Can we have a special musical session? :)
OT: Can't help but wonder if some "inverse-powergamers"(not all, some) might be doing so because theyu're trying too hard to prove they're not powergamers, for whatever reason. I mean it's not like there isn't a witch-hunt feel hanging over some circles concerning powergamers. Or "REAL Roleplayers" Or any number of extremes people are all too eager to lump others into at the first sign of stepping beyond the boundries of the One-Or-Few-True-Ways.
I mean, man....you see posters starting advice threads where they feel they need to apologize and reassure others that they are not really a/an ________. And then you consider the scene that makes them think they have to do that. :(
Considering the trouble that powergamers can and do cause, I'm not overly concerned. No sympathy for the devil here.
|
Considering the trouble that powergamers can and do cause, I'm not overly concerned. No sympathy for the devil here.Can we have a special musical session? :)
OT: Can't help but wonder if some "inverse-powergamers"(not all, some) might be doing so because theyu're trying too hard to prove they're not powergamers, for whatever reason. I mean it's not like there isn't a witch-hunt feel hanging over some circles concerning powergamers. Or "REAL Roleplayers" Or any number of extremes people are all too eager to lump others into at the first sign of stepping beyond the boundries of the One-Or-Few-True-Ways.
I mean, man....you see posters starting advice threads where they feel they need to apologize and reassure others that they are not really a/an ________. And then you consider the scene that makes them think they have to do that. :(
It's not so much sympathy for that classification of powergamer, but for the folks that get caught in the crossfire, be they optimizers, the guy that really wants to play a minotaur because he wants his character to be a minotaur, or otherwise get hit with the guilt-by-association-no-matter-how-flimsy-the-connection bat.
Sorry, but if there's a chance that something can go wrong on a failure, then you *have* to roll.
Nah. Her bonus is high enough to make all the rolls. Since skill checks don't fail on a one (that's only for attacks and saves, not for anything else)
Also, I was wrong the other day, you have to make two checks every round to keep your ship afloat. And if you can't remember the name of the feat, then you can't take it!
I'll look it up. And she'll make both checks, no problem.
Nah. Her bonus is high enough to make all the rolls. Since skill checks don't fail on a one (that's only for attacks and saves, not for anything else)
Sorry, but if there's a chance that something can go wrong on a failure, then you *have* to roll.
My game, my rules. You only treat 1s normally if you have a divine rank of 0 or higher. And no, you cannot have demigods as cohorts.
How about you create a character that is munchkinized to hell and still role play well... you know since the two arent mutually exclusive?
I cant stand people who go out of thier way to create a character that is useless. Seriously pull your own weight or leave.
Im a powergamer. Im also a role player. Im also social. Making a character that is intentionally so far under powered or anti-powergamed that i'd rather have a level 0 farmer by my side in combat isnt "cool and unique" is being a troll.
For some reason people seem to think that you cant have a level 1 two handed fighter ( apg ) with weapon focus , power attack and furious focus with a hierloom weapon and still role play. Its incredibly short sighted. Power gamer does NOT meen anti-role player. It meens that you are trying to be the best you can form a mechanically stand point so that when the role playing done and the fighting starts you can also perticipate just as well as when you where role playing.
Sorry , no matter what you say , I refuse to feel bad about have a character that is better then yours. If im outshining the party I might tone it back while not changing my character if I feel that you arent intentionally making bad choices because you dont want to "be a munchkin". Most of the time if your being outshine its your fault.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My game, my rules. You only treat 1s normally if you have a divine rank of 0 or higher.Nah. Her bonus is high enough to make all the rolls. Since skill checks don't fail on a one (that's only for attacks and saves, not for anything else)
Sorry, but if there's a chance that something can go wrong on a failure, then you *have* to roll.
Do you know how fundamentally stupid that is? Mankind could not have survived more than a week with such a reality, since people will frequently mess up routine tasks.
Walk over a bridge without falling over and dying? DC 0, but since a natural 1 fails, 5% of people who try to walk over the bridge will fall to their death. A man who needs to walk over a bridge on his way to work statistically will not survive to get his first monthly pay check. Of course, even if there was no bridge, there is the DC0 check to avoid strangling yourself trying to tie your shoelaces.
And no, you cannot have demigods as cohorts.
Kaylee's a goddess. No mere "demi"god, so that's no problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
#$wkrsqks;;!
flflwpzppdor;;erj`&&q
EDIT: Ah, sorry about that. I tried to make a post about how dumb it was to fail skill rolls on a nat 1, and I ended up rolling a 1 on my Craft (written word) skill.
#$wkrsqks;;!
flflwpzppdor;;erj`&&q
EDIT: Ah, sorry about that. I tried to make a post about how dumb it was to fail skill rolls on a nat 1, and I ended up rolling a 1 on my Craft (written word) skill.
LOL , epic.
I would(and have) argue(d) that something with an appreciable dc of 0 does not require a roll. Also, in my games I usually only require a roll in situations where failure would truly mean something -not usually an issue when trying shoes, but certainly an issue with, say defusing a bomb or trying to talk your way out of a dicey situation. The idea of someone messing up at a particular task one out of twenty times has been disproven on several occasions, and as I am typing this post on a phone, i will have to get into it at a later date when I have a dedicated keyboard at hand. In terms of the humorous posts above, i have to ask ice Titan if you have never misspelled anything (like tagion did several times in his own post) or deleted a post after realizing you made some mistake in it. We all err in life, and while I am not demanding a player or character be flogged for their every failing, i do ask that they at least touch the dice on occasion when attempting something where failure has an appreciable effect on the situation.
