So here's an interesting one, since we're on a rules thread and all:
My Life Oracle casts Sanctuary to prevent enemies from attacking her, then wanders over to help the fighter. Can she flank and Aid Another for the fighter without losing Sanctuary?
It specifically says, "The subject cannot attack without breaking the spell but may use nonattack spells or otherwise act."
Since she's not attacking, just distracting, seems legitimate to me.
Arguments against this tactic?
I'd say she is considered attacking since she has to make an attack roll to hit AC 10.
It's still better than all the narrow focused specialist casters who will literally do absolutely nothing in a combat because whatever is immune to their spells.
Yep. In order to "prove" how powerful low level spellcasters are, I have seen builds which put all or nearly all of their feats, traits, bloodlines, and what-not into either Color Spray or Burning hands.
Both are useful spells, no doubt. But quite a few things are immune to Color spray, and later resistant to fire. Not to mention with both spells you have to get within 15' of the bad guy, which is a place few spellcasters ever want to be.
If I played a oracle of Heavens, sure, you'd want to cast Color spray a lot, and why not invest something to make it hard to resist?
But a one trick pony does not a good spellcaster make.
Four-trick pony for burning hands. That's typically an admixture evoker, who can change it from fire damage to another type.
|
Four-trick pony for burning hands. That's typically an admixture evoker, who can change it from fire damage to another type.
It's still better than all the narrow focused specialist casters who will literally do absolutely nothing in a combat because whatever is immune to their spells.
Yep. In order to "prove" how powerful low level spellcasters are, I have seen builds which put all or nearly all of their feats, traits, bloodlines, and what-not into either Color Spray or Burning hands.
Both are useful spells, no doubt. But quite a few things are immune to Color spray, and later resistant to fire. Not to mention with both spells you have to get within 15' of the bad guy, which is a place few spellcasters ever want to be.
If I played a oracle of Heavens, sure, you'd want to cast Color spray a lot, and why not invest something to make it hard to resist?
But a one trick pony does not a good spellcaster make.
Still, what kind of wizard wants to be within 15 feet of the enemies? Especially at higher levels, when you're constantly fighting larger things with reach, that's just a recipe for disaster. The great thing about wizards is the variety of spells - if you're going one trick pony, be a sorcerer... and still have a backup plan.
I (and my other GMs) all agree with the "Can flank, can't Aid Another" ruling made by several people so far.
Still, makes her far more useful. "I give my fighter a +2 flanking bonus" is a LOT better than, "I stand around waiting to be useful and spam Guidance on people".
Four-trick pony for burning hands. That's typically an admixture evoker, who can change it from fire damage to another type.
It's still better than all the narrow focused specialist casters who will literally do absolutely nothing in a combat because whatever is immune to their spells.
Yep. In order to "prove" how powerful low level spellcasters are, I have seen builds which put all or nearly all of their feats, traits, bloodlines, and what-not into either Color Spray or Burning hands.
Both are useful spells, no doubt. But quite a few things are immune to Color spray, and later resistant to fire. Not to mention with both spells you have to get within 15' of the bad guy, which is a place few spellcasters ever want to be.
If I played a oracle of Heavens, sure, you'd want to cast Color spray a lot, and why not invest something to make it hard to resist?
But a one trick pony does not a good spellcaster make.
Still, what kind of wizard wants to be within 15 feet of the enemies? Especially at higher levels, when you're constantly fighting larger things with reach, that's just a recipe for disaster. The great thing about wizards is the variety of spells - if you're going one trick pony, be a sorcerer... and still have a backup plan.
I never said it was a good thing. After all, even the fighter has more options.
|
|
Sorry, but this just bugs me.
It's also why my melee beast barbarian carried a longbow and alchemist's fires right from level 1.Why would you do this? This is the sling's one and only niche. The one time slings are a good choice and you take a longbow instead. You can't even afford a composite at level 1 and it's not an insignificant expense for a while given a typical barbarian's strength with no payoff except longer range brackets until level 6.
That's apparently another thing people forget about: ranged weapons other than the bow exist and do actually have niches.
