|
Makes it really hard to believe that a "make the BBEG not fall too fast" fudge has anything to do with making sure the players have fun.
You and I clearly play with different kinds of players. Most of mine would enjoy having a decent fight with the boss of the entire scenario, rather than watch as one player casts one spell and the encounter be over.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, this tells me that I shouldn't even bother trying to cast a save or suck spell on the BBEG for the first few rounds because it's going to 'fail' no matter what the dice roll is.
This. This.
I've had other GMs casually tell me "Well, if you want to make a fight last, fudge rolls against SoS spells or make their hit points stretch."
My thought to them is: Then can I just ready an action until you decide that it's no longer time to fudge? Because I feel we should just sit around and let the monsters attack us or go into total defense until you decide that we're actually playing PFS again.
Not every scenario has to be an epic battle.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Makes it really hard to believe that a "make the BBEG not fall too fast" fudge has anything to do with making sure the players have fun.You and I clearly play with different kinds of players. Most of mine would enjoy having a decent fight with the boss of the entire scenario, rather than watch as one player casts one spell and the encounter be over.
How do you know we play with different kinds of players when I didn't say anything about what my area's players prefer?
That's kind of my point: I see infinitely more "Doing this will increase/decrease your fun" than I see "Hey Player, what do you find fun/un-fun?"
If you don't trust the GM to guide you on a fun adventure, don't sit down at the table.
You are never going to know if the GM fudged anything because they aren't going to tell you. The only gauge that matters is if you had fun or not.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player i find fudging unfun!
Especially if i´m the caster of a SoS. Probably i buffed and whatever the rest of the party the whole game before and then my moent of glory is denied?
What if the barbarian then just strolls along and one-shots the BBEG with one crit?
That´s really not PFS, but homegame stuff and even in a home game it would really annoy me.
I wouldn´t save players from dying nor do i expect to be saved from dying as a player either, it´s part of the game too and actually raises the fun, because you risk something.
It should be officially banned from PFS.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As a player, this tells me that I shouldn't even bother trying to cast a save or suck spell on the BBEG for the first few rounds because it's going to 'fail' no matter what the dice roll is.This. This.
I've had other GMs casually tell me "Well, if you want to make a fight last, fudge rolls against SoS spells or make their hit points stretch."
My thought to them is: Then can I just ready an action until you decide that it's no longer time to fudge? Because I feel we should just sit around and let the monsters attack us or go into total defense until you decide that we're actually playing PFS again.
Not every scenario has to be an epic battle.
I wholehartedly agree. There's no 'fun' in ruining the BBEG. I've joked (but never actually done it) about using my player character folio to re-roll for the bad guy. IF the party can take down the BBEG or lock him up somehow (see my nemisis, Sir-Grabs-A-Lot) that's a flaw of the scenario design. IT also needs to be brought up in reviews to improve the scenario design in general. If the reviews consistantly saw "Scenario was great, right until the BBEG got one shotted," hopefully the lesson learned will be to make the BBEG fight more complex, not tack on immunities.
Tangental story as a player. (Not PFS, so spoiled)
The big bad Kuei-jin shows up, all hopped up on Demon Chi, the player controlling the HIT Mark rolls for the thing's rifle cannon...
A phenominal number of 10's, followed by an equally amazing number of 1's on the soak die later, = one dead kuei-jin. Rather than worrying about the non-climatic fight, it became a joke later. Just as memorable.
Long story short, for the contract to work, the GM has to not fudge rolls to make it more dramatic, so the players can trust that he's not fudging rolls to short out their carefully crafted abilities.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man, I just had a hilarious thought:
So I'm sure you all know how much people like to differentiate Pathfinder from MMOs or other video games. Almost every thread that discusses GM fudging (I'm actually kind of surprised that this one hasn't gone there yet) will have 2d6 posts with statements to the effect of "I should be able to change things, because this isn't a video game".
You know what's a common feature of video game RPGs? Bosses having immunity to pretty much every worthwhile non-damaging spell/effect, in order to force the fight to last at least a few rounds. It's so common it's even got its own TV Tropes page.
And now we have GMs insisting on implementing that exact same mechanic in PFS.
I'm finding the irony incredibly funny:
"I can fudge, because Pathfinder isn't a video game! Except for the times when I fudge out some of its differences and *make* it more like a video game than it would be if I didn't fudge, but, uh, try not to pay attention to that..."