Do you know how fundamentally stupid that is? Mankind could not have survived more than a week with such a reality, since people will frequently mess up routine tasks.Walk over a bridge without falling over and dying? DC 0, but since a natural 1 fails, 5% of people who try to walk over the bridge will fall to their death. A man who needs to walk over a bridge on his way to work statistically will not survive to get his first monthly pay check. Of course, even if there was no bridge, there is the DC0 check to avoid strangling yourself trying to tie your shoelaces.
Take 10?
5% to fall under stress (when you can't take 10 because you are running/fighting/being pursued) seems about right.
I would not play with this house rule because I find it to go against the "heroic" feel of Pathfinder, but I don't think it make sense to discard it because of "reality" if you take the take 10/20 rule into account.
i have to ask ice Titan if you have never misspelled anything (like tagion did several times in his own post) or deleted a post after realizing you made some mistake in it.
You imply that writing a perfect post is a trivial DC 0 task or that everyone here has ranks in Craft (perfect posts).
We all err in life, and while I am not demanding a player or character be flogged for their every failing, i do ask that they at least touch the dice on occasion when attempting something where failure has an appreciable effect on the situation.
On occasion = twice per round?
i have to ask ice Titan if you have never misspelled anything (like tagion did several times in his own post) or deleted a post after realizing you made some mistake in it.You imply that writing a perfect post is a trivial DC 0 task or that everyone here has ranks in Craft (perfect posts).
Not at all.
On occasion = twice per round?
We all err in life, and while I am not demanding a player or character be flogged for their every failing, i do ask that they at least touch the dice on occasion when attempting something where failure has an appreciable effect on the situation.
When it comes to anyone from said show, yes. ;-)
When it comes to anyone from said show, yes. ;-)
Kaylee can choose to automatically succeed on her Profession checks to repair a damaged ship, UNLESS the part is broken (reduced to 0 HP; sometimes when somethin's broke can't be fixed). Then you gotta get a new port-catalyzer or you're drifting.
That said, if she doesn't beat the DC by 5 or more, the area where damage has been taken is considered difficult terrain and costs double movement due to hanging wires, loose tools, and spare parts lying around.
EDIT: Y'know, you gotta wonder what twisted force of divinity would allow such a crew - a genius doctor, genius mechanic, a psycho-telepath, the world's BEST merc, a secret agent priest, the #1 companion in the 'verse, the best pilot money can buy, the toughest first mate ever, and Captain freakin' Hammer - to fall on such hard times, constantly... I get the joke about rolling twice for everything, it's like a permanent Misfortune hex. But yeah. Sorry for the de-rail. This thread got me in a big damn hero of a mood.
I'm getting this off my chest. Fire Fly sucked. The acting, writing, special effects, cinematography, all sucked. The movie wasn't much better. The plot was forced with cheap rip off characters who had AT BEST one cool line in the series. I could forgive that. But if you throw someone through the window in a bar fight the glass breaks. Period. And if you aren't smart enough to get the right you ain't Fiona Apple. The only good space western was Star Trek.
|
Sorry, but if there's a chance that something can go wrong on a failure, then you *have* to roll. Kaylee's not a demigod, she's going to treat 1s as failures. Also, I was wrong the other day, you have to make two checks every round to keep your ship afloat. And if you can't remember the name of the feat, then you can't take it!No problem. My cohort - let's call her Kaylee - has maximised Engineering (max ranks, "The Ship Talks to Me" trait, skill Focus, and that +2/+2 feat I don't remember the name of, other stuff)and can make those checks without even rolling.
Of course you can!!! I have nothing but the most amazing adventures in mind for your character! I do hope he can survive rapid decompression, however, as you will have to make checks for your rusting ship every round.
1s are failures for attacks and saves, but not skill checks. so if you can pass without rolling, you just do it better by being forcd to roll.
The only good space western was Star Trek.
[/smirk] Oh-kay. Whatever you say, chief.
|
I'm getting this off my chest. Fire Fly sucked. The acting, writing, special effects, cinematography, all sucked. The movie wasn't much better. The plot was forced with cheap rip off characters who had AT BEST one cool line in the series. I could forgive that. But if you throw someone through the window in a bar fight the glass breaks. Period. And if you aren't smart enough to get the right you ain't Fiona Apple. The only good space western was Star Trek.
I will not even dignify this with an answer or comment...
I'm getting this off my chest. Fire Fly sucked. The acting, writing, special effects, cinematography, all sucked. The movie wasn't much better. The plot was forced with cheap rip off characters who had AT BEST one cool line in the series. I could forgive that. But if you throw someone through the window in a bar fight the glass breaks. Period. And if you aren't smart enough to get the right you ain't Fiona Apple. The only good space western was Star Trek.
1s are failures for attacks and saves, but not skill checks. so if you can pass without rolling, you just do it better by being forcd to roll.Sorry, but if there's a chance that something can go wrong on a failure, then you *have* to roll. Kaylee's not a demigod, she's going to treat 1s as failures. Also, I was wrong the other day, you have to make two checks every round to keep your ship afloat. And if you can't remember the name of the feat, then you can't take it!No problem. My cohort - let's call her Kaylee - has maximised Engineering (max ranks, "The Ship Talks to Me" trait, skill Focus, and that +2/+2 feat I don't remember the name of, other stuff)and can make those checks without even rolling.
