Our current GMs houserule is that an attack roll of a natural 1 is not just an automatic fail, you lose all of your other iterative attacks that round. Plus a draw from the critical fumble deck on a confirmed fumble.
Also, when confirming a critical hit and drawing a card from the crit deck, anytime you draw an effect that states you do normal damage plus some debilitating effect, you still only do normal damage if the effect does not apply to the creature being critted.
: picks up the well-worn stick next to the horse corpse :
I, too, hate the fumble rule and the fumble card deck. Nothing says un-heroic like smacking your friend in the face on accident because he's the guy flanking with you.
That's all I got.
: sets down the stick :
|
Our current GMs houserule is that an attack roll of a natural 1 is not just an automatic fail, you lose all of your other iterative attacks that round. Plus a draw from the critical fumble deck on a confirmed fumble.
Also, when confirming a critical hit and drawing a card from the crit deck, anytime you draw an effect that states you do normal damage plus some debilitating effect, you still only do normal damage if the effect does not apply to the creature being critted.
Oh god yeah, I've played with that, they think it's because that makes it fair so you aren't risking multiple fumbles in a round, nooooo, I'd rather risk multiple fumbles than loose 5 attacks in a round with my TWF because I rolled a one on my first effing attack. Having both fumbles and a loose all subsequent attacks rule is about the worst thing I've ever played under. One or the other man one or the other.
I don't use fumbles in combat anymore, for the reasons given. I'll only use them on non-critical skill checks, like if the PCs are hacking around town and a major fumble can somehow serve as a plot hook.
This is purely urban RPG legend territory, but I heard of the concept that a natural "1" triggers a random event; some of which resulted in a fumble from the roller of the "1". Other results would be a major distraction (re-roll initiative), rain (treat as sleet storm over the whole battle ground), etc.
With a maximum of 1 random event per round, it limited the amount of crazy shit affecting the battleground. I guess it would still "target" the TWF fighter with high Initiative more than anyone else...
Anyone heard of that before and were this may be from?
|
Our current GMs houserule is that an attack roll of a natural 1 is not just an automatic fail, you lose all of your other iterative attacks that round. Plus a draw from the critical fumble deck on a confirmed fumble.
Also, when confirming a critical hit and drawing a card from the crit deck, anytime you draw an effect that states you do normal damage plus some debilitating effect, you still only do normal damage if the effect does not apply to the creature being critted.
I would make a spellcaster that hardly ever rolled a d20. :)
This is purely urban RPG legend territory, but I heard of the concept that a natural "1" triggers a random event; some of which resulted in a fumble from the roller of the "1". Other results would be a major distraction (re-roll initiative), rain (treat as sleet storm over the whole battle ground), etc.
With a maximum of 1 random event per round, it limited the amount of crazy s*%# affecting the battleground. I guess it would still "target" the TWF fighter with high Initiative more than anyone else...
Anyone heard of that before and were this may be from?
No. But it sounds like something that would be cool the first few times it happened, awful every other time afterwards. I prefer critical fumble cards to this.
Yeah, fumbles...I hates them. But more than that, I hate oddly specific house rules.
You know the ones I'm talking about...you join an new group, and you find out that they have a house rule about how undead can always sense the living because she hates it when you sneak past her skeletons, or how they have a complete hostage taking system in place so that you can actually kill someone when you hold a dagger to their throat. Because, you know, you should be able to.
I guess what I really hate is the addition of either pointless randomness or oddly specific rules designed to achieve something near and dear to the heart of the GM, with no regard as to how such things are meant to interact with the rest of the system. Sometimes the system gets it wrong, sure, but I find that the vast majority of these complaints are based around some lunatic's pet peeve. Fumbles, on the other hand, are just pointless randomness that punish players disproportionately, moreso if they have a multiple attack build (which, of course, makes the already hated [not by me] monk class even worse
). Ehh, I haven't read every post, so I'll just assume that someone has already said everything I want to say about fumbles sucking. I will say that the Gamemastery Fumble deck just kicked my party's unmentionables in really, REALLY hard last week, which promptly ended the experiment with the deck.
I mentioned in another thread that my flying, invisible, silenced gnome illusionist was detected by smell while I was trying to sneak past some giants in the snow. Not by dogs, or some creature with the scent ability, but by the giants. This was in the 2e days, but my DM used a 1e rule about creatures with high hit dice (for the times) getting a percentile roll to detect invisible creatures. In essence, a house rule based on a rule from an earlier edition. It was a stupid rule when EGG wrote it, and it was a stupid rule when the giants found me. I imagine it was meant to balance the invisibility spell for high level parties, or something like that. Don't care - it was till a fabulously poorly thought out rule. It's also not the only one that seemed tailored to screw with my preferred character type, either. I tend to like sneaky, thinker types, and I've noticed that a vast majority of the house rules I have encountered tend to be directly intended to poke this type of character in the eye.
