|
How are you handling dual-cursed oracle characters with the misfortune revelation?
I had a player tell me that he would invoke it the first time I rolled a 14 or higher on a saving throw - is this common?
(text - 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. The creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it’s worse than the original roll. Once a creature has suffered from your misfortune, it cannot be the target of this revelation again for 1 day.)
Also do you read this that if they do not take this revelation at 1st level they cannot take it later?
And is it a revelation that one can take in a Ring of Revelation? (if the first level is a requirement).
TIA
|
|
How are you handling dual-cursed oracle characters with the misfortune revelation?
I had a player tell me that he would invoke it the first time I rolled a 14 or higher on a saving throw - is this common?
(text - 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. The creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it’s worse than the original roll. Once a creature has suffered from your misfortune, it cannot be the target of this revelation again for 1 day.)
Also do you read this that if they do not take this revelation at 1st level they cannot take it later?
And is it a revelation that one can take in a Ring of Revelation? (if the first level is a requirement).
TIA
It is not required to be taken at first level, so as far as I can tell it's eligible for a Ring of Revelation.
The way the player is setting its conditional use is actually the preferred way of doing it since they're not supposed to know only the roll itself and not the total result before using it.
More often than not, the GM has already called out the result, putting its use in meta-game-y territory.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I have a player that frequents high level games with his oracle that has this revelation. He's a joy to have at the table.
Given the drawbacks of the archetype compared to the benefits, I don't have any real issue with the Misfortune hex.
I would recommend that oracles with it communicate with their GMs at the start of the session and come up with a go-to threshold they'd like to active the ability at. Like the 14 or higher on a save, for example. This prevents any metagaming and makes it a lot smoother in application.
|
|
Given the wording of the ability, I think it's best to have the Revelation work exactly as described. Since the player isn't supposed to know if the roll is a success or failure, it's good to decide in advance what rolls you would want to trigger it on for an NPC, what other players would want to trigger the reroll on themselves, etc. This prevents having to retcon critical damage rolls, or a party member's "I failed the saving throw by one... can I re-roll it?"
|
|
The revelation only even exists for the dual-cursed archetype, so its possible another character can't ever get it in a ring. It seems like a grey area.
With Legalistic apparently a "free" curse (never will, always try) I have seen a few duals - blackenned/legalistic or wolfscarred/deaf being the most common.
----
Another query - the misfortune has to be applied before the person knows the result of the roll - but wouldn't that mean that one can't misfortune a nat 1 saving throw because you always know that is a failure - or perhaps even a nat 20 hit - because you know it is always a hit?
|
I assume that "know the result" means, the ultimate consequences. For instance, if an enemy cleric casts a spell, and the fighter rolls a low save, as long as the reroll happens before the specific result is known, i.e., paralysis, running away in fear, getting hit by a column of uhholy fire, then knowing whether or not the save itself is successfull still doesn't count as knowing the result. I would say the same for an attack. Yes, a 20 is an auto-hit and possible crit, but it's the damage that's the "result".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With Legalistic apparently a "free" curse (never will, always try) I have seen a few duals - blackenned/legalistic or wolfscarred/deaf being the most common.
I imagine Tongues / Legalistic is a more common combination for people looking to have a low impact set of curses.
Another query - the misfortune has to be applied before the person knows the result of the roll - but wouldn't that mean that one can't misfortune a nat 1 saving throw because you always know that is a failure - or perhaps even a nat 20 hit - because you know it is always a hit?
Again, the wording in problematic, but as long as you set up a SOP of "If any of the party rolls under a 10, let me know" or a "If NPC X would need to roll a confirmation roll, have them reroll" there's a buffer against "knowing the result of the roll." There's still a high potential for table variation (especially if the GM hates the ability) but there isn't really a more reasonable way to deal with it.
|
With Legalistic apparently a "free" curse (never will, always try) I have seen a few duals - blackenned/legalistic or wolfscarred/deaf being the most common.
I imagine Tongues / Legalistic is a more common combination for people looking to have a low impact set of curses.
Tongues is not as low impact as people think it is. My oracle played through 1st level with the tongues curse, and someone died because I couldn't tell them that I had a way to save them in combat. After that, I quickly changed to blackened.
|
|
With Legalistic apparently a "free" curse (never will, always try) I have seen a few duals - blackenned/legalistic or wolfscarred/deaf being the most common.I have a Blackened/Legalistic caster orientated Oracle but as a loyal Asmodean Chelaxian he takes giving his word very seriously.
