that's almost pure flavor. It's purely, "Oops, I failed that check, but I still salvage it and look cool." You took away the ability to fail heroically, and turned it into, "You failed like a buffoon at this thing you are supposedly good at because you suck."
Fumbles based on a d20 roll are a Bad Idea.

.

I addressed my stance and the groups stance on the inability to fail on a 1 for skill checks above; short version is, it's not a big deal if you are heavy combat focused.

It may not deny a class feature, but if you aren't in the correct situation for something to work then it doesn't work, right? Can't drive a car w/o gas much as the monk was not in arm's reach of a "wall".

Slow Fall (via the monk ability) is more something you do intentionally; while your party takes the stairs you slide down the wall/heavy curtains etc. As stated, would he have fallen straight down I'd have allowed it.


Luckily, there's been no Three Stooges moments and to my knowledge nobody has any wishes to pursue it.

@toastdamphibian, I don't know where you got the idea from. He failed his jump and therefore didn't make it, thus he fell, pretty simple. No cartoon physics involved/needed.

Who said anything about it being more fair? Everyone keeps pulling out arguments that everyone is a super hero or uses the argument that professionals don't fail in the world.

Nobody said anything about "fair" I said (if anything) that it was more feasible than the basic "no fail" mechanic. I'm also going to assume you didn't bother to read because I covered the specific reason why I believe the no-failure rules to be inadequate. Short version is it means the tension/drama/doubt is gone when players can pass all checks w/o any worry of failure.

@The Raven Black, he was told. He just had a diferent idea of what arm's reach was. We discussed it, as stated only people here seem to be really hurt by what happend to him.

Far as your last comment, I'm not sure if you're trying to be cheeky or a douche. Lack of tone missing when reading and all.


I accept your right to call other game mechanics "bad", good sir. =D

It depends on wo you talk to when you bring up realism, but the fact it's also a fantasy game makes that word fuzzy; for example, is it realistic for someone to stub their toe and break it 3-4x a month? For you and myself, probably not. But I know someone who actually does run into door knobs and breaks their toe as above, just as often.

Now, this is an extreme use of having someone roll (I assume Dex/Ref), but it stands to reason that someone f+&*ing up, again and again is quite realistic. Many heroic characters that players are trying to create are often modeled after epics of one culture or another. The common theme however, was that these heroes were more often than not mortal men who were just skilled far above those in their region/time.

I was quite clear, there's never been any confusion on the matter. I believe what it comes down to is he determines adjacent squares to be "arm's reach". As stated above, an average humanoids arms typically are only about 3ft.

That's exactly how it works visually, he however did not choose to slide but perform a long jump that he failed where laughs were to be had. Interestingly enough, that puts him in the center of the room (w/o anything to grab), which is what I ruled.


So in such a case, the debate is what situations would prevent an immediate action, for casting Feather Fall or using an enchanted item. Odds are the mage would've eaten it in the same scenario then, though making the mage jump is a dick move.

He didn't lose the ability, he was just out of reach. My ruling on it that, again, comes down to their choice words; Adjacent (not same as nearby) vs Arm's reach. We've always ran it like that I believe, though I don't remember 100% how it worked in AD&D.

Using the 5ft squares/2m hexes that D&D/PF uses for their combat grid. If you study any kind of martial arts, then you know that your entire body is often used, usually stepping forward. This is why a guy with a dagger can stab a guy who possesses a superior reach weapon such as a short spear or sword w/o closing the 5ft/2m distance.


Reading over the actual ability again, it even states;
"a monk within arm’s reach of a wall can use it to slow his descent."

So I'm not sure what all the hub-bub is about anyway.

edit: Thanks to everyone though for your input, I like to get a feel for other players and GM thoughts every now & then. Snark aside, the replies were reasonable (i.e. what works for some doesn't for others).


