Yar.
...and for those of us who want a grittier game, while still maintaining the same fantastical aspects, coupled with the rare moment of "oh my god! I don't know what's gonna happen next! It could be bad!" tension, whether you're a melee, ranged, or caster, implemented in a way that does not turn combat into buffoonery, but fast paced action where the bad things are rare but can still happen, while playing the game we love (Pathfinder), using a product produced by the same people who design Pathfinder specifically to use with Pathfinder?
We have the GameMastery Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks.
~P
the deck of critical fumble is very well, but... wheres we put the creativity?
i has actually those decks, but in adittion, i make my own cards, separating a normal fumble (1-any miss chance), from critical fumble (1-1) and a normal critical hit (20- hit chance), and great critical hit (20-20)
now with the pyrate guide i can put in the game the scars system...
in my table we are using this rules:
-cmd is a d20roll made instead of base 10
-dr system from UC
-spellblights from UM
-Called shoots from UC (with some necesary fixes)
-partial armor system from UC (complemented with conan d20 and diablo 2)
-and in some cases the critical confirm system in some cases
-re hit rol [maximun melee weapon damage and cmb vs cmd (hous rule)]
-counter hit rol [minimum melee weapon damage and cmb vs cmd(house rule)]
-some variant from vitality:
lvl 1 vitality value: con score plus level, vitality hd/lvl.
you get -1 penalty to all your fisics rolls based checks equals 5+con mod +lvl, any time you get passed this number youll get -1 (str, con, dex checks)
The problem with that is none of that stuff is beyond a few d6s worth of damage in D&D terms. A dragon makes a grizzly bear look like a kitten. I mean, a dire bear is around CR 7. A great wyrm red dragon is around the size of my house. Nothing compared to a dragon. A bear cannot snatch you up into its mouth, pin you there, and then breath hotter than magma fire all over you. Most of the things you describe are in the "realism" area of D&D. That is, levels 1-5 or so (arguably 1-3). At a point where 1d12+6 is almost assured death.
If you look at comparable CRs, the dire bear bite and the dragon bites are almost the same, being only a point or two difference in damage. Realism or not, a tank (the one I drove was 17 tons) running someone over will deal a lot of damage. Carnage is carnage.
Even 3000o heat is mild compared to a breath of a great wyrm red dragon. Iron melts at around 2800o Fahrenheit, but a dragon's breath can slag a whole suit of plate mail to nothing (outright destroyed, not damaged, destroyed) in 3 seconds flat. Its jaws open, breath comes out, jaws close, and the 50 lbs. of iron armor is no more. That instantaneous. One standard action. And a warrior can be pinned in his jaws and eat all that damage, crawl away going "ow, ow, ow, that's really hot!" and drink about it merrily that evening after the cleric drops a nice fat mass heal on the party.
I should point out that lava, which is what a CR 15 dragon can turn rock into, is less than 3000F (about 1650C) degrees. Again, carnage is carnage. The reason why the dragon's breath can slag a suit of armor is because the heat covers the entire suit. The blast of heat from the ATWESS (Anti-Tank Weapon Engagement System Simulator, it's a training device made to look like a missile has fired) is concentrated. It can burn a hole in metal very easily. A CR 15 red dragon deals 77 fire damage with its breath. A suit of full plate +4 (appropriate for a level 15 character) has 85 hit points. That means that the red dragon probably won't slag the armor.
I'm not interested in random fumbles, foibles, or freak hits as a source of gritty realism. I can get gritty realism by adding rules that implement gritty realism more often than 5% of the time. Why? Because I like consistency. If I wanted archers to be able to hit nearby folks, I'd add some rules for it that made sense (like basing it off the cover bonus, or determining which space he actually shot into with a d8, etc).
So you can add rules that give you what you want, just like those who like the Critical/Fumble decks can add what they want to accomplish the same thing (more enjoyment for their groups).
For those who are concerned that it is easier for those with more attacks to fumble, the first rule that is suggested to use the deck is that when you roll a 1, you make a confirmation roll using your highest base attack bonus. If that is still a fumble, then you draw from the deck. So fighters and monks aren't looking at fumbling often.
So the pregen Valeros at level 7 (certainly not an optimized character by any means) would fumble about 1% of the time going up against another CR 7 creature (according to the creation table). Most of those fumbles aren't all that bad either.
Here are some other optional rules for the optional rule:
1) If you have Weapon Focus, you draw two cards and choose the one you want. If you have Greater Weapon Focus, draw three cards.
2) If you Critically hit, you can choose to hold on to the card instead of using the effect. Then when you fumble, you can spend the Crit to cancel the Fumble.
3) You can only Fumble once per combat.
4) If you aren't proficient with the weapon you Fumble on a 1-2.
5) There is a new spell called Fumble, which can also be the effect of a Bestow Curse.
6) There is a new weapon property that reduces the chance of a fumble by making it so that you have to roll a 1 on the confirmation roll to fumble.
You can mix and match these anyway that is appropriate. So Paizo took many of the criticisms into account and found reasonable ways to address them.
I should point out that lava, which is what a CR 15 dragon can turn rock into, is less than 3000F (about 1650C) degrees. Again, carnage is carnage. The reason why the dragon's breath can slag a suit of armor is because the heat covers the entire suit. The blast of heat from the ATWESS (Anti-Tank Weapon Engagement System Simulator, it's a training device made to look like a missile has fired) is concentrated. It can burn a hole in metal very easily. A CR 15 red dragon deals 77 fire damage with its breath. A suit of full plate +4 (appropriate for a level 15 character) has 85 hit points. That means that the red dragon probably won't slag the armor.
