additional house rules for natural 1


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

I've had this idea of additional rules regarding natural 1 rolls with weapons.

for melee weapons it would be that the character or monster had swung or trusted their weapon badly and they've thrown themselves out of position opening them up for a attack of opportunity. I've actually used this rule in a game and it worked out pretty well and enjoyed by the players as I applied it on them and on opponents, one of them successfully getting a kill this way.

range weapons would be more complicated as the results would have to change based on the weapon. Here are some ideas
for bows and crossbows the string broke and it will take a move action to retie it.
for a blowgun or the poison sand tube the character accidentally inhaled instead of exhaled and they have to use a move action to pull the dart out.
for throwing weapon such as daggers javelins shuriken's and thrown weapons that use a sling such as the amentum the character dropped the item and it landed on there foot doing a 1d2 to 1d4 of damage.
for entangling thrown weapons such as the bolas, lasso, or a net the weapon wrapped around the characters arm and they'll have to spend a move action to get it off or take a penalty on attack rolls.
and for the tube arrow shooter it would mean the spring fell out of place and I'll take a move action to realign.
thrown splash weapons and firearms already have rules for a 1 so there's no need to add to them.
I have not tried anything for ranged weapons and I'd like to hear what the rest of you think of these ideas, come up with your own, or if you think any changes to them should be needed.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

I use the very same rule! Except for the sake of simplicity, I apply it to all weapons, ranged and melee alike.

I also add a confirmation roll, just like its critical hit counterpart. A 'fumble' only occurs if the confirmation misses as well.

We like it, it adds some symmetry.

But, you gotta look out when designing fumbles - it doesn't take much searching on this message board to find a LOT of threads talking about the hidden dangers of the various mechanics people use. Fumbles can be a pretty polarizing subject too, so far warning!

But as always, if it works for your group then more power to ya!

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm against bad effects on a '1'. It does strange things to the balance between classes; bad things.

* A fighter who takes Two-Weapon Fighting has much more chance to roll an '1' than one who just fights with a single big sword, because he's rolling more d20s. (And Two-Handed Weapons are already much more effective and cheaper in feat and magic weapon cost than 2WF. Let's not make it worse.)

* Feats like Whirlwind become really unattractive.

* It's quite unfair compared to a spellcaster that doesn't use spells with to-hit, only saving throws. The spellcaster never has this risk. (And currently, to-hit spells are generally considered weak. If we penalize to-hit '1's, wizards will become even more likely to just throw Save of Suck/Die spells instead of being a bit more varied.)


I used to use the +10/-10 rule for a nat 20/1. No auto hits, no auto fails.

Couple years back, I switched to nat 1 generates an attack of opportunity and we haven't looked back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm against bad effects on a '1'. It does strange things to the balance between classes; bad things.

* A fighter who takes Two-Weapon Fighting has much more chance to roll an '1' than one who just fights with a single big sword, because he's rolling more d20s. (And Two-Handed Weapons are already much more effective and cheaper in feat and magic weapon cost than 2WF. Let's not make it worse.)

* Feats like Whirlwind become really unattractive.

* It's quite unfair compared to a spellcaster that doesn't use spells with to-hit, only saving throws. The spellcaster never has this risk. (And currently, to-hit spells are generally considered weak. If we penalize to-hit '1's, wizards will become even more likely to just throw Save of Suck/Die spells instead of being a bit more varied.)

This. It's just another 'screw the martials' move.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your houserules are terrible, fumble rules are terrible, yours are even more penalizing than the typical ones. I have nothing nice to say about your ideas, and in fact am exercising quite a bit of restraint to be as cordial as I'm being towards you.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Your houserules are terrible, fumble rules are terrible, yours are even more penalizing than the typical ones. I have nothing nice to say about your ideas, and in fact am exercising quite a bit of restraint to be as cordial as I'm being towards you.

This isn't really helpful.

It's not that people come up with fumble rules just to be mean. Pretty much every time the intent was noble - make things more exciting, cause funny situations. Nothing wrong with the intent.