Use the DM's friend rule. Or, use the other tolls available, LOGIC and REASONABLENESS. Seriously, don't make a rule just to deal with some oddly specific situation that may never creep up again. Any house rule should be designed to either encourage greater verisimilitude within the campaign, or to address a real problem in the system.
I will now prepare myself for the burning flames no doubt headed my way.
No. But it sounds like something that would be cool the first few times it happened, awful every other time afterwards. I prefer critical fumble cards to this.This is purely urban RPG legend territory, but I heard of the concept that a natural "1" triggers a random event; some of which resulted in a fumble from the roller of the "1". Other results would be a major distraction (re-roll initiative), rain (treat as sleet storm over the whole battle ground), etc.
With a maximum of 1 random event per round, it limited the amount of crazy s*%# affecting the battleground. I guess it would still "target" the TWF fighter with high Initiative more than anyone else...
Anyone heard of that before and were this may be from?
Yeah, I'm sure the third catastrophic landslide of epic proportion! of the combat doesn't get as exiting!
Yeah, fumbles...I hates them. But more than that, I hate oddly specific house rules.
You know the ones I'm talking about...you join an new group, and you find out that they have a house rule about how undead can always sense the living because she hates it when you sneak past her skeletons, or how they have a complete hostage taking system in place so that you can actually kill someone when you hold a dagger to their throat. Because, you know, you should be able to.
I guess what I really hate is the addition of either pointless randomness or oddly specific rules designed to achieve something near and dear to the heart of the GM, with no regard as to how such things are meant to interact with the rest of the system. Sometimes the system gets it wrong, sure, but I find that the vast majority of these complaints are based around some lunatic's pet peeve. Fumbles, on the other hand, are just pointless randomness that punish players disproportionately, moreso if they have a multiple attack build (which, of course, makes the already hated [not by me] monk class even worse
). Ehh, I haven't read every post, so I'll just assume that someone has already said everything I want to say about fumbles sucking. I will say that the Gamemastery Fumble deck just kicked my party's unmentionables in really, REALLY hard last week, which promptly ended the experiment with the deck.
That's truly unfortunate. I have nothing but fun with both decks. I give out experience for draws from each deck to sweeten the experience if it's going poorly for the party, so people(should they survive) walk away a little wiser(more XP) for the experience.
Yeah, fumbles...I hates them. But more than that, I hate oddly specific house rules. (...)
Warning, incoming flames! ;)
Agreed on the whimsical and non-consequential houserules. On the other hand, some DM interpretation of rules breaks the cold, cold RAW lawyering (which sometimes raise to near-worshiping-holy-scripture level).
I must admit I'm not a "live by the RAW, die by the RAW" type of DM, and I'm the first to admit that my gaming style isn't suited to content everyone: I like directed, setting-orientated houserules.
But I agree that too many houserules are, as you beautifully put it, pivoting on "complaints based around some lunatic's pet peeve", often in full ignorance of the RAW.
all with a ;)
'findel
Warning, incoming flames! ;)
Agreed on the whimsical and non-consequential houserules. On the other hand, some DM interpretation of rules breaks the cold, cold RAW lawyering (which sometimes raise to near-worshiping-holy-scripture level).
I must admit I'm not a "live by the RAW, die by the RAW" type of DM, and I'm the first to admit that my gaming style isn't suited to content everyone: I like directed, setting-orientated houserules.
But I agree that too many houserules are, as you beautifully put it, pivoting on "complaints based around some lunatic's pet peeve", often in full ignorance of the RAW.
all with a ;)
'findel
I can agree with you there. There is no scripture in RPG. That being said, I find the Pathfinder rules to be exceptionally tight, and they have over a decade of design and playtesting behind them. When I change a rule or add a house rule, I give it a lot of thought, particularly to how it will intersect with other rules. As an example, I hate the feat Heighten Spell. It serves no real purpose other than a feat tax. I allow players to memorize spells in higher level slots, and they get all of the benefits of Heighten Spell for free. In theory, it is completely balanced, and in practice, even moreso, since I've never had a single player use this option, ever. Anyway, I ramble, blah blah blah...
What I mean to say is, I am not a cold, hard RAW worshipper. Pretty close, maybe, but maybe not. I most certainly support directed, setting-orientated houserules, as long as that is what they really are (I've used some real doozies of this type myself). I think that we would probably agree on most issues. I just really wanted to hammer home the "complaints based around some lunatic's pet peeve" part of my philosophy.
Thank you for the delightful flames. My daughter laughed at my screams mingled with the sound of crackling flesh for over a full minute. Truly, thou art a gifted flamethrower.
Yeah, fumbles...I hates them. But more than that, I hate oddly specific house rules.
