Just recently joined and started playing with a group off the web. First combat session the other day, and a strange rule he's using came up. If you beat someone's AC by ten or more you get to roll damage dice twice. I'm mildly concerned this could become problematic, but I don't know high level play very well. Campaign is planned to go to 20 and perhaps beyond, and I'm most concerned about spellcasters and gunslingers.
Do I have cause for concern with this? If so, any recommendations on how to approach it, without coming off a bit ruled lawyery?
Is it just the damage dice, or do they get the bonuses to damage such as strength or weapon training too? If it is simply the damage dice themselves, it is unlikely to be a problem, since the average damage they cause is fairly low (4.5 is usually what you face, but you might see 7 if someone is using a greatsword or something like it). It would be a nice addition to damage, but usually not that worrying compared to the static damage.
But if it is basically treated like a critical, then you might want to worry a bit. Especially at higher levels, where the BAB and ability scores of opponents starts to shoot straight up (especially for challenging opponents above your CR), while AC is a bit more modest. Imagine a wizard facing off against something with natural attacks and pounce... and it wouldn't take too many attacks for things to turn ugly.
I could see it being a huge problem if it applies to spells.
Specifically ones that target touch AC.
I wouldn't be okay with this rule.
If it's just weapon damage dice it's okay.
If it multiplies nonsense like alchemist bombs then it's a problem.
From the one time it happened that session I believe it's just the damage dice. I'm fairly certain it's therefore going to apply to spells that can crit, as he referred to it that way.
The normal crit rules are in effect as well, although they did not stack.
Not a problem for melee, but with spell....ouch.
Maybe ask for it not to apply with touch spells and attacks. That has such an easy time of going 10 over, it is not even funny. I am astounded that a GM would allow something like that considering that most monsters have fairly poor touch AC (meaning it would be very easy to one shot his bosses)
This gets crazy when applied to guns and spells. Especially with the base 4d6+ of Scorching Ray, which is essentially ENTIRELY damage dice. If anything, what was likely a rule meant to benefit fighters, is only better for casters. I'd recommend asking that it not apply to spells at all. If that doesn't work, at least make sure that it doesn't apply to ones that focus on Touch AC.
Is combat not being resolved fast enough for this group/DM? That would be the only reason to implement this rule IMO. If that's the case, simple reduce the hp of the foes. What? Now in combat monsters are falling dead from one hit! Oh no...we have problem...melee characters are sucking again at high level...Wait, didn't we have that problem in 3.5?
You say that like it isn't an issue in PF.
Just recently joined and started playing with a group off the web. First combat session the other day, and a strange rule he's using came up. If you beat someone's AC by ten or more you get to roll damage dice twice. I'm mildly concerned this could become problematic, but I don't know high level play very well. Campaign is planned to go to 20 and perhaps beyond, and I'm most concerned about spellcasters and gunslingers.
Do I have cause for concern with this? If so, any recommendations on how to approach it, without coming off a bit ruled lawyery?
Just politely mention the issues you foresee, regarding touch AC attacks. Rules Lawyering is not inherently a bad thing, provided you're not using it for loophole opening. In this case, you're using it for loophole closing.
If he keeps it anyway, well, you'd be a fool not to take advantage of it. Break that sucker wide open.
Just recently joined and started playing with a group off the web. First combat session the other day, and a strange rule he's using came up. If you beat someone's AC by ten or more you get to roll damage dice twice. I'm mildly concerned this could become problematic, but I don't know high level play very well. Campaign is planned to go to 20 and perhaps beyond, and I'm most concerned about spellcasters and gunslingers.
Do I have cause for concern with this? If so, any recommendations on how to approach it, without coming off a bit ruled lawyery?
I'm guessing, and hoping, that the rule applies to monsters too. If they beat a PCs AC by 10 they get double damage dice.
The GM appears interested in creating a 'margin of success' system, something which you see in many other RPGs. However Pathfinder wasn't designed with this in mind and it doesn't fit in with the rules.
Just recently joined and started playing with a group off the web. First combat session the other day, and a strange rule he's using came up. If you beat someone's AC by ten or more you get to roll damage dice twice. I'm mildly concerned this could become problematic, but I don't know high level play very well. Campaign is planned to go to 20 and perhaps beyond, and I'm most concerned about spellcasters and gunslingers.
Do I have cause for concern with this? If so, any recommendations on how to approach it, without coming off a bit ruled lawyery?