Bwahahaha! Oh man, I'm having trouble keeping a straight face at work here. The laughter would be hard to explain to a co-worker... :)
Those of you who find Misfortune annoying should probably stay away from D&D 4E. That game is loaded with powers that let you either reroll your own rolls or force the DM to reroll his rolls.
There is one easy way to handle most cases where Misfortune could apply however. For an attack roll against a player character (the most common situation where you would want to use Misfortune), the DM announces the numerical result of his attack roll, and then the player of the oracle with the Misfortune ability needs to say whether he is using that ability before the target says whether the attack hit or missed him. If the oracle is the target, there is no problem. If somebody else is the target, it is up to the other player not to be too impatient if he wants to benefit from that ability.
Of course, since it can be assumed that the oracle has no interest in forcing rerolls of failed attacks, the DM does not need to bother mentioning them.
|
|
When do you fudge rolls?
Fudging dice rolls should never be commonplace, but there is
a time and place for adjusting tactics: helping a low level and/
or inexperienced table group that has fallen on a streak of bad
luck. One of the fastest ways to lose a new player is to kill off
his character, so as a GM you have some leeway to help these
fresh faces succeed, have fun, and have a reason to come back
to play again.
While not a core assumption or an additional resource, the GM101 seminar was created for PFS. You should not fudge rolls unless you are trying to help new players.
That being said, Rule zero is that the GM is always right. If he doesn't want to show his rolls, he does not have to.
|
I should have known a lot of people would jump on what I said.
I don't often fudge rolls, and I cannot remember a time I fudged in favour of an enemy saving against a player's spell. I was merely imagining the possibility that it could be a good idea. I do not want to say "no, I will never fudge against the players". I might at some point think it's the path to a more fun game.
I'm more likely to fudge in the enemy's favour if it's for something that's meant to be cinematic. A player tried to climb up a ledge with a rope and grappling hook, and on top of the ledge was a demon. Demons are strong, and I thought a fun way of starting the combat would be to have the climbing player yanked up. I indeed fudged the strength check to lift the climbing player 10 feet up and over, and it made the players appreciate the combat more. It also let the climber have a clever moment of rolling a reflex save to let go.
I don't regret my fudging, and it was in the enemy's favour.
|
You are required to let PCs use whatever legal abilities they have, and run them as-written.
You are required to rule with common sense and provide a fair and fun experience to the best of your ability.If you can think of a way to keep your rolls hidden while still running misfortune both as written and in a way that provides a fair and fun experience for the player, knock yourself out.
That's really all it comes down to.
I have a dual cursed oracle and this came up recently when playing Eyes of the Ten. The judge and I had an agreement - he would let me know of any monster rolls 18 and above for to hit rolls, and would give me the number for saving throws so I had the chance to misfortune them if needed. Once I had used it for the round, he no longer informed me of rolls. It's not that he cared about keeping his dice hidden, it was more to keep the game moving.
|
|
If he doesn't want to show his rolls, he does not have to.It's simple.. if the DM doesn't want to show his rolls, then let the oracle force rerolls after the success is announced.
It's an easy solution for this that shouldn't ruffle either side of the issue,
James
I agree with this. I understand before the result are reveiled as in. before the damage or the effect of die success/failure are presented.
|
As GM I am responsible for ensuring a fun game. If that means altering the occasional die roll, so be it. This can be in the players favor or against it.Rather curious as to what types of situations might come up in which fudging dice against the player upholds your stated responsibility of "ensuring a fun game".
As a theoretical:
The group is an hour ahead of schedule having wiped the scenario with minimal resources expended. The BBEG 2 rooms over fails his perception by 1.
If he's unprepared I'm anticipating a dead BBEG first round. Followed by a group of people sitting around for 1.5 hours. If he's prepared, I can make combat last a few extra rounds.
Which is more fun?
(I was very nearly in this position 2 weeks ago. The BBEG rolled very well, just barely making his perception.)
Humm... I think I get it.
As long as I roll something, he can always ask me to re-roll, but I am not required to show him the roll. Only tell him the results from the roll or the re-roll.
(Oh course, I won't be cheating on the dice. Just giving the players the results.)
