This has got to be the longest thread(3 days worth!) train about percentile dice I have ever seen. I'm fairly impressed.
Oddly enough it reminds me of a time not too long ago when two people almost got into a fist fight because they had different perceptions on which did more damage 2d8+4/2 or 1d8+2.... Yes a fist fight almost insued.... :P
Sorry end of threadjack
This has got to be the longest thread(3 days worth!) train about percentile dice I have ever seen. I'm fairly impressed.Oddly enough it reminds me of a time not too long ago when two people almost got into a fist fight because they had different perceptions on which did more damage 2d8+4/2 or 1d8+2.... Yes a fist fight almost insued.... :P
Sorry end of threadjack
So what's the answer :p
I'm gonna guess 1d8+2 does more on average since you round down fractions in game, getting a bit of damage snipped off whenever you roll an odd number on 2d8+4/2.
How'd that argument even get started?
|
This has got to be the longest thread(3 days worth!) train about percentile dice I have ever seen. I'm fairly impressed.Oddly enough it reminds me of a time not too long ago when two people almost got into a fist fight because they had different perceptions on which did more damage 2d8+4/2 or 1d8+2.... Yes a fist fight almost insued.... :P
Sorry end of threadjack
So what's the answer :p
I'm gonna guess 1d8+2 does more on average since you round down fractions in game, getting a bit of damage snipped off whenever you roll an odd number on 2d8+4/2.
How'd that argument even get started?
Minimum and maximum damage is the same, probability for other numbers is probably different between the two methods though.
I'm gonna guess 1d8+2 does more on average since you round down fractions in game, getting a bit of damage snipped off whenever you roll an odd number on 2d8+4/2.How'd that argument even get started?
A quick calculation with Excel tells me that, thanks to the round-down, the 2d8+4/2 has a lower expected value. Rather than 6.5 for 1d8+2, you get 6.25.
How'd that argument even get started?
Well,We were playing 4e and the two players are cousins of mine, people I have somewhat gamed with since my introduction to D&D some 17ish years or so. However despite a long standing gaming background they are very casual and not what anyone considers good players, and have very different approaches to gaming. One of the two was playing a Wizard in 4e, and used his daily 1st level spell of Acid Arrow. Acid Arrow does 2d8+int bonus (4 for him) but if you miss still does half-damage. Well obviously he missed, and picked up 1d8 and was going to simplify the proceedings. His brother stopped him and they started debating which would roll higher. One argued that with only 1d8 you have a 1 in 8 to get 8 damage, while with 2d8/2 you have a 1 in 16, since now to get an 8 you need 2 8s. The other countered that the 2d8/2 would yeild higher results because you got 2 dice. They argued for some 7 or so minutes (I went to the bathroom while they hashed it out and grabbed a drink before I realized it had started to bad) and tried to calm them. Quickly the words became very heated and intelligence scores were insulted, and by the end of it I had to stop an altercation. Only the 2nd time that kind of thing has ever happened. On a side note while I am no math expert or probability generator, it would seem to me that 1-8 has the more likely chance of a 1 or 8 while the 2d8/w would yield more average results in the 3-5 range....
Ok now end of threadjack ><
One argued that with only 1d8 you have a 1 in 8 to get 8 damage, while with 2d8/2 you have a 1 in 16, since now to get an 8 you need 2 8s.
8^2 = 64, not 16.
Since you need the GM's permission to play an evil alignment how is them not giving it a house rule?
I also have a hatred for fumble rules. Especially when a DM suddenly tells me that a 1 on a skill roll is a fumble, even though I used that potion to get a +10 bonus on my roll.
Also for some reason, DM's tend to believe that you're evil if you choose your own race as a favored enemy. Where in the PHB does it say that?
It's not so much the houserules though, it's the DMs. I played with one who was DMing 4th for the first time and came up with all kinds of houserules. For me, it was over after one session.
I believe in 3.0 or 3.5 you weren't able to take your own race as a favored enemy unless you were an evil ranger. or something along those lines.