Except carnage isn't carnage. There's getting hit by a car, then there's getting ran over by a train, and then there's having a tomohawk missile land in your bathtub while you're showering. All of them can kill you, but the sheer destruction involved with each is progressively larger. Normal people don't make a habit of suffering from the sheer devastation that a PC can and is expected to take. Look at the example you used to try and disprove or refute what I said. You had to resort to magical armors that are appropriate to 15th level PCs. 15th level PCs are like demigods. That's the type of characters who do things like eat grenades for breakfast, and deflect bullets with their gorgeous beefcake eyelashes. >.>
A suit of normal or masterwork full plate is slagged on average by an ancient red dragon's breath weapon, even after counting 1/2 energy damage and then applied hardness. The fact a fighter at 20th level can be stuck inside the dragon's mouth when that blows and walk away from it is insane on the scale of 1 to awesome.
Incidentally, the d20 system has done modern stuff + slightly heroic folks, in D20 Modern. It's tons grittier than D&D. For one, you have to save vs Death every time you suffer damage equaling or exceeding your Con score. Since your ability scores didn't rise fast in d20 modern and you traditionally weren't loaded down with sweet +enhancement and +inherent mods, that meant you were pretty much on the road to deadsville if you make a habit of getting shot.
Let's see. Your average 9mm handgun dealt about 2d6 damage. Lots of stuff dealt plenty more. A strong hero with a melee weapon could risk beating you to death with every swing of his favorite melee weapon. If a grenade goes off, pray to whatever deity is on your mind, and pray hard (since I believe most of the explosives dealt like 4d6+ damage); which was way more than was needed to kill most characters between level 1-3, and could instant-kill virtually anyone (especially since padding your saving throws was difficult, as they were slower to advance than in D&D).
Napalm, horrible though it is, is basically equivalent to dropping large quantities of alchemist fire on people (sticky substance that burns you to death; yep, alchemist fire). A few d6s over some rounds as appropriate. Most normal people in reality are no higher than 3rd level in D&D terms. Few will have class levels. Some military individuals, like Navy Seals might be fairly statted out as 3rd level Rangers or similar.
Trying to compare most anything we have technologically to the breath of an ancient red dragon just seems foolish. Short of a nuclear weapon, I don't know of any weapon that we have that will - using only raw heat/fire - melt a suit of full plate into nothingness in 3 seconds flat. 3 seconds. That's it. 1. 2. 3. Gone. Count it with me! Three is the number that we shall count, and the number that we shall count shall be 3! 1, 2, 5, nope! 3 sir! Bam, slagged. Just with fire. No explosions, no concussive force, no strange chemical reactions; just strait up hotter than hot fire.
If I wanted to be realistic, then nobody would survive past 6th level, since by that point they have probably already lost five limbs (yes, five) to the ravages of orcish greataxes; bear maulings; that one instance where the hydra was playing tug of war with itself that resulted in that embarrassing scar; that time you walked away from that battle looking like you were doused in gasoline and set aflame - oh wait, that's basically what happened; and that one incident with the runaway carraige (even though we promised not to mention that one again). As long as we're talking realism, I'd be surprised if the martial characters weren't just outright immune to the shock of being dismembered by their foes. I mean, how many times do you need to lose your arm before your body stops going into shock? I mean, we're fighting giant super-intelligent fire-breathing lizards who are 60 ft. long and could kill seven men in six seconds after biting one in half, crushing two others with his forarms, crushing two others with his wings, and taking out a few pedestrians with his swishing tail; not counting poor little Jimmy who is wedged underneath the dragon's assplates, having fell victim to his Crush attack (which might actually be similar to getting ran over by a tank, actually).
I just feel that arguing "realism" for fumble or critical charts is just really dumb. For all the reasons someone might come up with to justify them, this is probably the absolute worst; IMO.
Wait....this is another "No!!!11! You play the game wrong and it's badwrongfun!" thread isn't it?
Damn....I got suckered in.
Like TOZ, you should all just use the stuff then decide. If you hate it, don't use it. If you like it, keep using it. All of this metatheoretical critical debate isn't nearly as useful as just telling whoever is asking (in this case the OP) that it can go either way, and they should try a free phone app or cheap deck of cards before making up their mind.
I had a long reply to the dragon and armor discussion but I realized that this is way off track. I am willing to discuss that in another thread (and it would be interesting to see if we can find real world comparisons).
Incidentally, the d20 system has done modern stuff + slightly heroic folks, in D20 Modern. It's tons grittier than D&D. For one, you have to save vs Death every time you suffer damage equaling or exceeding your Con score. Since your ability scores didn't rise fast in d20 modern and you traditionally weren't loaded down with sweet +enhancement and +inherent mods, that meant you were pretty much on the road to deadsville if you make a habit of getting shot.
I wasn’t looking for “tons grittier;” just “grittier.” If I want tons grittier, I’ll play Alternity (which I plan on doing in about a week when we game again).
I just feel that arguing "realism" for fumble or critical charts is just really dumb. For all the reasons someone might come up with to justify them, this is probably the absolute worst; IMO.
I’m not talking about realism, and I never brought it up. I’m talking about grittier and I’m comparing real world effects with fantasy effects so that we are on the same page. Some of us enjoy the randomness that the cards bring without breaking the game.
You'll notice that I mentioned earlier several ways to deal with many of the concerns people have with the crits and fumbles.
Accidents happens.
They happen to us in real life.
They happen to characters in stories.
They happen to characters in movies.
They can be important plot devices, like injuries, diseases, curses etc.
I believe that accidents - including but not limited to fumbles in combat - can be used in RPGs with brio and make the story move forward, sometimes in an unexpected direction. It isn't about realism, its about believability. It isn't about making RPG like real life, its about relating to our own experiences.
But fumbles and accidents need to be rare and stay rare throughout the game. I've seen critical fumbles being done in few different ways over the years
Some have suggested that only the first, primary attack roll can potentially fumble. This limits the probability of fumble to 5% per round regardless of the number of attacks you have.