So lets say I roll an attack roll and got a 20... the moment I say crit! I have already revealed the results... so by all rights... he can't get a re-roll...
Exactamundo.
The ability never says the player is entitled to be informed of when dice rolls occur [e.g. secret rolls], much less be informed of/see the numeric result of the rolls [that they know are being made]. It just doesn't say that. If they know you made a dice roll (such as you saying, "OK, monster X makes it's attacks [clackaclackaclacka...]"), they can in that instance ask you to re-roll before they know the result. Since nothing is giving them the right to know the numeric result of the dice itself, they have no idea what you just rolled [high or low, crit or non-crit], so there really is no purpose in using the ability in that case, using it is just as likely to help the monster as hinder it. But they can do so if they really wish. Note that there is a Giant that can 'force' any one roll to be a Natural 20. This ability utterly negates that, you just have to accurately guess when the Giant is using that ability.
If you as a GM are making dice rolls in the open, then the player can use that information to their advantage. But nothing in the ability says they are entitled to know the dice result. That said, the ability is still very useful: you can use it just fine on your own POOR dice rolls, hoping to re-roll higher, and you can likewise use it for any rolls your allies make.
If you want to be a nice guy GM, you can warn the player 'you may just want to use that ability before I reveal the results'. But the rules themselves don't call for that, much less force you the GM to reveal any dice roll. So perhaps this player should focus a bit less on brow-beating the GM, and a bit more on cultivating a consensual agreeable atmosphere. Usually a good idea when you want things to happen that AREN'T mandated by the actual RAW. If you want to get into RAI and reasonable intent, that plausibly extends a bit further than what the actual RAW says, but then you certainly have left the territory where you can demand that the rules be enforced as they are written, and other people's (e.g. the GM's ) opinions on applying the ability fairly certainly are relevant.
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Frederick
|
I have one of the players donate a d20 to me (everyone rolls a d20 and highest is asked to donate) for the game. Then I have everyone roll another d20 and the highest gets to roll for me for rolls that the players are aware of in full view of the table. I am never accused of cheating and get to enjoy the sad look on the PCs faces when their buddy rolls 2-3 crits in a row in full view of everyone (for some reason it works out that way). one of the bad guys (aka a PC rolling for me) scored 4 crits in a row once. Nasty.
|
|
I have one of the players donate a d20 to me (everyone rolls a d20 and highest is asked to donate) for the game. Then I have everyone roll another d20 and the highest gets to roll for me for rolls that the players are aware of in full view of the table. I am never accused of cheating and get to enjoy the sad look on the PCs faces when their buddy rolls 2-3 crits in a row in full view of everyone (for some reason it works out that way). one of the bad guys (aka a PC rolling for me) scored 4 crits in a row once. Nasty.
Oh... that is just... evil... totally EVIL... :)
If they know you made a dice roll (such as you saying, "OK, monster X makes it's attacks [clackaclackaclacka...]"), they can in that instance ask you to re-roll before they know the result. Since they nothing is giving them the right to know the numeric result of the dice itself, there really is no purpose in using the ability in that case, using it is just as likely to help the monster as hinder it. But they can do so if they really wish.
This is actually exactly how I would hate to see a GM run the ability, because it makes it pretty much entirely useless. Yes, you can shut down a special ability of a single monster, but in nearly any other case, you just have an extra curse and a useless revelation.
Personally, I consider 'Before the results are revealed' to mean that it is after the GM rolls the die, and (assuming you're rolling in the open) at a point where everyone can see what was rolled on the d20, but before the GM says "Okay, the creature hits, you [take X damage, have some effect, whatever]." So if you see the roll is a natural 20, you can still reroll before the GM does any confirmation, or specifies what happens, etc.
Likewise, if you just see they rolled high, like 16 or so, it might even still be a miss against an ally, but without knowing the modifiers, you can't tell, and odds are in your favor that if you make them reroll they'll end up with something lower, so you could choose to have them reroll it.
That's what I would consider as being 'before the results are revealed,' because otherwise again, the ability is really just worthless, or at least basically relies on the GM 'throwing you a bone' for it to do anything (helping allies notwithstanding obviously. It's certainly still nice for that, but using it on enemies becomes pointless).
What are you talking about 'entirely useless'?
I specifically mentioned how it can also be useful for YOUR OWN low rolls, AND your allies'.