We've house-ruled it that there are fumbles, (ie, attack your friend, drop your weapon, become flat-footed) BUT we don't confirm critical hits with a nat 20 roll. It makes it more balanced because those 20's are super awesome while those 1's are often bad, sometimes REALLY bad.
I know a DM that uses the D&D 3.5 rules, but uses the skills from 3.0. This makes it fairly annoying to make characters, especially if you own one book/SRD but not the other. Do I get the skill points from 3.0 or 3.5? I can never make a character w/o asking the GM lots of silly questions. I dislike that house rule greatly. Thankfully, I don't play in that game anymore.
Crit/fumble tables... yeah, not the fan. A 20 is a auto-hit/crit per rules, and a 1 is an auto-miss per rules. I may fluff up the '1's a bit ("While bringing your axe down onto your foe, you step on your own cloak, causing you to stumble.") and make them embarrassing in the description, but I generally don't penalize anyone. That being said, the monsters may suffer because of a 1 from time to time, for the sake of drama. I am sure many a kobold in my games have gotten a weapon stuck somewhere inconvenient due to a 1.
A houserule I hate? Psionics are different. I mean, I'm going around blowing people up with fiery laser beams. Why does the distinction have to be drawn between one fiery laser beam and another?
I also hate spell points. I really do, I don't care how much you like them if I have a mana bar I'd damn well better be playing a console or computer RPG and not sitting at a table with my friends trying to role play.Er... every core spellcaster uses spell points, chief. That's what spell slots are; points that you spend to cast spells. You just have the added layer of bureaucracy with ten pools of points to keep track of instead of one.
+1
Plus spell points accompanied by some of the other options/home brew rules could account for very diverse and roleplay/flavor spellcasting scenes
Crit/fumble tables... yeah, not the fan. A 20 is a auto-hit/crit per rules, and a 1 is an auto-miss per rules. I may fluff up the '1's a bit ("While bringing your axe down onto your foe, you step on your own cloak, causing you to stumble.") and make them embarrassing in the description, but I generally don't penalize anyone. That being said, the monsters may suffer because of a 1 from time to time, for the sake of drama. I am sure many a kobold in my games have gotten a weapon stuck somewhere inconvenient due to a 1.
I recently ran a one shot for a gamer acquaintance and a few new players. The first time someone rolled a 1, he started to call for a fumble roll or whatever it was his last DM did when a 1 was rolled. Oh and by the way, melee PCs are this guy's favorite type--dual wielding samurai in particular. I had to explain that no, crit fumbling is not a book rule, and it actually punishes you the more attack rolls you make.
|
|
I recently ran a one shot for a gamer acquaintance and a few new players. The first time someone rolled a 1, he started to call for a fumble roll or whatever it was his last DM did when a 1 was rolled.
Yes! In a recent game, one of my players rolled a 1 on his attack, and I was about to say "Okay, you miss" and move on to the next initiative, but he said "Oh no, a 1! Let me see if it's a fumble......oh, phew! Okay, I just miss."
I was like, "Ooooookay, you miss." And moved on. Later, one of the enemies rolled a 1, and I said "Okay, he misses" and started to move on, and the player said "Hey, aren't you going to check to see if he fumbled?"Me: "No, I don't use fumbles in my game."
PC: "But I had to roll for a fumble earlier!"
Me: "No, actually you kind of did that by yourself. I never said that we were playing with fumble rules."
PC: "What? And you just let me roll a fumble chance without stopping me?!"
Me: "Hey, at least you didn't actually fumble, right?" :D
I recently ran a one shot for a gamer acquaintance and a few new players. The first time someone rolled a 1, he started to call for a fumble roll or whatever it was his last DM did when a 1 was rolled.Yes! In a recent game, one of my players rolled a 1 on his attack, and I was about to say "Okay, you miss" and move on to the next initiative, but he said "Oh no, a 1! Let me see if it's a fumble......oh, phew! Okay, I just miss."
I was like, "Ooooookay, you miss." And moved on. Later, one of the enemies rolled a 1, and I said "Okay, he misses" and started to move on, and the player said "Hey, aren't you going to check to see if he fumbled?"