Of course you can!!! I have nothing but the most amazing adventures in mind for your character! I do hope he can survive rapid decompression, however, as you will have to make checks for your rusting ship every round.
At first I just didn't care for the rule, but then I encountered some people who really, really, REALLY made me hate the rule because in essence they were holding the DM hostage. It's a long, long story, and I won't go into it here, and I apologize for that as it makes me seem like I'm attacking people for the way they play their character, but it's one house rule I'm adamant on when I'm behind the screen.
At first I just didn't care for the rule, but then I encountered some people who really, really, REALLY made me hate the rule because in essence they were holding the DM hostage. It's a long, long story, and I won't go into it here, and I apologize for that as it makes me seem like I'm attacking people for the way they play their character, but it's one house rule I'm adamant on when I'm behind the screen.
It's not "the way they play their character" you're attacking, it's the basis of using skills around which the game is balanced. If I've got a 23 Survival modifier, and you make me roll for a DC 15 anything (making a tent from scratch whatever), and tell me on a 1 that I fail, I'm going walk away from your table and not come back. That isn't fun, it makes skills more tedious. With a 23 modifier, there should be zero chance of failure on such a mundane task.
Acrobatics? If I've got a 20 in that, and in the midst of combat I decide to roll past something with a CMD of 16, you tell me to roll for it: same scenario, I'd leave. You don't fumble skills.
EDIT: Forgot this point: Any DM held hostage by a rule that the NPC and PCs alike have to follow is just being a pushover. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
At first I just didn't care for the rule, but then I encountered some people who really, really, REALLY made me hate the rule because in essence they were holding the DM hostage. It's a long, long story, and I won't go into it here, and I apologize for that as it makes me seem like I'm attacking people for the way they play their character, but it's one house rule I'm adamant on when I'm behind the screen.It's not "the way they play their character" you're attacking, it's the basis of using skills around which the game is balanced. If I've got a 23 Survival modifier, and you make me roll for a DC 15 anything (making a tent from scratch whatever), and tell me on a 1 that I fail, I'm going walk away from your table and not come back. That isn't fun, it makes skills more tedious. With a 23 modifier, there should be zero chance of failure on such a mundane task.
Acrobatics? If I've got a 20 in that, and in the midst of combat I decide to roll past something with a CMD of 16, you tell me to roll for it: same scenario, I'd leave. You don't fumble skills.
EDIT: Forgot this point: Any DM held hostage by a rule that the NPC and PCs alike have to follow is just being a pushover. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
In my experience, auto-success isn't fun either from either side of the screen. I'm not forcing you or anyone to play in a game they don't want to play in, so if you want to leave a table, it's your loss. Regarding the edit, in my experience, the line between a pushover and a "tyrant"(their word, not yours) seems to be incredibly thin. But like I said, I don't want to get into this very old story, and I sincerely doubt you were there for it(this is a small hobby, but the internet is a big place), and maybe I'm expecting too much as we are on a forum and I'm expecting people to take my experience at nothing more than my word. Ah well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At first I just didn't care for the rule, but then I encountered some people who really, really, REALLY made me hate the rule because in essence they were holding the DM hostage. It's a long, long story, and I won't go into it here, and I apologize for that as it makes me seem like I'm attacking people for the way they play their character, but it's one house rule I'm adamant on when I'm behind the screen.It's not "the way they play their character" you're attacking, it's the basis of using skills around which the game is balanced. If I've got a 23 Survival modifier, and you make me roll for a DC 15 anything (making a tent from scratch whatever), and tell me on a 1 that I fail, I'm going walk away from your table and not come back. That isn't fun, it makes skills more tedious. With a 23 modifier, there should be zero chance of failure on such a mundane task.
Acrobatics? If I've got a 20 in that, and in the midst of combat I decide to roll past something with a CMD of 16, you tell me to roll for it: same scenario, I'd leave. You don't fumble skills.
EDIT: Forgot this point: Any DM held hostage by a rule that the NPC and PCs alike have to follow is just being a pushover. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
If you're the kind of player who would walk away from a table over something so trivial, you wouldn't be welcome at my games in the first place. In my opinion, that's really petty.
What is this thread anyway?
"Powergaming" is an illusion associated with one of two jerk-types.
Jerk-type #1 makes people regret playing with him by building a character in jerky way and then playing that character in a jerky way. It is important to note that the very same character in the hands of a non-jerk will not be called a power-gamer.
Jerk-type #2 is a drama jerk, who sets impossible or stupid standards for "role-playing" mainly as a means to feel superior to others. These people accuse others of "power-gaming" when they are simply making choices in a game whose 500 page rulebook is predominantly about carefully planning a path to ever greater superpowers. Note here that a really classy role-player doesn't get indignant about how others play the game.
In the end, there is no "powergaming" to hate. It is just a word for interactions between jerks and the rest of us. I propose we abandon the term in favor of mere "jerks". It will clarify the issue.
I'm finding this derailing hilarious. We have a silly "I'm the worst GM evar, and here's how I'm going to make your Firefly RPG experience miserable" joke, followed by a bunch of people saying that's the most unfun GM experience they can imagine.
