Ignore handringing by Martial characters. Critical failures NEED to count for meele & ranged attack rolls in Pathfinder 2E!


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 457 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Quote:
You stumble over unseen imaginary deceased turtle....

This is the only one that comes to my mind when thinking about fumbles. This "gem" could be found in Rolemaster. (EDIT: Or maybe it was MERP, can't remember)


LuZeke wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Some of the effects had saves, but the DC was the amount of damage done, so at higher level there is no making those saves.
Now I don't know every card off the top of my head, but I am resonably certain that not a single card actually does that. If a card doesn't outright state a DC (typically, 10, 15 or 20) the confirming roll is used. That's supposed to be the roll after modifiers, but I use the what the actual raw die roll is.

Maybe I'm remembering. Or maybe they updated them in the 10 years or so. But that's what I recall. It's really the completely arbitrary nature that I hated most though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I forget where I read this, but this is a good test for fumble rules.

Have 10 level 1 warriors each attack a training dummy every round for 2 minutes, resulting in an average of 10 natural 1s. If, at the end of those 2 minutes, any of those warriors are noticeably wounded, your rules need some tweaking. If any of those warriors are dead or dying, scrap your fumble rules and start over.


Quote:

Critical success on a saving throw causes the spell to rebound and affect the spellcaster.

I hope that neither suggestion ever happens. It doesn't sound fun to play.

Make caster rolls for casting, and make defense against spells flat bonus ;)


Quote:

I forget where I read this, but this is a good test for fumble rules.

Have 10 level 1 warriors each attack a training dummy every round for 2 minutes, resulting in an average of 10 natural 1s. If, at the end of those 2 minutes, any of those warriors are noticeably wounded, your rules need some tweaking. If any of those warriors are dead or dying, scrap your fumble rules and start over.

Oi, but it's not like strict simulationism.

Real fight situation has different dynamics.

For training with dummies you should literally be able to take 10.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Ignore hand ringing by martial characters? Is the fighter’s alumni bell choir supposed to use their feet?


I already use critical flops on attack roles.

I just wish spellcasting was by roll either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, fumbles are bad. If you want 'em, keep 'em as optional rules and not directly baked in.

They haven't been fun in any game I've played (I still shiver when I think of Rolemaster) they add absolutely nothing worthwile and they punish Martials far more than Spellcasters.

Unless you're willing to put something like Tzeench's Curse for casters, leave the fumble rules at home.


Folks, fumbles are baked in to the system. Monsters will be enraging reactions when you crit fail. What those reactions are remains to be seen. Also, the frequency is unknown. Reactions might be far and few between or they could be widely available. Who knows?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Folks, fumbles are baked in to the system. Monsters will be enraging reactions when you crit fail. What those reactions are remains to be seen. Also, the frequency is unknown. Reactions might be far and few between or they could be widely available. Who knows?

The difference is:

- When you Crit Fail, whoever you're facing may not have any of those Reactions, unlike OP's fumbles, where something bad always happens.
- Even if they do have an applicable Reaction, they may choose not to take it (because they need their reaction for something else). A fumble of the type OP wants (and people don't) doesn't require an enemy choice.
- Even if they take their Reaction, Reactions are limited. It's unlikely an enemy will be able to capitalise on multiple fumbles, unlike OPs fumbles.

Then again, if the Crit Fail Reactions presented in the playtest are badly designed I sure as heck will tear them a new one. But as it is there's enough differences I'm willing to give them a try instead of scrapping the system altogether.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A heavily armored man with a shield walks into a goblin village. They all run up to him and start falling down and stabbing themselves.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I believe you but still 1 in 8000 does still seem pretty unlikely. You could probably not see that happen in an entire campaign. Considering we are rolling a d20 their is really only so much variation we can have. so a 1 in 8000 doesn't seem to unlikely, I think I've only seen 2 1's in a row happen like around 3 times in the 14 years i've been playing.

When I was GMing for our Wednesday night group, our Cleric rolled a natural 1 on his attack roll against the gelatinous cube, then he rolled a natural 1 on his reflex save to avoid being engulfed. Then he rolled a natural 1 on his fortitude save to avoid being paralyzed.

GMs don't kill characters ... three natural 1s in a row kills characters.