You know the ones I'm talking about...you join an new group, and you find out that they have a house rule about how undead can always sense the living because she hates it when you sneak past her skeletons, or how they have a complete hostage taking system in place so that you can actually kill someone when you hold a dagger to their throat. Because, you know, you should be able to.
I guess what I really hate is the addition of either pointless randomness or oddly specific rules designed to achieve something near and dear to the heart of the GM, with no regard as to how such things are meant to interact with the rest of the system. Sometimes the system gets it wrong, sure, but I find that the vast majority of these complaints are based around some lunatic's pet peeve. Fumbles, on the other hand, are just pointless randomness that punish players disproportionately, moreso if they have a multiple attack build (which, of course, makes the already hated [not by me] monk class even worse
). Ehh, I haven't read every post, so I'll just assume that someone has already said everything I want to say about fumbles sucking. I will say that the Gamemastery Fumble deck just kicked my party's unmentionables in really, REALLY hard last week, which promptly ended the experiment with the deck.I mentioned in another thread that my flying, invisible, silenced gnome illusionist was detected by smell while I was trying to sneak past some giants in the snow. Not by dogs, or some creature with the scent ability, but by the giants. This was in the 2e days, but my DM used a 1e rule about creatures with high hit dice (for the times) getting a percentile roll to detect invisible creatures. In essence, a house rule based on a rule from an earlier edition. It was a stupid rule when EGG wrote it, and it was a stupid rule when the giants found me. I imagine it was meant to balance the invisibility spell for high level parties, or something like...
I agree with most of what you say, but for one thing... My god what I wouldn't give for rules to coupe de gra someone who is not technically helpless. The fact that holding a knife up to someone's throat is a completely worthless jesture in game has come up so many times and is a huge pain.
I agree with most of what you say, but for one thing... My god what I wouldn't give for rules to coupe de gra someone who is not technically helpless. The fact that holding a knife up to someone's throat is a completely worthless jesture in game has come up so many times and is a huge pain.
No disagreement here. But bear in mind that there are, in fact, many ways to get out of such a situation. Understand, I'm not disagreeing with your premise, I just don't think that there needs to be any additional, likely complicated rules for this case. I really do think it's as simple as a DM ruling that the hostage is helpless.
Examples:
In Braveheart, Murron is tied to a stake and killed. She is technically helpless. Easy enough, example included for completeness.
In many movies, the hostage escapes the grip while the captor is distracted. Looks like a grapple situation to me. Rules exist already to cover such a situation.
Sometimes the hero (or heroine, or sidekick) screws up and gets captured. They are taken hostage and a knife is held to their throat. The DM can simply rule that they are helpless, and vulnerable to coup de grace. No new rule needed. Of course, any player would scream bloody murder if this happened to them. They become strangely silent when such a situation works out in their favor, though. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, though, and consistency in application is the important thing.
Really though, it is important to remember that the PCs are exceptional in every way. The average mook off the street isn't exactly ignoring the 1d4 damage a dagger will do. Indeed, the average commoner has 4+Con modifier hit points, and that's being generous with the rounding. Have you ever been stabbed by a knife? I have. It hurts, and also is something I wouldn't care to repeat. The problem is that people view the abstraction of Pathfinder in terms that are too concrete. A neck is a neck is a neck, and cutting a throat is bad for a neck. A 20th level Barbarian's neck is not really that much more physically resilient than a 1st level commoner's neck. It's the abstraction that makes it appear to be so. How does she survive multiple dagger strikes? Well, maybe they're not strikes to the neck. Maybe she turns at just the right time to minimize the damage. Maybe she takes the hit, ignores the pain, and gets away to seek medical treatment by pinching the wound closed just the right way, using her years of battlefield experience. Unlikely? Maybe, maybe not. But don't discard the abstraction, use description to flesh it out. If it's important to the narrative and verisimilitude, the DM has to rule that the character is effectively helpless in the appropriate situation. The players have to rely on the DM's judgment. This is, ultimately, a more robust system than some clunky add-on. Maybe someone out there has an awesome system that integrates well with the RAW and is a breeze to use and understand. As soon as I finish passing this flying unicorn out of my butt I'll jump on and fly out there to see it. Until then, though, I say this is a corner case. The corner may be a large intersection of two bust streets with no stop signs, but just like in that case, use judgment and wisdom and you'll drive through smoothly.
House rules should be rules that address major, recurrent problems. What I see as such you may not. That's fine. I don't see one in the dagger to the throat situation, I see an opportunity for DM judgment. Rolling a 1 is not a major, recurrent problem. It's something that will happen 5% of the time the proper die is rolled. I see no need for punishment. Some posters do like the added "excitement" (in quotes because such a thing is relative), and that's fine for them. I still hates me the fumbles, though. I think that many situations that some have house ruled could be solved with some DM intuition. Over time, such rulings can become standardized, and are then house rules. This organic process is better than leaping in full berserker mode to houserule something that comes up once in a great while. Ultimately, do what works for your group.
