|
One of the keys to playing a good evil campaign is the level of evil. Too many times the evil is just thuggish, anti-heroic and not cool enough to be from a villain either. You've got to find that niche, but that requires an amount of finesse that I find lacking in my groups.
Still, i'm not a fan of evil campaigns even during times where I could pull a group together in such a campaign.
|
I would love to play an evil character in a campaign....
I wouldn't mind an evil player of this sort in my campaign. In my experience though players who want evil characters wind up going the extra mile being nasty and many neutral characters get played the way you describe.
*shrug*
I deal with alignments as if they were role playing aids and nothing more, people who use them as an excuse to be a douche at the table deserve the boot.
One of the keys to playing a good evil campaign is the level of evil. Too many times the evil is just thuggish, anti-heroic and not cool enough to be from a villain either. You've got to find that niche, but that requires an amount of finesse that I find lacking in my groups.
Still, i'm not a fan of evil campaigns even during times where I could pull a group together in such a campaign.
A couple of games I've run recently I've house-ruled that nobody could play an evil alignment. I don't like doing that, but too many times it just derails the campaign and the game falls apart. I've played in some really interesting, well developed evil campaigns before, but more often than not, it's just an excuse to break stuff and p1$$ off the DM. I've seen multiple good, interesting campaigns fall apart and end, because someone had to go evil. If you can play the alignment without wrecking the campaign, then that's great. Many others cannot.
For example; I was going to run a one-nighter, since some of our regular guys couldn't make it and let us know ahead of time. So, I went to my FLGS and bought a module that looked interesting. Basic story setup: town is cursed and ruined, and the players are needed to help. So, they players arrive in town, and the plot-triggering, key NPC shows up to beg the players for help and move along the plot. What do my players do? They stab the guy, take his money, and look for something else to do.
I was a little miffed. I went out of my way to purchase an adventure just for that night, and that's how it went down. I had nothing else ready(since I thought we were doing that adventure), so I just packed up my things and said" Alright guys, games over. see ya next week."
Sure, I could've handled it better. I could've just ran random encounters, but I felt like I needed to do something. I think by that point I simply had one too many adventures derailed into oblivion by mindless, evil PC actions, and I was just fed up.
|
My rule is that if you are going to be an evil character you have to be evil in a way like Belkar, where you may cause problems, but you aren't actively working against the party and are a team player even if it isn't in the standard team player way.
Houserules I hate, climbing creatures requires a CMB check, even if said creature being climbed is unconcious. So gnomes and halflings can never hope to climb up onto an unconscious giant is literally impossible.
Now that's what I call a critical hit!I hear that Superboy punched reality so hard it changed continuity.
HA!!!!
I would love to play an evil character in a campaign....I wouldn't mind an evil player of this sort in my campaign. In my experience though players who want evil characters wind up going the extra mile being nasty and many neutral characters get played the way you describe.
*shrug*
I deal with alignments as if they were role playing aids and nothing more, people who use them as an excuse to be a douche at the table deserve the boot.
Evil characters are so much fun. The one time my weekly group played together and truly were a team was when we played an evil party..after an almost entire tpk, of course. It was disconcerting that we were so friendly with each other and enjoyed adventuring that the DM had to call the game after a while(okay, his wife had a baby, but still).
Another pet peeve - DMs who don't know how to roll/read percentile dice.
Currently in a game where the DM considers the high end of the range to be the "success" value. I had a 30% chance to succeed at something and rolled a 20. Success. DM said, no, it didn't work. If I have a 30% chance of something, he says I need to roll a 70 or better (even after I pointed out that that gave me a 31% chance).
I'd rather have a regular 30% chance to do something and read the dice right than have a 31% chance by reading them wrong. Pedantic? Perhaps. Well, yes, really, quite a lot. But come on, this is red book stuff.
The DM has a point here ... the "success value" of all other dice is the high end. d20 rolls and checks, HP rolls, damage rolls, everything else you roll you want at the high end. So why not percent? You're right that he's giving you an extra 1% range bonus, but take it.
That's OK for me until I have a 51% miss chance...
Do the rules actually say anywhere that you have to read % low, or is that just your own tradition and HR?
In 3.x they got rid of MOST percentile rolls (for percent chance to do something - I'm not counting table lookups). All I can think of off-hand is miss chance from various sources, and whatever the DM rules on the spot requires a d%. (Update during proofread: I also found a couple tables in the DM section for environment tables, with a "chance to have a terrain feature" in a given square.) Our DM uses it for Random Encounters, but I don't think he's using a published rule for that.
