|
I am constantly advocating for a penalty of SOME SORT to be imposed on a character for a critical failure. It creates agency because people won't just spend all their time in static combat swinging for the fences even if they know they cannot hit. They may move for a flank, they may ready a shield, use the bo staff parry option or take feats/weapons to mitigate or nullify these chances of failure. But the chance of failure has to EXIST for these choices to matter. The fact that these choices do matter creates AGENCY.I'd rather have those secondary options stand on their own as useful options than punish/make worse attacking. IMO, the fact that you wasted an action missing is more than enough to punish someone that rolls a crit fail: it's weighing the odds of hitting vs other actions you can take.
Secondly, it throws a wrench into various tactics. For instance, you have a pile of low level npc's on a wall to fire arrows at a monster, army, pc's ect. In the past, even if they needed a 20, they could provide a viable threat with enough attacks. With fumbles, they's all end up tossing their weapons at the enemy before they could do anything useful... :P
So IMO, it's actually a loss of agency by removing the option to "swing for the fences", not because it's tactical or what they want to do but because you'll punish them for it.
1) Making useless attacks is not a true option. Its crit fishing and that is a waste of time. Might as well just give you two actions a turn then. The critical failure needs to be a reminder of what happens when you press your luck.
2) How does this throw the wrench into tactics any less than your high level character dodging dragon's breath attacks for no damage? Fights are hardly ever to the death in mass combats. I could easily see lesser troops panicking and running from a threat they perceive they cannot overcome. Routs happens all the time. A tactical withdrawal is keeping unit cohesion when retreating from the battlefield instead of every man for himself like in a rout.
|
|
I do think one of the critical weaknesses of Pathfinder (the current edition) is that standing still and swinging a weapon (or even 2) is too good of an option, and makes for very static and less interesting combats. I am glad that the full round attack went away and I hopeful that tactically sound options open up with feats that generally make taking a third attack at -10 a bad idea for most characters that are not specifically training to maximize the effectiveness of getting three attacks a turn. We have no idea how many creatures will have reactions that trigger off of critical misses and if they are common enough that people will need to think twice about attacking when the odds are against them.
I don't believe that mandatory critical fumbles are necessary, but I do hope that space is given in some kind of Dungeon Master's Guide (either as part of the core rulebook or a early supplement), that encourages different house rules for creating tone and shaking up pacing. Well crafted critical fumble rules have often created the difference between a gritty campaign and a super heroic one, and I hope that gets support.
I could not agree more. Critical failures need to either be apart of every aspect of PF2 or they need to be removed from the system. I am happy with either or but please no half measures
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't there going to be a ton of checks in the game for which there is no listed critical success/critical fail rolls (and thus it true that there are no additional effects concerned with that mechanic)? I am almost certain that is going to be the case and I am almost certain the developers have said as much in one of these blogs.
I will say that I am in favor of certain enemies having reactions that can punish critical failure but I don't think that those mechanics should be so ubiquitous that making three attacks is never a good idea (or extremely rarely a good idea). I think the mere threat that an action might be "wasted" on a miss is plenty incentive enough to substitute your iterative attack actions for other things like movement, item use, spellcasting, and blocking.
I assume all these points have been brought up before, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Critical failures for everyone only works when everyone is equal, and if SR is your primary argument then you need more system mastery.
You can't take 4 core fighters through an AP without GM coddling. You can take 4 full casters through most AP's, if any at all, without GM coddling. Therefore casters and materials are not equal, and I doubt they'll be equal in 3.5 either. The lowest martials that can make it are those with magic.
However monster NPC's scale very poorly with the exception of Dragons or NPC characters decked out in martial gear (aka npc fighters, blackguards, clerics, etc.) Since attack bonuses have traditionally scaled for martial characters faster than defenses have I do not see that disparity as a real threat. For untrained characters (wizards & their subclasses) it may indeed be a problem but if you are a wizard swinging a sword in melee combat at high levels I think you have more to worry about than a chance of a critical fumble.
We don't know the scaling for the new game: monsters may scale well in it. As to wizards, they should be able to attack with their own special attacks without always worrying about fumbling.
1) Making useless attacks is not a true option. Its crit fishing and that is a waste of time. Might as well just give you two actions a turn then. The critical failure needs to be a reminder of what happens when you press your luck.
This isn't even remotely true. A 20 is a hit NOT a crit, so there isn't any 'fishing' involved unless you're 'fishing' for a HIT.
Secondly, I'm unsure WHY you want to punish someone for making an attack that's unlikely to hit: why SHOULD pushing your luck inflict fumbles? Why isn't missing enough 'punishment'?
2) How does this throw the wrench into tactics any less than your high level character dodging dragon's breath attacks for no damage?
You 10000000% missed the point. There are times when you want a large number of lesser creatures to be some kind of threat to higher level creatures. I can't see where your example have ANY bearing on that at all.
Fights are hardly ever to the death in mass combats.