As several states, touch spells could be a problem, if they are affected by this rules.
So you should probably ask the GM how spells are affected by this.If it doesn't multiply the double the damage on a scorching ray or disintegrate, then I don't expect it to be a huge issue, even though some builds benefit more than others.
Have you asked for a list of all houserules?
There has been at least one time in the past two years that I chose *not* to join a group due to the amount of house rules and the way they were implemented. Let's just say that using 3.0 Haste in PF was... not nice.
When joining a new group, house rules should be on the table before the first session :)
Have you asked for a list of all houserules?There has been at least one time in the past two years that I chose *not* to join a group due to the amount of house rules and the way they were implemented. Let's just say that using 3.0 Haste in PF was... not nice.
When joining a new group, house rules should be on the table before the first session :)
Cannot agree with this more.
|
Have you asked for a list of all houserules?There has been at least one time in the past two years that I chose *not* to join a group due to the amount of house rules and the way they were implemented. Let's just say that using 3.0 Haste in PF was... not nice.
When joining a new group, house rules should be on the table before the first session :)
I had to do this, but not because of a DM, but a player.
He would take advantage of source amnesia, and simply repeat "aren't we using <X> houserule?". Eventually, he would be right, because everyone forgot, that it wasn't so.
Eventually, I demanded a list, prior to the beginning of the campaign.
I would make copies, and when the "aren't we using <X> houserule?" came up, we would have a clear, concise, and correct answer.
Im familiar with this from other games, be interesting to see how it works here, if at all. I have vague memories of something like this in second ed.
From the one time it happened that session I believe it's just the damage dice. I'm fairly certain it's therefore going to apply to spells that can crit, as he referred to it that way.
As others have said, if it is just base weapon damage, I don't see it overpowering the PCs at all. If it includes spells, that's going to be a problem. In addition, if it include natural attacks, its going to be a problem.
In summary, if it only affects manufactured weapons, I can see it working. Otherwise, its going to make battles much more deadly for the PCs.
Have you asked for a list of all houserules?There has been at least one time in the past two years that I chose *not* to join a group due to the amount of house rules and the way they were implemented. Let's just say that using 3.0 Haste in PF was... not nice.
When joining a new group, house rules should be on the table before the first session :)
I had to do this, but not because of a DM, but a player.
He would take advantage of source amnesia, and simply repeat "aren't we using <X> houserule?". Eventually, he would be right, because everyone forgot, that it wasn't so.
Eventually, I demanded a list, prior to the beginning of the campaign.
I would make copies, and when the "aren't we using <X> houserule?" came up, we would have a clear, concise, and correct answer.
To be fair, I've had this issue genuinely happen to me. In my group we all dm from time to time (there are 10 players in the whole group, though not all play in all games), and each has their own set of house rules, so it can get genuinely confusing.
|
|
I still demand a list, and suggest others do as well.
If you decide to add, or remove, a houserule, the list is even more important.
If you play in a number of different games, like I do, and some of my fellow players, it's a godsend.
Keeping all rules, even houserules, in a written format, is a boon for all.
There is no reason for unwritten rules.
I prefer to have a written list where possible as well.
I will usually write these up when I'm running a game, the only time I don't is if it's something simple that we can discuss verbally at the beginning (No clerics in this game, for example).
Just recently joined and started playing with a group off the web. First combat session the other day, and a strange rule he's using came up. If you beat someone's AC by ten or more you get to roll damage dice twice. I'm mildly concerned this could become problematic, but I don't know high level play very well. Campaign is planned to go to 20 and perhaps beyond, and I'm most concerned about spellcasters and gunslingers.
Do I have cause for concern with this? If so, any recommendations on how to approach it, without coming off a bit ruled lawyery?
This "rule" does not exist in pathfinders. It is a homebrew thing that dates back to 3.0. As Claxton mentioned, there are several builds that would be stupidly powerful with this homebrew rule.
Be very worried about the NPC opponent that uses true strike then a ranged touch attack spell like scorching ray.
You will have dead PC's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes the easiest way to repeal house rules is to demonstrate why they are bad ideas.
Have you asked for a list of all houserules?There has been at least one time in the past two years that I chose *not* to join a group due to the amount of house rules and the way they were implemented. Let's just say that using 3.0 Haste in PF was... not nice.
When joining a new group, house rules should be on the table before the first session :)
I had to do this, but not because of a DM, but a player.
He would take advantage of source amnesia, and simply repeat "aren't we using <X> houserule?". Eventually, he would be right, because everyone forgot, that it wasn't so.