I just skimmed the PF book, which is the only one I had with me. Nothing about reading the dice. Either it was so obvious to the people who put the books together that it never occurred to them that some people might not know how, or they didn't want to establish a "rule" on it. I'm guessing it was the former. I also don't see any instructions for reading a d4, so if someone wants to rule that you read the side on the left, that could catch on, too. I see lots of tables reading d% but nothing defining what that means.
But why do it the other way? Why add the math? Why have to worry about the extra percent? That doesn't make any sense to me.
I once had the brilliant idea to add a 'super-crit' rule to our games. I announced one night that if a nat 20 is rolled, and the confirmation roll was also a nat 20, then a third confirmation roll would result in an instakill.
An hour later at the end of 'Poryphry House Horror'... Player gains initiative and fires an arrow at the BBEG... 20... 20... 18...
I was not a happy camper.
|
|
I once had the brilliant idea to add a 'super-crit' rule to our games. I announced one night that if a nat 20 is rolled, and the confirmation roll was also a nat 20, then a third confirmation roll would result in an instakill.
An hour later at the end of 'Poryphry House Horror'... Player gains initiative and fires an arrow at the BBEG... 20... 20... 18...
I was not a happy camper.
That rule is actually mentioned in the 3.5 players guide as an optional rule. In my games instead of an instant kill that results in a limb loss and save to prevent falling unconcious from shock. Because I want there to be limb loss in the game.
For instant kill if you roll 3 nat 20's in the game then I figure god just wanted you to kill that monster and I don't argue :)
In my games we have the crit hit and crit fumble decks and every creature has access to the crit deck, not just BBEG (yes I like gritty games), but then every monster also has access to the crit fumble deck, and you do roll to confirm fumbles.
Oh and if you roll 3 nat 1's in a row you kill yourself, someone did the math for me once and I think that is rare enough occurance to go with. No one in my game has ever had an insta-death from ones though we've had maybe 3 insta-kills from nat 20s. So I guess the OP would never play in my games.
Oh and if you roll 3 nat 1's in a row you kill yourself, someone did the math for me once and I think that is rare enough occurance to go with.
.0125%, same as rolling three 20s in a row. Rare, but it can happen. In an army of 10,000 10th level warriors, every round another person instantly kills himself.
As a remote theoretical chance, yeah, it's so far-fetched, it'd just be laughable if it did happen. But if you were playing, how fun would it be for you to lose the character you played through 15 levels fighting a low-CR room-filler?
Not a big fan of instant-kill house rules, either, but how about this: Instead of instantly killing the target, why not have ever 20 rolled in succession raise the crit multiplier by 1?
Not a big fan of instant-kill house rules, either, but how about this: Instead of instantly killing the target, why not have ever 20 rolled in succession raise the crit multiplier by 1?
Oh and if you roll 3 nat 1's in a row you kill yourself, someone did the math for me once and I think that is rare enough occurance to go with.
Ooo, I like that one.
|
|
Sure, I could've handled it better. I could've just ran random encounters, but I felt like I needed to do something. I think by that point I simply had one too many adventures derailed into oblivion by mindless, evil PC actions, and I was just fed up.
Can't say I blame you. A lot of time people use Evil alignment as an excuse to meta-game their character's actions. Very annoying.
One nighters cause that same kind of play, so the combination of the two basically leads to a precarious gameplay conundrum: There are no consequences since this is just a one shot so I also don't want to get invested. An evil game essentially has to be long-term (though there are going to be a few exceptions), otherwise its like creating a GM hostile party. Bad play experiences will definitely arise.
Sure, I could've handled it better. I could've just ran random encounters, but I felt like I needed to do something. I think by that point I simply had one too many adventures derailed into oblivion by mindless, evil PC actions, and I was just fed up.
Can't say I blame you. A lot of time people use Evil alignment as an excuse to meta-game their character's actions. Very annoying.
One nighters cause that same kind of play, so the combination of the two basically leads to a precarious gameplay conundrum: There are no consequences since this is just a one shot so I also don't want to get invested. An evil game essentially has to be long-term (though there are going to be a few exceptions), otherwise its like creating a GM hostile party. Bad play experiences will definitely arise.
Agreed. Maybe since it was a one-nighter I should've just rolled with it. But, I made it clear ahead of time I was running a short module. If they just wanted mindless slaughter I could have run that for them just fine. They walked in knowing I had an adventure and trashed it. A big part of me regrets being so hasty, but another part me doesn't.
Oddly enough, I've had a couple good campaigns arise out of one-nighters. We've even shifted from on-going campaigns, because for some reason or another these new characters were interesting. Maybe the group needed a break from what was going on to just let loose. Kinda like an in-character vacation lol.
I use and like the Critical Fumble Deck in my game.
Rolling a 1 is a fumble threat, roll again against the enemy's AC. Missing confirms the fumble. Draw a card.