You know, it's been a couple of years since that barbarian was level 1, so I forgot. But now that you mention it, I did actually have a sling for him at level 1. I think I got my first kill with that sling. I didn't buy a longbow until I could get the MW composite longbow that could handle my raging strength at the time. I believe there's an adjustable strength version now, but that may have been introduced in Ultimate Equipment or something, which came out after my barbarian already had his bow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So this ( http://paizo.com/products/btpy8x9g?GameMastery-Critical-Fumble-Deck )official Paizo product for Pathfinder is not part of Pathfinder, but a relic of AD&D?
I know it is not legal in PFS games, but there are many other feats and stuff that are part of Pathfinder, but not legal in PFS games.
If the difference id Str 46 to Str 7 and the characters are trying to move a boulder the helpful halfling will not add anything to the check. If the check is to see how fast they can excavate an hole I would apply the halfling bonus.
You're assuming that the halfling is helping to push. But it's probably much more sensible to assume that the halfling is putting the rollers under the boulder, or opening the door, or moving obstructions so the ogre can move the thing more easily. It won't always be possible to help, but a bit of creativity goes a long way.
So this ( http://paizo.com/products/btpy8x9g?GameMastery-Critical-Fumble-Deck )official Paizo product for Pathfinder is not part of Pathfinder, but a relic of AD&D?
I know it is not legal in PFS games, but there are many other feats and stuff that are part of Pathfinder, but not legal in PFS games.
*shoves Ironlemon in a closet*
Nope. Nothing to see here.
Critical Fumbles are the worst thing Paizo has ever published. Worse than the crane wing errata. Worse than the playtest arcanist.
Critical fumble rules are always and without exception bad in every game system that has or can have them and in this century there's no longer the excuse of novelty for thinking they might be a good idea.
They're especially bad in Pathfinder where the weakest classes roll dice while the stronger force saving throws.
Forget them. Forget they ever existed. Consign them to oblivion by making a level 20 healing hand monk named Critical Fumble Deck and having him sacrifice his existence to heal some random beggar.
Hey, if you;re playing Toon or some other silly game, they're fine. Otherwise, I agree.
Pretty good list, although #4 is misleading. You can only do that if you're holding the charge, which is specifically for the round after you cast it.
Still pretty nifty, but not the same as the Magus.
Add in that having the wizard punch someone is a whole separate level of problems.
You always COULD spell/punch someone... but without the stats/build/BAB... WHY would you?!?!
Before airplanes, we had efficient air travel via catapults.
|
Before airplanes, we had efficient air travel via catapults.Pretty good list, although #4 is misleading. You can only do that if you're holding the charge, which is specifically for the round after you cast it.
Still pretty nifty, but not the same as the Magus.
Add in that having the wizard punch someone is a whole separate level of problems.
You always COULD spell/punch someone... but without the stats/build/BAB... WHY would you?!?!
Any creature with a good BAB an/or strength or dexterity if it had weapon finesse and touch spells or SLAs is interested in that option, so:
- dragons- outsiders
- some undead
- plenty of other monsters
plus
- eldritch knights;
- some cleric and druid;
- multiclassed monks.
And those are only a few of the characters that could be interested in using a unarmed/natural weapon attack with a spell. All things that were in the CRB or Bestiary 1, i.e. there from the start.
There are a lot of rules in Pathfinder, as we all know. That said these five seem to be some of the more commonly misremembered or completely forgotten ones at every table I've ever been to. So, that said, here's a fun list that can help you the next time you sit down to roll your dice.
Nice list. I have used aid another in games to good effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The article missed perhaps the most important rule players seem to forget about: Rule Zero.
Critical Fumbles are the worst thing Paizo has ever published. Worse than the crane wing errata. Worse than the playtest arcanist.
Critical fumble rules are always and without exception bad in every game system that has or can have them and in this century there's no longer the excuse of novelty for thinking they might be a good idea.
They're especially bad in Pathfinder where the weakest classes roll dice while the stronger force saving throws.
Forget them. Forget they ever existed. Consign them to oblivion by making a level 20 healing hand monk named Critical Fumble Deck and having him sacrifice his existence to heal some random beggar.