But with your fumble idea they go away completely. Mass combat would be MORE deadly to friendly troops than enemies. It's safer to hide and hope the enemy gets bored and leaves than attack a higher AC foe and KNOW your going to randomly toss away weapons and target friendly soldiers.
I could easily see lesser troops panicking and running from a threat they perceive they cannot overcome.
They SURE will with fumbles: they are more likely to hit themselves than the threat.
Routs happens all the time.
I clearly wasn't talking about a situation where that made any sense. "you have a pile of low level npc's on a wall to fire arrows". This is especially true of a target without a ranged attack. A big dire animal with a high AC that can't directly attack someone on a wall somehow has a fumble field that causes EVERYONE to make mistakes they don't do when attacking a more dangerous enemy, like one with ranged attacks that just happens to have a lower AC...
i think they could fix this by adopting a limit on bonus scaling akin to what D&D 5e offers. However 5e balances Dexterity builds by limiting melee options and weapon restricting certain classes to prevent the hoard of dual wielders.
No.
you don't need attack penalties on additional attacks if you limit how high those bonuses scale relative to target numbers. which makes low level mooks a threat. because less difference between a low level attack bonus and a high level armor class.
They SURE will with fumbles: they are more likely to hit themselves than the threat.
I do not think that PF2 has to have always have 4 degrees of success for melee combatants, in order to be a fun game, or that other things shouldn't have four degrees of success, but I do think that this is an unfair assumption, since I don't see Talek&Luna arguing for the kind of fumbles that would lead large troops to cease firing. If the critical miss mechanic was a -2 to your next shot, the archers on the wall, might not take that next shot while they readjust their quiver or whatever, but they might, and they would certainly take the shot after it.
Some version of a critical fumble doesn't mean that critical fumbles will be brutally horrible enough to make no one risk them.
Until we see more of the mechanic in play, I don't know that anyone needs to be of the always or never camp. It seems highly likely that many non-combat rolls will have a trivial difference between a critical failure and regular failure, or even a critical success and a regular success. It also seems like there could be enough combats that risk more on a critical failure that a non-martial character might want to think twice about risking an attack with a low chance of hitting.
I do think that this is an unfair assumption, since I don't see Talek&Luna arguing for the kind of fumbles that would lead large troops to cease firing.
I don't see how it's unfair as he's arguing for an undefined fumble system: if he thinks I'm unfairly stating what he's suggesting, the thing to do would be actually define his system. Until then, ANY fumble system can be used as a comparison...
If the critical miss mechanic was a -2 to your next shot, the archers on the wall, might not take that next shot while they readjust their quiver or whatever, but they might, and they would certainly take the shot after it.
The thing is, it wouldn't alter the actions AT ALL. If you only hit on a 20, a -2 is 100% meaningless: it's a miss with a meaningless -2 attached to it. That doesn't track with Talek&Luna's idea that a fumble MUST punish the person getting one.
Some version of a critical fumble doesn't mean that critical fumbles will be brutally horrible enough to make no one risk them.
But his stated goal is just that. He wants it so people don't 'swing for the fences' and instead do other things: that doesn't happen if it's not horribly punitive...
Until we see more of the mechanic in play, I don't know that anyone needs to be of the always or never camp.
Myself, I NEED to be in the no fumble camp.
It seems highly likely that many non-combat rolls will have a trivial difference between a critical failure and regular failure, or even a critical success and a regular success.
I think it'll be fairly common for things to not have a crit fail/success. I even pointed out the quote that said they aren't required. Some people seem to want to shoehorn them into everything though.
It also seems like there could be enough combats that risk more on a critical failure that a non-martial character might want to think twice about risking an attack with a low chance of hitting.
IMO, the only risk should be losing the action on a miss and/or having a creature skilled enough to have reaction triggered by the failure.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Critical fumbles as a constant possibility on melee attacks drastically reduces the design space for crit-fail reactions on monsters. I'm much more interested in varied, flavorful, even deadly abilities on monsters. Force players to rethink their strategies and evaluate risks when they fight this one crazy monster (or that one).
A constant chance to fumble on a crit-fail only serves to limit the possibilities for those encounters. The risk-averse won't ever chance their third attacks, and even risk-takers will exhaust other options before considering third attacks. Power Attack once again becomes a nigh-universal feat choice.
I don't see an upside to this suggestion.
Critical fumbles as a constant possibility on melee attacks drastically reduces the design space for crit-fail reactions on monsters. I'm much more interested in varied, flavorful, even deadly abilities on monsters. Force players to rethink their strategies and evaluate risks when they fight this one crazy monster (or that one).
It is very clear that a lot of people agree with you and don't want to think about critical fumbles on attack rolls. I fully support that being the case, but I also enjoy being able to tone down pathfinder from its tendencies towards the super-heroic for some campaigns, and the critical failure mechanic has often been a good place to do that. It seems to me like the proposed model will allow for optional critical fumble rules (much as the existing pathfinder system does) without necessitating them.
