paizo.com Recent Posts in Botches & Fumbles: Do you use them?paizo.com Recent Posts in Botches & Fumbles: Do you use them?2017-11-09T17:42:36Z2017-11-09T17:42:36ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Botches & Fumbles: Do you use them?Kirth Gersenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2upt9&page=3?Botches-Fumbles-Do-you-use-them#1092017-11-16T16:37:28Z2017-11-16T16:36:51Z<p>I don't use fumbles for anything in combat, nor for anything that's important to the adventure. The <i>only</i> time I use them is when PCs are making skill checks for stupid stuff like trying to seduce the barmaid — if they want to get silly, well, hell, let's get silly. </p>
<p>But skill fumbles go away again once they're focused on an important goal (rationalized in-game by assuming their guard is up).</p>I don't use fumbles for anything in combat, nor for anything that's important to the adventure. The only time I use them is when PCs are making skill checks for stupid stuff like trying to seduce the barmaid -- if they want to get silly, well, hell, let's get silly.
But skill fumbles go away again once they're focused on an important goal (rationalized in-game by assuming their guard is up).Kirth Gersen2017-11-16T16:36:51ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Botches & Fumbles: Do you use them?Bob Bob Bobhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2upt9&page=3?Botches-Fumbles-Do-you-use-them#1082017-11-16T12:04:34Z2017-11-16T12:04:34Z<p>Why would you quote that and leave out the part right after that says "The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn."</p>
<p>Also, those actions are a standard or full-round, swift, standard, or full-round, and standard. Limiting someone to a move action <i>already stops all of those things</i>. The only difference between being limited to a single move action and nauseated is AoOs and... move action concentration on an illusion spell? I think that's a thing. So I guess you're right, in your version they can still make AoOs. Of course, as I already said, fancy nauseate that's not nauseate that works on things normally immune to nauseate is <i>way stronger</i> than regular nauseate, making your scope go from "beneficial" to "stronger than the strongest published status effect". Really no help figuring out what goes inbetween.</p>Why would you quote that and leave out the part right after that says "The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn."
Also, those actions are a standard or full-round, swift, standard, or full-round, and standard. Limiting someone to a move action already stops all of those things. The only difference between being limited to a single move action and nauseated is AoOs and... move action concentration on an illusion spell? I think that's a thing. So I guess...Bob Bob Bob2017-11-16T12:04:34ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Botches & Fumbles: Do you use them?RDM42 (alias of Arssanguinus)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2upt9&page=3?Botches-Fumbles-Do-you-use-them#1072017-11-16T10:35:58Z2017-11-16T10:35:58Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bob Bob Bob wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">RDM42 wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Why do you not? I have flat out stated what range of things is on the list. That you keep insisting that it must contain things which are not in that range is your issue, not mine. How is a plus one _WORSE_ than flanking? Flanking gives them a plus two.</p>
<p>And I don't think I ever mentioned nauseated. The 'Plus it hits but does nonlethal is actually a BENEFIT to the player. The PLAYER hits what they were trying to hit anyway but does non lethal damage. So on a one they actually got a BENEFIT.</blockquote>You haven't actually given me a range. You've given me a bunch of examples that are, as I already said: possibly a benefit (nonlethal), weaker than being flanked (-1/+1), and the third strongest condition in the game (nauseated). Or as I said last time:<div class="messageboard-quotee">RECURSION! wrote:</div><blockquote>You say you've given a scope of effects but they vary from "no effect, plus it hits" (nonlethal, potentially) to "worse than flanking" (+1 for enemies) to "third strongest condition in the game" (nauseated).</blockquote><p>You said "limited to a move action next turn". The status effect that limits you to a move action is nauseated. If you use something that works like nauseated but isn't then it's <i>even stronger</i> since nothing can be immune. Also a plus one is strictly worse than a plus two. Enemies getting a +1 is weaker than enemies flanking (+2). Plus some other benefits to flanking.
<p>Why is it my problem that I have no idea what's between "minor benefit" and "third strongest status effect in the game"? Fall prone? Lose your weapon? Give your weapon the broken condition? You've said hurting yourself isn't but I'd consider 1d8+Str mod (on the confusion table) weaker than nauseated. <b>In the time you've spent refusing to answer what's actually on the results table you could have just written it up</b>. And until you answer then we have to guess. Again, you've already said the third strongest status effect in the game is in. So not stun or daze, but shaken? Bleed? Exhausted? Grappled? Those are within your range but are all... </blockquote><p>"Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. "
<p>That makes nauseated well different from being limited to a move action.</p>Bob Bob Bob wrote:RDM42 wrote:Why do you not? I have flat out stated what range of things is on the list. That you keep insisting that it must contain things which are not in that range is your issue, not mine. How is a plus one _WORSE_ than flanking? Flanking gives them a plus two.