I've seen critical fumbles done well, and multiple groups have liked them. It adds flavour to the combat knowing that mistakes really can be made (on all sides). We had some last game, and the mirth was high. I play with cool chilled people though, that aren't too serious.
Is failure really so abhorrent that you can't have a laugh at it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Critical Fumbles are the worst thing Paizo has ever published. Worse than the crane wing errata. Worse than the playtest arcanist.
Critical fumble rules are always and without exception bad in every game system that has or can have them and in this century there's no longer the excuse of novelty for thinking they might be a good idea.
They're especially bad in Pathfinder where the weakest classes roll dice while the stronger force saving throws.
Forget them. Forget they ever existed. Consign them to oblivion by making a level 20 healing hand monk named Critical Fumble Deck and having him sacrifice his existence to heal some random beggar.
I've seen critical fumbles done well, and multiple groups have liked them. It adds flavour to the combat knowing that mistakes really can be made (on all sides). We had some last game, and the mirth was high. I play with cool chilled people though, that aren't too serious.
Is failure really so abhorrent that you can't have a laugh at it?
Leaving aside the fact that critical fumbles disproportionately affect characters who make attack, a lot of people get annoyed with critical fumbles on a thematic level, given the way d20s work. The idea that your fighter can't last a full minute in combat without stabbing himself in the foot, taking a pratfall, dropping his weapon, or accidentally hitting an ally rather hurts the image of the character as competent in their chosen profession.
That said, fumble rules are fine for a lighthearted game where everyone's getting wacky concepts and aiming for maximum absurdity.
You know, I expected something scathing about cheaters and was all prepared to mention the time I found the massive damage rule that killed my character.
This is much better.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I expected something scathing about cheaters and was all prepared to mention the time I found the massive damage rule that killed my character.
This is much better.
Has anyone ever actually used the massive damage rule? That seems MUCH less popular than even the fumble deck.
Aid Another - Aid Another can be useful at times when a PC “has nothing to do”. It can also be a DM’s friend since a gang of monsters who need a nat 20 to hit a PC’s high AC probably don’t need a nat 20 if they all work together.
Ranged Backup Weapons - For low level Str based melee PCs I’ve always found javelins to be a very effective investment.
Critical Fumbles - The groups I play with have mostly enjoyed the fumble deck. The time when a monster fumbled and tore his own head off was an all time classic. We usually play with Hero Points, and being able to “opt out” of a particular card by spending one can help protect the PCs a bit while still leaving the random element of unpredictable fun which cards bring to the game.
Massive Damage Rule - I don’t think we’ve ever used this rule. The crit deck has several cards which can result in death or dismemberment on a failed Fort save though.
Leaving aside the fact that critical fumbles disproportionately affect characters who make attack, a lot of people get annoyed with critical fumbles on a thematic level, given the way d20s work. The idea that your fighter can't last a full minute in combat without stabbing himself in the foot, taking a pratfall, dropping his weapon, or accidentally hitting an ally rather hurts the image of the character as competent in their chosen profession.
Right, few Fumble systems allow for a wizard to fumble a fireball. Thus, as the game goes along, Fighters get more and more chances to Fumble (some systems just give them one, but other give a chance every time a 1 is rolled).
This just makes any caster/martial discrepancy worse, and makes the Mighty Warrior into one of the Three Stooges, while the casters get to laugh at them, safe in the idea that they can choose to never roll an attack die.
Hardly fair.
And, having been a SCA heavy weapons fighter for quite some time, and a Marshal after that, I can tell you that "fumbles' are rare, and occur maybe once or twice a whole tourney , and a few more times during a entires day war. That's for ALL the participants, many Fighters go for months without a "fumble".
If you wanted to make it "realistic", it'd be a nat 1 followed by a nat 1, followed by a nat 1.
Has anyone ever actually used the massive damage rule? That seems MUCH less popular than even the fumble deck.You know, I expected something scathing about cheaters and was all prepared to mention the time I found the massive damage rule that killed my character.
This is much better.
All the time. After the lowest levels, you basically have to roll a Nat One to fail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If using the fumble system you should figure out a corresponding cruelty for spellcasters.