Some have suggested that IF you roll a "1" on your initiative roll, only THEN would you set yourself prone to a potential fumble, which will then be confirmed by a roll of "1" on any attack roll during the subsequent combat.
Somme have suggested a "stress scale" for fumble confirmation. If the stakes aren't high enough, fumbles bare no consequences. If the stakes are high, fumbles are bad. Every time a 1 is rolled, the "stress level" increases and past a certain point, fumbles can be confirmed etc (as a side note, that stress level scale thingy was amazing, as many other things were getting worst as stress was going up, including critical hit multiplier etc. Red glass beads were tossed in a narrow glass jar every time someone rolled a 1. Past the green line, something [i]could[i] happen. Past the yellow line, something worst could happen and past the red line, all hell could break loose. Apparently it got pretty high once and players were really tense!).
Some have suggested that "accidents" can be negated with a save, insuring that characters get less and less affected as they gain levels, even if they triggered more fumbles.
All that to say that I believe that it can be done elegantly. Sure accidents sucks, but so does having a sword through your guts (and this happens quite often in RPG...)
'findel
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yar.
...and for those of us who want a grittier game, while still maintaining the same fantastical aspects, coupled with the rare moment of "oh my god! I don't know what's gonna happen next! It could be bad!" tension, whether you're a melee, ranged, or caster, implemented in a way that does not turn combat into buffoonery, but fast paced action where the bad things are rare but can still happen, while playing the game we love (Pathfinder), using a product produced by the same people who design Pathfinder specifically to use with Pathfinder?
We have the GameMastery Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks.
~P
I don't know why people equate silly, unrealistic and unbalancing = "gritty", unless the concept of screwing the PC's over is somehow "gritty". It's not.
Look, does anyone doubt the concept of linear warriors vs quadratic wizards? Then why bring in a system that badly nerfs warriors types (and yes, monks get hit hard, too), while mostly leaving wizards standing around, laughing at the antics of the hapless fighter who is now reduced to comedy relief?
Yes, spells with a attack roll could be fumbled- with any smart wizard, that's maybe one spell in 10. Whilst a fighter fumbles more as he gets higher level!
I’m not talking about realism, and I never brought it up. I’m talking about grittier and I’m comparing real world effects with fantasy effects so that we are on the same page.
My apologies. I thought you were referencing hurting yourself punching somebody in reality as some sort of justification for fumbles based on realism. "Well you can hurt yourself fo realz yo" is basically how my brain took it (but with less english destruction :P).
Some of us enjoy the randomness that the cards bring without breaking the game.
This is the only reason I've seen that stands up to scrutiny. Just wanting more randomness. Not based on realism or even balance. Because the card effects of the critical hit deck are not balanced. I've read them. They're not balanced at all. In fact, they're so not balanced that the designers even suggest not using them for NPCs at all. The effects of some of them are just crazy. In my opinion, it also favors slashing weapons heavily.
They also have saving throw DCs set by your confirmation rolls. Because who wouldn't want to set the DC to be stupidly high for whatever level you're at. Given that your confirmation roll is easily around high-d20-roll+30 without feats or specializations at 20th level. Most of these are combat ending. And so on, and so forth. Heck, one of the more amusing ones has got to be decapitation. Double damage and then your foe must make a save vs your confirmation roll or die. I believe one of the reviews for the deck mentioned this card:
We even had a decapitation with a kukri by a wu jen on a gargantuan white dragon on the first round of a combat once.
You'll notice that I mentioned earlier several ways to deal with many of the concerns people have with the crits and fumbles.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Throwing a baseball at (or more exactly a foot or so to the side of) somebody requires a ranged (maybe touch) attack roll, right? So... How many times do baseball pitchers hurt themselves* while throwing? Once in 40** throws?
Punching a sandbag requires an attack roll, right? So... How many times do martial artists of all sorts hurt themselves while hitting one? Once in 40 swings?
Punching the opponent in a boxing ring requires an attack roll, right? So... How many times do martial artists of all sorts hurt themselves in the ring? Once in 40 swings?
Hitting the target on a shooting range with your 12-gauge shotgun requires a ranged attack roll, right? So... How many times do people hurt themselves while shooting? Once in 40 shots?
Hitting a suspect with a taser gun requires a ranged (touch) attack roll, right? So... How many times to cops hurt themselves with those? Once in 40 shots?
*= or destroy their equipment
**= 1/20 x 1/2 (assuming 50% default hit chance and miss = confirm) = 1/40
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yay; I'm helping! :P
<.<
>.>
Fumbles are lame.
Yar.
...and for those of us who want a grittier game, while still maintaining the same fantastical aspects, coupled with the rare moment of "oh my god! I don't know what's gonna happen next! It could be bad!" tension, whether you're a melee, ranged, or caster, implemented in a way that does not turn combat into buffoonery, but fast paced action where the bad things are rare but can still happen, while playing the game we love (Pathfinder), using a product produced by the same people who design Pathfinder specifically to use with Pathfinder?
We have the GameMastery Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks.
~P
I don't know why people equate silly, unrealistic and unbalancing = "gritty", unless the concept of screwing the PC's over is somehow "gritty". It's not.
Look, does anyone doubt the concept of linear warriors vs quadratic wizards? Then why bring in a system that badly nerfs warriors types (and yes, monks get hit hard, too), while mostly leaving wizards standing around, laughing at the antics of the hapless fighter who is now reduced to comedy relief?
Yes, spells with a attack roll could be fumbled- with any smart wizard, that's maybe one spell in 10. Whilst a fighter fumbles more as he gets higher level!
This is simply not true if you use the Critical Fumble deck's rules. I posted them earlier but I'll repost the first one:
When rolling to confirm a fumble, you use your highest attack bonus.