MERELY FOR THOSE APPLICATIONS, the ability is very worthwhile.
Compare it to the limitations of Improved Iron Will, both abilities are 'worth' 1 Feat (=Extra Revelation), yet this is vastly more useful with JUST those applications that I mentioned. It's like taking Improved Iron Will's re-roll, except instead of 1/day Will re-roll for one creature (with the Feat), it can be used for ALL Saving Throws AND Skill Checks AND Attack Rolls AND SR Checks AND all other d20 rolls, for the character with the ability AND an unlimited number of other allies/creatures. The only down-side vs. Improved Iron Will is that it [EDIT:] CAN'T be used when the Oracle themself is Flat-Footed, but it DOES work just fine if the TARGET is Flat-Footed, and given the vastly broader application and usages/day, it's not even a question which is more powerful.
If you think the RAW sucks, great. But the point is, if we are diverging from it, then it's simply insupportable for one person (the player) to change one aspect of the ability to suit their will, but nobody else's preferences or opinion on ability balance can change anything else about the ability... Much less conflate their modification of the ability with the actual RAW of the ability, pretending that this isn't a change to the ability, and the GM is obligated to follow their preferred modification of the ability with no further limitations. Certainly if we want to open the ability up and change how it works per RAW, making it NOT work on you and your allies would be a big obvious one in making the function match the fluff better. But if our context is the RAW of the ability (THIS IS THE PFS FORUM, RIGHT?), RAW is RAW. Even if the actual ability is more useful in a way contrary to the fluff.
|
|
The ability comes at a pretty high cost. You have to pick two curses and spend a revelation to get it.
I honestly think you know if the die roll succeeded/failed, but not what the results are. Ie. The monster made its save, the creatured missed thier attack, etc. But once the DM gets the damage, or reviels the results of what happenes it is too late.
So you do not show that the 3 hit, or that the 18 made the save. That would be silly to give a player the knowledge to learn the creatures attack bonus and will saves by watching the dice. That is not what the ability is designed for.
Curses are as much benefits as detriments. The downsides of many of them are either straight up minimal, and/or can also be worked around in many cases.
|
|
Every curse should effect you. It is either poor DMing or players not applying thier curses. I do not let people with tongues strategize with other players. I would enforce haunted characters pulling out items is a standardaction. I would not every promise a legalistic player has made even slight ones. I could go on.
|
|
Quandary: Okay, the thrust of your argument seems to be "If you want to be a pain in the rear by insisting on a literal interpretation of the rules, I can meet you on that battlefield." So MY question becomes: If you were GMing a PFS table that had a dual cursed oracle with the misfortune hex, would you play it exactly as you're describing? This assumes that the oracle player isn't being a pain, but would actually like to use the misfortune hex on badguys for the party's benefit.
Curses are as much benefits as detriments. The downsides of many of them are either straight up minimal, and/or can also be worked around in many cases.
A dual-cursed oracle's second curse does not advance. It is as if you are always a level 1 oracle for that curse. Yes, many can be mitigated or aren't that big a deal, but a lot of them are a very big deal and/or cannot be easily mitigated.
And I acknowledged that the ability to use it on others (not yourself, by the way, although there's a later revelation from dual cursed that does that too) is indeed useful.
Edit: Actually, looking back at it, I suppose it could be considered usable on yourself? I kind of always assumed not, in contrast to the Fortune ability from 5th level.
And I'm hardly calling for alterations to the RAW, I'm giving my interpretation of the RAW. And while I don't necessarily support the player in the OP asking the GM to change their style, I also don't think it's an unfair request. Some GM's roll dice secretly, and that's fine. Some GM's also roll dice in the open (I tend to do this one), and that's fine too.
However, considering the fact that whether you make dice rolls public or private has no bearing on the mechanics of the game, while there are abilities that are contingent on the outcome of those dice rolls and do relate to the mechanics of the game, I feel that it may be fair to prioritize the one that has bearing on the game rather than a GM's preference for secrecy.
I guess we disagree on this though, and if we're only going to use RAW to discuss it, then I imagine we probably won't get very far since the ability says nothing in favor of either interpretation. You're right that it doesn't say the player is now entitled to see die rolls, but there's no concrete ruling that says players can't see them right from the start anyway.
sure, it just baffles me that the thread can get thru 1-1/2 pages withotu dealing with the actual rule.