If you have Weapon Focus in your weapon, draw two cards. Pick between the two effects.
My party barbarian draws the most fumble cards (because his dice hate him), but he has Weapon Focus [Greatsword] so gets to pick between the lesser of two evils.
Once the party gnome drew a fumble card and broke his crossbow. He discarded it as it wasn't magic or anything so no great loss. We were playing 3.5e at the time. I notice in PRPG the Broken condition makes getting a broken weapon a much more temporary issue, and the weapon is still usable while broken unless or until it gets destroyed. (If a broken condition with a similar effect existed in 3.5e, I was not aware of it.)
========================================================================
I can't think of any house rules that have been in any games that really bothered me.
I was in a 3.5e game once where the DM made players roll hp at first level and gave full hp at every additional level, but that wasn't a house rule so much as the fact that he had the rule backwards.
Most games I was in stuck pretty close to RAW so I can't think of any house rules (aside from the weird hp thing above) that bothered me.
Ooo, I like that one.Not a big fan of instant-kill house rules, either, but how about this: Instead of instantly killing the target, why not have ever 20 rolled in succession raise the crit multiplier by 1?
Oh and if you roll 3 nat 1's in a row you kill yourself, someone did the math for me once and I think that is rare enough occurance to go with.
Then take it to the other thread, buddy, this is for ones we hate!
;)
|
|
Oh and if you roll 3 nat 1's in a row you kill yourself, someone did the math for me once and I think that is rare enough occurance to go with..0125%, same as rolling three 20s in a row. Rare, but it can happen. In an army of 10,000 10th level warriors, every round another person instantly kills himself.
As a remote theoretical chance, yeah, it's so far-fetched, it'd just be laughable if it did happen. But if you were playing, how fun would it be for you to lose the character you played through 15 levels fighting a low-CR room-filler?
Not a big fan of instant-kill house rules, either, but how about this: Instead of instantly killing the target, why not have ever 20 rolled in succession raise the crit multiplier by 1?
Well in my world you'd be lucky to find an army with 10,000 level 3 warriors as even though I play in golarion, I modify it heavily and seriously power it down (only the PCs and villains get PC classes :) ) and 90% of people are level 5 or lower.
And because I while I like luck to be a factor I think rare extreme luck should have results players talk about (including bad luck) a x3 multiplier on the first round isn't something that a player will remember (especially against high HP monsters like a dragon. But charging in and hacking of the dragons claw at the wrist, that will be something he talks about for years. Even if the dragon makes it's save and subsequently slaughters the party. And yeah it sucks to be on the recieving end of 3 1's, but then again if your luck was that bad I would say god wanted the character dead, and like I said it hasn't happened, and I didn't force it on my players, they accepted it. If someone had had a significant problem with it, I wouldn't have enforced it (Though I would've also dropped the instant kill as they go hand in hand)
Oh and if you roll 3 nat 1's in a row you kill yourself, someone did the math for me once and I think that is rare enough occurance to go with..0125%, same as rolling three 20s in a row. Rare, but it can happen. In an army of 10,000 10th level warriors, every round another person instantly kills himself.
And I forgot to mention, every fourth round an additional person accidentally kills himself. After two minutes of skirmish practice, 25 people have accidentally killed themselves.
Granted, the death toll decreses over time at a rate directly proportional to the size of the remaining army.
Well in my world you'd be lucky to find an army with 10,000 level 3 warriors as even though I play in golarion, I modify it heavily and seriously power it down (only the PCs and villains get PC classes :) ) and 90% of people are level 5 or lower.
Well, my point is that it's a lot more possible than you think. And I'm wondering if you'd REALLY enforce it if it came up. I bet you wouldn't.
|
|
Oh and if you roll 3 nat 1's in a row you kill yourself, someone did the math for me once and I think that is rare enough occurance to go with..0125%, same as rolling three 20s in a row. Rare, but it can happen. In an army of 10,000 10th level warriors, every round another person instantly kills himself.
And I forgot to mention, every fourth round an additional person accidentally kills himself. After two minutes of skirmish practice, 25 people have accidentally killed themselves.
Granted, the death toll decreses over time at a rate directly proportional to the size of the remaining army.
Well in my world you'd be lucky to find an army with 10,000 level 3 warriors as even though I play in golarion, I modify it heavily and seriously power it down (only the PCs and villains get PC classes :) ) and 90% of people are level 5 or lower.Well, my point is that it's a lot more possible than you think. And I'm wondering if you'd REALLY enforce it if it came up. I bet you wouldn't.