This means that you are probably not going to fumble all that often. In 2 years of using the deck so far, we haven't seen any of the issues that people bring up. It doesn't badly nerf anyone at all. As I mentioned before, Valeros (a non-optimized character) has a 1% chance of fumbling with his worst attack. That fumble isn't a Keystone Cop fumble. Most of the fumbles aren't really all that bad. That's certainly not a bad nerf. Besides, those who use the Fumble Deck are probably also using the Critical Hit Deck. That means that his critical hits are better than they were before. The decks favor the players.
As for the wizards, if they are using spells that require attack rolls, then they can have some good crits and some fumbles too. If they aren't, then they will never see the crits nor the fumbles.
Yay; I'm helping! :P
<.<
>.>
Fumbles are lame.
Hahah, indeed. Have an e-cookie! :3
I can't critically fail. I'm a spell caster- we're above such things.
As I mentioned before, Valeros (a non-optimized character) has a 1% chance of fumbling with his worst attack. That fumble isn't a Keystone Cop fumble. Most of the fumbles aren't really all that bad. That's certainly not a bad nerf. Besides, those who use the Fumble Deck are probably also using the Critical Hit Deck. That means that his critical hits are better than they were before. The decks favor the players.
As for the wizards, if they are using spells that require attack rolls, then they can have some good crits and some fumbles too. If they aren't, then they will never see the crits nor the fumbles.
If you always use your highest attack bonus to determine a fumble or not, then that means Valeros has a 1% chance to fumble per attack (since the confirmation is irrelevant in terms of statistical probability), so for every strike swung, he has a 1% chance to fumble. Now, nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to argue that attack rolls aren't a Fighter's bread and butter. If Valeros is doing his job, he should have around 7-9 attacks per round at 20th level, at a 1% chance to fumble per attack.
So Valeros accidentally injures himself and gives himself a -2 to all checks, so then Mr. Wizard laughs at the foolish Fighter who just gave himself a -10% to all saving throws. Flesh to pwn biatch-fihter!
And what does the deck give you? A +1 weapon enhancement that does absolutely nothing except make you fumble on a pair of 1s. Doesn't even remove the ability to critically miss. Just requires a 1/20 followed by a 1/20. That's a 0.25% chance, but hey, how many attack rolls are you going to be making over the course of your game?
My apologies. I thought you were referencing hurting yourself punching somebody in reality as some sort of justification for fumbles based on realism. "Well you can hurt yourself fo realz yo" is basically how my brain took it (but with less english destruction :P).
I’m not talking about realism, and I never brought it up. I’m talking about grittier and I’m comparing real world effects with fantasy effects so that we are on the same page.
I was more talking about plausibility than realism. It is very plausible that you can get injured if you swing your sword at a living rock that is attacking you.
Some of us enjoy the randomness that the cards bring without breaking the game.This is the only reason I've seen that stands up to scrutiny. Just wanting more randomness. Not based on realism or even balance. Because the card effects of the critical hit deck are not balanced. I've read them. They're not balanced at all. In fact, they're so not balanced that the designers even suggest not using them for NPCs at all. The effects of some of them are just crazy. In my opinion, it also favors slashing weapons heavily.
Actually they recommend that you only use them for significant NPCs and not for mooks. Depending on what you mean by favors, I can see an argument for piercing weapons (they have more double and triple damage cards) but bludgeoning has more conditions while slashing has more bleed.
They also have saving throw DCs set by your confirmation rolls. Because who wouldn't want to set the DC to be stupidly high for whatever level you're at. Given that your confirmation roll is easily around high-d20-roll+30 without feats or specializations at 20th level. Most of these are combat ending. And so on, and so forth. Heck, one of the more amusing ones has got to be decapitation. Double damage and then your foe must make a save vs your confirmation roll or die. I believe one of the reviews for the deck mentioned this card:
Yeah, but to get that effect you've got to first crit and then deal with the 2% chance of that coming up. It's not likely. We saw it once in 2 years and that's with someone critting on a 12-20 (I currently allow improved crit and keen to stack) and dealing triple damage on a crit (that's drawing 2 cards and taking the best).
We even had a decapitation with a kukri by a wu jen on a gargantuan white dragon on the first round of a combat once.
You'll notice that I mentioned earlier several ways to deal with many of the concerns people have with the crits and fumbles.An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. :P
There are times when I don't have a critical hit work a certain way because it doesn't make sense. Decapitating a gargantuan creature with a kukri is one. I would just have the player draw another card or use the default additional damage.
I do that for things like damaging armor too. If the opponent doesn't wear armor, you can't damage it. That's a critical hit that needs to be either redrawn or use the default method.
Your attempt to help has critically failed. You have dislocated your spleen as you fumbled.
I can't critically fail. I'm a spell caster- we're above such things.
*falls over laughing* So much <3 for you guys! ^.^
As I mentioned before, Valeros (a non-optimized character) has a 1% chance of fumbling with his worst attack. That fumble isn't a Keystone Cop fumble. Most of the fumbles aren't really all that bad. That's certainly not a bad nerf. Besides, those who use the Fumble Deck are probably also using the Critical Hit Deck. That means that his critical hits are better than they were before. The decks favor the players.
As for the wizards, if they are using spells that require attack rolls, then they can have some good crits and some fumbles too. If they aren't, then they will never see the crits nor the fumbles.
If you always use your highest attack bonus to determine a fumble or not, then that means Valeros has a 1% chance to fumble per attack (since the confirmation is irrelevant in terms of statistical probability), so for every strike swung, he has a 1% chance to fumble. Now, nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to argue that attack rolls aren't a Fighter's bread and butter. If Valeros is doing his job, he should have around 7-9 attacks per round at 20th level, at a 1% chance to fumble per attack.
So Valeros accidentally injures himself and gives himself a -2 to all checks, so then Mr. Wizard laughs at the foolish Fighter who just gave himself a -10% to all saving throws. Flesh to pwn biatch-fihter!