The problem is coming up with a fair way to execute it. By tying it to an attack roll, it hits people who make multiple attacks much more than people who try to use one decisive blow per round. And casters get off too easy, in comparison.


My own house rule is that when they 1, they have to confirm it like they would a crit.

Then if they do, depends on the situation. Usually it's an AoO for over extending and creating an opening, but largely it's nothing major, if anything it's like an aspect on a scene. And of course it applies to my NPCs as well as the players.

Generally people have enjoyed it.


Ascalaphus wrote:
It's not that people come up with fumble rules just to be mean. Pretty much every time the intent was noble - make things more exciting, cause funny situations. Nothing wrong with the intent.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ascalaphus wrote:
The problem is coming up with a fair way to execute it.

There is no fair way to execute it. It is inherently unfair. All you can do is make just how unfair it is more or less noticeable by reducing the frequency it comes up and/or watering down the bad effects. But all that does is hide the badness, it doesn't actually solve it.


StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Your houserules are terrible, fumble rules are terrible, yours are even more penalizing than the typical ones. I have nothing nice to say about your ideas, and in fact am exercising quite a bit of restraint to be as cordial as I'm being towards you.

Who is this directed at?


Da'ath wrote:
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Your houserules are terrible, fumble rules are terrible, yours are even more penalizing than the typical ones. I have nothing nice to say about your ideas, and in fact am exercising quite a bit of restraint to be as cordial as I'm being towards you.
Who is this directed at?

The OP.


Zhayne wrote:


The OP.

Thanks, I've been slow the past week, probably due to my sick 3 year old and me not getting enough sleep.


Mistah J wrote:

I use the very same rule! Except for the sake of simplicity, I apply it to all weapons, ranged and melee alike.

I also add a confirmation roll, just like its critical hit counterpart. A 'fumble' only occurs if the confirmation misses as well.

We like it, it adds some symmetry.

But, you gotta look out when designing fumbles - it doesn't take much searching on this message board to find a LOT of threads talking about the hidden dangers of the various mechanics people use. Fumbles can be a pretty polarizing subject too, so far warning!

But as always, if it works for your group then more power to ya!

No need to search. I had a very bad experience with a 1 on the crit confirmation roll. Better to just say 1 is a no, unless a spell like true strike makes it worth the math.

Dark Archive

Starfinder Superscriber

I use the fumble deck on DM controlled things and let PCs use the critical deck against those things.


A few solutions for those who like the idea of fumbles (or critical misses, whichever name you give them) but dislike the effects that the probability of natural 1s increase with # of attacks, which is pretty much linked with high levels of skills.
*
*
*
*

  • confirm fumbles against a fixed DC. Since the baddies' AC scales with CR to match the PCs' BAB, confirming against opponents AC does not result in less fumbles (much). Confirming against a fixed AC insures that the player's chance to confirm a critical decreases steadily as its gains levels.

  • allow a maximum of 1 fumble per combat. Characters with high amount of attacks will still have a higher chance to fumble, but at least they know that they won't have them repetitively.

  • Only consider the first attack of a character's turn as eligible for fumbles. Then it doesn't matter if the character has 1 or 15 attacks...

  • Only consider the first attack roll of a character's first turn in a combat. Don't don't consider this as a fumble yet; it's more like a Damocles sword. From then on, until the end of combat, the character is susceptible to fumbles.

  • enable fumbles on concentration checks and penetration rolls as well. Let them spellcasters fumble too...


  • I'm giving serious thought to removing natural 1s as an auto miss altogether, due to some of the arguments presented here and a recheck of associated math.

    For those who've already done this, how has this affected your games? I realize that's a pretty broad question, so to be more specific: has this had a negative impact on your games? If so, how?


    Da'ath wrote:

    I'm giving serious thought to removing natural 1s as an auto miss altogether, due to some of the arguments presented here and a recheck of associated math.

    For those who've already done this, how has this affected your games? I realize that's a pretty broad question, so to be more specific: has this had a negative impact on your games? If so, how?

    It has had no negative effect.

    I also remove the natural 20 effect as well, which has also had no negative effect.