Me: "No, I don't use fumbles in my game."
PC: "But I had to roll for a fumble earlier!"
Me: "No, actually you kind of did that by yourself. I never said that we were playing with fumble rules."
PC: "What? And you just let me roll a fumble chance without stopping me?!"
Me: "Hey, at least you didn't actually fumble, right?" :D
This is why I love the critical hit/fumble deck.
|
I have never been a big proponent of the fumble rule. I know why people like and why people hate it. Generally I don't play with it. But as far as house rules I don't like house rules poping up in the middle of games. I had a GM who I was playing with I asked him what spells I could choose and he said anything from the PHB. So as a sorcerer I decided on choosing teleport as one of my higher level spells. I was 12th level playing in a high level game. So I mentioned what spells I was selecting he approved the list. After a couple of sessions he decided he was getting annoyed with the fact we were able to skip alot of stuff he had planned as far as long trips fraught with peril. We since I had teleport missed alot of that going directly from point A to point B. So he placed a house rule no teleport spells from that point on. It hought that was a little near sided just because he could not have some long drawn out journeys right away. Certianly there are other ways of creating adventure with the use of teleports which ends the boring you travel 6 days (roll for random monsters) trip to get to the real adventure. But that is my gripping and my own humble opinion.
Dwarf attack roll 1
Dwarf reflex save 1
Dwarf falls forward off the ledge.Another PC grabs the dwarf's legs. (yes had to roll to do that)
Dwarf ends up face to face with the Drider.Dwarf tries to attack with his legs held, upside down, and rolls another 1. Which just meant as he drew his axe back he instead hit the PC holding his legs....
That's awesome. That's exactly why I like fumble rules, for unbelievable scenes like that.
|
|
Well a lot of times travel is an improtant hook for adventures, but I would not house rule against something I had previously allowed , unless I had told the player that I was concerned about it before I said yes, and let him know that it was a trial thing.
I hand out a sheet, called House Rules of Note when to all new players.
The only spells I out right ban is geas, quest can only be cast on a willing subject by a cleric of a god that the subject worships.
Curious why do you ban geas? I mean I understand the no save, but it takes 10 minutes to cast so it is not something that could be used in combat but rather needed to cast upon a already defeated foe.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If a campaign uses a Fumble rule, then there ought to be a feat, perhaps named "Prudent", that raises the confirmation number by 4.
There might also be a rule that allows people with multiple attacks per round to forgo an additional attack in order to automatically pass the fumble confirmation check.
So a hasted fighter might have iterative attacks of +19/+19/+14/+9. She hits on the first attack, misses on the second, and then rolls a "1". She can choose to abort her fourth attack and automatically "just miss" on the third attack, or she can roll that crit confirmation on the third attack and -- if she's still alive and weilding a weapon -- go ahead with her fourth attack.
This option reduces the penalty that some people feel a Fumble rule imposes upon multiple-attack characters.
If a campaign uses a Fumble rule, then there ought to be a feat, perhaps named "Prudent", that raises the confirmation number by 4.
agreed
There might also be a rule that allows people with multiple attacks per round to forgo an additional attack in order to automatically pass the fumble confirmation check.
Simply delaying the effects of a fumble to the end of the round would go a long way...
"take this!"
"... and this!"
"... and this!" (fumble)
"... and this!"
"Aha! I tota... Ow! where's that cut coming from?"
Ah, that doesn't change the fact that crit fumbles make 20th level fighters four times as clumsy as 1st level fighters. If you really want crit fumbles to not be yet another absurd way to blatantly screw over high-level non-casters, require a nat 1 on as many attacks as a character's BAB allows before an actual fumble happens. So a 1st level fighter fumbles on a 1, while a 20th level fighter fumbles if he rolls four 1s in a turn. If he makes less than four attacks, no chance to fumble.
Or, if you're making rules for the lulz at the expense of muggles, by all means stick with any previously mentioned fumble rule.