And what does the deck give you? A +1 weapon enhancement that does absolutely nothing except make you fumble on a pair of 1s. Doesn't even remove the ability to critically miss. Just requires a 1/20 followed by a 1/20. That's a 0.25% chance, but hey, how many attack rolls are you going to be making over the course of your game?
Out of 400 swings, he would fumble once. That seems extremely reasonable. If you also use the rule that he weapon focus and greater weapon focus gives him two or three cards to choose from, he can minimize the effects of that rare fumble. He is also going to critically hit a lot more than 1 out of 400 times, so by bringing in the critical hit deck, he is better off.
As for the wizard now deciding to cast a spell at Valeros, there is nothing that says that the wizard knows the effect of the fumble. That would be metagaming and bad form for the GM to do that to the player simply because the player fumbled. Besides, there are no melee fumbles where that would happen.
I can't critically fail. I'm a spell caster- we're above such things.Fumbles are optional rules. Thus an optional roll for spell caster failures is easily added.
I think the critical fumble deck came with a spell that caused all of a target's misses to automatically fumble...seems to add insult to injury that by using the deck's rules there is no chance for the wizard to fumble the spell.
There are times when I don't have a critical hit work a certain way because it doesn't make sense. Decapitating a gargantuan creature with a kukri is one. I would just have the player draw another card or use the default additional damage.
This reminds me of a GM who said he'd have his dragons auto-succeed vs things like baleful polymorph because he didn't think it made sense or was thematically appropriate for a dragon. We don't play with that GM anymore. In fact, nobody does. O.o
Fumbles are optional rules. Thus an optional roll for spell caster failures is easily added.
Walking out is optional too. If I wanted to play advanced fumbles and fubars, I would. Finding a game isn't hard since we have online resources like OpenRPG. Most of this stuff reminds me of yet another GM who tried to mod the system, who did stuff like rolling damage vs your shield if you were wielding a shield and your foe missed. Or had plenty of time to tell us how utterly destroyed every piece of armor our enemies were using is, or how every weapon we came across seems to have -1 (or worse) penalties to hit and damage because it was all in bad condition; etc, etc, etc.
The loudest voice is the sound of footsteps heading towards the door.
Critical Hit Deck + Critical Fumble deck...
Melee fumble = you critically hit yourself (this is an actual card)
Melee critical effect = you deal critical damage and decapitate the target (this is an actual card).
Congratulations, you are now the Jedi everyone jokes about. :P
Throwing a baseball at (or more exactly a foot or so to the side of) somebody requires a ranged (maybe touch) attack roll, right? So... How many times do baseball pitchers hurt themselves* while throwing? Once in 40** throws?
Punching a sandbag requires an attack roll, right? So... How many times do martial artists of all sorts hurt themselves while hitting one? Once in 40 swings?
Punching the opponent in a boxing ring requires an attack roll, right? So... How many times do martial artists of all sorts hurt themselves in the ring? Once in 40 swings?
Hitting the target on a shooting range with your 12-gauge shotgun requires a ranged attack roll, right? So... How many times do people hurt themselves while shooting? Once in 40 shots?
Hitting a suspect with a taser gun requires a ranged (touch) attack roll, right? So... How many times to cops hurt themselves with those? Once in 40 shots?
*= or destroy their equipment
**= 1/20 x 1/2 (assuming 50% default hit chance and miss = confirm) = 1/40
None of those are indicative of how fumbles work. As was mentioned before, you're looking at about a 1 in 100 chance of a fumble. And yes, that is very plausible. Have you ever seen a pitcher hit the batter? Have you ever seen someone with nunchucks hit themselves when the chuck bounces? Have you ever seen the picture of Mike Tyson's hand when he missed a punching bag and hit the cinder block wall? Have you ever seen martial artists in a demonstration injure themselves? It happens. It happens more often than they probably want to admit.
There are times when I don't have a critical hit work a certain way because it doesn't make sense. Decapitating a gargantuan creature with a kukri is one. I would just have the player draw another card or use the default additional damage.This reminds me of a GM who said he'd have his dragons auto-succeed vs things like baleful polymorph because he didn't think it made sense or was thematically appropriate for a dragon. We don't play with that GM anymore. In fact, nobody does. O.o
That's not even close to the same thing though. Is it plausible that a 6" knife is going to cut cleanly through a neck that is bigger than that? Nope. Some rules actually need GM adjudication, and that's ok. When bringing in broad optional rules, the GM and players need to be ready for that.
That's not even close to the same thing though. Is it plausible that a 6" knife is going to cut cleanly through a neck that is bigger than that? Nope. Some rules actually need GM adjudication, and that's ok. When bringing in broad optional rules, the GM and players need to be ready for that.There are times when I don't have a critical hit work a certain way because it doesn't make sense. Decapitating a gargantuan creature with a kukri is one. I would just have the player draw another card or use the default additional damage.This reminds me of a GM who said he'd have his dragons auto-succeed vs things like baleful polymorph because he didn't think it made sense or was thematically appropriate for a dragon. We don't play with that GM anymore. In fact, nobody does. O.o
About as plausible as anything else in D&D. The idea that a fighter the size of a man is going to kill a dragon, whose head he cannot reach, with a longsword, is pretty implausible. In fact, the fact the Fighter can even fight with said house-sized dragon is pretty implausible.
Critical Hit Deck + Critical Fumble deck...
Melee fumble = you critically hit yourself (this is an actual card)
Melee critical effect = you deal critical damage and decapitate the target (this is an actual card).Congratulations, you are now the Jedi everyone jokes about. :P
I don't see how decapitation is a problem. If they make their save, they aren't decapitated but they still take double damage. The fumble only occurs once out of 52 cards. That means that there is a 0.02% chance of that effect even coming up (you have to fumble first and then draw the card). And if you have ever seen someone using a weapon in combat, you can see that striking yourself is a very plausible situation. I've nearly hacked my leg with an axe and that was when attacking a stationary log.