    It's even had a minor positive effect. For some reason, the players in the group all think something 'special' happens if you roll a 1 or 20 on skill checks. Removing it from attacks/saves removes that inconsistency.


    Zhayne wrote:

    It has had no negative effect.

    I also remove the natural 20 effect as well, which has also had no negative effect.

    It's even had a minor positive effect. For some reason, the players in the group all think something 'special' happens if you roll a 1 or 20 on skill checks. Removing it from attacks/saves removes that inconsistency.

    Thanks. It has always seemed off to me that attack rolls are the only thing modified by natural 1s and 20s RAW and as a result, those who rely on them for most of their abilities are regularly denied them.

    The Exchange

    I'm not as biased as StreamOfTheSky, who obviously has some horror stories to relate, but I too forewarn you that fumbles were left out of the core rules for some pretty solid reasons. Do a search for threads that include the word "fumble" and you'll find a virtual Wailing Wall.

    Sovereign Court

    Saving throws also have auto-hit/fail on 20/1.

    I dunno, for attacks and saves I think the 5% extremes are okay. It keeps people from going "these orcs can't possibly hit me" or "none of them can save against this spell, so it's completely safe to stand in the middle of the melee and cast".

    ===

    If I wanted to have actual fumble rules, they'd have to work differently. Also for example on SoD/SoS spells, and even spells that involve no d20 roll, like Magic Missile.

    But I'd also want them to be fairly rare. Definitely not tied to the quantity of d20s you're rolling, because some classes use more d20s to get the same amount of work done.


    Yeah, I'm fine with auto-success/failure for attacks and saves. The game already grows in power exponentially enough that a band of goblins is a speed bump to a party just 5 levels above the party for whom they're a dire challenge. No need to remove the last safeguard "giant mob of mooks" have left to at least, hypothetically, be dangerous en masse.

    But fumbles are stupid and wrong.


    Ascalaphus wrote:

    I dunno, for attacks and saves I think the 5% extremes are okay. It keeps people from going "these orcs can't possibly hit me" or "none of them can save against this spell, so it's completely safe to stand in the middle of the melee and cast".

    I don't see where that is a problem.


    StreamOfTheSky wrote:
    Your houserules are terrible, fumble rules are terrible, yours are even more penalizing than the typical ones. I have nothing nice to say about your ideas, and in fact am exercising quite a bit of restraint to be as cordial as I'm being towards you.

    Looking to the left of the submit post button will lead to the most important rule...


    Laurefindel wrote:

    A few solutions for those who like the idea of fumbles (or critical misses, whichever name you give them) but dislike the effects that the probability of natural 1s increase with # of attacks, which is pretty much linked with high levels of skills.

    *
    *
    *
    *

  • confirm fumbles against a fixed DC. Since the baddies' AC scales with CR to match the PCs' BAB, confirming against opponents AC does not result in less fumbles (much). Confirming against a fixed AC insures that the player's chance to confirm a critical decreases steadily as its gains levels.

  • allow a maximum of 1 fumble per combat. Characters with high amount of attacks will still have a higher chance to fumble, but at least they know that they won't have them repetitively.

  • Only consider the first attack of a character's turn as eligible for fumbles. Then it doesn't matter if the character has 1 or 15 attacks...

  • Only consider the first attack roll of a character's first turn in a combat. Don't don't consider this as a fumble yet; it's more like a Damocles sword. From then on, until the end of combat, the character is susceptible to fumbles.

  • enable fumbles on concentration checks and penetration rolls as well. Let them spellcasters fumble too...
  • You know, in the kingmaker campaign I am in we have been playing with fumbles(confirm with full BAB) for fourteen levels now, and all these divers disasters and destruction seem to magically have failed to materialize. And amazingly enough, it is not some sort of fumblefest of a tree stooges routine. Weird.


    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    Since the saving throw of a spell is basically the spell's attack roll being rolled by the target instead of the attacker, maybe something bad should happen to a spellcaster if any of his targets rolls a 20 on a saving throw? Under this house rule, a spellcaster who targets a dozen or more creatures with an area effect spell would have real cause to worry, just like the 20th level monk or two weapon fighting ranger who has a similarly high number of attacks.