That said, I don't think it really takes away from design space, if the critical fumble rule is nuanced and carefully applied. I have made a suggestion previously that I feel like demonstrates this, and I don't think it is the only one, but I do recognize that a lot of games have a tendency for overdoing critical failures and making players skeptical of the entire mechanic. That is understandable, but it is also possible that a carefully applied critical fumble mechanic can add a strategic element to the game in a similarly satisfying manner as the four degrees of success have opened up for other parts of the game.
I few ideas here;
How about making responses to critical misses a class feat: When an enemy critically misses you, you may take a guarded step (rogue). When an enemy critically misses you in melee, you may make a shield bash against that target (fighter). If you critical miss a salamander, yoe suffer the salamander burn damage.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I few ideas here;
How about making responses to critical misses a class feat: When an enemy critically misses you, you may take a guarded step (rogue). When an enemy critically misses you in melee, you may make a shield bash against that target (fighter). If you critical miss a salamander, yoe suffer the salamander burn damage.
Good news! This is already a thing in the rules. It isn't universal, mind you, but it's a thing.
Therefore there is no need to add it. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When someone succeeds at a saving throw (ie, the spell misses), they still take some negative effect. When someone critically succeeds at a saving throw (ie, the spell critically misses), they are completely unaffected.
When someone misses an attack, they deal no damage. This is the same as the critical success for a saving throw against a spell.
If you want the 4 tier effect for attacks to be equal to spells, surely you should be asking for either critical success saving throws to hurt the caster, or attack misses to still deal some damage.
I assume they aren't equal because spells consume resources, while attacks do not. Also, spells generally have a greater overall effect than an attack does. This makes me wonder what the critical success/failure for cantrip saving throws will be like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When someone succeeds at a saving throw (ie, the spell misses), they still take some negative effect. When someone critically succeeds at a saving throw (ie, the spell critically misses), they are completely unaffected.
When someone misses an attack, they deal no damage. This is the same as the critical success for a saving throw against a spell.
If you want the 4 tier effect for attacks to be equal to spells, surely you should be asking for either critical success saving throws to hurt the caster, or attack misses to still deal some damage.
I assume they aren't equal because spells consume resources, while attacks do not. Also, spells generally have a greater overall effect than an attack does. This makes me wonder what the critical success/failure for cantrip saving throws will be like.
I literally brought this up earlier in thread and it was basically handwaved off.
Varied reactions to critical failures on attacks and critical successes on saves sounds like a far far superior system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Critical fumbles as a constant possibility on melee attacks drastically reduces the design space for crit-fail reactions on monsters. I'm much more interested in varied, flavorful, even deadly abilities on monsters. Force players to rethink their strategies and evaluate risks when they fight this one crazy monster (or that one).It is very clear that a lot of people agree with you and don't want to think about critical fumbles on attack rolls. I fully support that being the case, but I also enjoy being able to tone down pathfinder from its tendencies towards the super-heroic for some campaigns, and the critical failure mechanic has often been a good place to do that. It seems to me like the proposed model will allow for optional critical fumble rules (much as the existing pathfinder system does) without necessitating them.
By all means, fumbles as an option have existed before and can exist in the new game. For the baseline, crit-failures should trigger reactions on certain monsters, not have a universal penalty or fumble mechanic.
That said, I don't think it really takes away from design space, if the critical fumble rule is nuanced and carefully applied. I have made a suggestion previously that I feel like demonstrates this, and I don't think it is the only one, but I do recognize that a lot of games have a tendency for overdoing critical failures and making players skeptical of the entire mechanic. That is understandable, but it is also possible that a carefully applied critical fumble mechanic can add a strategic element to the game in a similarly satisfying manner as the four degrees of success have opened up for other parts of the game.
It's about changing mindsets. If everyone is already trying to avoid crit-fails, there isn't much point in designing a monster with nasty crit-fail reactions. A group's tactics will change very little fighting that monster.
And because the human mind has a preference for loss aversion, if fumbles are a thing, most players will already be trying to avoid crit-fails. That's a reduction in design space.I don't believe such a perfect system can exist. People perceive losses as significantly greater than equivalent gains. In order to have a penalty small enough so as not to constrict player mentality rather than open up strategic decision-making, it would have close to zero actual mechanical impact. It's hard to strike that balance between math and psychology, and I just don't see a fumble system that has both mechanical balance and perceived balance existing in a game as complex as Pathfinder. I don't see the point of having one without the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A critical fumble baked into the rules will also absolutely move power attack back into the "must have" position over multiple attacks. Why use an attack thats incredibly likely to fumble when you can just frontload a little extra damage?
A critical fumble baked into the rules will also absolutely move power attack back into the "must have" position over multiple attacks. Why use an attack thats incredibly likely to fumble when you can just frontload a little extra damage?
Yep... Instead of swing, swing, swing you get power attack, raise shield... I fail to see the progress: you end up with one set of actions the 'default' set of actions.
|
No.you don't need attack penalties on additional attacks if you limit how high those bonuses scale relative to target numbers. which makes low level mooks a threat. because less difference between a low level attack bonus and a high level armor class.