WHOOSH
If you're the kind of player who would walk away from a table over something so trivial, you wouldn't be welcome at my games in the first place. In my opinion, that's really petty.At first I just didn't care for the rule, but then I encountered some people who really, really, REALLY made me hate the rule because in essence they were holding the DM hostage. It's a long, long story, and I won't go into it here, and I apologize for that as it makes me seem like I'm attacking people for the way they play their character, but it's one house rule I'm adamant on when I'm behind the screen.It's not "the way they play their character" you're attacking, it's the basis of using skills around which the game is balanced. If I've got a 23 Survival modifier, and you make me roll for a DC 15 anything (making a tent from scratch whatever), and tell me on a 1 that I fail, I'm going walk away from your table and not come back. That isn't fun, it makes skills more tedious. With a 23 modifier, there should be zero chance of failure on such a mundane task.
Acrobatics? If I've got a 20 in that, and in the midst of combat I decide to roll past something with a CMD of 16, you tell me to roll for it: same scenario, I'd leave. You don't fumble skills.
EDIT: Forgot this point: Any DM held hostage by a rule that the NPC and PCs alike have to follow is just being a pushover. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
+1
If behaved in that manner at a game I was hosting, you would find your invitation rescinded.
More over, I assume that you would also remove auto-hit, and auto-miss in combat, for the sake of consistancy, right?
|
|
If you're the kind of player who would walk away from a table over something so trivial, you wouldn't be welcome at my games in the first place. In my opinion, that's really petty.At first I just didn't care for the rule, but then I encountered some people who really, really, REALLY made me hate the rule because in essence they were holding the DM hostage. It's a long, long story, and I won't go into it here, and I apologize for that as it makes me seem like I'm attacking people for the way they play their character, but it's one house rule I'm adamant on when I'm behind the screen.It's not "the way they play their character" you're attacking, it's the basis of using skills around which the game is balanced. If I've got a 23 Survival modifier, and you make me roll for a DC 15 anything (making a tent from scratch whatever), and tell me on a 1 that I fail, I'm going walk away from your table and not come back. That isn't fun, it makes skills more tedious. With a 23 modifier, there should be zero chance of failure on such a mundane task.
Acrobatics? If I've got a 20 in that, and in the midst of combat I decide to roll past something with a CMD of 16, you tell me to roll for it: same scenario, I'd leave. You don't fumble skills.
EDIT: Forgot this point: Any DM held hostage by a rule that the NPC and PCs alike have to follow is just being a pushover. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
+1
If behaved in that manner at a game I was hosting, you would find your invitation rescinded.
More over, I assume that you would also remove auto-hit, and auto-miss in combat, for the sake of consistancy, right?
combat is called out in the rule book as aout miss on 1 ond crit on 20.
I walk away from tables with critical fumble rules. Period. I've had a monk throw a punch, roll a 1 and he broke his leg. i declared he started using his +40 something to jump to leave combat, packed my dice and left.
then i remembered it was my place we were playing at, so i just went to the bar and let my friends finish their game.
If you're the kind of player who would walk away from a table over something so trivial, you wouldn't be welcome at my games in the first place. In my opinion, that's really petty.At first I just didn't care for the rule, but then I encountered some people who really, really, REALLY made me hate the rule because in essence they were holding the DM hostage. It's a long, long story, and I won't go into it here, and I apologize for that as it makes me seem like I'm attacking people for the way they play their character, but it's one house rule I'm adamant on when I'm behind the screen.It's not "the way they play their character" you're attacking, it's the basis of using skills around which the game is balanced. If I've got a 23 Survival modifier, and you make me roll for a DC 15 anything (making a tent from scratch whatever), and tell me on a 1 that I fail, I'm going walk away from your table and not come back. That isn't fun, it makes skills more tedious. With a 23 modifier, there should be zero chance of failure on such a mundane task.
Acrobatics? If I've got a 20 in that, and in the midst of combat I decide to roll past something with a CMD of 16, you tell me to roll for it: same scenario, I'd leave. You don't fumble skills.
EDIT: Forgot this point: Any DM held hostage by a rule that the NPC and PCs alike have to follow is just being a pushover. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
+1
If behaved in that manner at a game I was hosting, you would find your invitation rescinded.
More over, I assume that you would also remove auto-hit, and auto-miss in combat, for the sake of consistancy, right?
combat is called out in the rule book as aout miss on 1 ond crit on 20.
I walk away from tables with critical fumble rules. Period. I've had a monk throw a punch, roll a 1 and he broke his leg. i declared he started using his +40 something to jump to leave...
That's unfortunate. My friends and I are having the time of our lives with the Critical Hit and Fumble Decks. I have some similar rules for social interaction that use the Plot Twist Deck. Small amounts of XP are handed out for each card at the end of the game(people hold on to their cards so we don't get the "Holy crap, how many times can he crit and pull the decapitation card!!!!" problem), it has worked out quite well so far.
If you're the kind of player who would walk away from a table over something so trivial, you wouldn't be welcome at my games in the first place. In my opinion, that's really petty.At first I just didn't care for the rule, but then I encountered some people who really, really, REALLY made me hate the rule because in essence they were holding the DM hostage. It's a long, long story, and I won't go into it here, and I apologize for that as it makes me seem like I'm attacking people for the way they play their character, but it's one house rule I'm adamant on when I'm behind the screen.It's not "the way they play their character" you're attacking, it's the basis of using skills around which the game is balanced. If I've got a 23 Survival modifier, and you make me roll for a DC 15 anything (making a tent from scratch whatever), and tell me on a 1 that I fail, I'm going walk away from your table and not come back. That isn't fun, it makes skills more tedious. With a 23 modifier, there should be zero chance of failure on such a mundane task.