It's a bet I'll gladly take and you'll loose, I've run with the instant kill, I'll run with the the instant death, now I'll try to make it as evocative and memorable as possible and as appropriate to the situation. And really those are the odds of it happening, the odds and reality don't always add up, I say as a person who's flipped a coin 10 times in a row and had it come up tails each time and yet have not been able to replicate the feat despite trying several times.
Another pet peeve - DMs who don't know how to roll/read percentile dice.
Currently in a game where the DM considers the high end of the range to be the "success" value. I had a 30% chance to succeed at something and rolled a 20. Success. DM said, no, it didn't work. If I have a 30% chance of something, he says I need to roll a 70 or better (even after I pointed out that that gave me a 31% chance).
I'd rather have a regular 30% chance to do something and read the dice right than have a 31% chance by reading them wrong. Pedantic? Perhaps. Well, yes, really, quite a lot. But come on, this is red book stuff.
I let my players chose. I roll secretly and then ask the possible effected player or group of players "High or Low?". Meaning high or low result as the positive success. It gets them involved and I get to be guilt free if some thing bad happens or they miss out on something good.
I hd a DM once who's rule was if you rolled another Nat 20 to confirm a crit, it was an autokill. I hated that rule.
We used that rule for a long time. It screwed the DM much more often than the players. We had a player drop a Balor in the first round with the confirmed two 20's rule. With a dagger no less.
But why do it the other way? Why add the math? Why have to worry about the extra percent? That doesn't make any sense to me.I agree. Granted, hitting "00" for success is cool, like a nat.20, but you're right about the other points. I generally read low as well, but that wasn't the point of my comment :-)
R.
No, I take your point. And it got me thinking. I've been playing RPGs for 30 years. It's always been obvious to me that a N% chance to do something means you roll the percentile dice and if it's that number or lower you succeed. It's like reading: so much second nature that it never occurred to me that anyone would NEED instructions to do it.
So now (as in while I'm typing this up) I'm looking through my 2e book, and it explains HOW a percentile die is read (one d10 is the 10s value, the other is the ones), but not what a success requires (high vs low).
The first thing I've found on the topic is in the Bend Bars/Lift Gates entry on the Strength table. That was a value given as a percentage. The description of that column in the text says:
Bend Bars/Lift Gates states the character's percentage chance (rolled on percentile dice) to bend normal, soft iron bars, lift a vertical gate (portcullis), or perform a similar feat of enormous strength. When the character makes the attempt, roll the percentile dice. If the number rolled is equal to or less than the number listed on Table 1, the character bends the bar or lifts the gate. ...
System Shock Survival and Resurrection Survival are listed as percentages on the Con chart, but while SSS doesn't specifically say to roll that number or less, RS does. Chance to Learn Spell on the Int chart does. Chance of Spell Failure on the Wisdom chart does.
The Ranger class table lists a percentage to hide and move silently, but this is not mentioned at all in the text. Not even that they HAVE the ability. Gotta love second edition.
None of the thief skill percentages specify whether to read high or low for success, but the Find/Remove Traps ability specifies that a roll of 96-100 means the thief springs the trap (this is usually a bad thing).
OK, so let's call that a fair sample set. It never specifically states that a percentile roll MEANS you roll that number or less, but every example they give, where instructions for reading the roll are included, has that instruction.
So while I agree that it does clash with every other paradigm of the d20 system (where higher is ALWAYS better), it is the only instruction they've ever given for reading them.
|
|
So while I agree that it does clash with every other paradigm of the d20 system (where higher is ALWAYS better), it is the only instruction they've ever given for reading them.
Heck to add a note to this, I learned with 3.5, and I learned from older players but the first thing I learned was a complaint on how to read the dice. See when WotC released their official dice, they got rid of the 0 on the ones dice. If you get the official D&D dice you'll see that they now have 10, which changed how you read them. I learned both ways but actually prefer the new system (now to roll a 100 you have to roll 90 on the tens dice and a 10 on the ones dice) and the only instruction on how to adjudicate the results came from the 3.5 book talking about the d20 paradigm, get a d20 and roll high. So for me learning in the 3.5 era, you always want to roll high. I had to learn to let go of that and let players from older editions to do things the way they learned. But I generally tell my players that they want high results on the dice.
And I forgot to mention, every fourth round an additional person accidentally kills himself.
I wonder... I wouldn't be surprised if that would actually be historically accurate. Especially if you read "kill himself" as "put himself in a position that caused his own demise".
I know, I know, the game is NOT about historical accuracy. What I mean is that perhaps its not as far-stretch as it may seem.
After two minutes of skirmish practice, 25 people have accidentally killed themselves.