I'm not particularly thrilled about being called a lunatic because I and some of my groups occasionally enjoy making house rules that we find make the game a little more interesting or fun.
I agree that sometimes a house rule might seem unnecessary and there are certainly situations where DMs are thinking more about what gives them a good laugh than what makes the game fun for their players. But there are a lot of groups who enjoy the game for the social, story-telling aspect of the game and they create house rules that enhance that for them.
I've had a character killed by another character's fumble and though it was definitely a bummer (one of my favorite characters, in fact) it's something that fit the situation and the story well enough that my friends and I can still laugh about it 15 years later. Now I know that some people hate the idea of something so arbitrary killing their characters but we had fun with it, and none of us are lunatics or playing the game wrong for doing so.
Gaming is just like any other social endeavor: You pick the people to share it with that you know you'll enjoy. If you join an existing group and they're doing something that you don't enjoy, the problem isn't with them. The problem is with you if you continue to play the game with them and only complain about how they're doing it wrong. Find another group that fits your preference and leave the others alone.
There are a lot of players on Paizo who espouse opinions and ideas about the game that I completely disagree with. But no one is ever going to force me to play with them, anymore than I'd force them to play with me. You're responsible for your own choices. If you don't like the way someone else is playing the game, you don't have to play.
I agree with most of what you say, but for one thing... My god what I wouldn't give for rules to coupe de gra someone who is not technically helpless. The fact that holding a knife up to someone's throat is a completely worthless jesture in game has come up so many times and is a huge pain.
How about granting the knife holder a held-action attack against the victim's flat-footed AC? Seems like a good compromise between the automatically heroic escape from your worthless gesture, and the rather un-heroic ElCrabofAnger's coup de grace.
Or, you could be a hard@ss like ElCrabofAnger says, and just rule in favor of a coup de grace. ;)
I'm not particularly thrilled about being called a lunatic because I and some of my groups occasionally enjoy making house rules that we find make the game a little more interesting or fun.
Look, it's all cool, okay? I certainly wasn't referring to you specifically, and I wasn't implying whatever it is that you're inferring from my post. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, and I generally strive with great vengeance and furious anger to avoid poisoning or destroying my good brethren on these boards. Whatever works for you is fine with me, and if our preferred styles don't mesh, hey, then good luck to you and have fun anyway, which is the important thing.
And you're right, no one is forcing anyone else to play, which was sort of the point I was making. I love to play, and I'm willing to put up with a lot to do so, but I've run into some real honest-to-goodness lunatics, some crazy cats out there, you dig? And I wouldn't play with them for many reasons, rules and otherwise. Those were the lunatics who flavored my post, and I wholeheartedly apologize if it seemed like I was launching any personal attacks. You and me, we meet, we don't ever meet, we play together, we don't play together, hey man, I'm still cool with you, and I hope you can be cool with me, yeah?
And now, to answer another post:
A hard@ss? Moi? Nah. I see how it could be seen to be that way, but my argument was more about consistency of judgment than that particular rule. I would generally favor whatever approach produced better dramatic tension, but I would try to be consistent. I would tend to err on the side of not declaring PC's to be helpless, as a rule, both to stick closer to RAW and to avoid the force 10 s***storm of whining that would come my way. As the great Mickey Rourke once said, though, sometime you just gotta roll the potato, and if I had to make such a ruling to enhance the game I would certainly do so, but I would try to give the player's another way out. It seems so situational to me that codifying a house rule seems like a way to introduce more problems, since my players would immediately try to game the rule rather than seeing it for what it's supposed to be. Maybe your players are better behaved than mine. Go with what works.
Seriously, though, a hard@ss? Man, that vitamin regimen is really paying off.
|
Nothing says un-heroic like smacking your friend in the face on accident because he's the guy flanking with you.
Untrue. The barbarian had one time fumbled, hit the mage, dropped him, then cleaved into the bad guy and dropped him. Funniest thing I ever saw.....fumble turned back into good.
Really depends on your DM
Nothing says un-heroic like smacking your friend in the face on accident because he's the guy flanking with you.
Untrue. The barbarian had one time fumbled, hit the mage, dropped him, then cleaved into the bad guy and dropped him. Funniest thing I ever saw.....fumble turned back into good.
Really depends on your DM
I realize it comes back to personal preference, but I'd still feel like a chump if i were playing that barbarian or wizard... especially if i was playing the wizard, actually.
My most hated houserule: spellcasters suck. I've played one to many games where the GM feels that spellcasters (wizards in particular) are just to powerful and they feel the need to nerf them to the point where they are damn near unplayable.