#4. Pending on when you ask over the years, our games are/were anywhere from one to three days at 4-16 hour sessions every week or every other week; this goes more so for our school years when nobody worked. That being said, last year alone I've rolled maybe 10-20 crit failures. That's about 60-100 rolls per session, not counting my rolls as NPCs.

It's an ongoing joke that I should NEVER-EVER be allowed to roll anything, character or NPC wise because my rolls are stupid And This is coming from my table group.

#5. And care to guess what happens when you "fall" from a mount? I'll give you a minute to absorb that. Flailing about at something out of arms reach is not the same as breathing.

Or better yet, go outside. Put out a 2x4 straight up about 6-7ft outside of arms reach and 6-7ft away from the wall. Imagine you jumped out 6-7ft away from the wall. Now fall face first and try to reach for the top of said 2x4, it's not going to happen unless you're Dhalsim from Street Fighter. Monks very well can't fly and change direction mid-air last I checked.

I agree, if he just slipped and "rolled" down the side, sure. But he attempted a long jump and botched it. The group as a whole had a laugh, since as I said above the damage was negligable (a whopping 1!) after DR (we use the DR variant rules, he had the bonus from cleric spell).

#3. I've adressed all subjects at hand, I got accussed of not listening because someone made an assumption about what I said about not having anyissues; instead of reading the comment, they chose to be snarky.

The "bashing" as you put it was pointing out the hypocrisy of agreeing that the GM's rule is law and how the rules themselves are guidelines but then try to rules lawyer me.

I'll continue to answer despite your passive aggressive behavior. I have them roll Spellcraft for the required checks, spells have other mechanics such as limited uses and save throws. If it's a skill check or attack roll, failure is an option.
_________________________
@Java Man, we don't do confirmation rolls it just slows everything down and is a b$~!#$*% mechanic anyways that they introduced in 3.0 D&D.
_________________________

Jeraa and Trinity got upset at my comment relating to video games and instant gratification, I can only assume, because that's when everyone started getting touchy.

Could also be because, somehow people are relating Feather Fall to Slow-Fall as equals. Despite the keywords in them both, one requiring a "FALL" and the other requiring a wall-like surface. There should honestly be no debate here.

As for the topic in general, I never asked for anyone to agree with me. I asked what people's thoughts and opionions were. To which, it amounted that; if the group was told about it before play and they were okay with it, "rules-are-rules".


The not failing is implied at a certain point, I was typing a rather wordy explanation and comparison to get the point across but the short version of it is, simply using climb; if you have a total modifier of +15, all you need is rope and you can climb anything. And that's by lvl 7 I believe.

#4. It's not that simple though, not everyone rolls this same 1/20 chance. We all have those friends who have notoriously bad rolls at the best/worst of times. People like myself who roll 2-3 crits back to back and people who fall between the median. You can't tell me in the example give though, that both fighters stand the same chance of hitting an AC 15 target. More so when you consider the above mentioned factors; I've seen it with both table dice and dice rolling programs.

#5. But it's not when you consider the wording of each used, apples to oranges and tomatoes. Feather Fall as stated is an insurance, so long as it's duration is up you can get knocked off of your flying mount from death defying heights and live.

Where as Slow-Fall specifically states you have to be able to grab something to slow yourself down. This is like comparing bow combat to firearms. Each are ranged weapons, but they function differently. Just as both Slow-Fall and Feather Fall indeed slow you down, one needs something to slow yourself down with.

#3. I wasn't speaking for myself, but my group as a whole. You're comment here just makes me think you had no intention of waiting for a reply anyway. But from everything I've read over the years it's split pretty evenly down the middle. However, everyone I have played with prefers the risk of failure with exception of this new guy.

edit: rather, he was fine with it. But only took issue with it when it affected an ability that doesn't require a roll in itself. But he happened to fail his acrobatics check with a natural 1 falling away from anything out of reach.


I think I can answer all at once;

1. They were told of every possibility that could happen, it's nothing new to the group as a whole, but is to this player in question.