I recently ran a one shot for a gamer acquaintance and a few new players. The first time someone rolled a 1, he started to call for a fumble roll or whatever it was his last DM did when a 1 was rolled.Yes! In a recent game, one of my players rolled a 1 on his attack, and I was about to say "Okay, you miss" and move on to the next initiative, but he said "Oh no, a 1! Let me see if it's a fumble......oh, phew! Okay, I just miss."
I was like, "Ooooookay, you miss." And moved on. Later, one of the enemies rolled a 1, and I said "Okay, he misses" and started to move on, and the player said "Hey, aren't you going to check to see if he fumbled?"
Me: "No, I don't use fumbles in my game."
PC: "But I had to roll for a fumble earlier!"
Me: "No, actually you kind of did that by yourself. I never said that we were playing with fumble rules."
PC: "What? And you just let me roll a fumble chance without stopping me?!"
Me: "Hey, at least you didn't actually fumble, right?" :D
I love when players punish themselves. :)
|
The houserule I don't like the most is:
The 20-20-20 instant kill.
It's awesome when a player does it. It's unbelievably horrible when a CR 2 goblin just took out your 16th level PC.
MY pet peeve is:
Players who whine and complain about common GM houserules such as fumbles.
We've been playing together for a while now and we aren't sure what houserules we use because we just use them. In one game we had two new players and one still complains, at 8th level (started at 1st) about the fumble and instant kill rules.
To be fair, he also doesn't like the critical hit cards, which we use.
Because the one has been doing it for twenty times longer than the other guy? So he should fumble less than the other in the same amount of time. The same way a star gymnast will fumble once in awhile, but a trainee will do so more often.
When both the novice and the olympic finalist gymnasts perform the same routine, obviously the more experienced athlete fumbles a lot less. But that is also true with the fighter. Against the same ennemy, the 20th level fighter does not fumble 4x as as much as the 1st level fighter since the 20th level has A LOT more chance to "fail" its fumble confirmation roll (i.e. not fumble).
In order to statsitically fumble 4x as much, the 20th fighter must face an adversary that is MUCH more threatening than what the 1st level fighter (or at the very least an ennemy with a superior AC by more than 20 points). The same way as the gymnasts equally fumble for routines that provide the same relative level of difficulty for their respective level of experience.
Now that doesn't solve the gamist issue that a more experienced fighter will fumble more often per round vis-a-vis an opponent of comparative strenght (in relation to the fighters' respective levels). What I only meant to say is that this does not appear that illogical to me. I'm sure that if one calculates the Damage Per Round / % of confirmed fumble ratio, the 1st level fighter fumbles more often for the same amount of damage dealt than the 20th level.
'findel
|
But that isn't necessarly true, the experianced person is doing things which are much more difficult. Having trained in both Medieval and Elizabethan combat techniques for more than 12 years, if all you are doing is making a basic attack along the 8 cut it isn't that hard. If you are trying to make a beat followed by an attack, followed by a follow up attack, change opponants make a strike and his leg, pivot and make another cut all in 6 seconds, I don't care what level of badass you are, you have a chance of screwing it up. Add a shield, or a buckler (an actual buckler, nota D&D buckler) and it gets even more complicated.
However, we do not have that in the game. We have one person able to attempt to deal damage once a round and another able to attempt it four times a round. With fumbles, the second person is four times as likely to fumble despite being the more experienced man. It's not that characters shouldn't screw up, it's that high level characters should be less likely to do so than low level characters.
However, we do not have that in the game. We have one person able to attempt to deal damage once a round and another able to attempt it four times a round. With fumbles, the second person is four times as likely to fumble despite being the more experienced man. It's not that characters shouldn't screw up, it's that high level characters should be less likely to do so than low level characters.
But that isn't necessarly true, the experianced person is doing things which are much more difficult. Having trained in both Medieval and Elizabethan combat techniques for more than 12 years, if all you are doing is making a basic attack along the 8 cut it isn't that hard. If you are trying to make a beat followed by an attack, followed by a follow up attack, change opponants make a strike and his leg, pivot and make another cut all in 6 seconds, I don't care what level of badass you are, you have a chance of screwing it up. Add a shield, or a buckler (an actual buckler, nota D&D buckler) and it gets even more complicated.