In my experience most Legalistics take giving their word very seriously - they never do it - it is always they will try to do something, never they will do something - on the belief, I think, that if they fail they did not break their word as long as they tried.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Hamburg
|
Another query - the misfortune has to be applied before the person knows the result of the roll - but wouldn't that mean that one can't misfortune a nat 1 saving throw because you always know that is a failure - or perhaps even a nat 20 hit - because you know it is always a hit?
It must be used before the results are revealed. When a natural 1 or 20 is rolled, you already know what kind of result will be revealed, but you can still use the revelation before the GM actually declares the roll to be an automatic success/failure.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Why does the player get to know what the GM rolled at all?
Maybe the GM would prefer to just roll in the open rather than have to establish and remember an arrangement of "use it if they roll X or better on Y type of roll while I'm in range and aware of them"? If I just roll in the open, then I can let the player keep track of all that crap and I don't have to give the ability the slightest bit of attention until he says "reroll that".
|
|
Again, why does the player get to know what the GM rolled?
And why does the player get to determine a benchmark?
Nothing in the ability hints that this is the case. Rather just the GM being nice.
What's the point of the ability again?
Oh, the GM has to roll twice and take the second result? How's that any different from the GM rolling once, if the player doesn't know anything about the initial roll?
Essentially, you've told the player he uses his immediate action on an enemy for zero possible benefit.
|
|
Again, why does the player get to know what the GM rolled?
And why does the player get to determine a benchmark?
Nothing in the ability hints that this is the case. Rather just the GM being nice.
Fortunately or unfortunately, it's true that the wording of that particular revelation pretty much doesn't work with GMs who want to hide dice rolls, even though most of the rest of the rules easily support either play style. I would guess that this actually causes additional hurt feelings (additional in this case meaning above and beyond any hurt feelings from the ability itself) from GMs who prefer hidden rolls when this revelation comes up, since it forces them to change their style to suit the revelation's wording.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew, how would you adjudicate the Misfortune revelation at your table?
Since it sounds like the player wouldn't get to know what you rolled, or set up a benchmark beforehand, I'm struggling to see how this revelation is useful at your table.
|
My issue with abilities like this, is it creates a situation that almost enforces a particular GM style on the GM, or enforces a metagaming benchmark mechanic.
If a GM won't reveal their rolls and doesn't want to set up a benchmark mechanic the option to use this ability comes down to emergencies.
We need the bad guy to fail his save or I can't take another hit become targets for the reroll.
Often if the GM rolls in the open, a player will have gleaned the result after a round or two of combat and can cherry pick rolls like Natural 20's and such. This seems to defeat the spirit of not knowing the result the same as using it on your buddy who just rolled a Natural 1.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
We need the bad guy to fail his save or I can't take another hit become targets for the reroll.
You can't even use it for this unless you either roll in the open or let the player set a benchmark. How does the player even make the decision? Without information of some sort, forcing a reroll is literally meaningless. Not just sub-optimal, actually completely without value at all. It would be different if it was "roll twice, take the lower". But when it's "reroll, take the new one no matter what", their has to be information involved in order for the ability to actually do anything.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gotcha Andrew. I disagree on the enforcing of the GM style. Here's why.
Let's say we have two styles: roll secretly or roll openly.
If you roll secretly, I don't think that having a player set a threshold for the Misfortune revelation to trigger at actually reveals the GMs rolls. It only "reveals" one roll if it meets the requirements of the threshold, and even then it's rerolled anyway. If you rolled behind a screen, you could even roll the reroll behind there. Yes, players might be suspicious when baddies still succeed their saves or still critically hit, but if the players trust the GMs then there is no issue.
Alternatively, if a GM rolls openly, a player can just point at whatever die they want the GM to reroll and do it that way. Yes, the chance for metagame is high, but if the GM trusts the players then there is no issue.
I suppose if a GM is really opposed to the benchmark method and rolls secretly, then yes, the ability is hindered. But not allowing the benchmark method isn't a GMing style, it's a choice they are making that invalidates the ability. Conversely. if a GM wants to roll in private and player refuses to set up a benchmark, it's a choice that they are making that invalidates the ability.