Well, people sparing and practicing are not intended to kill as they would on the battlefield, or else EVERY practice would end-up in several casualties, and I'm not talking about fumbles. One could interpret this as soldiers in practice always taking 10, or dealing subduing damage. In this regard, I think its fair to assume that the fumble would be less lethal as well. Perhaps a natural 1 in training wouldn't a fumble since it is not considered a rushed or threatening condition (unless you're a gladiator perhaps...)
That being said, soldiers DID die during training, oftentimes from their own doing. I can't say in what proportion, and I'm pretty sure it would NOT be 0.0125% every 6 seconds. But it was a reality until very recently, and I'm sure it still happens today. I know for a fact that firefighters HAVE died during their training in recent years.
'findel
Heck to add a note to this, I learned with 3.5, and I learned from older players but the first thing I learned was a complaint on how to read the dice. See when WotC released their official dice, they got rid of the 0 on the ones dice. If you get the official D&D dice you'll see that they now have 10, which changed how you read them. I learned both ways but actually prefer the new system (now to roll a 100 you have to roll 90 on the tens dice and a 10 on the ones dice)
Weird. So you have 1-10 on the tens die and 1-10 on the ones die, and a 100 is a 9 on the tens die and a 10 on the ones... then how do you roll a plain old 10? Because a 1 on the tens die and a 10 on the ones would be a 20 by this system. And if you get a 10 by rolling a 10 on both dice, then they've broken their own new system by making that 10 mean a 0 again but only sometimes.
Where are those instructions on reading them? Is that the WotC official 4e method? Or is that just how your group has interpreted the 10 on the die to be read? Because I have d10s with a 10 instead of a 0 (I think they were initially Vampire dice, where 10s are good and there are no percentile rolls ever). If I use it for D&D (Or RuneQuest, or Star Frontiers, come to that), I treat it just like rolling a 0. When I'm rolling a d10 for something like damage, I read the 0 or the 10 as a 10. If I'm rolling a percentile, I read the 10 as a 0.
|
|
Heck to add a note to this, I learned with 3.5, and I learned from older players but the first thing I learned was a complaint on how to read the dice. See when WotC released their official dice, they got rid of the 0 on the ones dice. If you get the official D&D dice you'll see that they now have 10, which changed how you read them. I learned both ways but actually prefer the new system (now to roll a 100 you have to roll 90 on the tens dice and a 10 on the ones dice)
Weird. So you have 1-10 on the tens die and 1-10 on the ones die, and a 100 is a 9 on the tens die and a 10 on the ones... then how do you roll a plain old 10? Because a 1 on the tens die and a 10 on the ones would be a 20 by this system. And if you get a 10 by rolling a 10 on both dice, then they've broken their own new system by making that 10 mean a 0 again but only sometimes.
Where are those instructions on reading them? Is that the WotC official 4e method? Or is that just how your group has interpreted the 10 on the die to be read? Because I have d10s with a 10 instead of a 0 (I think they were initially Vampire dice, where 10s are good and there are no percentile rolls ever). If I use it for D&D (Or RuneQuest, or Star Frontiers, come to that), I treat it just like rolling a 0. When I'm rolling a d10 for something like damage, I read the 0 or the 10 as a 10. If I'm rolling a percentile, I read the 10 as a 0.
nope they have a tens die that reads 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90. so you only have one die that reads 1-10, so to roll a 10 you roll a 00 and a 10 and you don't roll the tens dice for normal stuff that calls for a d10 (if you do you count the 00 as 10).
nope they have a tens die that reads 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90. so you only have one die that reads 1-10, so to roll a 10 you roll a 00 and a 10 and you don't roll the tens dice for normal stuff that calls for a d10 (if you do you count the 00 as 10).
Oh, OK, I didn't understand that. I don't especially care for it, because it goes from "Read what the dice say" to "read what the dice say, but under this condition add 1 to this one and read this one as a zero."
Never really thought of myself as old-fashioned before.
nope they have a tens die that reads 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90. so you only have one die that reads 1-10, so to roll a 10 you roll a 00 and a 10 and you don't roll the tens dice for normal stuff that calls for a d10 (if you do you count the 00 as 10).
Many other games use d100, and most of them (especially earlier versions) explain rather well how it is supposed to work.
In most game where the rating is in %, You need to roll equal or below the success threshold (or whatever the game calls it). So one succeeds a 20% chance by rolling from 01 to 20 inclusively. Note that there are no 0 in a % roll. A result of "00" and "0" = 100.
Other games, like Rolemaster, will also use a d100 but not as a % roll. In those games, the higher you roll, the better. Essentially, d20 is a re-vamp of Rolemaster, but the numbers are divided by 5. (In rolemaster, you must beat a DC, 100 being the default DC, by rolling a d100 + your skill bonus, which is essentially ranks + ability bonus + misc bonuses).