    If the spell does not involve saves, attack rolls, or attempts to overcome spell resistance, you could still include a "casting roll" that hurts the caster if he rolls a 1 and perhaps gives him some minor benefit on a natural 20.

    If anything, it actually makes more sense to have a fumble system for spell casters than for weapon users -- magic is a mysterious and scary force to most people, since they are not sure that the caster is in full control of his powers. A fumble system for spell casters would reinforce that paranoia.


    meibellum wrote:
    StreamOfTheSky wrote:
    Your houserules are terrible, fumble rules are terrible, yours are even more penalizing than the typical ones. I have nothing nice to say about your ideas, and in fact am exercising quite a bit of restraint to be as cordial as I'm being towards you.
    Looking to the left of the submit post button will lead to the most important rule...

    Isn't subtly calling someone a jerk....a jerk-y thing to do?

    I was criticizing the OP's ideas, not the OP as a person, after the OP asked what people thought of his ideas. But please, continue soapboxing from your hypocritical moral high ground.

    Grand Lodge

    I play a TWF character using keen wakizashis. Sure I might fumble twice as much as the barbarian across from me, but I also critical 4 times as often.
    I use the crit and fumble decks when I GM, and a nat 1 is an auto fail but my players have to confirm the fumble just like they have to confirm a critical. I don't use either deck for the NPC's as many of the cards are too brutal to use on the PC's.


    How much more often will these fumbles affects caster compared to martial characters?

    Sovereign Court

    I do think it's weird that magic is so reliable. I mean, it's okay for magic to be fairly reliable, but PF magic is extremely reliable. Unless someone is forcing you to make a Concentration check, your spellcasting is pretty much guaranteed to work. The target might make a saving throw, but there's no random chance of magic blowing up in your face.

    ===

    Anyway, with a bit of reflavoring, you already have fumbles. See, if a '1' is an automatic miss, even if you beat the AC, that's a kind of fumble. Feel feel to describe it as an embarassing or clumsy moment. Just don't attach any more game effects than it being an automatic miss.

    I'm going to experiment with a variation on this. After a player rolls to-hit, have him describe the blow, based on how well he rolled. Than, after I determine how close he came to the AC, I'll tell him how the enemy (tried to) defend himself.

    "I get a 30. I'm going to cut off his head in a perfect horizontal swing of my greatsword."

    (you missed him by 1) "At the last moment, he ducks. You cut off some hair from the top of his head, and he looks rather freaked out, but unhurt."


    Ascalaphus wrote:
    I do think it's weird that magic is so reliable. I mean, it's okay for magic to be fairly reliable, but PF magic is extremely reliable. Unless someone is forcing you to make a Concentration check, your spellcasting is pretty much guaranteed to work. (snip)

    someone, or something.

    Magic is reliable in PF because the game wants it to be. The same way the game wants melee attacks to be reliable - fumbles are a houserule after all. It's a houserule about melee attacks turning into mishaps. This doesn't mean spells shouldn't turn into mishaps too, it's just not what the fumble houserule is about.

    One could make a houserule increasing the frequency of concentration check (and even expand on it when a natural 1 is rolled if needed). As a spellcasting adventurer, concentration should be frequent, more than most games impose on their spellcaster PCs I bet. One could defend the theory that combat - any combat, not only being engaged in hand-to-hand - is enough stress and pressure to warrant a concentration check. Combine that with terrain, weather, active alertness because flying opponents are circling around and could be swooping down at any moment, the frequency and DCs of Concentration checks could easily be increased. Fear, intimidation, uncertainty; these could force more concentration checks than the do by RaW.

    But that would be a different houserule from fumbles. A good sister-rule working toward the same intent, but a separate one nonetheless.

    TL;DR: Fumbles are about melee combat. In order to represent the fact that "sometimes spells go wrong too", you need a different houserule.