And I don't think I ever mentioned nauseated. The 'Plus it hits but does nonlethal is actually a BENEFIT to the player. The PLAYER hits what they were trying to hit anyway but does non lethal damage. So on a one...RDM42 (alias of Arssanguinus)2017-11-16T10:35:58ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Botches & Fumbles: Do you use them?Bob Bob Bobhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2upt9&page=3?Botches-Fumbles-Do-you-use-them#1062017-11-16T06:48:47Z2017-11-16T06:48:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">RDM42 wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Why do you not? I have flat out stated what range of things is on the list. That you keep insisting that it must contain things which are not in that range is your issue, not mine. How is a plus one _WORSE_ than flanking? Flanking gives them a plus two.</p>
<p>And I don't think I ever mentioned nauseated. The 'Plus it hits but does nonlethal is actually a BENEFIT to the player. The PLAYER hits what they were trying to hit anyway but does non lethal damage. So on a one they actually got a BENEFIT.</blockquote>You haven't actually given me a range. You've given me a bunch of examples that are, as I already said: possibly a benefit (nonlethal), weaker than being flanked (-1/+1), and the third strongest condition in the game (nauseated). Or as I said last time:<div class="messageboard-quotee">RECURSION! wrote:</div><blockquote>You say you've given a scope of effects but they vary from "no effect, plus it hits" (nonlethal, potentially) to "worse than flanking" (+1 for enemies) to "third strongest condition in the game" (nauseated).</blockquote><p>You said "limited to a move action next turn". The status effect that limits you to a move action is nauseated. If you use something that works like nauseated but isn't then it's <i>even stronger</i> since nothing can be immune. Also a plus one is strictly worse than a plus two. Enemies getting a +1 is weaker than enemies flanking (+2). Plus some other benefits to flanking.
<p>Why is it my problem that I have no idea what's between "minor benefit" and "third strongest status effect in the game"? Fall prone? Lose your weapon? Give your weapon the broken condition? You've said hurting yourself isn't but I'd consider 1d8+Str mod (on the confusion table) weaker than nauseated. <b>In the time you've spent refusing to answer what's actually on the results table you could have just written it up</b>. And until you answer then we have to guess. Again, you've already said the third strongest status effect in the game is in. So not stun or daze, but shaken? Bleed? Exhausted? Grappled? Those are within your range but are all possibly quite bad. Exhaustion requires an hour of rest. Bleed needs healing or Heal to stop.</p>
<p>You also still haven't addressed whether just martials are getting screwed by these rules and why General Alice fumbles more often than Conscript Bob.</p>RDM42 wrote:Why do you not? I have flat out stated what range of things is on the list. That you keep insisting that it must contain things which are not in that range is your issue, not mine. How is a plus one _WORSE_ than flanking? Flanking gives them a plus two.
And I don't think I ever mentioned nauseated. The 'Plus it hits but does nonlethal is actually a BENEFIT to the player. The PLAYER hits what they were trying to hit anyway but does non lethal damage. So on a one they actually got...Bob Bob Bob2017-11-16T06:48:47ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Botches & Fumbles: Do you use them?RDM42 (alias of Arssanguinus)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2upt9&page=3?Botches-Fumbles-Do-you-use-them#1052017-11-16T00:50:37Z2017-11-16T00:50:37Z<p>Why do you not? I have flat out stated what range of things is on the list. That you keep insisting that it must contain things which are not in that range is your issue, not mine. How is a plus one _WORSE_ than flanking? Flanking gives them a plus two.</p>
<p>And I don't think I ever mentioned nauseated. The 'Plus it hits but does nonlethal is actually a BENEFIT to the player. The PLAYER hits what they were trying to hit anyway but does non lethal damage. So on a one they actually got a BENEFIT.</p>Why do you not? I have flat out stated what range of things is on the list. That you keep insisting that it must contain things which are not in that range is your issue, not mine. How is a plus one _WORSE_ than flanking? Flanking gives them a plus two.