Acrobatics? If I've got a 20 in that, and in the midst of combat I decide to roll past something with a CMD of 16, you tell me to roll for it: same scenario, I'd leave. You don't fumble skills.
EDIT: Forgot this point: Any DM held hostage by a rule that the NPC and PCs alike have to follow is just being a pushover. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
+1
If behaved in that manner at a game I was hosting, you would find your invitation rescinded.
More over, I assume that you would also remove auto-hit, and auto-miss in combat, for the sake of consistancy, right?
combat is called out in the rule book as aout miss on 1 ond crit on 20.
I walk away from tables with critical fumble rules. Period. I've had a monk throw a punch, roll a 1 and he broke his leg. i declared he started using his +40 something to jump to leave...
Yes the rules as written do state that 1's always miss, and 20's always hit.
But if foghammer, where being consistant, would he not want to see this rule removed?
As for you walking out...
Dude, these are your friends, your playing a game. My friends wind me up something chronic when we play together, but I throw my toys out of the pram because they have a different rules view point to me. We have arguments, but we try to settle them like adults.
Something that matters, like sexist rants aimed at a female member of the group, or what ever, I can entirely see walking out over, but fumbles? Seriously?
|
|
Personally, I like the 1 on a skill check is a failure concept. Even if you have some crazy modifier to a skill check, there is still that odd chance than something is going to go completely wrong, especially when you are talking about contested skill checks, or using a skill (Acrobatics) within combat.
That said, I don't think it shoudl mean "you failed and that's that" for many skill checks. In the example given of setting up a tent, it should translate to the task taking longer than it normally should have. But for tumbling past an opponent (or any skill check which has the potential for negative repercussions), regardless of your level of skill, there should be some potential for failure. Being highly skilled should never be a guarantee of perpetual success. Just my 2cp.
Personally, I like the 1 on a skill check is a failure concept. Even if you have some crazy modifier to a skill check, there is still that odd chance than something is going to go completely wrong, especially when you are talking about contested skill checks, or using a skill (Acrobatics) within combat.
That said, I don't think it shoudl mean "you failed and that's that" for many skill checks. In the example given of setting up a tent, it should translate to the task taking longer than it normally should have. But for tumbling past an opponent (or any skill check which has the potential for negative repercussions), regardless of your level of skill, there should be some potential for failure. Being highly skilled should never be a guarantee of perpetual success. Just my 2cp.
To be fair, this IS how I play it. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that before. Failure is VERY VERY RARELY just failure as in, "You suck, your turn is over, have fun waiting while everyone else gets to do something." It just means something happens to the character's detriment. If your character was building a tent, let's say, and your rolled a 1, it means that it uses up extra materials and takes more time than you thought. It doesn't mean you go hungry for the night as every branch and piece of tarp you attempt to use is either broken or torn. If you rolled a 1 on an Acrobatics check, you might move into the space you wanted to but be at a -1 to hit the person you tumbled past due to happy feet or something. As stated above, I make heavy use of the plot twist deck when things go really really right and really really wrong, and I try to fold in stuff that is far more carrot than stick. I'm sorry if I was a little too zealous in my dislike of autosuccess- I'm not trying to shut players down as much as I'm trying to keep autosuccess from being...well..automatic.
Personally, I like the 1 on a skill check is a failure concept. Even if you have some crazy modifier to a skill check, there is still that odd chance than something is going to go completely wrong, especially when you are talking about contested skill checks, or using a skill (Acrobatics) within combat.
That said, I don't think it shoudl mean "you failed and that's that" for many skill checks. In the example given of setting up a tent, it should translate to the task taking longer than it normally should have. But for tumbling past an opponent (or any skill check which has the potential for negative repercussions), regardless of your level of skill, there should be some potential for failure. Being highly skilled should never be a guarantee of perpetual success. Just my 2cp.
Add to that, that roles are only needed in stressful situations, the rest of the time you can use take tens and twenties, which is why people don't crash their car on the way to work as some have suggested.
Acrobatics? If I've got a 20 in that, and in the midst of combat I decide to roll past something with a CMD of 16, you tell me to roll for it: same scenario, I'd leave. You don't fumble skills.
EDIT: Forgot this point: Any DM held hostage by a rule that the NPC and PCs alike have to follow is just being a pushover. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
combat is called out in the rule book as aout miss on 1 ond crit on 20.
I walk away from tables with critical fumble rules. Period. I've had a monk throw a punch, roll a 1 and he broke his leg. i declared he started using his +40 something to jump to leave combat, packed my dice and left.
then i remembered it was my place we were playing at, so i just went to the bar and let my friends finish their game.
I walked downstairs one night to grab a DVD and tripped over my cat. I broke my big toe in HALF(along the cuticle, toe bone sticking out). You'd think something as simple as "walk downstairs, grab a movie off the shelf" would warrant automatic success, yes?
What's with the tough-guy act I'm seeing more and more around here lately, the "If I ever saw that, I'd walk away from the table"? We're not talking about poker tournaments for cash, this is a glorified board game we play with friends(or online acquaintances). If your call is to up and walk, especially from a game you're hosting at your house, over something like a crit fumble, wow. Just... Wow. Communication works wonders, by the way.