In both cases, you'd roll 10 by rolling "10" and "0".
|
|
nope they have a tens die that reads 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90. so you only have one die that reads 1-10, so to roll a 10 you roll a 00 and a 10 and you don't roll the tens dice for normal stuff that calls for a d10 (if you do you count the 00 as 10).Oh, OK, I didn't understand that. I don't especially care for it, because it goes from "Read what the dice say" to "read what the dice say, but under this condition add 1 to this one and read this one as a zero."
Never really thought of myself as old-fashioned before.
Huh, how is it not read what the dice say? you never change what shows up on the dice due to condition, you just add the two together, roll 00 and 1 you've got 1 roll 00 and 10 you've got ten, the only time it gets weird is when you have any number on the tens dice and a 10 on the ones dice because then 80 becomes 90 or 70 becomes 80, but it's not hard in fact I find it more intuitive then the old version where I had 00 and 0 on the dice.
After some thoughts, I like the critical and fumble rules (which IMO go hand-in-hand as I said earlier) is that as in real life, things happen that are not in your control. Some of these things are good, some not so much. The critical and fumble rules allow the DM to bring this reality into the game without personal involvement toward a specific player (note that I said player, not character).
When we look at it, there is already a pseudo-fumble rule by RAW: a roll of 1 is always a fumble regardless of the final result of the roll. Its a very forgiving fumble, but its a specific rule nonetheless.
Obviously, I would never tell my player that "sorry, you face-planted during that charge and your character dies as the cavalry tramples your body", although I'm sure that it happened numbers of time in many battles.
A home-brew fumble chart or deck allows the DM to control the level of "nastiness" of those fumbles (and critical for that matter) to suit his/her campaign and his/her players. Home-brew fumbles are only a bad house-rule when this level of nastiness is not fitting (more often from the player's perspective than the campaign). Personally, I find the Deck of Critical Fumbles too nasty for my needs, but the "deck" or "table" idea allows the DM to control what effects may happen and to what degree they will affect the game without having to make a consequence on the spot and risk discrimination toward a player (both positively or negatively).
'findel
Huh, how is it not read what the dice say? you never change what shows up on the dice due to condition, you just add the two together, roll 00 and 1 you've got 1 roll 00 and 10 you've got ten, the only time it gets weird is when you have any number on the tens dice and a 10 on the ones dice because then 80 becomes 90 or 70 becomes 80,
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring to as not reading what the dice say.
but it's not hard in fact I find it more intuitive then the old version where I had 00 and 0 on the dice.
I'm not saying it's hard, but it is adding a step that wasn't necessary before.
Old way, I roll a 50 and a 0, I read "fifty." New way, I roll a 50 and a 10... I read "fifty-ten. Oh, wait, SIXTY!" Some people like to roll them one at a time.
Old way
Player: I rolled a fifty.
New way
Player: I rolled a fifty... no, wait, sixty.
DM: Are you sure? That looks like fifty to me, it's a fifty and a zero.
Player: No, these are the new WotC dice.
DM: Buh-wha?
Player: See, I have the instructions right here. "Read what the dice say, unless the ones die is a ten in which case add ten to the tens die and pretend the ones die is a zero."
DM: Ooooh... kay. Then the percentile roll fails, because it's higher than the percentile number.
Player: What? It was 50% I rolled higher than 50! Higher is better! That's a success! That MAKES the percentile chance!
DM: Fine, you miss the displacer beast.
Player: ... you did that on purpose.
Oh, the hits just keep comin'.
Huh, how is it not read what the dice say? you never change what shows up on the dice due to condition, you just add the two together, roll 00 and 1 you've got 1 roll 00 and 10 you've got ten, the only time it gets weird is when you have any number on the tens dice and a 10 on the ones dice because then 80 becomes 90 or 70 becomes 80, but it's not hard in fact I find it more intuitive then the old version where I had 00 and 0 on the dice.
In all games that involve % rolls that I own, the % roll is explained as such:
You roll two dice. One is "tens" and the other is "units". Now most dice sets include the "tens" as "10", "20", "30" and so forth until "00" for convenience purposes.
When you roll a % dice, the unit dice result of "0" is 0, NOT 10 as if it was rolled as a stand-alone roll (like damage of a bastard sword for example).
So a roll of "80" and "0" = 80, not 90. The only exception to that is when "00" and "0" come up, you get 100.
'findel
In all games that involve % rolls that I own, the % roll is explained as such:You roll two dice. One is "tens" and the other is "units". Now most dice sets include the "tens" as "10", "20", "30" and so forth until "00" for convenience purposes.
When you roll a % dice, the unit dice result of "0" is 0, NOT 10 as if it was rolled as a stand-alone roll (like damage of a bastard sword for example).