Eventually, I demanded a list, prior to the beginning of the campaign.
I would make copies, and when the "aren't we using <X> houserule?" came up, we would have a clear, concise, and correct answer.
I joined one group for a while. They had been playing together so long that they actually forgot that a bunch of their stuff was house rules or things held over from earlier editions. They actually meant it when they said they only use 1 house rule. They were just wrong.
The one they did remember they were using was:
A natural 20 is not auto success it is a +10 to the total.
A natural 1 is not auto fail it is a -10 to the total.
Just a quick update. Finally got a hold of the GM. Beating AC by 10 doesn't double the dice, it adds one die to the attack for each 10 you beat their AC by. Still slightly concerned about what will happen later (and a bit now) but at least it's not as bad as was originally implied.
Thanks for the info, and idea to ask about more houserules though. Wasn't something I had thought of.
|
Just a quick update. Finally got a hold of the GM. Beating AC by 10 doesn't double the dice, it adds one die to the attack for each 10 you beat their AC by. Still slightly concerned about what will happen later (and a bit now) but at least it's not as bad as was originally implied.
Thanks for the info, and idea to ask about more houserules though. Wasn't something I had thought of.
Honestly it's almost rude to not be upfront with the House Rules from the get go. When I started GM'ing an AP for my group I emailed the list of house rules along with the character creation rules (such as point buy, starting gold etc.).
You gotta get this stuff out in the open from the get go... Otherwise there will be issues down the road.
If I were you I'd ask the GM to get a list of rules out ASAP. even his/her veteran players will appreciate having it, even if they don't know it yet.
This is a very bad idea in general for house rules. There are some creatures that have really poor ac such as oozes and then there's the question on how multiple magical and alchemical attacks interact with this mechanic. It may not seem like much, but when the alchemist bomber is generating 70 more damage consistently from it then it becomes a problem. I'd tell him even though it's an interesting mechanic he should really avoid it because it's an unbalanced mechanic that benefits some classes more than others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Athi!
I'm guessing, and hoping, that the rule applies to monsters too. If they beat a PCs AC by 10 they get double damage dice.
It's just +1 damage dice, not double, but yeah, applies equally to the badguys.
The DM did start the game out with a note that there would be houserules popping up, and evolving as we play, so we can't really get a concrete list and say 'this is 100% of the houserules'.
He seems open to discussing the ones that seem problematic, though.
To me, at least, there hasn't been a sense of my-way-or-the-highway.
|
You run into anomalies. If it's "1 die" extra, using the example of a "10 over" hit, then a greatsword at 2d6 base damage scales less (+1d6) versus a broadsword (+1d10), which doesn't seem to make sense if the premise is the better the hit, the better the base damage. On the other hand, if we're doubling the dice to +2d6, then we're simply making these crits.
Seems to render some weapons far more useful than others under this system and suffers imbalances if so to creatures with a 5d4 (+1d4, max 24 damage) damage attack versus one with 2d10 (+1d10, max 30 damage).
Touch AC attacks, such as the gunslinger, will be abusive because they are already attacking the lowest AC in the game and can more easily achieve a +10 hit than other classes.
The one very nice effect of this is that all classes will care about (and spend resources on) their AC. One of the major issues with "god wizards" and such is players who give themselves incredible weakness (such as low AC) that simply can't be exploited without twisting the game around (e.g. throwing lots of minions specifically at the one PC, which are useless against all the other reasonable AC characters).
I like, though I doubt I'd ever use.
Touch AC attacks, such as the gunslinger, will be abusive because they are already attacking the lowest AC in the game and can more easily achieve a +10 hit than other classes.
I think that the idea was to give the melee types a bit of a boost relative to casters with non-attack-role spells (and to make AC more valuable for everyone).
As the group's musket master, I'd be fine with the house rule not benefiting touch AC attacks and spells (or the touch+2 I'm attacking between 20-40'; another house rule).|
|
Just a quick update. Finally got a hold of the GM. Beating AC by 10 doesn't double the dice, it adds one die to the attack for each 10 you beat their AC by. Still slightly concerned about what will happen later (and a bit now) but at least it's not as bad as was originally implied.
Thanks for the info, and idea to ask about more houserules though. Wasn't something I had thought of.
I think, overall, there are some definite issues to this rule. As another player in this game mentioned in this thread, he is playing a gunslinger, which can be a bit powerful with normal rules.