If stuff like one random crit fumble, or not getting automatic success even on a natural 1(really? In combat even?) is enough for some of you to walk from the table, I have no hope for the future of this hobby. Yes, I've walked from games, as recent as last week. But it took a hell of a lot more than one odd roll or an inflated sense of entitlement to make me go.
Acrobatics? If I've got a 20 in that, and in the midst of combat I decide to roll past something with a CMD of 16, you tell me to roll for it: same scenario, I'd leave. You don't fumble skills.
EDIT: Forgot this point: Any DM held hostage by a rule that the NPC and PCs alike have to follow is just being a pushover. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I walked downstairs one night to grab a DVD and tripped over my cat. I broke my big toe in HALF(along the cuticle, toe bone sticking out). You'd think something as simple as "walk downstairs, grab a movie off the shelf" would warrant automatic success, yes?combat is called out in the rule book as aout miss on 1 ond crit on 20.
I walk away from tables with critical fumble rules. Period. I've had a monk throw a punch, roll a 1 and he broke his leg. i declared he started using his +40 something to jump to leave combat, packed my dice and left.
then i remembered it was my place we were playing at, so i just went to the bar and let my friends finish their game.
YIKES!! How did that even happen?! How did you heal? Is the cat okay?(nonsense question, I know from experience that the animal that causes you to injure yourself tripping over it is ALWAYS okay).
YIKES!! How did that even happen?! How did you heal? Is the cat okay?(nonsense question, I know from experience that the animal that causes you to injure yourself tripping over it is ALWAYS okay).
Of course the cat was ok! The bastard... Has those cat-like reflexes...
The lights were off except for the kitchen light, I didn't see the cat and stepped forward. It bolted, surprising me and I fell forward, my foot continuing forward with my toe rolled underneath, I stepped down onto it. Crunch... The nail now grows crooked at an angle.
So yeah, I am a firm believer in "no such thing as auto-success." This was just a RL example of stepping into a room to get something off of a shelf. Someone trying to justify auto-success on acrobatics in combat? Absurd, in my opinion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, technically, you succeeded in walking down the stairs just fine. It's just that the Cat beat your CMD on her Trip attack, and she clearly uses 3.5 rules, allowing her to follow up with a free attack to deal damage. You didn't roll a 1 on your skill check, you just fell victim to the fact that cats have a significant combat advantage versus commoners. ;)
Also, I am going to be clutching my foot in sympathetic pain for the rest of the day.
I would not expect the rules for auto-miss on a 1 in combat to be removed because THAT'S WHAT THE RULES SAY. That is consistent because it's RAW.
I suppose as written, my statement about walking away seems childish. In reality, I wouldn't do that because I have seen worse and endured it until the end of the game. I simply don't come back to play anymore. Yeah, they are my friends, but if the DM wants to make stupid rules that I completely disagree with, I'm just not going to play. One of my friends says that negative levels are instant and permanent. I don't play when he DMs anymore, despite the fact that my favorite character ever came from one of his campaigns.
Call me childish. I gave you my opinion of a ruling. You turned to name calling. Says more about you than me.
Well, technically, you succeeded in walking down the stairs just fine. It's just that the Cat beat your CMD on her Trip attack, and she clearly uses 3.5 rules, allowing her to follow up with a free attack to deal damage. You didn't roll a 1 on your skill check, you just fell victim to the fact that cats have a significant combat advantage versus commoners. ;)
Also, I am going to be clutching my foot in sympathetic pain for the rest of the day.
Ya know, I never thought of it like that...
The fun part was, I started a new job that week. I had a slip from the hospital for my new employer that said I need to stay off that foot as much as possible, so what's my new boss say?
"Well, it's kind of slow around here right now, so just go out in the warehouse and familiarize yourself with where all the parts are."
He literally had me limping through the halls of the warehouse for the next 2 days, on my broken toe.
I would not expect the rules for auto-miss on a 1 in combat to be removed because THAT'S WHAT THE RULES SAY. That is consistent because it's RAW.
I suppose as written, my statement about walking away seems childish. In reality, I wouldn't do that because I have seen worse and endured it until the end of the game. I simply don't come back to play anymore. Yeah, they are my friends, but if the DM wants to make stupid rules that I completely disagree with, I'm just not going to play. One of my friends says that negative levels are instant and permanent. I don't play when he DMs anymore, despite the fact that my favorite character ever came from one of his campaigns.
Call me childish. I gave you my opinion of a ruling. You turned to name calling. Says more about you than me.
Have you considered actually talking to the DM outside of the game when they make a ruling you don't like? You say "In reality, I wouldn't do that" but you said exactly that is what you would do, walk away from a game over somehting like a skill check ruling. Yes, that seems very childish.
And where did I call you a name? I said the behavior is absurd, and I stand by that. If you can't discuss the game with friends when something un-fun comes up, "taking your toys and going home" is childish and absurd to me.
EDIT: In the name of fairness, I just left a game myself. Real-life schedule conflicts, combined with sharply contrasting play-styles, spelled my exit. This was after we, as a group, had several long discussions about play style and expectations just a few months prior.
I would not expect the rules for auto-miss on a 1 in combat to be removed because THAT'S WHAT THE RULES SAY. That is consistent because it's RAW.