(i mean, why bother quoting it in the first post if the RAW doesn't matter?)
if they want to be playing outside of RAW (nevermind PFS rules, but hey, there's other rules that people often don't follow, some RAW is just borked)
okay, but there is nothing that the player can be holding over the GM in that case,
if there is agreement to diverge from RAW, you can't just discount the GM's subjective opinion on how it should be run.
that's what the issue boils down to, so the OP's problem just shouldn't really exist. that's my point.
i don't ultimately care if anybody wants to diverge from RAW, i would personally agree that RAW doesn't match intent here.
the OP stated that he is happy to tell the player when it is a good idea to use the ability, that doesn't fundamentally require revealing exact die-roll results, much less secret ones.
that seems MORE than reasonable enough of a function to me, speaking in terms of enabling the intent/fluff to be accurate.
making that change though, DOES seem like it should require dis-allowing the other applications which i mentioned, which aren't in line with flavor/intent (self/allies, which work because the crunch specifies 'creatures' not 'foes').
|
|
*Shrugs* I don't really see a problem, then.
As far as I can tell, your point of view is "it's something that the GM and player would have work out for themselves. If the player wants to be annoying about it, then a strict reading of RAW has the ability to halve the effectiveness compared to how most people play. Be nice and work things out, or annoy the GM at your peril."
The way the revelation usually gets played allows it to be used against enemies and benefit allies both. I wouldn't play a dual cursed oracle with a GM that I know is going to use your RAW interpretation every time, but I can totally see that interpretation being used with players who insist on being annoying about dice rolls.
A dual-cursed oracle's second curse does not advance. It is as if you are always a level 1 oracle for that curse. Yes, many can be mitigated or aren't that big a deal, but a lot of them are a very big deal and/or cannot be easily mitigated.
So obviously, if that's a problem for you, you don't choose those ones.
If your allies speak the language of your non-advancing Tongues curse, there's your in-character strategizing.And I acknowledged that the ability to use it on others (not yourself, by the way, although there's a later revelation from dual cursed that does that too) is indeed useful.
The ability specifies working on creatures. That includes yourself, just like you yourself are included as an ally. That there is another Revelation that works on yourself is just double-dipping. Like I said, I think the RAW for this ability doesn't match fluff/intent, but that's RAW, Paizo should fix it if it's wrong. It's MORE than useful of an ability as written.
However, considering the fact that whether you make dice rolls public or private has no bearing on the mechanics of the game, while there are abilities that are contingent on the outcome of dice rolls and do relate to mechanics of the game, I feel that it may be fair to prioritize the one that has bearing on the game rather than a GM's preference for secrecy.
I guess we disagree on this though, and if we're only going to use RAW to discuss it, then I imagine we probably won't get very far since the ability says nothing in favor of either interpretation. You're right that it doesn't say the player is now entitled to see die rolls, but there's no concrete ruling that says players can't see them right from the start anyway.
As I wrote, if you want to diverge from RAW, you have my approval. The point is, if they are diverging from RAW in the game, the player just has absolutely no authoritative source to beat the GM over the head with. If the GM wants to announce die roll results, that is 100% their prerogative. If they want to announce when it is a good idea to use this ability, without revealing die results, that works too. If they don't want to announce checks for things that the player/PC would otherwise not be aware of, there's nothing wrong with that.
The OP's concern was that the player in question was trying to beat him over the head with an erroneous concept of what the ability actual stated, and claim that he was entitled to know of ALL die-rolls (and their numeric result) that happened within 30', regardless of whether these checks were for events he could plausibly Perceive, or whether they are meant to be secret checks (which are kept secret to avoid player metagaming), this is including checks corresponding to no external action, and thus in no circumstances something that the PC could react to (e.g. knowledge, sense motive, perception, etc.). Merely having the ability to know of all d20 checks made within 30' in a major metagaming advantage EVEN WITHOUT DECIDING TO USE THE RE-ROLL, and is an imposition on how the GM chooses to roll the dice (which isn't controlled by the rules, so he should be free to do so however he wants to). Not to mention that if you DO decide to use the ability (forced re-roll) there is major continuity/in-game roleplaying coherence issues for explaining why your character knows these secret rolls are happening so that they can use their Su ability to interfere with it.