So a roll of "80" and "0" = 80, not 90. The only exception to that is when "00" and "0" come up, you get 100.
'findel
That's the way I've always done it. Also, if you have a 30% chance of failing, you want to roll above 30. If you have a 30% chance of success, you want to roll 30 or below.
I play D&D with a guy who uses the High percentile chances and the triple crit autokill, and both are odd to me. The fact that I feel so ingrained to 2e that % or lower is success and not the opposite that it bothers me is actually funny. As for the 3x crit/kill I feel its cool except that on a lucky day a 0 level goblin can kill your nigh unstoppable 20th level fighter/demigod.... That is just nonsense.
Oh and if it helps the guy who uses these never playerd before 3e and was heavy into rolemaster so I think that somewhat plays into it.
|
|
Huh, how is it not read what the dice say? you never change what shows up on the dice due to condition, you just add the two together, roll 00 and 1 you've got 1 roll 00 and 10 you've got ten, the only time it gets weird is when you have any number on the tens dice and a 10 on the ones dice because then 80 becomes 90 or 70 becomes 80,Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring to as not reading what the dice say.
but it's not hard in fact I find it more intuitive then the old version where I had 00 and 0 on the dice.I'm not saying it's hard, but it is adding a step that wasn't necessary before.
Old way, I roll a 50 and a 0, I read "fifty." New way, I roll a 50 and a 10... I read "fifty-ten. Oh, wait, SIXTY!" Some people like to roll them one at a time.
Old way
Player: I rolled a fifty.New way
Player: I rolled a fifty... no, wait, sixty.
DM: Are you sure? That looks like fifty to me, it's a fifty and a zero.
Player: No, these are the new WotC dice.
DM: Buh-wha?
Player: See, I have the instructions right here. "Read what the dice say, unless the ones die is a ten in which case add ten to the tens die and pretend the ones die is a zero."
DM: Ooooh... kay. Then the percentile roll fails, because it's higher than the percentile number.
Player: What? It was 50% I rolled higher than 50! Higher is better! That's a success! That MAKES the percentile chance!
DM: Fine, you miss the displacer beast.
Player: ... you did that on purpose.Oh, the hits just keep comin'.
except you aren't listening to me, the ones dice does not have a zero on it, it has a 10. The DM wouldn't see a 50 and a 0 he would see a 50 and a 10. and you don't pretend the ones dice is a zero, you just add 50 and 10. Is that any more ludicrous then
Old player I rolled a 100
New DM, I see a 0 and a 00 I don't know what math you have in your world but where I come from 0 plus 0 = 0
Old player, but this is using the old rules where you if you roll a 00 with a 0 it's 100.
New DM wouldn't that make rolling a 00 and a 6 106 ?
Old player, no that makes it six.
New DM So instead of just adding the two dice together, 50 + 9= 59, 90 + 10= 100, instead you treat one die as one number but then sometimes treat it as a different number, because the tens dice is like an Ace in poker?
Old Player yeah it makes so much more sense that way.
Huh, how is it not read what the dice say? you never change what shows up on the dice due to condition, you just add the two together, roll 00 and 1 you've got 1 roll 00 and 10 you've got ten, the only time it gets weird is when you have any number on the tens dice and a 10 on the ones dice because then 80 becomes 90 or 70 becomes 80, but it's not hard in fact I find it more intuitive then the old version where I had 00 and 0 on the dice.
It depends on what you mean by "read what the dice say". The new dice (with the 10 on the d10) says you read the dice and add. The old way, you read the dice directly. The result of one die was in the 10s column, the other die was in the 1s column. No adding necessary.
except you aren't listening to me, the ones dice does not have a zero on it, it has a 10.
I'd say that since my example says:
New way, I roll a 50 and a 10...
that I was listening to you.
However, you're right, later on I call it a zero. That's because that's how I've always read 10s on a d10 when you roll percents.
EDIT: This is because d10s with an actual 10 on them are for WoD games, and are only used for D&D (and other games with a percentile roll) by virtue of having been pulled out of my dice bag.
Is that any more ludicrous then (example snipped)
Yes, but only slightly.
except you aren't listening to me, the ones dice does not have a zero on it, it has a 10. The DM wouldn't see a 50 and a 0 he would see a 50 and a 10. and you don't pretend the ones dice is a zero, you just add 50 and 10. Is that any more ludicrous then
Old player I rolled a 100
New DM, I see a 0 and a 00 I don't know what math you have in your world but where I come from 0 plus 0 = 0
Old...
Wait a second. Are you saying that your d100 is consisting of a "tens" dice going from "10" to "00" and a "units" dice going from "1" to "10" (an actual "10", as opposed to "0")?
That would explain much of the confusion.