I suppose as written, my statement about walking away seems childish. In reality, I wouldn't do that because I have seen worse and endured it until the end of the game. I simply don't come back to play anymore. Yeah, they are my friends, but if the DM wants to make stupid rules that I completely disagree with, I'm just not going to play. One of my friends says that negative levels are instant and permanent. I don't play when he DMs anymore, despite the fact that my favorite character ever came from one of his campaigns.
Call me childish. I gave you my opinion of a ruling. You turned to name calling. Says more about you than me.
Have you considered actually talking to the DM outside of the game when they make a ruling you don't like? You say "In reality, I wouldn't do that" but you said exactly that is what you would do, walk away from a game over somehting like a skill check ruling. Yes, that seems very childish.
And where did I call you a name? I said the behavior is absurd, and I stand by that. If you can't discuss the game with friends when something un-fun comes up, "taking your toys and going home" is childish and absurd to me.
EDIT: In the name of fairness, I just left a game myself. Real-life schedule conflicts, combined with sharply contrasting play-styles, spelled my exit. This was after we, as a group, had several long discussions about play style and expectations just a few months prior.
I was about to say that I don't think anyone called anyone anything(save perhaps pushover), it was the BEHAVIOR that was objected to, not the person.
What were the contrasting play styles?
I would not expect the rules for auto-miss on a 1 in combat to be removed because THAT'S WHAT THE RULES SAY. That is consistent because it's RAW.
I suppose as written, my statement about walking away seems childish. In reality, I wouldn't do that because I have seen worse and endured it until the end of the game. I simply don't come back to play anymore. Yeah, they are my friends, but if the DM wants to make stupid rules that I completely disagree with, I'm just not going to play. One of my friends says that negative levels are instant and permanent. I don't play when he DMs anymore, despite the fact that my favorite character ever came from one of his campaigns.
Call me childish. I gave you my opinion of a ruling. You turned to name calling. Says more about you than me.
Have you considered actually talking to the DM outside of the game when they make a ruling you don't like? You say "In reality, I wouldn't do that" but you said exactly that is what you would do, walk away from a game over somehting like a skill check ruling. Yes, that seems very childish.
And where did I call you a name? I said the behavior is absurd, and I stand by that. If you can't discuss the game with friends when something un-fun comes up, "taking your toys and going home" is childish and absurd to me.
EDIT: In the name of fairness, I just left a game myself. Real-life schedule conflicts, combined with sharply contrasting play-styles, spelled my exit. This was after we, as a group, had several long discussions about play style and expectations just a few months prior.
I was about to say that I don't think anyone called anyone anything(save perhaps pushover), it was the BEHAVIOR that was objected to, not the person.
What were the contrasting play styles?
The usual; "kick in the door" hack and slash types along with slower-paced, story-types. There were a lot of other issues, but the simple answer is conflicting styles. Biggest issue though was schedule conflict; my available evenings to play have become unavailable for the time being(band member's work schedule changed, so new practice days), so I'm taking a break from the game until my schedule becomes more stable.
I would not expect the rules for auto-miss on a 1 in combat to be removed because THAT'S WHAT THE RULES SAY. That is consistent because it's RAW.
I suppose as written, my statement about walking away seems childish. In reality, I wouldn't do that because I have seen worse and endured it until the end of the game. I simply don't come back to play anymore. Yeah, they are my friends, but if the DM wants to make stupid rules that I completely disagree with, I'm just not going to play. One of my friends says that negative levels are instant and permanent. I don't play when he DMs anymore, despite the fact that my favorite character ever came from one of his campaigns.
Call me childish. I gave you my opinion of a ruling. You turned to name calling. Says more about you than me.
RAW is a guideline. Paizo's clan of ninja retainers do not turn up and burn your books for house ruling, nor do Paizo or Monte Cook before them before them have never claimed infallibly when it comes to rules design.
At the end of the day, all written rules within roleplaying, are generally agreed guidelines, not hard and fast. Many publishers go so far as to include specific statements empowering DM/GM/STs/keepers to say these rules do not work the way that I need them too, so I am changing them.
White wolf went so far as to call it the golden rule, if memory serves.
Such an obsession with having to play by the RAW suggests that you might well be a rules lawyer, my personally least favourite of all the mid-range problem player types. I mean your defending a illogical discrepancy in the rules, for no better reason that they are the rules as written. There is no good reason i have ever been aware of that skill will a sword in a stressful situation should be treated any differently to skill at knitting in a stressful situation. Your only reason seems to be "but that what the rules say."
The sad thing is, your cutting of your own nose to spite your face with all this.
Oh, they do for you Jiggy, but the rest of us are safe.
|
|
combat is called out in the rule book as aout miss on 1 ond crit on 20.
I walk away from tables with critical fumble rules. Period. I've had a monk throw a punch, roll a 1 and he broke his leg. i declared he started using his +40 something to jump to leave combat, packed my dice and left.
then i remembered it was my place we were playing at, so i just went to the bar and let my friends finish their game.
I walked downstairs one night to grab a DVD and tripped over my cat. I broke my big toe in HALF(along the cuticle, toe bone sticking out). You'd think something as simple as "walk downstairs, grab a movie off the shelf" would warrant automatic success, yes?