If someone rolls a nat 20 on their save, they get to turn the spell back on the caster. Extend it to 19-20 at lvl6 (when martials get another attack), etc.
Or we could just not use the fumble system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leaving aside the fact that critical fumbles disproportionately affect characters who make attack, a lot of people get annoyed with critical fumbles on a thematic level, given the way d20s work. The idea that your fighter can't last a full minute in combat without stabbing himself in the foot, taking a pratfall, dropping his weapon, or accidentally hitting an ally rather hurts the image of the character as competent in their chosen profession.Right, few Fumble systems allow for a wizard to fumble a fireball. Thus, as the game goes along, Fighters get more and more chances to Fumble (some systems just give them one, but other give a chance every time a 1 is rolled).
This just makes any caster/martial discrepancy worse, and makes the Mighty Warrior into one of the Three Stooges, while the casters get to laugh at them, safe in the idea that they can choose to never roll an attack die.
Hardly fair.
And, having been a SCA heavy weapons fighter for quite some time, and a Marshal after that, I can tell you that "fumbles' are rare, and occur maybe once or twice a whole tourney , and a few more times during a entires day war. That's for ALL the participants, many Fighters go for months without a "fumble".
If you wanted to make it "realistic", it'd be a nat 1 followed by a nat 1, followed by a nat 1.
A tourney isn't a real fight to the death, with uneven footing, bad lighting and so on. Friendly fire is distressingly common.
That said fumbles in D&D are a bad idea, and system that use them as part of the core rules generally have fumbles for both caster and martials (Rolemaster, Gurps).In Rolemaster (1st edition) the fumbles for the caster were way worse that those for the martials. If you fumbled with a weapon you incurred the risk of injuring yourself, but any kind of wound was curable.
With the caster fumbles you incurred the risk of die or to lose forever the ability to cast spells.
Death was potentially "curable",losing your spellcasting ability wasn't.
I did some math for fun. Assuming that a caster was casting 1 spell every day of his life without ever taking risk (casting with an heavier armor than allowed, or other negative modifiers), on the average he had a professional life of 40 or so years before losing forever his ability to cast spell. And that was with non combat spells, The combat spells had a way nastier table of fumbles.
The tables that I have found in Internet [second edition](my books are in a box in the basement) have less nasty tables, where the worst result (beside a 1/160.000 chance of brain death [modified by the level of the spell]) will only make you lose your casting capability for a few weeks or months.
Fumbling a spell in Ars Magica can trigger a Twilight event, with long term effects on your PC, adjudicated by the GM.
So some system integrate fumbles in the game, but generally it integrate them both for the martial and spellcasting characters.
Dragonquest 2e (SPI, 1981) had fumble rules for everything, including magic. You had a % chance to cast a spell, and the more difficult spells might start at 1-10%. If you missed the roll by 30%, you'd fumble. So you might be 20 times more likely to fumble than to get it right, and some of those fumbles were truly catastrophic.
That said, there are good fumble rules and bad fumble rules, just like there are good and bad rules for everything. The only real problem with introducing fumbles into PF is applying them to casters.
Yeah, I've yet to see a good set of fumble rules, at least for D&D/Pathfinder.
Other systems have had them and done them well, but those always had four main things to make them not-suck:
1) They applied to everyone
B) They got less likely the more skilled you were
Third) They had different levels of fumble, so you could mess up and just kinda lose your footing without stabbing yourself in the spleen
Finally) They almost always say something like "Only do this if it'll make the game more exciting. Use it to add complications, not to screw the players."
|
I like aid another. Not every group has a full bab character. The 3/4 strikers can really appreciate that +2. I hate people who get over zealous with power attack and miss because.of it, aid another helps them also. It is not always the d6 hp arcane caster that would do aid another, it is sometimes worthwhile for others also.
I do not believe there are any rules saying sanctuary prevents flanking, but it just does not add up to me. It seems counter intuitive to me. In PFS, if someone objected, I would not do so, but unless someone spoke up, I would tell the group it does not add up in my head, and ask them not to add.in such a bonus.