Though I also am not a fan of what you were proposing, my response was actually to the OP's suggestion of making fumbles a core part of the game for attack rolls.
|
|
Aren't there going to be a ton of checks in the game for which there is no listed critical success/critical fail rolls (and thus it true that there are no additional effects concerned with that mechanic)? I am almost certain that is going to be the case and I am almost certain the developers have said as much in one of these blogs.
I will say that I am in favor of certain enemies having reactions that can punish critical failure but I don't think that those mechanics should be so ubiquitous that making three attacks is never a good idea (or extremely rarely a good idea). I think the mere threat that an action might be "wasted" on a miss is plenty incentive enough to substitute your iterative attack actions for other things like movement, item use, spellcasting, and blocking.
I assume all these points have been brought up before, though.
Do you seriously think that the penalty for making multiple attacks will be this high that the third attack will always generate a high chance of a fumble if these rules are adopted? Do you not think that feats in two weapon fighting tree, spell buffs, skill feat buffs, magical item buffs won't have a significant impact on making the third attack a valid option?
|
|
Critical failures for everyone only works when everyone is equal, and if SR is your primary argument then you need more system mastery.
You can't take 4 core fighters through an AP without GM coddling. You can take 4 full casters through most AP's, if any at all, without GM coddling. Therefore casters and materials are not equal, and I doubt they'll be equal in 3.5 either. The lowest martials that can make it are those with magic.
Everyone is equal when making an attack roll. Actually, on a historical note for this type of game the attack rolls are heavily slanted in favor of martials as their stats, basic attack matrix, weapons and buffs heavily negate the chance of a critical failure. This is no where near the case for a caster. Casters have a much greater disadvantage to making attack rolls in combat compared to martials and they definitely should have that disadvantage
|
|
I few ideas here;
How about making responses to critical misses a class feat: When an enemy critically misses you, you may take a guarded step (rogue). When an enemy critically misses you in melee, you may make a shield bash against that target (fighter). If you critical miss a salamander, yoe suffer the salamander burn damage.
Those are some good ideas
Do you seriously think that the penalty for making multiple attacks will be this high that the third attack will always generate a high chance of a fumble if these rules are adopted?
Yes... it's -10 on the third attack and if you miss by ten you'd fumble: so if you hit on a 7 with your first attack, on your 3rd a 1-6 is a fumble...
Do you not think that feats in two weapon fighting tree, spell buffs, skill feat buffs, magical item buffs won't have a significant impact on making the third attack a valid option?
If it is TRULY only a once in a blue moon event, a fumble chart isn't worth the effort. If it happens enough that a fumble chart IS worth making, people will power attack and raise shield to avoid it so it then because not worth the effort again... :P
Casters have a much greater disadvantage to making attack rolls in combat compared to martials and they definitely should have that disadvantage
Casters generally target touch AC and that is as much of an advantage to negate the 'general' disadvantage. This is especially true of spells that allow their main stat to be used in the attack roll.
Aren't there going to be a ton of checks in the game for which there is no listed critical success/critical fail rolls (and thus it true that there are no additional effects concerned with that mechanic)? I am almost certain that is going to be the case and I am almost certain the developers have said as much in one of these blogs.
I will say that I am in favor of certain enemies having reactions that can punish critical failure but I don't think that those mechanics should be so ubiquitous that making three attacks is never a good idea (or extremely rarely a good idea). I think the mere threat that an action might be "wasted" on a miss is plenty incentive enough to substitute your iterative attack actions for other things like movement, item use, spellcasting, and blocking.
I assume all these points have been brought up before, though.
Do you seriously think that the penalty for making multiple attacks will be this high that the third attack will always generate a high chance of a fumble if these rules are adopted? Do you not think that feats in two weapon fighting tree, spell buffs, skill feat buffs, magical item buffs won't have a significant impact on making the third attack a valid option?
If the math is balanced well then yes it will, especially for characters that are not doing martial combat as their main build priority. Though I will admit that the severity of the critical failure penalty will matter a lot for my assertion as will the generally AC of enemies in play of course.
|
|
A critical fumble baked into the rules will also absolutely move power attack back into the "must have" position over multiple attacks. Why use an attack thats incredibly likely to fumble when you can just frontload a little extra damage?
1)Because you take two weapon feats that mitigate the likelihood of a miss when making multiple attacks. They already exist in pathfinder 1. No reason to think that they won't make an appearance in PF2.
2) Also you benefit slightly more by making multiple attacks with a magic weapon than you do with using the magical weapon and power attack. See below examples.