    The issue with punishing nat 1 is you have a 5% of doing it. I didn't read through all your fumble rules but here is what I do: a nat 1 has to be confirmed by rolling a 4 or less to botch. This means its a 1% chance. Having someone screw the pooch 1/20 times is a bit much. I don't have set rules for what happens and play it by ear. If you rolled two 1s while casting scorching ray something not good is about to go down like hitting an ally or it blows up and hits you


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    My house rule - a natural 1 always misses in combat. The being rolling a natural one must make a reflex save to avoid a critical failure of some sort (the DC randomly determined before game began, and usually scaled to the level of the PCs - and applicable to all sides).

    Second house rule, if the winds of fate have too many natural 1s and 20s, we tend to stop confirming critical success/failures and just revert to autohit / automiss to avoid excessive dice rolling.

    It happens rarely, yet it sometimes happens. (I define excessive natural 1s and 20s as two or more in a combat round between all combatants, three rounds in a row. After six times in a single combat and most PC groups I GM just get impatient and want to get on with combat).


    i like this,but what about when your character inforces fumble rules, I started a game on the 10th, with 5 players, only one of them has play a tabletop game b4, our sorceress, rolled a 1 on her attack roll(ray of frost) and convinced two or three other players that she should hit our fighter(who played two 4e sessions a year ago) he was 10ft away from the target with a medium sized frog in between them. but it caused the fighter to be dropped by the frog, before he could act again, like i'm not sure how thy new about fumble.
    i would have just let it be a miss, like normal, but they wanted the frost to get the fighter, like wtc. suggestions?
    we're playing again tonight to finish a reverse we be goblins campaign, though their not goblins, but gathering fireworks from the crashed ship that was meant to deliver them to Magnimar, for the celebration in RoTRL potentialy.(the sailers on the boat did bring the other suplies, but left the fireworks, but the town does need them.)
    so should i just let them roll with it fumbles for now on?


    I'm going to present the idea to my players and see what they think. To be more specific:


    • A natural 1 is not an automatic miss or failure and has no mechanical affects outside of being a really crappy roll.
    • A natural 20 is still an automatic hit or success.

    From what've I've been able to determine so far, both GM and player benefits, but GM benefits more - I make way more attacks/saves than they do.

    We'll see how it goes.

    The Exchange

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    If you want to do this, let them have the option of a 1 being a miss or they can reroll the attack for a chance to hit. Failure is a fumble.

    As this is solely an option it cannot be seen as a punishment (maybe a false option, but i think it is decent).

    Sovereign Court

    GeneticDrift wrote:

    If you want to do this, let them have the option of a 1 being a miss or they can reroll the attack for a chance to hit. Failure is a fumble.

    As this is solely an option it cannot be seen as a punishment (maybe a false option, but i think it is decent).

    Interesting idea. But if their to-hit is really good, doesn't increase their to-hit chances even further?


    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    GeneticDrift wrote:

    If you want to do this, let them have the option of a 1 being a miss or they can reroll the attack for a chance to hit. Failure is a fumble.

    As this is solely an option it cannot be seen as a punishment (maybe a false option, but i think it is decent).

    I like this idea, as it makes it the player's decision whether to risk a fumble and does not punish high level warriors with multiple attacks (as they are more likely to simply accept a single miss rather than risk a fumble).

    The Exchange

    Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    GeneticDrift wrote:

    If you want to do this, let them have the option of a 1 being a miss or they can reroll the attack for a chance to hit. Failure is a fumble.

    As this is solely an option it cannot be seen as a punishment (maybe a false option, but i think it is decent).

    Interesting idea. But if their to-hit is really good, doesn't increase their to-hit chances even further?

    Yes, the idea is to make it very tempting, high risk/reward. If you never state exact effect you can keep changing things so it is always a significantly bad result on a fumble. This would not be great for builds that hit on 2s but you could add a penalty to the attack.

    AoO from all threatening you, stumble and fall into an adjacent square, drop your weapon, accidentally throw your weapon, hit an ally, your weapon breaks, your weapon gets stuck ("better" for dex based characters), If you get hit next turn it is an auto crit (helm got knocked off), you lose sight of an enemy (SA/invis bonus for one attack), you cut your self and start bleeding, you knock your self off balance and lose your remaining attacks....The idea is not to murder the PC if they fumble so be careful.