My point is that the GM here simply has ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDS to worry or feel like they need to accomodate this player, because this player has nothing backing up their position, except how the GM may be choosing to be nice or diverge from the RAW in favor of the player. However the GM chooses to be nice or make life easier for the player is up to the GM, although I suppose other players could validly complain about diverging from RAW. Since I'm not playing with him, whether or not he follows RAW isn't really my personal concern though.
This does seem like an ability that is a good idea to discuss with the GM before the game.
If nobody really expects the RAW to be followed, you have to (cooperatively/politely/not-browbeating-the-GM)
work out exactly what it does/what it's limitations are.
Obviously, that's something that could be improved with real Errata, but only Paizo has the ability to do that.
it does seem a tad bizarre/disturbing that people in a PFS discussion thread can behave as if treating the RAW as the law is such a foreign concept that they don't even seriously mention that angle, and when it's brought up they're strongly resistant to the idea. that has nothing to do with the advisability of following RAW in a specific case, or in general, but when playing a game specifically premised on following RAW (PFS) and this is the standard reaction, it just kind of make me scratch my head. of course, like i said, there's other Pathfinder RAW that is just borked and can't possibly be followed if the game is to be functional, so people obviously aren't, but still, that the IDEA of following RAW in a specific case can be so alien to people's expectations, still seems wierd even if they may be breaking RAW in some other cases.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
@Finlanderboy, The curses are a good RP point. But as Quandary, has pointed out. Some of the curses or curse-combinations are very hard to enforce. or RP
Legalistic is hard to enforce, if the scenario has little RP involved. Or if the player does not say anything to any npc...
Haunted works on the item draw = standard action. But how should it be RPed? Ghosts popping up randomly around the oracle?
So if you see the roll is a natural 20, you can still reroll before the GM does any confirmation, or specifies what happens, etc.
A natural 20 is an automatic hit. Misfortune would be USELESS if a GM rolls a 20 and everyone sees it... as the results are already "revealed", a 20 is an automatic crit threat.
The poor Oracle can now only use his Misfortune on the confirmation roll.On the other hand, if a GM rolls, behind a screen, a Crit, or even just a roll that will result in a very damaging hit, he can tell the Oracle, "You see the enemy slashing down with his sword, but Tom looks distracted! It is going to be a powerful blow! Do you want to use Misfortune on the enemy?"
This means the Misfortune is now much more USEFUL. Instead of a big guessing game, with Misfortune "maybe" affecting a roll... or not.
Misfortune can now be CERTAIN of affecting a roll. It may not affect it in a good way... but it WILL be useful.
And in no way is this "the GM throwing a bone to the Misfortune player". The GM is not "throwing a bone" :( , he is weaving the outcome of the rolls, into the story. All the while making sure the Misfortune player gets the most out of his ability.
|
|
"You see the enemy slashing down with his sword, but Tom looks distracted! It is going to be a powerful blow! Do you want to use Misfortune on the enemy?"
This is how it should be. But usually DMs(including myself) do not think of it in time. If think the player should be aware of the revelance of the events to apply them ability.
|
|
You present a thought provoking argument in favor of GM's using screens, and if I'd really enjoy playing with any GM who could weave the misfortune power into their narrative as you've described. I do have a question, though.
A natural 20 is an automatic hit. Misfortune would be USELESS if a GM rolls a 20 and everyone sees it... as the results are already "revealed", a 20 is an automatic crit threat.
The poor Oracle can now only use his Misfortune on the confirmation roll.
So using this logic, wouldn't ANY roll that crits be immune to the misfortune revelation? So long as a player knows the threat range for the attack, they're going to know if it's a critical hit or not.
*GM rolls an 18* "Do you want to use misfortune?"
Player: "You said he's using a scimitar?"
GM: "Yeah."
Player: "I use misfortune."
The only possibility for it NOT being a crit is if the attack doesn't meet the character's AC. That can certainly happen with front line combatant characters. Using your interpretation, this would be the ONLY time misfortune could be used.
interestingly, the RAW limits the ability to 1/day for creatures SUFFERING from your 'Misfortune', so if the ability didn't negatively effect the outcome of their roll, then you could plausibly try to use it again on them, ad infinitum until they actually suffer from usage of the ability. that's RAW of course.
|
|
A natural 20 is an automatic hit. Misfortune would be USELESS if a GM rolls a 20 and everyone sees it... as the results are already "revealed", a 20 is an automatic crit threat.