And I don't think I ever mentioned nauseated. The 'Plus it hits but does nonlethal is actually a BENEFIT to the player. The PLAYER hits what they were trying to hit anyway but does non lethal damage. So on a one they actually got a BENEFIT.RDM42 (alias of Arssanguinus)2017-11-16T00:50:37ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Botches & Fumbles: Do you use them?Bob Bob Bobhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2upt9&page=3?Botches-Fumbles-Do-you-use-them#1042017-11-15T23:59:17Z2017-11-15T23:59:17Z<p>RDM42's rules do help <i>some</i> with the more attacks problem, they only allow one fumble a round (they posted that on an alias three years ago). But as Conscript Bob and General Alice show, that doesn't always mean less fumbles per round when full attacks are involved. Same for the confirm roll. Wildly outclass your opponent, probably not a problem. Be swinging against anything in a reasonable range, a bit of a problem. Especially with iteratives.</p>
<p>As I already said, if none of the conditions persist beyond a round then that's fine. If conditions can persist for multiple rounds or for the whole battle then it's a matter of the party and the party's opponents. In order to know how well balanced that is we'd need an actual list of what the conditions are. I can tell you right now Nauseated is super brutal and having a chance of triggering it unfairly penalizes whichever side has less bodies on the field (usually the players, but can vary quite a bit). Changing an attack to nonlethal is the same as a miss against undead and constructs (and rarely are players one of those types). And that requires that the effect list only be conditions. No damage to the fumbler, their weapon, their armor, their shield, their friends, or their ability scores (all effects in the Paizo fumble deck). "Drop your weapon" is in an odd place since players are usually affected but NPCs are affected more (since designers rarely remember backup weapons) but monsters are unaffected (since they have natural weapons). </p>
<p>If you insist on hiding what's in the condition list then we have to assume that it potentially contains some things more punitive towards players than enemies because we literally <i>cannot know</i>. You say you've given a scope of effects but they vary from "no effect, plus it hits" (nonlethal, potentially) to "worse than flanking" (+1 for enemies) to "third strongest condition in the game" (nauseated). That's a pretty broad spectrum.</p>
<p>Anyway, even if we take your word on that (and I really don't) you still haven't addressed how your fumble system does not unfairly penalize martials and how it addresses the fact that higher levels of skill (specifically the iterative attacks) makes you <i>more</i> likely to fumble, not less.</p>
<p>Yes, people have been a bit hyperbolic. That's their opinion (as "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective). I can see why people don't want a trained warrior to have anything happen on a bad roll (because trained warrior should mean something). I cannot definitively say that all fumble systems are bad (other people can, if they really hate fumbles). I can say with that I haven't seen any that look good to me (the closest was the roll once a round thing, but my problem is "why?"). My personal preference is for a fumble to provoke an AoO from your opponent but I never saw a way to implement it that would actually make things more fun for my players (or affect spellcasters). I'm not opposed to using them, just opposed to making things less fun for players. And every fumble system I've seen (yours included) does that.</p>RDM42's rules do help some with the more attacks problem, they only allow one fumble a round (they posted that on an alias three years ago). But as Conscript Bob and General Alice show, that doesn't always mean less fumbles per round when full attacks are involved. Same for the confirm roll. Wildly outclass your opponent, probably not a problem. Be swinging against anything in a reasonable range, a bit of a problem. Especially with iteratives.
As I already said, if none of the conditions...Bob Bob Bob2017-11-15T23:59:17ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Botches & Fumbles: Do you use them?TOZ (alias of TriOmegaZero)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2upt9&page=3?Botches-Fumbles-Do-you-use-them#1032017-11-15T20:17:44Z2017-11-15T20:17:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">RDM42 wrote:</div><blockquote> Have you actually read the posts in question? </blockquote><p>Reads as par for the course. What that says about the community I leave to you.RDM42 wrote:Have you actually read the posts in question?
Reads as par for the course. What that says about the community I leave to you.TOZ (alias of TriOmegaZero)2017-11-15T20:17:44ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Botches & Fumbles: Do you use them?blahpershttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2upt9&page=3?Botches-Fumbles-Do-you-use-them#1022017-11-15T20:06:00Z2017-11-15T20:05:00Z<p>Not really.</p>
<p>Sounds like this thread is getting a bit heated. Might I suggest a relaxing game of <i>Kobolds Ate My Baby!</i>? That's my go-to game for rolling mishaps. : D</p>
<p>/ALL HAIL KING TORG!</p>Not really.
Sounds like this thread is getting a bit heated. Might I suggest a relaxing game of Kobolds Ate My Baby!? That's my go-to game for rolling mishaps. : D
/ALL HAIL KING TORG!blahpers2017-11-15T20:05:00ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Botches & Fumbles: Do you use them?RDM42 (alias of Arssanguinus)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2upt9&page=3?Botches-Fumbles-Do-you-use-them#1012017-11-15T19:33:50Z2017-11-15T19:33:50Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Athaleon wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">RDM42 wrote:</div><blockquote>And no, I'm not playing your game with the 'post your list" thing,mono wing pretty well that what is intended is nothing close to honest analysis, given the downright open hostility to the point of a crusade against the very idea of any form of fumble/disadvantage system even existing shown here. </blockquote>Yikes. And you're accusing other people of letting their emotions get in the way of a good discussion. </blockquote><p>Have you actually read the posts in question? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.Athaleon wrote:RDM42 wrote:And no, I'm not playing your game with the 'post your list" thing,mono wing pretty well that what is intended is nothing close to honest analysis, given the downright open hostility to the point of a crusade against the very idea of any form of fumble/disadvantage system even existing shown here.
Yikes. And you're accusing other people of letting their emotions get in the way of a good discussion. Have you actually read the posts in question? Sounds like the...RDM42 (alias of Arssanguinus)2017-11-15T19:33:50Z