There were no fumble rules involved in this and the character still died. In fact, that cube killed 3/4 of the party. We had 3 20s in a row in my game on fantasy grounds last night. Three different players, but still 3 consecutive rolls. 1 in 8000 is still far too likely to happen.

I absolutely hate both critical roll tables and critical fumble tables.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

I propose that casters makes a concentration check every time they cast a spell. Critical failure = slot lost, zero effect. Critical success = no slot lost


Serghar Cromwell wrote:

I forget where I read this, but this is a good test for fumble rules.

Have 10 level 1 warriors each attack a training dummy every round for 2 minutes, resulting in an average of 10 natural 1s. If, at the end of those 2 minutes, any of those warriors are noticeably wounded, your rules need some tweaking. If any of those warriors are dead or dying, scrap your fumble rules and start over.

While I think there are legitimate grievances with fumble rules, I don't think this criticism makes a lot of sense. A fumble is a problem that develops in the heat of battle, and not necessarily from incompetence. Losing your weapon isn't necessarily from having butter fingers, but because the enemy got a free disarm and knocked it out of your hand.

I think fumbles can work as a house rule... With the right group and enough trust in the GM. But there have been lots of reasons listed in this thread why they shouldn't be baked into the rules for attacks, especially given how often we will see critical failures in the new system.


Critical failure - CHAOS MAGIC. Random d1000 roll for some other magical effect ;)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
"You stumble over an unseen, imaginary, deceased turtle. You are very confused, miss one turn"

Naah. It was a tortoise. You know what a tortoise is, don't you Leon?

Just don't ask him about his mother.

Seriously, although I kind of like the critical fumble deck (especially since I arrange things so that it affects NPC adversaries far more often than PCs) I feel confident that there will be no critical fumble results in combat in PF2.0.

At higher levels, you may find some adversaries who have reactions that key off of critical fumbles, though. Which will probably be rare enough that it won't cause a major problem with the game system.

We do already know that there is a fighter class feat that will allow him to do minimum damage on a failed attack, but not on a critical failure. So it has been confirmed that there will be some cases, at least, where a critical failure in combat will be different from a normal failure.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
KujakuDM wrote:
Nat 1? Roll again, If miss, botch, if hit, just a miss.

There is roughly a 1 in 50 chance of getting a critical miss, or a 35% chance of a PC missing ( party of 4 with the classic layout) per fight. Or a very likely chance of a critical miss every 3 fights. Depending on how many fights you have per game this is roughly 1 critical miss per session.

Wizards have 0% chance of missing so long as they don't make touch attacks.

I've done them with saves, and Unchained has the option to roll for spell casting as well.

I can understand where you are coming from, but I've never seen it be a real issue. It's also never stopped any players from doing things that involve attack rolls.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Some of the effects had saves, but the DC was the amount of damage done, so at higher level there is no making those saves. My first game with my current group was the Savage Tide AP which I came in near the end. Using those decks one of us decapitated Demogorgon and another carved his initials into him. It was just dumb.

DC's are either the critical confirmation result in the case of criticals, or the opponent's AC in case of fumbles.

We're currently 14 levels into a campaign where we've been using the critical decks the entire time, I think we've had 3 confirmed fumbles, and even then it's like "whack yourself for a d8 damage", or the very worst "hit your closest ally".

Admittedly, some of the criticals have turned a battle (like my kensai magus, cutting off the Mythic Black Dragon's wing, taking off one of his hands and then shattering his jaw), but it made for a pretty cool scene and I'm not sure it would have been much better if had just been doing normal critical rules with my Crit x4 double bursting sword...in fact now, the deck is kind of a limiter on the damage I could do, but the effects are fun and neat, so...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
LuZeke wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Some of the effects had saves, but the DC was the amount of damage done, so at higher level there is no making those saves.
Now I don't know every card off the top of my head, but I am resonably certain that not a single card actually does that. If a card doesn't outright state a DC (typically, 10, 15 or 20) the confirming roll is used. That's supposed to be the roll after modifiers, but I use the what the actual raw die roll is.

Yep, I use these cards too. I love them, and I might try to bring them back after the playtest, but they'll need lot of work because they'll fell lot harsher now with the way fumbles will happen more often... Maybe I'll make them happen only on a nat 1 + confirm...


TarkXT wrote:
Now propose a similar and equally punishing system for casters.