None of those are indicative of how fumbles work. As was mentioned before, you're looking at about a 1 in 100 chance of a fumble. And yes, that is very plausible. Have you ever seen a pitcher hit the batter? Have you ever seen someone with nunchucks hit themselves when the chuck bounces? Have you ever seen the picture of Mike Tyson's hand when he missed a punching bag and hit the cinder block wall? Have you ever seen martial artists in a demonstration injure themselves? It happens. It happens more often than they probably want to admit.
Even 1/100 is far more often than it should be. Yes, bad stuff can happen, but not "just so".
I don't see how decapitation is a problem. If they make their save, they aren't decapitated but they still take double damage. The fumble only occurs once out of 52 cards. That means that there is a 0.02% chance of that effect even coming up (you have to fumble first and then draw the card). And if you have ever seen someone using a weapon in combat, you can see that striking yourself is a very plausible situation. I've nearly hacked my leg with an axe and that was when attacking a stationary log.
Soo... How many logs did you chop in your lifetime?
How many times did you "roll" a critical fumble?
About as plausible as anything else in D&D. The idea that a fighter the size of a man is going to kill a dragon, whose head he cannot reach, with a longsword, is pretty implausible. In fact, the fact the Fighter can even fight with said house-sized dragon is pretty implausible.That's not even close to the same thing though. Is it plausible that a 6" knife is going to cut cleanly through a neck that is bigger than that? Nope. Some rules actually need GM adjudication, and that's ok. When bringing in broad optional rules, the GM and players need to be ready for that.There are times when I don't have a critical hit work a certain way because it doesn't make sense. Decapitating a gargantuan creature with a kukri is one. I would just have the player draw another card or use the default additional damage.This reminds me of a GM who said he'd have his dragons auto-succeed vs things like baleful polymorph because he didn't think it made sense or was thematically appropriate for a dragon. We don't play with that GM anymore. In fact, nobody does. O.o
So long as the dragon is within bite range, it is within sword range. The distance between the two points doesn't change simply because of the size of the dragon. As the dragon lunges forward to bite, he gets his throat into slicing range.
So long as the dragon is within bite range, it is within sword range. The distance between the two points doesn't change simply because of the size of the dragon. As the dragon lunges forward to bite, he gets his throat into slicing range.
Actually no, since the dragon's head is about the size of a small car, and just because the front hood is trying to bite you doesn't mean you can attack the rear bumper, where it is mounted to the throat.
Is that splitting hairs? Maybe.
I don't see how decapitation is a problem. If they make their save, they aren't decapitated but they still take double damage. The fumble only occurs once out of 52 cards. That means that there is a 0.02% chance of that effect even coming up (you have to fumble first and then draw the card). And if you have ever seen someone using a weapon in combat, you can see that striking yourself is a very plausible situation. I've nearly hacked my leg with an axe and that was when attacking a stationary log.Critical Hit Deck + Critical Fumble deck...
Melee fumble = you critically hit yourself (this is an actual card)
Melee critical effect = you deal critical damage and decapitate the target (this is an actual card).Congratulations, you are now the Jedi everyone jokes about. :P
Soo... How many logs did you chop in your lifetime?
How many times did you "roll" a critical fumble?
I don't have an exact count of how many swings. What I do know is that I sprained my wrists a few times. I also did cut my leg once, but it wasn't a critical (I don't even have a scar). I did jar my hands and arms more than once. I even had the mallet bounce off the wedge when trying to split some cedar and nearly hit myself in the face. All this was during the two summers I was splitting wood. I figure that every log took 2 to 4 splits. I cut several cords of wood.
If I look up the size of a cord of wood, it looks like about 180 pieces of split wood. Let's round that to 200. So if I cut up 4 cords, that would be 400 to 800 splits. My number of injuries seems to coincide with the less than 1% chance of getting any particular result from a 16-17 year old kid critically fumbling against a stationary object.
As to the 1% chance of fumbling, it's not exactly one 1 out of 100 rolls will automatically fumble. I'm pretty sure that you might go a while without ever fumbling or you could fumble several times before you hit that 100 rolls.
So long as the dragon is within bite range, it is within sword range. The distance between the two points doesn't change simply because of the size of the dragon. As the dragon lunges forward to bite, he gets his throat into slicing range.Actually no, since the dragon's head is about the size of a car, and just because the front hood is trying to bite you doesn't mean you can attack the rear bumper, where it is mounted to the throat.
Is that splitting hairs? Maybe.
So the characters remain completely stationary, never moving at all? You don't even take 5-foot steps? If we really want to split hairs, Loki wants to know where the neck begins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pfft. You can spend a full round action to automatically hit a stationary object with no attack roll, IIRC. You got greedy by full-attacking the wood.
Pfft. You can spend a full round action to automatically hit a stationary object with no attack roll, IIRC. You got greedy by full-attacking the wood.
I had an angry dad motivating me. Gotta love parents that put you to real work instead of just grounding you.
If I look up the size of a cord of wood, it looks like about 180 pieces of split wood. Let's round that to 200. So if I cut up 4 cords, that would be 400 to 800 splits. My number of injuries seems to coincide with the less than 1% chance of getting any particular result from a 16-17 year old kid critically fumbling against a stationary object.
Maybe the non-proficiency penalty was involved in that.
And don't forget the fatigued (and later exhausted) condition.;)
I've used my fair share of axes and bush-axes before; living in a rural area. Chainsaws too. I have yet to decapitate myself. In fact, I've chopped up lots of wood without ever suffering a single injury (unless you count swinging the axe until your hands get a bit blistery as an injury).