2. I ruled it as, since he crit failed that he was away from the wall (being mid jump) lost a chance of saving himself. As it would happen for every other character in question.

3. In the 22+ years I've been gming and 26+ years I've been playing; there has been little to no issue with critical success/failure mechanics.

4. I've always found the "well [insert professional here] doesn't fail" argument, because it's farthest from the truth. Many tight roe/trapeze artist have fallen to their deaths. Just as many a fireman has sadly died in a fire... in short, s#%# happens to the best of us.

If you consider that for example, a fighter has an attack modifier +10 vs a fighter of lower stat value (we'll say an attack of +5); their chances of success/failure is not statistically the same being that the +10 will hit more often with lower average rolls.

5. Comparing Feather Fall to Slow-Fall is a big, no-no. One can be used to leap off a dragon or what have you mid-flight. Doing so with Slow-Fall will likely still kill you. That's my two cents anyway. Feather Fall is more like insurance where as Slow-Fall is you actively trying to do something.

6. Since I believe I answered everything I'll address the last bit here. A game of chance without chance of failure is not entertaining by any means.

That being said, he's one of those players who recently started roleplaying (like 1-2 years) but is an avid supporter of 5th D&D. When you get him to talk about it, his claim of support amounts to how simple it is and how the GM can run the game how he wants with the majority of rules being optional...(see where I'm going?)

I've been talking to him and he thinks everything that 5th Edition has done is new, but almost denies it when I show him that most referenced material goes back to 1st-3.5 D&D. The most recent example being our discussion on Flanking. Everyone knows how it works, but he insisted that it had been worked to function simply by being adjacent to allies.

There's nothing arbitrary/nonsense about the chance of failure as stated above.

If you want to succeed at every turn? Play a video game is my reply, because they hold your hand and give you a reset button.


So, I've always been one to punish critical failures to varying degrees pending on the action involved much like critical successes. Not sure what the stance is with people here, but I've heard people gripe about how punishing for critical failures can "kill their mood".

So the drop is sufficiently safe enough for the Monk to normally slow-fall without harm. He however rolled a critical failure on his acrobatics check on an attempted 20ft leap across a room.

I ruled that, based soley on the fact he got a critical failure, his monkly grace could not save him at that time. The damage was negligable, but he insisted that he should benefit from it anyways.

Thoughts and opinions?


Thanks for the input, as figured it should technically be no problem. And glad to hear others have had success outside the one linked post; They just have to accept the above mentioned "issues" of their station as it were.


So the King will without question remain inside the Kingdom's capital far as residence. The question however comes down to everyone else, but in particular the Marshal player's character.

They essentially want to be the Ruler of another town or fort many hexes away, or simply just live there for security reasons (undecided) but wants to remain the Marshal of the Kingdom. By the rules I don't believe that is feasible but there's not much on the subject that technically doesn't say she can't with exception of the multiple roles limit. But as has been talked about, if the group is fine with it...

I have been debating on how to run it mechanically for some time, and it comes down to the below which I expect many will tell me;

#1. She becomes a baron which allows her to grow her own army and make the big decisions herself but losing the Marshal role of the Kingdom as stated/limited by the rules.

#2. She maintains Marshal of the Kingdom, somehow maintaining communication in a reasonable manner (likely shell of sending)while being able to simply live outside the capital thus allowing her to do her Marshal duties and watch over the town. This one sounds legit, but only because of the Shell of sending idea of been playing with.

edit: would like to add I am searching for my answers, just a bit to go through. So any helpful information is appreciated.

#3 I may simply be missing something in the leadership roles or general kingdom rules. For example, baron may not be the correct title in that I don't want them to expand, but the person in question wans to just manage that hex on their own and make those decisions while still being Marshal and living there.

edit #2: I found this link which basically covers the subject, but I'll continue digging. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kqso?Feudalism-using-the-Kingmaker-rules#1

First time poster, so nice to meet you guys.