Example 2 a - Damage on a +1 great sword & power attack is 3D12+5
2 b - Damage on two attack with a +1 great sword is 4D12+10
2 c - Damage on a +2 great sword & power attack is 4D12+5
2 d - Damage on two attack great sword is 6D12+10
Its a big difference. The only way you catch up with power attack is if you crit. If you are facing a foe with a higher armor class you still might make that weak swing regardless of whether a critical failure system is in place because your damage is much better and you won't critical a high armor class foe unless you roll a natural 20. Power attack only really seems to be useful if either your 2nd & 3rd attacks are likely to miss or you are facing mooks that you know you can easily crit.
|
|
If the math is balanced well then yes it will, especially for characters that are not doing martial combat as their main build priority. Though I will admit that the severity of the critical failure penalty will matter a lot for my assertion as will the generally AC of enemies in play of course.Aren't there going to be a ton of checks in the game for which there is no listed critical success/critical fail rolls (and thus it true that there are no additional effects concerned with that mechanic)? I am almost certain that is going to be the case and I am almost certain the developers have said as much in one of these blogs.
I will say that I am in favor of certain enemies having reactions that can punish critical failure but I don't think that those mechanics should be so ubiquitous that making three attacks is never a good idea (or extremely rarely a good idea). I think the mere threat that an action might be "wasted" on a miss is plenty incentive enough to substitute your iterative attack actions for other things like movement, item use, spellcasting, and blocking.
I assume all these points have been brought up before, though.
Do you seriously think that the penalty for making multiple attacks will be this high that the third attack will always generate a high chance of a fumble if these rules are adopted? Do you not think that feats in two weapon fighting tree, spell buffs, skill feat buffs, magical item buffs won't have a significant impact on making the third attack a valid option?
I believe you are wrong. My theory is that I look at the bestiary. With the exceptions of monsters aping humans (orcs, goblins, hobgoblins,etc) most monster AC is pretty poor compared to a PC of relevant level. See my earlier posts on the subjet above. Thumb through the bestiary and you will find it highly unlikely that you will fumble even on your weakest attack against most low level monsters. A minotaur is AC14. Even on a -10 to hit you cannot fumble unless you roll a natural 1 unless you have no strength bonus and no attack bonus and the minotaur is a CR4! Unless you are a wizard/sorcerer in meeele you cannot fumble according to the Critical failure guidelines given in the playtest
|
|
Do you seriously think that the penalty for making multiple attacks will be this high that the third attack will always generate a high chance of a fumble if these rules are adopted?Yes... it's -10 on the third attack and if you miss by ten you'd fumble: so if you hit on a 7 with your first attack, on your 3rd a 1-6 is a fumble...
Do you not think that feats in two weapon fighting tree, spell buffs, skill feat buffs, magical item buffs won't have a significant impact on making the third attack a valid option?If it is TRULY only a once in a blue moon event, a fumble chart isn't worth the effort. If it happens enough that a fumble chart IS worth making, people will power attack and raise shield to avoid it so it then because not worth the effort again... :P
No, there will be a choice and I am sure that there will be build options to make the weaker attacks viable. Martials get the most levers (with possible exception of monk) to make attacks a non-issue. Weapon focus, attack bonus, magic weapons, buff spells, aid another actions.
Seriously, as a 1-3rd level fighter you are not Batman. Just like a 1-3rd level mage is not Merlin
|
|
Casters have a much greater disadvantage to making attack rolls in combat compared to martials and they definitely should have that disadvantageCasters generally target touch AC and that is as much of an advantage to negate the 'general' disadvantage. This is especially true of spells that allow their main stat to be used in the attack roll.
Its balanced out by the poor attack bonus and lack of feats supporting ranged combat. I treat spells as firing into melee (-4). In order to negate that you need point blank shot then precise shot. Also it doesn't hurt to have weapon focus ray either. I have never seen a caster invest 3 feats to make that work. So casters are balanced out on touch AC for most creatures unless they have a ridiculously poor touch AC. Dragons are one that does come to mind which is funny because dragons have great reflex saves
|
|
I want flurry of scimitar attacks to be just as viable a combat style as two-handed power attack. Any constant crit-fumble chance heavily devalues multiple-attack styles relative to Power Attack, ready shield.
And I am sure that if you invest your feats into that it will be the equal of power attack, ready shield. Now if I have little or no feats invested in it I should be a joke, which is something I am fine with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe you are wrong. My theory is that I look at the bestiary. With the exceptions of monsters aping humans (orcs, goblins, hobgoblins,etc) most monster AC is pretty poor compared to a PC of relevant level. See my earlier posts on the subjet above. Thumb through the bestiary and you will find it highly unlikely that you will fumble even on your weakest attack against most low level monsters. A minotaur...If the math is balanced well then yes it will, especially for characters that are not doing martial combat as their main build priority. Though I will admit that the severity of the critical failure penalty will matter a lot for my assertion as will the generally AC of enemies in play of course.Aren't there going to be a ton of checks in the game for which there is no listed critical success/critical fail rolls (and thus it true that there are no additional effects concerned with that mechanic)? I am almost certain that is going to be the case and I am almost certain the developers have said as much in one of these blogs.