Exactly.
And for the record, D&D isn't about realism. It's about being a badass hero. Or antihero. Ya want a bit of muggle comedy in your game? Fine, use the fumble rule I suggested. Ya want muggles to be walking jokes? Use a tried and tired fumble rule.
And for the record, D&D isn't about realism.
That statement can work just as much in favor of the fumble rule (despite the fact that a 20th level has 4x as much chance to check for fumble than a 1st level wizard) than as an argument against it.
It's about being a badass hero. Or antihero.
That on the other hand, is the only argument that really holds its own IMO. I can understand and respect that.
Ya want a bit of muggle comedy in your game? Fine, use the fumble rule I suggested. Ya want muggles to be walking jokes? Use a tried and tired fumble rule.
Fumbles are as parodic as the DMs wants to make them. They don't have to be a way to mock and ridicule the player. If that's the only experience you had with fumbles, I can understand why you hate them! Similarly, not all criticals need to be turned into a gory parody of an already bad B-movie or distasteful videogame.
Fumbles can be a wonderful tool for the DM to include chaos-of-war elements in its narrative while keeping some objectivity.
Fumbles are not part of RAW, and there are many reasons for that. All i'm saying is that there is a way to use fumbles and not have your players (or NPCs) look like stooges!
'findel
Roll a '1' on attacks, roll again, above 10 and your fine, and you miss, below you drop your weapon....and it works the same for monsters.
How does a dire ape drop its weapon? Do its arms fall off?
|
|
I like our fumble rule, because its simple and easy to work with:
Roll a '1' on attacks, roll again, above 10 and your fine, and you miss, below you drop your weapon....and it works the same for monsters.
What Kirth was getting at is that your rule is almost exclusively targeted at fighters. Animals and other natural weapon users (i.e. Most enemies the PCs will fight) are immune, and spellcasters can choose to never roll an attack roll. As long as you are fine with this, your rule works. Me and Kirth don't care for it.
|
|
Roll a '1' on attacks, roll again, above 10 and your fine, and you miss, below you drop your weapon....and it works the same for monsters.How does a dire ape drop its weapon? Do its arms fall off?
They trip and fall, or something disadvantageous happens like the attack has carried through to the ape to the side(and to be fair, in certain situations PC's attacks could have carried through to a PC). Its happened before and works out well for us.
|
|
Becuase a spell that has no save and forces a character to do something for a long period of time has no place in a role playing game, which is about making choices in the development of a character, and if i am not using it on the players I sure am not having them use it on NPCs. It is a railroad spell, nothing more.Curious why do you ban geas? I mean I understand the no save, but it takes 10 minutes to cast so it is not something that could be used in combat but rather needed to cast upon a already defeated foe.
Well a lot of times travel is an improtant hook for adventures, but I would not house rule against something I had previously allowed , unless I had told the player that I was concerned about it before I said yes, and let him know that it was a trial thing.I hand out a sheet, called House Rules of Note when to all new players.
The only spells I out right ban is geas, quest can only be cast on a willing subject by a cleric of a god that the subject worships.
I must say I run across it so little and the few times I have used it or allowed it to be used on me it feels more like an forcing someone to keep their word spell. I have always used and seen it used not to force someone to do something but rather if someone agrees to something the spell enforces it. Also the spell is removed with a limited wish, wish, miracle or remove curse 2 levels higher than the caster so it does not seem like a game or role play breaker to me.
Also I have used it more in the creation of golems but I gather if a character wants to create a golem you simply have removed that requirement?
But that is me I feel like I am missing something, I gather you have had bad experiences in the past with it?
The fact that most fumble rules at least somewhat slow the fighter's power growth is that they make melee/ranged attack classes weaker then spell casters. Your caster just gets his AOE spells all day, no problem with no chance of failing. But unless you ad a chance for every spell to fail it really makes some balance issues.