As I see it, there's nothing that forces a GM to roll them openly or privately, or forces them to reveal the rolls either way. It would stink of metagame and be inappropriate for a player to using the revelation as a smokescreen to ask the die number on every d20 roll a GM makes. It would also bog down play. Setting up the threshold is the simplest way to allow the revelation to work and to keep the game timely. And if there's communal trust between GM and players, then this ability works fine. And if there isn't trust, then there's a greater issue that needs to be addressed first.
|
|
And so the ability forces the GM to either roll in the open, which sometimes really sucks because some rolls need to be hidden. Especially at a table where metagaming is rampant.
Some players just can't help but make metagaming decisions.
GM rolls
Player: hey gm what's that Natural 20 for.
GM: you don't know.
Player: ok reroll it.
GM rerolls a 5 and scenario / encounter ruined by metagaming.
|
|
And so the ability forces the GM to either roll in the open, which sometimes really sucks because some rolls need to be hidden. Especially at a table where metagaming is rampant.
Some players just can't help but make metagaming decisions.
GM rolls
Player: hey gm what's that Natural 20 for.
GM: you don't know.
Player: ok reroll it.
GM rerolls a 5 and scenario / encounter ruined by metagaming.
So, it's an immediate action. Thus, if you don't know about the reason for the roll yet, you are likely flat-footed and can't take those. I guess unless you multiclassed Rogue or Barbarian!
|
|
I trust players fully until they break my trust. There are some players I've had to chide for egregious metagaming. Most of them agree, back off and usually temper that activity, at least at my table.
Some players can't help it. They just do it. Its their style of play.
Its not about trust insomuch as about knowing what will happen, and mitigating my open style accordingly.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I'm confused by your response, Andrew.
You can roll secretly and still make use of the ability.
You can roll openly and still make use of the ability.
Ask the player what they'd like you to reroll. Explain everything that concerns you about the ability, like you have here, and find a threshold that works for that player. If a GM and a player aren't willing to compromise on something like this (something I see as very simple), then I daresay there's a greater issue afoot.
Here are some sample thresholds that you could set.
|
|
I basically loathe this, and other abilities that let a player cherry pick a GM roll, as I feel it mechanically, and by rule forces metagaming.
But they exist, so I'd probably set up a benchmark system and still roll openly.
At least it would feed that very small part of me that takes sadistic glee in knowing a player had made the wrong choice and seeing that they know it.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Yeah, I suppose anything in general involving rerolls is by definition metagaming. Our PCs don't know that their actions are the result of dice being rolled, so giving them abilities that deal with rerolling is strange in general.
Rather than label it as metagaming, I'd just attribute it to the idea of chance or luck. A PC with the Misfortune revelation has already been cursed twice by the gods, and now when they travel, that bad luck follows with them. They've learned to expect it, and now can sometimes cause that bad luck to effect those around them.
Similarly, a PC with the trait that grants a reroll on a failed save, or a feat that does the same, or is effected by the fortune hex is inspired by a spirit of good luck. Whenever they go, nothing seems to touch them. They're just lucky.
I know people that are like this (super lucky or unlucky) in real life. I don't assume that they've got some player overlord deciding when some rerolls happen, instead I assume that there's a level of entropy to the universe and some people are just really lucky/unlucky.
I think the same can be assumed by my characters in game.
Good stuff Andrew, thanks for hashing it out with me :)
Final note: actual metagaming sucks; I dislike seeing it at tables.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting; I find that a great deal of what people call "metagaming" is only metagaming if you choose to not have the mechanics actually reflect anything in the game world.
If a player being able to see the attack roll before using Misfortune is metagaming, it's the result of choosing to believe that an attack that's off by a mile and an attack headed right for the throat look exactly the same with the only difference being whether or not the target falls over afterwards.
For myself, I choose to believe that there's a visible difference, in-character, between a really poorly-executed attack and one that looks like an "Oh crap!" moment, and that an oracle who sees an incoming "Oh crap!" moment would make the in-character choice to spray some fail onto the guy.
An experienced adventurer being able to tell the difference between an on-target and off-target attack is not metagaming.
|
|
Interesting; I find that a great deal of what people call "metagaming" is only metagaming if you choose to not have the mechanics actually reflect anything in the game world.
If a player being able to see the attack roll before using Misfortune is metagaming, it's the result of choosing to believe that an attack that's off by a mile and an attack headed right for the throat look exactly the same with the only difference being whether or not the target falls over afterwards.
For myself, I choose to believe that there's a visible difference, in-character, between a really poorly-executed attack and one that looks like an "Oh crap!" moment, and that an oracle who sees an incoming "Oh crap!" moment would make the in-character choice to spray some fail onto the guy.
An experienced adventurer being able to tell the difference between an on-target and off-target attack is not metagaming.