I will say that I am in favor of certain enemies having reactions that can punish critical failure but I don't think that those mechanics should be so ubiquitous that making three attacks is never a good idea (or extremely rarely a good idea). I think the mere threat that an action might be "wasted" on a miss is plenty incentive enough to substitute your iterative attack actions for other things like movement, item use, spellcasting, and blocking.
I assume all these points have been brought up before, though.
Do you seriously think that the penalty for making multiple attacks will be this high that the third attack will always generate a high chance of a fumble if these rules are adopted? Do you not think that feats in two weapon fighting tree, spell buffs, skill feat buffs, magical item buffs won't have a significant impact on making the third attack a valid option?
First of all, a 2E level 4 fighter probably has a total attack modifier of like 10 or 11 (4 from level, 2 from proficiency, +1/+2 from weapon quality, and then like 3 or 4 from your base strength). 2E has a way tighter leash on character accuracy. As such, a fighter could absolutely crit fail their third iterative attack. Edit: I should also note that the game is cracking down on stacking buffs in general.
Furthermore, why would you assume that the minotaur would have the same AC in 2E? 1E is a game that is designed around a completely different set of expectations compared to 2E. Monsters are not going to be designed the same way. In 3.5, monsters were pretty much designed with loose guidelines and then CRs were assigned later via a combination of hand waving and play testing.
I think it is far more likely that the AC of monsters will be roughly 12+CR plus or minus 2 depending on how much health that creature has and what kind of abilities it has otherwise (with discrepancies in AC maybe getting wider at higher levels). This is going to be closer to what you see in something like the Starfinder Bestiary (and that is a game is generally assuming a lower bonus to hit).
|
|
When someone succeeds at a saving throw (ie, the spell misses), they still take some negative effect. When someone critically succeeds at a saving throw (ie, the spell critically misses), they are completely unaffected.
When someone misses an attack, they deal no damage. This is the same as the critical success for a saving throw against a spell.
If you want the 4 tier effect for attacks to be equal to spells, surely you should be asking for either critical success saving throws to hurt the caster, or attack misses to still deal some damage.
I assume they aren't equal because spells consume resources, while attacks do not. Also, spells generally have a greater overall effect than an attack does. This makes me wonder what the critical success/failure for cantrip saving throws will be like.
That is completely untrue. Once again here is how the charts read
Spell save critically made - No damage
Spell save made - half damage
Spell save failed - full damage
Spell save critically failed - double damage
Attack roll critically made - double damage
Attack roll made - damage
attack roll failed - no damage
attack roll critically failed - no damage
For spells there is a extra success or failure based on dice rolls. For martial attacks there is no extra failure. If spells mimicked attack rolls the chart would be as follows
Spell save critical success - 1/2 damage
Spell save success - 1/2 damage
Spell save failed - Full damage
Spell save critically failed - double damage
The matrix for martials is no effect, no effect, effect, critical effect. If casters were following the same matrix they would have the effect of the spell follow the same matrix based upon the spell results as martials were a critical save success and a normal save success are exactly the same thing since a critical failure and a regular failure for a martial attack net the same results under the current rules.
|
|
...I believe you are wrong. My theory is that I look at the bestiary. With the exceptions of monsters aping humans (orcs, goblins, hobgoblins,etc) most monster AC is pretty poor compared to a PC of relevant level. See my earlier posts on the subjet above. Thumb through the bestiary and you will find it highly unlikely that you will fumble even on your weakest attack against mostIf the math is balanced well then yes it will, especially for characters that are not doing martial combat as their main build priority. Though I will admit that the severity of the critical failure penalty will matter a lot for my assertion as will the generally AC of enemies in play of course.Aren't there going to be a ton of checks in the game for which there is no listed critical success/critical fail rolls (and thus it true that there are no additional effects concerned with that mechanic)? I am almost certain that is going to be the case and I am almost certain the developers have said as much in one of these blogs.
I will say that I am in favor of certain enemies having reactions that can punish critical failure but I don't think that those mechanics should be so ubiquitous that making three attacks is never a good idea (or extremely rarely a good idea). I think the mere threat that an action might be "wasted" on a miss is plenty incentive enough to substitute your iterative attack actions for other things like movement, item use, spellcasting, and blocking.
I assume all these points have been brought up before, though.
Do you seriously think that the penalty for making multiple attacks will be this high that the third attack will always generate a high chance of a fumble if these rules are adopted? Do you not think that feats in two weapon fighting tree, spell buffs, skill feat buffs, magical item buffs won't have a significant impact on making the third attack a valid option?
Because that would make the third attack unusable even without my rules. So you are saying they are going to give you the attack matrix of a 11th level fighter at first level and make it pointless to execute those 2nd & 3rd attacks by bumping up every monsters armor class by +2? I hardly think so and I would like to see your assumptions for this.
|
|
...Aren't there going to be a ton of checks in the game for which there is no listed critical success/critical fail rolls (and thus it true that there are no additional effects concerned with that mechanic)? I am almost certain that is going to be the case and I am almost certain the developers have said as much in one of these blogs.