    I think just changing fumble to require a confirm (a 2nd miss) solves a lot of problems. Higher level characters will get them a LOT less often. Make sure to include them for ray attack spells, or any spell that requires a to-hit.

    For other spells? Maybe a natural 20 on a save could bring about a potential "fumble" on the caster's part (once again requiring a "good" save after to confirm).


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I feel like it usually just screws over the player and the martials. Think about it, 1 player character rolls how many die over the course of his career? Vs the goblin they run up on and kill, he is going to roll the dice just a few times before his life is cut short.


    akrippler wrote:
    I feel like it usually just screws over the player and the martials. Think about it, 1 player character rolls how many die over the course of his career? Vs the goblin they run up on and kill, he is going to roll the dice just a few times before his life is cut short.

    True, but it's not PCs vs the goblin. It's the PCs vs the goblin army, the two dragons, the 5 ogres, the lonely troll, the 7 brigands, the boss and its two bodyguards etc.

    Altogether, PCs have just as many rolls made against them them they make against their opponents, so fumbles balance out. Whether a fumble made by a player has the same 'weight' as a fumble rolled by one of the 12 goblins attacking the PCs is a legitimate question however, and you could easily win an argument on that point.

    Fumbles, like all houserules, need to be something that the players find enjoyable and valuable to the experience of the game in order to be successful. Because yeah, even if everyone fumbles, it will affect PCs most in the end. In that regard, it is not unlike conditions (like fatigued), WBL, hit points, and other resources that PCs need to manage but NPCs have for granted and/or don't have to deal with the consequences.


    akrippler wrote:
    I feel like it usually just screws over the player and the martials. Think about it, 1 player character rolls how many die over the course of his career? Vs the goblin they run up on and kill, he is going to roll the dice just a few times before his life is cut short.

    Exactly this.

    PCs and NPCs occupy completely different design space and serve different purposes, so 'sauce for the goose' doesn't apply at all.


    Zhayne wrote:
    PCs and NPCs occupy completely different design space and serve different purposes, so 'sauce for the goose' doesn't apply at all.

    Agreed on the different purpose, but design space is very similar between PCs and NPCs. 3e D&D/Pathfinder is one of the most symmetrical system there is.


    RDM42 wrote:
    You know, in the kingmaker campaign I am in we have been playing with fumbles(confirm with full BAB) for fourteen levels now, and all these divers disasters and destruction seem to magically have failed to materialize. And amazingly enough, it is not some sort of fumblefest of a tree stooges routine. Weird.

    You know, I know a lot of people, and none of them are obviously dying of AIDS before my eyes at the moment. That must mean that AIDS doesn't exist!


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    RDM42 wrote:
    You know, in the kingmaker campaign I am in we have been playing with fumbles(confirm with full BAB) for fourteen levels now, and all these divers disasters and destruction seem to magically have failed to materialize. And amazingly enough, it is not some sort of fumblefest of a tree stooges routine. Weird.
    You know, I know a lot of people, and none of them are obviously dying of AIDS before my eyes at the moment. That must mean that AIDS doesn't exist!

    Talk about a irrelevant argument?

    In fact, I've used a fumble/confirm system myself back quite a ways, through many, many campaigns ... And hasn't been a problem either. I'm sorry, but based on personal experience I just don't buy that its automatically some sort of debilitating disaster for the PCS.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Based on my personal experience, they are.


    Yet somehow, in all of my time using crit fumble/confirm(at full BAB) it hasn't cropped up as this big problem? I repeat ... Weird.


    RDM42 wrote:
    Talk about a irrelevant argument?

    That you cannot see the relevance tells me all I need to know.


    Right. I really don't care if you like using them or not, but your claim that they are inherently a bad thing or unfair even to groups where they players LIKE having them and REQUEST them to be in tells me quite a bit about you. Aren't you the one who thinks the players at the table should have agency?

    Or should they only have agency in directions you like at other people's tables?


    They are inherently a bad thing and unfair.

    The fact that some players enjoy being treated poorly and unfairly does not change that.

    Masochism is a thing, after all.

    1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / additional house rules for natural 1 All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.