I think Andrew may likely be talking more about saving throws. By the rules as written, if you toss an area of effect spell that doesn't have a visible effect on those who fail the save, even you don't know who failed and who succeeded.
|
|
Fair enough; and I guess it would probably be pretty unreasonable to assume that someone capable of deliberately altering the forces of chance would be any more adept than usual at perceiving those forces, eh? ;)
Honestly? I think it might be better if the ability just worked to reroll a known success, after success is known. It's a buff in terms of not using it pointlessly, but it cuts down on the metagaming and fixes the rules issue where it unintentionally acts as fortune for allies.
On a personal note, I have Misfortune on my oracle, and I just generally don't use it unless the GM is comfortable with it.
|
|
But if that's less metagamey, what exactly is happening in-character? Literally rewinding time? A premonition into the future that they act on in the present? What non-metagaming rationale would apply to that ability that doesn't apply just as easily to the actual ability?
It would eliminate the below discussion, which requires the metagame ability of Bob and Oracle to calculate the bonus in order to use the ability. With my proposal, the character is just awesome and only uses it when it helps to use it.
Oracle: "Guys, we need this to be a miss. Andy just rolled a 14 on the dice to hit. I think a 13 missed and a 15 hit. Should I Misfortune it?"
Bob: "Yes, absolutely for sure. He has a flank this time. That should push it to a hit. The bonus is either +12 or +13 normally, plus the flank, vs AC 27."
Oracle: "Of course! In that case, I'll use my ability. I'm sure glad I had you at the table watching all Andy's dice rolls out of character and running the numbers, Bob. Otherwise my oracle would have no idea when to use this ability"
To summarize--the problem isn't that the characters might be able to know when to use the ability, but rather that they might not depending solely on an out of game constraint (the players' memory and number skills). I'm all for the characters being able to know when to do their thing (I don't know if I speak for Andy on that, just for myself).
|
|
Things like misfortune or fortune hex make one roll twice and take the best or worst roll.
My issue with misfortune hex is not about metagaming.
And if a player just uses the ability in good faith, then I'm not so worried about metagaming.
Its when they specifically cherry pick particular rolls based on what they have mechanically determined about the badguy's modifiers over tge course of interaction.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Interesting; I find that a great deal of what people call "metagaming" is only metagaming if you choose to not have the mechanics actually reflect anything in the game world.
Yeah, that's why I tried to reserve metagaming for "actual metagaming," like if you played the scenario previously and make purchases or comments to other players based off of that experience, terrible things like that.
I think that abilities that cause dice to reroll, or otherwise complicate normal mechanics, should be represented in game as a force of unluck or fortune that the PC has some grasp on, or something similar.
Otherwise, PFS becomes a lot like Order of the Stick.
|
|
That's pretty much spot on with your example Mark.
Of course what if I his my rolls, didn't give a benchmark, but specifically described the attacks and attempts at saves in such a way that the player could make a decision based on some perception stimuli instead of out of character numerical and mechanical knowledge
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Of course what if I his my rolls, didn't give a benchmark, but specifically described the attacks and attempts at saves in such a way that the player could make a decision based on some perception stimuli instead of out of character numerical and mechanical knowledge
If the player understands that's what you're doing, they'd probably be fine with it. Like I said before, the ability requires information in order to function, and that looks like information to me.
Looks like a battle of heavy hitters, five star GMs and the man the myth the legend, Jiggy.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Of course what if I hid my rolls, didn't give a benchmark, but specifically described the attacks and attempts at saves in such a way that the player could make a decision based on some perception stimuli instead of out of character numerical and mechanical knowledge?
I'm not sure how that would work, without revealing whether the attack / save / whatever succeeds. Could you give me an example? Let's say the ice giant rolls a 19 on it's attack. How would you describe that to a player, without revealing that it's going to be a hit?
|
And so the ability forces the GM to either roll in the open, which sometimes really sucks because some rolls need to be hidden. Especially at a table where metagaming is rampant.
Why do rolls need to be hidden ever?
two reasons: a) so you can let your players win b) so you can win.... and some will argue there's a third c) so you can create a special narrative.
Any argument for c) breaks down into wanting to ignore the rules at your whim ultimately.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sometimes it's not so teleological.
Or (d) because there are situations where the players have a much easier time staying in-character if they can't see the underlying mechanics. Sense Motive rolls, for example. Stealth checks. The accuracy of an augury or commune spell. How many rounds an NPC will be unconscious.