I believe you are wrong. My theory is that I look at the bestiary. With the exceptions of monsters aping humans (orcs, goblins, hobgoblins,etc) most monster AC is pretty poor compared to a PC of relevant level. See my earlier posts on the subjet above. Thumb through the bestiary and you will find it highly unlikely that you will fumble even on your weakest attack against most
Umm your math assumptions would be worse now that I checked. Minotaur would be around the same but the mummy would be worse, gargoyle would be the same, ogre would be worse, Pit fiend would be WAY worse
Because that would make the third attack unusable even without my rules. So you are saying they are going to give you the attack matrix of a 11th level fighter at first level and make it pointless to execute those 2nd & 3rd attacks by bumping up every monsters armor class by +2? I hardly think so and I would like to see your assumptions for this.
I am saying that characters and monsters will have bounded accuracy and AC respectively and it will be rare that an on-CR-monster will ever guarantee you a hit even when your fighters are well optimized. So yeah: I am trying to tell you that I expect a fighter to hit around 70/75% of their time with their first attack against on-CR monsters.
F#~$ around with the Starfinder monster creator for a minute and see what kind of KACs that you generate by CR (https://www.sfrpgtools.com/monster-builder).
Starfinder, a newer Paizo product, takes a very different approach to monster balance that comes closer to following a bounded formula. I think that will give you a better understanding of how PF2E monsters will progress. Keep in mind that Starfinder--to my knowledge--has very few accuracy buffs beyond BAB and your base stats.
Here is a CR 10 Mon Mon Stat Block:
CREATURE NAME
CR 10
XP 9,600
CN Medium animal (earth)
Init +0; Senses low-light vision, blindsight (vibration) 30 ft.; Perception +19
DEFENSE
HP 140
EAC 22; KAC 23
Fort +11; Ref +11; Will +13
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft., burrow 30 ft.
STATISTICS
Str +8; Dex +0; Con +5; Int -5; Wis +0; Cha +3
Skills Athletics +24, Engineering +24, Intimidate +19
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When someone succeeds at a saving throw (ie, the spell misses), they still take some negative effect. When someone critically succeeds at a saving throw (ie, the spell critically misses), they are completely unaffected.
When someone misses an attack, they deal no damage. This is the same as the critical success for a saving throw against a spell.
If you want the 4 tier effect for attacks to be equal to spells, surely you should be asking for either critical success saving throws to hurt the caster, or attack misses to still deal some damage.
I assume they aren't equal because spells consume resources, while attacks do not. Also, spells generally have a greater overall effect than an attack does. This makes me wonder what the critical success/failure for cantrip saving throws will be like.
That is completely untrue. Once again here is how the charts read
Spell save critically made - No damage
Spell save made - half damage
Spell save failed - full damage
Spell save critically failed - double damageAttack roll critically made - double damage
Attack roll made - damage
attack roll failed - no damage
attack roll critically failed - no damageFor spells there is a extra success or failure based on dice rolls. For martial attacks there is no extra failure. If spells mimicked attack rolls the chart would be as follows
Spell save critical success - 1/2 damage
Spell save success - 1/2 damage
Spell save failed - Full damage
Spell save critically failed - double damageThe matrix for martials is no effect, no effect, effect, critical effect. If casters were following the same matrix they would have the effect of the spell follow the same matrix based upon the spell results as martials were a critical save success and a normal save success are exactly the same thing since a critical failure and a regular failure for a martial attack net the same results under the current rules.
No casters follow a better matrix, where 75% of the options provide some level of damage vs martial attacks 50% of the options providing damage without a feat investment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone is equal when making an attack roll. Actually, on a historical note for this type of game the attack rolls are heavily slanted in favor of martials as their stats, basic attack matrix, weapons and buffs heavily negate the chance of a critical failure. This is no where near the case for a caster. Casters have a much greater disadvantage to making attack rolls in combat compared to martials and they definitely should have that disadvantageCritical failures for everyone only works when everyone is equal, and if SR is your primary argument then you need more system mastery.
You can't take 4 core fighters through an AP without GM coddling. You can take 4 full casters through most AP's, if any at all, without GM coddling. Therefore casters and materials are not equal, and I doubt they'll be equal in 3.5 either. The lowest martials that can make it are those with magic.
Simply not true. Some people are just better trained (higher level) than others. Also, to level the playing field, casters would have to make attack rolls verses defenses (ala 4th ed) rather than the subject making saves.
|
|
However monster NPC's scale very poorly with the exception of Dragons or NPC characters decked out in martial gear (aka npc fighters, blackguards, clerics, etc.) Since attack bonuses have traditionally scaled for martial characters faster than defenses have I do not see that disparity as a real threat. For untrained characters (wizards & their subclasses) it may indeed be a problem but if you are a wizard swinging a sword in melee combat at high levels I think you have more to worry about than a chance of a critical fumble.We don't know the scaling for the new game: monsters may scale well in it. As to wizards, they should be able to attack with their own special attacks without always worrying about fumbling.