What's with the tough-guy act I'm seeing more and more around here lately, the "If I ever saw that, I'd walk away from the table"? We're not talking about poker tournaments for cash, this is a glorified board game we play with friends(or online acquaintances). If your call is to up and walk, especially from a game you're hosting at your house, over something like a crit fumble, wow. Just... Wow. Communication works wonders, by the way.
If stuff like one random crit fumble, or not getting automatic success even on a natural 1(really? In combat even?) is enough for some of you to walk from the table, I have no hope for the future of this hobby. Yes, I've walked from games, as recent as last week. But it took a hell of a lot more than one odd roll or an inflated sense of entitlement to make me go.
i said 1s in combat should be misses. just not "critical fumble, lose an arm, eye and make a save or lose 2 con"
also in 3.x edition, healing a broken toe happens almost over night (hp per hd).
I dont like the concept of 1s auto-failing skills. i also dont like the idea of 20s auto-winning a skill.
if i'm crafting, should a 20 mean i made i right then, no more checks. wow i made full plate in 1 hour? no. so should a 1 mean "oh, ruined, sorry"? i dont think so either.
I hate the "above and beyond" failure because statistically it hurts the players alsot more, and is just a tool for a GM to screw with you when you're not doin well.
In the case where I left a game, I did talk to the DM about his ruling on negative levels. I wasn't the only one who complained about it, especially since we'd just fought a vampire. After that was all over, and we'd finally stopped our groaning, he started running something that had to do with Ravenloft without telling anyone. It started with mist and all that garbage, I didn't know THEN what it was about but I recently learned about it, and it makes me all the more glad that I left.
I didn't cut my own nose off to spite anything: THAT campaign was going from bad to worse, and everyone was losing interest quickly. I started playing Pathfinder, got my own group that I DM for, and I've not looked back.
I wouldn't have you think that I don't see or hang out with any of those people anymore. I just don't play in their games. We get along just as well as we did before. I shared an apartment with the aforementioned DM at the time.
But if you guys think it's fun to auto-fail skills, whatever. I just think it adds an unnecessary level of tedium that is going to quickly turn me off. If I'm not having fun why play? It's simple as that.
In the case where I left a game, I did talk to the DM about his ruling on negative levels. I wasn't the only one who complained about it, especially since we'd just fought a vampire. After that was all over, and we'd finally stopped our groaning, he started running something that had to do with Ravenloft without telling anyone. It started with mist and all that garbage, I didn't know THEN what it was about but I recently learned about it, and it makes me all the more glad that I left.
I didn't cut my own nose off to spite anything: THAT campaign was going from bad to worse, and everyone was losing interest quickly. I started playing Pathfinder, got my own group that I DM for, and I've not looked back.
I wouldn't have you think that I don't see or hang out with any of those people anymore. I just don't play in their games. We get along just as well as we did before. I shared an apartment with the aforementioned DM at the time.
But if you guys think it's fun to auto-fail skills, whatever. I just think it adds an unnecessary level of tedium that is going to quickly turn me off. If I'm not having fun why play? It's simple as that.
I can feel for you a bit here, Ravenloft isn't the kind of campaign you drop on players unknowingly, unless it was a one-nighter or something. It takes a certain kind of player and DM to play that campaign. It was kind of a jerk move of the DM to dump you guys into that setting without letting you know first.
Where I come from a 1 is a fail. Doesn't necessarily make it a fumble, or have disastrous consequences, just keeps the random element there. Even seasoned experts have brain-farts once in a while. But on that same token, I wouldn't have a Ranger roll a skill check for something mundane like setting up a tent; I only call for skill checks on things that the character is exerting effort to do. So, maybe my games inadvertently do the same auto-successes your game does, just labeled differently?
1s are failures for attacks and saves, but not skill checks.
Only for GMs that aren't passive-aggressive. "Sure you can play that character. No, I won't forbid you to play. I'll just arbitrarily kill off your character so you leave all by yourself."
Pitiful, but what can you expect from someone who hates Firefly? :P
Yes the rules as written do state that 1's always miss, and 20's always hit.But if foghammer, where being consistant, would he not want to see this rule removed?
Really? That's your argument? Talk about being petty.
No, it's not consistent. Attack rolls are attack rolls, saving throws are saving throws and skills are skills. The difference between Attacks/saves and everything else makes sense. After all, the game treats them differently in other ways.
After all, BAB is still there. That's not a given. It could just as well be the "Attack" skill, or "Weaponry" and "Archery" skills or even more.
Other games treat it like that. WoD has one for unarmed fighting, one for fighting with weapons like swords, and one for firearms.
Other games even make you put skills into different weapons (One for swords, one for blunt weapons, one for bows, one fro crossbows etc.)
But in Pathfinder, it's not a skill. It's a fixed value associated with your class.
Having different rules for how to treat natural 1s and 20s isn't that much of a stretch after that.
As for you walking out...Dude, these are your friends
Who says? Some might have the luxury to play with people they call friends. Others do not. They play over the internet (play by post or maybe even via virtual tabletops and the like), on conventions, or find other players via their FLGSs or one of those sites where you can have "personal ads for RPG groups".
In such cases, it's only prudent not to stretch out the whole thing when you find a house rule you really don't agree with early on. Chances are you'll realise that this group isn't for you later on, after having wasted precious hours of spare time (another thing not everyone has in profusion).
, your playing a game.
This isn't a quick session of checkers. Role playing games tend to take up a lot of spare time and many people put considerable effort and resources into it. That makes it far more than a game.