Nearly everyone forgets
-they take a -4 for attacking through someone, or know.in the first place how to determine cover for ranged/reach weapons
-they cannot charge through a friendly, and they need a clear path for the entire width of their circular base(cut square base miniatures a little slack) of their miniature movement, this should prevent many pounces
I think.it is safe to say enough people agree the crit fumble deck was a bad idea, and it no longer needs to.be repeated.
|
|
Nearly everyone forgets
-they take a -4 for attacking through someone, or know.in the first place how to determine cover for ranged/reach weapons
-they cannot charge through a friendly, and they need a clear path for the entire width of their circular base(cut square base miniatures a little slack) of their miniature movement, this should prevent many pounces
I think most people know the charging rules pretty well. There's a lot of confusion about cover rules for ranged attacks, though, and when/if they apply to melee.
Actually, I just looked in the Core Rulebook again, and there's one rule that I could have sworn was a rule, but I'm not seeing it. I thought when firing a ranged weapon, if the person firing is closer to a source of cover than the target, then they can avoid the cover penalty, because they're close enough to more easily fire around it.
ie Someone 50 feet away from a wall with an arrow slot, while an archer is adjacent to the wall on the other side. The archer doesn't have to worry about the cover penalty, because he's standing right there firing through the arrow slot, but his victim will have a hell of a time firing back.
We've also used this for years when standing directly behind an ally and firing "over their shoulder" to avoid cover penalties from your ally blocking your shot. But it doesn't help when firing from a distance when your ally is blocking your shot while in melee with the bad guy, because the source of cover (your ally) is closer to the target than you are.
Did I just imagine that was a rule? I'm just not seeing it in the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook now.
Low obstacles and cover?
Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.
Hey, if you;re playing Toon or some other silly game, they're fine. Otherwise, I agree.Critical Fumbles are the worst thing Paizo has ever published. Worse than the crane wing errata. Worse than the playtest arcanist.
Critical fumble rules are always and without exception bad in every game system that has or can have them and in this century there's no longer the excuse of novelty for thinking they might be a good idea.
They're especially bad in Pathfinder where the weakest classes roll dice while the stronger force saving throws.
Forget them. Forget they ever existed. Consign them to oblivion by making a level 20 healing hand monk named Critical Fumble Deck and having him sacrifice his existence to heal some random beggar.
Huh. I've always made wizards roll against Critical Fumble when the target of their spells rolls a natural 20 on its saving throw, since you can't "crit" a saving throw and all. I guess I'm just a horribly mean GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Third) They had different levels of fumble, so you could mess up and just kinda lose your footing without stabbing yourself in the spleen
Finally) They almost always say something like "Only do this if it'll make the game more exciting. Use it to add complications, not to screw the players."These two are honestly the big ones.
Games I've played where I've enjoyed fumble rules have presented them as complications "Something kinda bad happens and the player/character has to adapt and react" type scenarios.
The fumble rules I see most often trotted out when I play D&D though are the ones where you roll a 1 and cleave yourself in half with your own sword, which aren't anything other than spiteful.
Yeah, most of the critical fumble rules I've seen for D&D/Pathfinder involve either damaging yourself/a party member, or somehow taking away the fighting character's weapon. It's not an interesting change to the battlefield situation so much as just screwing them over.
Now, to make a random comparison, I'm going to look at Dark Heresy because I happened to have the rulebook near my computer. It has built in fumble rules for both mundane and casting characters. For mundanes, the fumble threat comes in the form of weapons jamming, which is fixed by just taking a turn to clear the jam. A weapon jam also avoids the issue of a fumble making the character look Three Stooges levels of incompetent since it's just equipment failure. And at higher levels you can afford high-quality gear that is extremely unlikely to jam; even at low levels you can avoid jams if you take slightly weaker but more reliable weapons. Or you could take a plasma weapon, which hits harder, but is more likely to have bad things happen. So we have a fumble mechanic that doesn't make characters look incompetent, and which the player has some control over and ability to mitigate.