The poor Oracle can now only use his Misfortune on the confirmation roll.
"Before the results have been determined" means "before other numbers are added to the number on the die." "After the results have been determined" means "after all bonuses are added and a hit/miss is determined."
I'll be damned if I can find a citation anywhere, but that's just ... what those words mean in this context, you know? The fact that 1s and 20s are always critical doesn't mean that the ability wouldn't work on them just because the player saw the die. Otherwise Good Fortune (Luck domain) wouldn't work, because it's dice the players roll themselves. Ditto Pathfinder Delver from Seekers of Secrets.
In fact, by your interpretation, if the guy sitting next to me rolls a 1, I can't misfortune that, because I know what the results are. But that's just ... not how it works.
uh... that seems untenable. the only point of adding more bonuses to the die-roll is to make the roll more likely to succeed vs. the DC. rolling a 20 succeeds vs. any DC. knowing it is a nat. 20 means you know the same information as you do AFTER adding '+10,425 attack bonus' to the die-roll (that the result is a hit). whether an attack roll is a hit or miss is the standard result determined from the die roll, the ability is supposed to apply before the result is known.
@mysticallyinclined: exactly, non-20 critical threats don't reveal the result on their own, since the attack still has to beat the DC like any other non-crit threat. even the damage they do is not implied, all critical doubled dice could roll minimum, and do less damage than a mas dmg standard hit, etc. but the fact that a non-20 crit threat does NOT necessarily hit, is the fundamental thing here. scimitars aren't any more likely to HIT on an 18 than a war-hammer is, after all. of course, again, the ability doesn't actually say the player is entitled to know the die-result, that is purely people's projections. even if we decide that we want to diverge from RAW somehow to make it match the fluff better, there are a multitude of ways to do so that don't involve revealing the die-result.
|
|
uh... that seems untenable. the only point of adding more bonuses to the die-roll is to make the roll more likely to succeed vs. the DC. rolling a 20 succeeds vs. any DC. knowing it is a nat. 20 means you know the same information as you do AFTER adding '+10,425 attack bonus' to the die-roll (that the result is a hit). whether an attack roll is a hit or miss is the standard result determined from the die roll, the ability is supposed to apply before the result is known.
Right, but my point is the power doesn't work on any rolls except 1s and 20s; it works on any roll based only on the number appearing on the die. The idea that a 20 is exempt because you know it's going to hit is ... absurd.
again, the ability never mentions the number appearing on the die, that is just the wishful thinking of the OP's player. the ability says if the result is revealed, the ability no longer works. knowing it is a 20 is knowing the result (it will hit). again, good reason for the GM to roll behind a screen.
|
|
again, the ability never mentions the number appearing on the die, that is just the wishful thinking of the OP's player. the ability says if the result is revealed, the ability no longer works. knowing it is a 20 is knowing the result (it will hit). again, good reason for the GM to roll behind a screen.
So, it is your contention that a Pathfinder Delver, or Cleric with the Luck domain, can't use their powers on critical failures they have rolled?
but a crit is a hit. you have to confirm the 20 to know if it is a crit, but you do that the result is a hit.
as suggested, for saving throws, 20 is undoubtedly just a success, period, no other result to know.
i guess it's worthy to FAQ... (the ability could likely use Errata anyways)
|
|
but a crit is a hit. you have to confirm the 20 to know if it is a crit, but you do that the result is a hit.
as suggested, for saving throws, 20 is undoubtedly just a success, period, no other result to know.
i guess it's worthy to FAQ... (the ability could likely use Errata anyways)
So, again, it is your contention that a Pathfinder Delver, or Cleric with the Luck domain, can't use their powers on critical failures they have rolled? Because that's the implication of what you're saying here. The powers are all described the same way.
At 6th level, as an immediate action, you can reroll any one d20 roll you have just made before the results of the roll are revealed.
Once per day at 6th level, the delver may reroll any saving throw he has just made before the results of the roll are revealed.
At 1st level, as an immediate action, you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made before the results of the roll are revealed.
But the first two can only be used on your own rolls--which means you have seen the die--so by your ruling, 1s and 20s would be exempt from powers of this nature.
Is that what you are saying?