He uses a musket, which, per normal rules, hits touch AC out to 40'. There are some very high CR creatures with abysmal touch ACs. We are talking things like the oldest age category of dragon, with a touch AC of 5.
He would certainly, at a CR appropriate level, be able to hit it if he doesn't roll a 1.
Let's consider a 5th level Gunslinger:
+5 BAB
+4 Dex
+1 musket
+1 weapon focus
+1 Bless or +1 Bard song
+12 before rolling the die. Take a 10, so 22 vs touch AC 5, means that. on average, he would be doing 2d12+Dex+1 enhancement + 1 if bard song per hit.
6.5+6.5+6, so average is 19 points per hit. At 5th level. With only an 18 Dex.
Now, consider an ancient red dragon, CR 19, which will probably go up against a group of 17th level PCs.
Touch AC, as mentioned, 5.
17th level gunslinger:
BAB +17
Dex +8
+4 musket
+1 weapon focus
+1 greater weapon focus
+4 bard song
+35 to hit, before the die is rolled. Average 45 to hit with a 10 on the die, for an extra 4d12 damage, per hit. Iteratives will, slowly, reduce the extra dice, but not, overall, by much. 45 = 4, 40 = 3, 35 = 3, so three hits for 4d12+3d12+3d12+ 8*3 + 4*3 + 4 (Weapon spec & GReater weapon spec)*3 + 4*3 (bard song) = 10d12+60 so average 125 damage, excluding criticals and misfires/misses, per turn.
So, if the gunslinger can handle its damage to him, he can kill that dragon, almost singlehanded (we have a bard singing!), in 3 rounds on average. That ignores any other buffs, like Haste or Blessing of Fervor, Good Hope, Heroism, etc.
I wouldn't even want to think about the pistoleer with the double-barreled pistols, making 14 attacks in a turn. Only d8s, but still....
To be fair, I've had this issue genuinely happen to me. In my group we all dm from time to time (there are 10 players in the whole group, though not all play in all games), and each has their own set of house rules, so it can get genuinely confusing.Have you asked for a list of all houserules?There has been at least one time in the past two years that I chose *not* to join a group due to the amount of house rules and the way they were implemented. Let's just say that using 3.0 Haste in PF was... not nice.
When joining a new group, house rules should be on the table before the first session :)
I had to do this, but not because of a DM, but a player.
He would take advantage of source amnesia, and simply repeat "aren't we using <X> houserule?". Eventually, he would be right, because everyone forgot, that it wasn't so.
Eventually, I demanded a list, prior to the beginning of the campaign.
I would make copies, and when the "aren't we using <X> houserule?" came up, we would have a clear, concise, and correct answer.
We should really get around to compiling a list...shouldn't we?
I think the worst house rule I've run into (and I'm still not sure whether it was a house rule or just lack of knowledge of the rules), was that 5 ft. steps and withdrawing provoke attacks of opportunity as any other movement does.
Had no idea that this was the case (back with 3.x) for the table, and rolled up an archery Ranger. In the first fight we got into, I had a dire boar charge me and nearly kill me in one hit, so I said I was going to withdraw, hoping to get some space and bodies between me and the beast, and was told it gets an AoO. I pointed out that that wasn't how withdrawing worked (that the whole point of the thing was to allow you to get out of combat safely), but was rebuffed. Next, I said I would take a 5 ft. step instead, but was told that that would provoke an AoO. Again, I tried reasoning, to no avail. Finally, I said, fine, I'll shoot the thing, which, of course, provokes an AoO, and I drop to -5 when the thing hits me.
I spent my time unconscious flipping through the rule book to show the section detailing how these actions are SUPPOSED to work, but everyone just kind of glowered at me for being a rules lawyer, and for being disruptive, in my first game with them. That was also my last game with them in the 3.x system.
Let's consider a 5th level Gunslinger:
+5 BAB
+4 Dex
+1 musket
+1 weapon focus
+1 Bless or +1 Bard song
Is Weapon Focus a better purchase than Deadly Aim?
When you're shooting at Touch AC (or even Touch+2), -2hit/+4dam seems a better bet than +1hit. Am I missing something?
I believe it's once for every 10.
He does indeed seem willing to work with us, and we are adding house rules as we go along. This one and another just caught me off guard as he originally told me we were going straight RAW the first session or two. I'm still mildly concerned on how this might play out, but I think we'll have to discuss it some as a group. Thanks for the input and info everyone!