The magical/psychic fumble rules (Perils of the Warp) are where things get really interesting, though. Most of these effects are less about hurting the player, and more a matter of causing nasty and unpredictable changes to the battlefield/characters. There are some nasty results that specifically target the caster, but those tend to require both fumbling and then rolling badly twice in a row on the chart. Also, there are a lot of options for ways to reduces the risks—skills, equipment, and just casting your powers at less than full power (or alternately, supercharging your spells in exchange for a guaranteed Perils roll).
So, I suppose my main point is that part of the problem with most sets of homebrew fumble rules is that they lack much in the way of gameplay interaction or interesting-ness. It's just "You rolled a 1, now you're screwed." I don't think it compares well to a system like Dark Heresy, where since fumbles are built into the system you actually have options for dealing with them and they effect all classes. Not to mention adding an element of risk/reward by giving character options and resources built around either minimizing the risk of fumbles, or cranking the risk up higher in exchange for extra power.
Bottom line, fumble rules don't work well in Pathfinder, because the game wasn't designed to include them.
Fumble rules can also really mess up archers loosing a lot of arrows. Especially if bows or strings break.
I put them in to add complications and to add more and higher stakes to the combat. Yes, and to indicate that combat isn't always fully in the player's control. In fights people can slip, hurt their allies and break things. I like a lot of movement in my combats with terrain having importance and 1s mean that doesn't go so well - falling, slipping off, chipping weapons on stone, almost getting disarmed or having to deal with your ultra-favourite weapon not being available for most of this combat. Did you know the great swordsman Musashi cautioned all warriors on having a favourite weapon? As this would mean they were dependent upon it and this is a vulnerability in the chaotic tumult of battle. Too much fixation was something he highly discouraged as a killer should use whatever was at hand, not just expect everything to go their way with their favourite weapon.
Back to the game when a weapon gets temporarily lost, this is a challenge. Now the player has to take a course of action (more than just a full round attack) and think a bit or use what they have (sometimes they get very inventive). That is how I use them, and the players don't complain. Course, I was raised on them in AD&D, with my brother making crit charts of doom and crit fumble tables.
I can respect though, that fighting gremlins with their bad luck ability makes them harder to deal with if a crit fumble table is in play. CRs should then be adjusted. Especially if the bad luck ability hits the players while enemies attack from range.
Yeah, Aid Another is often a bad idea. A sorc would be better off spamming acid splash.
I had to use it in an AP with multiple incorporeal enemies before everyone had a chance to get magic weapons. There was nothing else I could do those three sessions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Viking fumbled twice last session and even managed to stun himself at one point. If casters don't fumble too that would only increase his disdain for them. Fumbles and crits are part of the glory of battle. Come, he might say, join the ranks of the brave who never know what putting a d20 on the table might mean for good or ill. If you wish you can hide behind him with the finger wigglers and the cowards, but you'll never be glorified in the sagas that way.
FYI for those who might not know, Paizo's fumble deck includes rules for “confirming” your fumble in a fashion similar to that used for critical hits. This means that skilled combatants will rarely fumble during simple attacks, and honestly over the course of time we’ve seen far more and worse fumbles by the monsters than by the PCs. It also limits fumbles to once per encounter per creature, so there isn't as much of a 3 Stooges vibe. The fumble deck includes a lot of different results besides the common homebrew stuff like "drop your weapon" or "stab yourself". There are also fumbles for magical attacks so that if the Sorcerer rolls a 1 with Disintegrate there could be a big problem.
@Fromper - I'm pretty sure the intention is that you can fire out of arrow slits without penalty. I guess maybe the "Low Obstacle" rules Joana quoted could be used though honestly I'd say that you can't ignore an arrow slit unless you're adjacent to it. Maybe it is considered a "common sense" ruling though I guess that might not help much for PFS.
If using the fumble system you should figure out a corresponding cruelty for spellcasters.
If someone rolls a nat 20 on their save, they get to turn the spell back on the caster. Extend it to 19-20 at lvl6 (when martials get another attack), etc.Or we could just not use the fumble system.
I once played in a group that required a spellcraft check to cast a spell. So rolling a 1 on the spellcraft check would give you the opportunity to 'fumble' the spell.