Incidentally, the closest thing I've had to an injury was trying to cut up a piece of fallen timber with a dull bushaxe, which caused it to do this wonderfully annoying vibrational bounce which was uncomfortable in my forearms. I merely adjusted my swing slightly to compensate for the dullness of the blade and there was no further discomfort (though plenty of sweat, cursed sun).
I worked at a mill for a while. Slamming train cars with 12 lb. sledgehammers, all night long. WHAM, WHAM, WHAM. The cars were packed with soybean meal for making hog feed, and bounced the sledgehammer with every strike. Incidentally, despite beating on those stupid things in the hot sweaty heat of the summer night, well over one hundred times per shift, I never so much as stressed my arms.
I've sparred with people with wooden weapons, or hand to hand. I cannot recall a time I injured myself. Be struck across the hand by my opponent's weapon? Sure. My opponent strike my arm mid-punch with their own? Sure.
Hell, I even prefer dual wielding and don't end up false-slicing my arms off. We could keep this up all day. Who knows. Maybe next time I'll accidentally decapitate myself, and then I'll have to eat my words.
This is simply not true if you use the Critical Fumble deck's rules. I posted them earlier but I'll repost the first one:When rolling to confirm a fumble, you use your highest attack bonus.
This means that you are probably not going to fumble all that often. In 2 years of using the deck so far, we haven't seen any of the issues that people bring up. It doesn't badly nerf anyone at all. As I mentioned before, Valeros (a non-optimized character) has a 1% chance of fumbling with his worst attack. That fumble isn't a Keystone Cop fumble. Most of the fumbles aren't really all that bad. That's certainly not a bad nerf. Besides, those who use the Fumble Deck are probably also using the Critical Hit Deck. That means that his critical...
That's one of the three options.
http://paizo.com/image/content/ItemPacks/PZO3004-Rules1_500.jpegNote rule option # 2& 3 there. Both of which are just as legit as using your highest attack bonus.
Next, a fighter gets many more attacks that a spellcaster does, esp a twf.
In any case, a wizard, when casting most of his best spells, has exactly a ZERO % chance of fumbling. No matter how you slice it, even a 1% (esp 1% many times a round) is a infinite chance higher of fumbling that zero.
And, if the chance of fumbling is really super-duper low, why bother in the first place? You're just slowing the game down with more rolls then.
Look, wizards are already more powerful than fighter, we don;t need them to to stand there laughing at the fighters on top of every other advantage. But you're right, it's not Keystone Kops, it's the Three Stooges. Just what the fighter needs, on top of being marginalized, it's being a laughingstock too.
Out of 400 swings, he would fumble once. That seems extremely reasonable. If you also use the rule that he weapon focus and greater weapon focus gives him two or three cards to choose from, he can minimize the effects of that rare fumble. He is also going to critically hit a lot more than 1 out of 400 times, so by bringing in...
No, you assume that they are using option 1 (and that he only misses on a natural 1, unlikely). If they use the equally legit option three, he will fumble 1 in 20, and since any decent fighter has at least 8 attacks at that level, he will fumble every second or third round. Meanwhile, the wizard will never fumble.
|
My group uses open-ended rolls. For fumbles that means if you roll a 1 then you roll again and subtract the result from 1. If the second roll is a 20 you keep rolling again and subtracting until you get a non 20 result. You then add in your normal bonuses for whatever kind of roll it was. If the final result is -20 or less then you fumble, -40 is a very bad fumble, et cetera. This makes fumbles less likely as your ability increases, but always a possibility.
Spell-casters can fumble on concentration checks, with touch (including ranged touch) spells, and when using a house rule that allows a Spellcraft check to make minor adjustments to spell effects. The TARGET of a spell can also get a fumble or critical success on their saving throw. All of which is just following the base structure of the rules... casters don't roll for most spells but do not gain an 'advantage over fighters' thereby. Their 'advantage' in not having to worry about fumbling is balanced by their 'drawback' in not being able to critical. Even if that base rule somehow WERE unbalanced, the possibility of the saving throw resulting in an exceptionally effective or ineffective spell then allows the same range of results seen in physical attacks.
|
Hitting the target on a shooting range with your 12-gauge shotgun requires a ranged attack roll, right? So... How many times do people hurt themselves while shooting? Once in 40 shots?
[Partial Threadjack]
Shooting firearms is a dangerous activity (but one that active shooters accept as a part of the "sport")...
This is because, simply put, firearms fail! And when they fail, they usually do so catastrophically (Video of gun blowing up). And there are many ways for it to happen, such as a squib round.
(from a bad round that isn't always easy to detect), to an out of battery discharge (where the gun fires even though the round has not fully chambered; thus blowing the gun up. This is also the most dangerous failure to those behind the trigger)...
One can also have a negligent discharge. Even though this usually happens because many new shooters and those that are improperly trained tend to practice poor trigger control and often wind up "muzzle sweeping" everyone on the firing line while they wave their gun around with finger firmly on the trigger. But practiced professionals are not immune (Accendental Discharge)...
The list goes on...
Are these events rare? Unfortunately no, they're more like infrequent (with some "lesser" things that can happen every trip to the range, like getting hit with hot brass as it is ejected from a firearm; which is one of the more minor things that can happen, but it should never be dismissed so easily out of hand)...
The chances of something bad happening to one tends to increase the longer one shoots (in terms of actively in the sport)...