1) Making useless attacks is not a true option. Its crit fishing and that is a waste of time. Might as well just give you two actions a turn then. The critical failure needs to be a reminder of what happens when you press your luck.This isn't even remotely true. A 20 is a hit NOT a crit, so there isn't any 'fishing' involved unless you're 'fishing' for a HIT.
Secondly, I'm unsure WHY you want to punish someone for making an attack that's unlikely to hit: why SHOULD pushing your luck inflict fumbles? Why isn't missing enough 'punishment'?
2) How does this throw the wrench into tactics any less than your high level character dodging dragon's breath attacks for no damage?You 10000000% missed the point. There are times when you want a large number of lesser creatures to be some kind of threat to higher level creatures. I can't see where your example have ANY bearing on that at all.
Fights are hardly ever to the death in mass combats.But with your fumble idea they go away completely. Mass combat would be MORE deadly to friendly troops than enemies. It's safer to hide and hope the enemy gets bored and leaves than attack a higher AC foe and KNOW your going to randomly toss away...
Because a miss is not a punishment. Maybe you should look up the definition of a punishment.
Punishment (noun) -
the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.
A miss is not a punishment. Its a resolution of a task. Just as making a saving throw is not a punishment for a caster. Its a resolution to their action.
No, you don't want 1000's of mooks being an imposition to a high level PC in PF & PF2. If you did, you would be following bounded accuracy rules like D&D 5E where a hundred mooks can easily take down a high level swords man because at some point his defenses stop withing an acceptable threat range of the target. No one wants to sit through you rolling 1000 D20's till you get a hit by rolling a natural 20. Give it up.
Third, yes my critical failure rules make it extremely ulikely that mooks will fight a champion unless they have no choice. Think of the scene in Rogue 1 where Darth Vader appears and methodically cops down every rebel solider in the starship as he is making his way to the Death Star plans. They soliders try to flee but they get stuck. They fight on but it is pointless because they are fighting Darth "fricking" Vader! They die horribly and Vader is just delayed long enough for the rebels to escape with the plans. You aren't supposed to have a chance in every single fight and sometimes the best option is to flat out run.
|
|
That is completely untrue. Once again here is how the charts read
Spell save critically made - No damage
Spell save made - half damage
Spell save failed - full damage
Spell save critically failed - double damageAttack roll critically made - double damage
Attack roll made - damage
attack roll failed - no damage
attack roll critically failed - no damageFor spells there is a extra success or failure based on dice rolls. For martial attacks there is no extra failure. If spells mimicked attack rolls the chart would be as follows
Spell save critical success - 1/2 damage
Spell save success - 1/2 damage
Spell save failed - Full damage
Spell save critically failed - double damageThe matrix for martials is no effect, no effect, effect, critical effect. If casters were following the same matrix they would have the effect of the spell follow the same matrix based upon the spell results as martials were a critical save success and a normal save success are exactly the same thing since a critical failure and a regular failure for a martial attack net the same results under the current rules.
That is completely untrue, if spell saves were to mimic the attack rolls chart it'd be
Spell save critical success - No damage
Spell save success - No damage
Spell save failed - Full damage
Spell save critically failed - double damageI don't know where you're getting 1/2 damage = No damage from. They are clearly 2 different things.
Yeah sure if I had unlimited spells per day your formula would be correct. Since I don't and spells always had a save for half damage and neither the critical save for no damage nor the critical fail for double damage you are 100% incorrect.
Four degrees of success & failures on spells shoule mirror four degrees of success & failure on martial attacks Four = Four. Its not a hard concept to grasp.
|
|
Simply not true. Some people are just better trained (higher level) than others. Also, to level the playing field, casters would have to make attack rolls verses defenses (ala 4th ed) rather than the subject making saves.Everyone is equal when making an attack roll. Actually, on a historical note for this type of game the attack rolls are heavily slanted in favor of martials as their stats, basic attack matrix, weapons and buffs heavily negate the chance of a critical failure. This is no where near the case for a caster. Casters have a much greater disadvantage to making attack rolls in combat compared to martials and they definitely should have that disadvantageCritical failures for everyone only works when everyone is equal, and if SR is your primary argument then you need more system mastery.
You can't take 4 core fighters through an AP without GM coddling. You can take 4 full casters through most AP's, if any at all, without GM coddling. Therefore casters and materials are not equal, and I doubt they'll be equal in 3.5 either. The lowest martials that can make it are those with magic.
Its completely true. You are just biased towards martials. If I got to pump up my attack rolls for casters like martials did there would be piles of green dust everywhere because martials only miss on a 1 on primary attacks at high levels. The saving throw is designed to help the person making the roll because its a last ditch chance to avoid disaster. If a dragon's breath cone hits everything in 100 feet of it there is no attack roll. Same with the medusa gaze. If you see her you turn to stone. The only question is did you? Do you really want Queen Medusa rolling +35 on her attack roll to hit your fortitude save? It was too easy in 4E that is why they got rid of the save or die/suck spells in that edition.