All my "units" dice and every other d10 I own are going from "0" to "9", but there are no "10" per say.
except you aren't listening to me, the ones dice does not have a zero on it, it has a 10. The DM wouldn't see a 50 and a 0 he would see a 50 and a 10. and you don't pretend the ones dice is a zero, you just add 50 and 10. Is that any more ludicrous then
Old player I rolled a 100
New DM, I see a 0 and a 00 I don't know what math you have in your world but where I come from 0 plus 0 = 0
Old...Wait a second. Are you saying that your d100 is consisting of a "tens" dice going from "10" to "00" and a "units" dice going from "1" to "10" (an actual "10", as opposed to "0")?
That would explain much of the confusion.
All my "units" dice and every other d10 I own are going from "0" to "9", but there are no "10" per say.
Yeah, mine too, with the occasional abberant die. Which, oddly enough, is sometimes used for Aberrant.
|
|
except you aren't listening to me, the ones dice does not have a zero on it, it has a 10. The DM wouldn't see a 50 and a 0 he would see a 50 and a 10. and you don't pretend the ones dice is a zero, you just add 50 and 10. Is that any more ludicrous then
Old player I rolled a 100
New DM, I see a 0 and a 00 I don't know what math you have in your world but where I come from 0 plus 0 = 0
Old...Wait a second. Are you saying that your d100 is consisting of a "tens" dice going from "10" to "00" and a "units" dice going from "1" to "10" (an actual "10", as opposed to "0")?
That would explain much of the confusion.
All my "units" dice and every other d10 I own are going from "0" to "9", but there are no "10" per say.
Yes that is exactly what I am saying, the official D&D dice now have a "10" as a unit, there is no "0" as a unit. This is different from every other set out there as most sets that aren't official D&D sets still have a "0" as the unit (chessex etc.). But if you buy a D&D starter set, or the official D&D dice (that come with the dice bag with Dungeons & Dragons embroidered on it) you do not see a "0" anywhere on the ones unit.
|
|
However, you're right, later on I call it a zero. That's because that's how I've always read 10s on a d10 when you roll percents.
.
I figured you understood me, but then when you called it a zero I got confused and thought that you didn't so while you knew what you meant I thought maybe you didn't. Lousy internets :/
Yes that is exactly what I am saying, the official D&D dice now have a "10" as a unit, there is no "0" as a unit. This is different from every other set out there as most sets that aren't official D&D sets still have a "0" as the unit (chessex etc.). But if you buy a D&D starter set, or the official D&D dice (that come with the dice bag with Dungeons & Dragons embroidered on it) you do not see a "0" anywhere on the ones unit.
Two different solutions to the same problem, which is using the same dice to represent two different result sets.
Out of curiosity, is this new official WotC set something that came out since 4e?
|
|
Yes that is exactly what I am saying, the official D&D dice now have a "10" as a unit, there is no "0" as a unit. This is different from every other set out there as most sets that aren't official D&D sets still have a "0" as the unit (chessex etc.). But if you buy a D&D starter set, or the official D&D dice (that come with the dice bag with Dungeons & Dragons embroidered on it) you do not see a "0" anywhere on the ones unit.Two different solutions to the same problem, which is using the same dice to represent two different result sets.
Out of curiosity, is this new official WotC set something that came out since 4e?
Actually this is something that started in 3.0 with the d20 system. I have the original starter kit that they sold for 3.0 (also the one for 3.5, I bought them for the minis) and both sets have a 10 on the ones dice.
This has got to be the longest thread(3 days worth!) train about percentile dice I have ever seen. I'm fairly impressed.
For us in college (2nd Ed. days) it was always a "2d8 blue-bolt from the skies".
R.
Referencing an old April Fool Dragon Magazine issue (c. issue 96 or so) I tell them I'm making a roll on the Wandering Damage table.
|
|
Referencing an old April Fool Dragon Magazine issue (c. issue 96 or so) I tell them I'm making a roll on the Wandering Damage table.For us in college (2nd Ed. days) it was always a "2d8 blue-bolt from the skies".
R.
I had a DM years and years ago who would hand out the TARGET ALPHA card to the player who currently annoyed him the most.
That player would be "most likely to be attacked" by any hostile entities.
|
I like the idea of spell crits but the ones on the cards don't quite do it for me. Zap someone forward in time? From a scorching ray spell? Doesn't make sense.
Sword & Sorcery's Advanced Players Guide had a spell critical system, as well as a critical fumble system for spells, that was separated out by school, so that if you criticaled with a necromancy spell, you'd at least get something kinda on-theme. It was built into a skill-based spellcasting mechanic (where you had to roll for each casting), but could probably be plucked out (or just completely adapted) easily enough.