Still didn't happen nearly as often as the 2 weapon fighters umpteen attacks per round. {I think we also required to confirm a fumble just like you have to confirm a critical.}
On the other hand, the results could be much worse. A fumbled spell once TPK'd the entire party.
|
|
Low obstacles and cover?
Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.
Thanks to Joana for bringing this one up.
This rule is why a creature under the influence of Enlarge Person, and holding a reach weapon, can sometimes strike over an adjacent creature at foes 15' and 20' away. This only works when striking over a creature less than half your height, per the above rule. In this case there's no soft cover, attacks are normal, and AoOs are not blocked.
How did this become a fumble thread....
Anyway, more power to those who play the game how they like, but personally I never use fumbles for the same reason I never use auto success on a 20 (outside of saves and attack rolls). 5% chance is improportionately high especially as more attacks are being dished out a high level. Having a player more likely to drop their weapon as they become more skilled verges on the farcical for me.
If anyone is considering using the fumble rules, I strongly recommend using a confirmation roll just like critical hits. Your high level martial might threaten a fumble 5% of the time he strikes but will rarely miss the target again to confirm the fumble.
Back to the original topic...
I often forget (and I see it at tables all the time) the action to get out a potion, scroll, or wand.
Weapons and shields? Yes, every one remembers they need to draw those. But the others? People often forget they don't already have those to hand.
|
Aid Another is quite useful if you spend a little bit of your build on it.
Bodyguard lets you Aid an ally's AC by expending an AoO (rather than a Standard Action), and only requires that you are adjacent to the ally.
Locally we've a Magus who has combined that with the Gloves of Arcane Striking (in addition to essentially making your usual Arcane Strike a splash attack, it automatically adds your Arcane Strike damage bonus to any combat Aid checks).
At his level, with 4 AoOs a turn, he can add +4 to ally's AC, 4 times per round.
@pH - Yeah, Bodyguard is definitely very strong.
@Kydeem - Honestly I see a lot of ambiguity about what's in hand even with weapons. This is especially noticeable around spellcasting, where a PC's hands would often be too full to use somatic components, especially if the PC is allegedly using a metamagic rod. If the rules are enforced caster with a bonded item could really have a tough time using rods, as could one who carries a weapon (though weapon cords can solve that in a somewhat ugly fashion)
That there are no fumble rules is one of the main strong points of PF in my book.
The same is true about there being no standard parry mechanic usable by everyone. Speeds up combat. Sadly a lot of groups house-rule those in by rolling a d20 instead of using the standard +10 for AC.
|
The best critical fumble I have ever seen: AD&D 1st ed, crit rules from some Dragon magazine. the DM had an NPC helper for us that he was very proud of. Chainmail, longsword and board. So his NPC goes up in the first combat to swing his sword at the bad guy. He rolls a 1. Then we consult the critical fumble chart:
He rolls percent, rolls 00. Head removed.
"Noooo!" he cried, but it was awesome to the rest of us.
Has anyone ever actually used the massive damage rule? That seems MUCH less popular than even the fumble deck.You know, I expected something scathing about cheaters and was all prepared to mention the time I found the massive damage rule that killed my character.
This is much better.
Given that I found it and and killed my warblade while trying to look up how long it would take for my character to heal naturally, yes, yes it does get used.
If you can cast a touch spell then deliver it as part of an unarmed attack, can a familliar do the same thing w/IT'S attack? Could I have an enlarged faerie dragon of my fighter 1/wizard 5/eldritch knight 5 make a +12 bite (1d4) as it comes out of invisibility and also have it deliver a maximized Shocking Grasp for 31-34 damage if it hits?
If anyone is considering using the fumble rules, I strongly recommend using a confirmation roll just like critical hits. Your high level martial might threaten a fumble 5% of the time he strikes but will rarely miss the target again to confirm the fumble.
Not true. A high level martial is more likely to have very low to-hit iteratives and be attacking many times in a single turn, both of which increase fumble chance, not reduce it. It also causes serious issues for natural attack monsters like the violet fungus or giant octopus. A giant octopus is likely to roll at least one natural 1 ~33% of the time it full attacks, so even with confirmations it is going to be a gigantic ball of fumbles!