[/End Partial Threadjack]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Critical Fumble deck
Melee fumble = you critically hit yourself (this is an actual card)
1) Take that card
2) Burn it3) Enjoy your Critical Fumble deck! :D
I use both decks in my games, but I replaced the confirmation roll for Critical Fumble with a Reflex saving throw with a set DC of 15 (this comes from D&D 3.0). This gives more importance to the less important saving throw in the game. This also means that the higher your level is, the lower your chance to fumble is. This also means that Bards, Monks, Rangers and Rogues are less likely to confirm a fumble. Now I don't care about Bard and Ranger, but this is actually a boon for Monks and Rogues, the unloved children of Pathfinder, when they are fighting Mister Big Stupid Fighter with low Dexterity. Furthermore, big stupid monsters like giants have bad Reflex saving throws, so the Critical Fumble deck has been more helpful than hurtful for my PCs until now. As for the Critical Hit deck, my players can choose to draw a card or not: there's no need to draw a card against a kobold.
One important thing however is that I draw cards behind my GM screen, and if I believe that what's written on the card is too goofy for the actual situation, I just draw another one.
Now I understand your hatred of Critical Fumble. I have played in a game where the GM made my character cut his own arm because of a fumble when I was a kid. That's not kewl man!
Bringing in the wizard is a straw man simply because if he's not using attack rolls for his spells, he isn't going to threaten or miss no matter what. So the argument isn't justified because it wouldn't apply anyway.
I mentioned option 1 because it directly deals with the major criticism that people have. Why complain about an optional rule that can be solved with a different optional rule that still affects the original optional rule? Use the rule that is most appropriate for your game.
In this case, rule 1 is most appropriate for those who want the fumbles but don't want them fumbling as often. In addition, the fumbles aren't nearly what anyone is claiming they are. The only way they can make the combatants look like Three Stooges or Keystone Cops is if the GM and players make them look that way. There has not once, in 30+ years of gaming with various fumble rules, ever been any character that look like a buffoon unless the GM or player describes it that way. It doesn't have to be described like that at all.
Bringing in the wizard is a straw man simply because if he's not using attack rolls for his spells, he isn't going to threaten or miss no matter what. So the argument isn't justified because it wouldn't apply anyway.
I mentioned option 1 because it directly deals with the major criticism that people have. Why complain about an optional rule that can be solved with a different optional rule that still affects the original optional rule? Use the rule that is most appropriate for your game.
In this case, rule 1 is most appropriate for those who want the fumbles but don't want them fumbling as often. In addition, the fumbles aren't nearly what anyone is claiming they are. The only way they can make the combatants look like Three Stooges or Keystone Cops is if the GM and players make them look that way. There has not once, in 30+ years of gaming with various fumble rules, ever been any character that look like a buffoon unless the GM or player describes it that way. It doesn't have to be described like that at all.
You know the saying, haters gonna hate. ;)
|
|
In addition, the fumbles aren't nearly what anyone is claiming they are. The only way they can make the combatants look like Three Stooges or Keystone Cops is if the GM and players make them look that way. There has not once, in 30+ years of gaming with various fumble rules, ever been any character that look like a buffoon unless the GM or player describes it that way.
Well....
In my 30+ years of gaming there have been two incidents;
On one occasion the characters were trying to row across a lake that had a slow current leading to a waterfall. None of them had any skill with boats (or swimming), but it was a fairly simple task so I ruled that between them the two rowers would need three 'average' rolls... 11 or higher in a d20 system... in six rounds (12 rolls total) to make it across before the boat got sucked over the falls. On average they should have gotten six successful rolls. Instead, through a series of failed rolls and fumbles they both managed to drop their oars (one of them twice) and one of them fell out of the boat while trying to retrieve an oar. In the end they had to jump to the cliff at the side of the falls and pull people out with a rope. The boat didn't make it. This was the first of many incidents which made that particular party VERY nervous around water.
The other incident wasn't with the characters, but still seems relevant. We had a player who frequently complained that the fumble rules were unrealistic because the chances of something going massively wrong during a routine task were too small to bother with. However, during one session another player, who had a tendency to be somewhat accident prone (on a different occasion he nearly died because he laughed while chewing a sandwich) put his cup of soda down on his character binder in such a way that it started to tip and might have spilled a bit. Seeing this he quickly reached to steady it... but his rising hand caught the edge of the binder and instead launched the cup into the air... at which point he stood and desperately grabbed after it... while his hip hit the binder and sent it scattering the figurines in the middle of the table... where the cup then crashed down and splashed soda over the entire group. At which point, while the rest of us sat there stunned, the 'fumbles are unrealistic' player threw his hands up in the air and proclaimed, "I believe!"
Fumble rules are unlikely to result in absurdities... but in extremely rare cases anything can happen, and I for one think that's as it should be.
|
|
I do recall now a fine story of my time with the Critical Hit deck...
The party was facing off against a T-Rex on the jungle path. The Fighter/Ninja had gotten swallowed whole, and in quite a pickle.
The Monk stepped up and made his attack roll, declaring he was aiming for the belly to induce vomiting.
Natural 20. Confirmed.
He draws from the deck and announces "Split Open".
Gasps of amazement as I take the card to verify, and ponder a moment. Of course I know that it was meant for something like a head wound from a bludgeoning object. But I decide I can't just let this pass.
The poor beasts gut was burst open, and the Fighter/Ninja ended up prone below, quite confused. The battle was quickly wrapped up.
Often do we reminisce about the time a Monk punched a T-Rex's guts open.
The OP got his answers and left, 'findel. The thread can go wherever it wills now.
You got me before I deleted my own message. I should know better than to post on an empty stomach. I'll move along now...
The critical fumbles deck doesn't seem balanced.
That's not up to me. I'm afraid to mention it to my DM because he likes to challenge players. Last encounter we went 2 warriors, a good paladin, and an archon hound. We're three level fours, and the CR was 6. We had a shocking grasp dervish dance magus, a zen archer(myself), and a sword and board fighter. Our party is all evil people.
The critical fumbles deck doesn't seem balanced.
My concerns for balance are more focused on the Critical Hit deck. Unless you choose to draw a card only when "natural 20" Critical Hits occur, it seems to me that falchions, scimitars and rapiers become suddenly even more sexy.