As a DM, I rather enjoyed the spell failure system in the Dragon Tree Spellbook.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
FaerieGodfather wrote:
People who believe that critical fumble rules are somehow "realistic" should really avoid getting into knife fights.

Two thoughts:

First, everyone should avoid getting into knife fights. They're pretty terrifying. (That said, I understand you were making a somewhat different point entirely)

Second, I agree with the overwhelming majority here: This is a bad idea and they've already said everything I would about why it's bad.


RickDias wrote:
First, everyone should avoid getting into knife fights. They're pretty terrifying.

But then, how will their mother know which of the litter is worthiest to suckle?


FaerieGodfather wrote:
RickDias wrote:
First, everyone should avoid getting into knife fights. They're pretty terrifying.
But then, how will their mother know which of the litter is worthiest to suckle?

The worthiest will get sick of the struggle and cannibalize their siblings.


The Raven Black wrote:
I propose that casters makes a concentration check every time they cast a spell. Critical failure = slot lost, zero effect. Critical success = no slot lost

LOL It's easier to just say 'you concentrated too hard and had a brain aneurysm. You died... Roll up a new character while the fight goes on without you.'


Ryan Freire wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
RickDias wrote:
First, everyone should avoid getting into knife fights. They're pretty terrifying.
But then, how will their mother know which of the litter is worthiest to suckle?
The worthiest will get sick of the struggle and cannibalize their siblings.

"Give me the strength to split the world in two..."


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Dude you need to read the whole posts 1 in 8000 was the example shard used when talking about rolling 3 1's in a row.

Can you please explain to me how that would work? Mathematically, sure I get how you get those odds. How does that work at the game table? Would I roll a nat 1, then roll a confirmation critical miss (needs another nat 1) and then roll a second confirmation critical miss (needs a third nat 1)? That's a ridiculous rule and has no foundation in the rest of the game.

Might as well say each campaign has 1 critical miss and just roll a single d20 at the start of each session and on a 1 say "woop. Looks like no critical miss for this session. Martials can breathe easy." After 20 sessions you're bound to roll a 1, and then whoever gets the first nat 1 on an attack roll suffers the critical miss and then don't worry about the silly rule for the rest of the campaign.

It was meant to be a worthless rule, just as I basically said already. I used it as an example of fumbles that I might accept, specifically because it's unlikely to happen in the entire campaign. You know, because I said fumbles are dumb.

Liberty's Edge

Earl Grey wrote:
Quote:
You stumble over unseen imaginary deceased turtle....
This is the only one that comes to my mind when thinking about fumbles. This "gem" could be found in Rolemaster. (EDIT: Or maybe it was MERP, can't remember)

It's probably both. MERP was just a Middle Earth overlay on the Rolemaster system, so they probably have the same critical fumble tables.

I ran into it in MERP, though.

The Exchange

Thank you for all the replies. I do mean this sincerely. I knew that this would be a hot button issue but I am honestly not trolling. To respond to a few general complaints.

1) This issue effects casters as well as martials if they make touch or ranged spell attacks. Since Paizo is keeping touch AC in the game I am assuming spells like polar ray, shocking grasp, acid arrow & inflict x wounds are all staying. So casters CAN critically fail just like martial characters.

2) The loss of one action does not seem like a big issue because
a) All PC's get 3 actions per turn
b) They are hinting at spells and conditions such as slow that will
penalize a combatant with the loss of an action on a turn.
3) Opening up yourself to a critical damage roll MAY be pushing fumbles a bit but I took it in the same token as critically failing a reflex save. In other words you did the worst thing possible and put yourself in harms way. In combat this would be like falling for a feint. In ranged combat, maybe you are standing wide out in the open away from any cover.
4) The argument that critical failures will disproportionally affect PC's more than monsters is an unknown. You cannot go by PF1 assumptions here. The skeletons in the playtest had 3 actions like PC's and the zombies had two. I am guessing that some monsters like mariliths and hydras will have more than 3. Who knows? No one yet
5) Spellcasters are going to be affected by critical failures and successes. Critically succeed on reflex saves (or rogues with evasion just succeeding) completely eliminates damage for blast spells. Martials are being given DOMA when that is something that the core of PF1 players specifically rejected.

All in all, martials can deal with a critical failure just like everyone else. If the 4 grades of resolution are going to be a feature and not a bug of the PF2 system then they need to pop up in the meat of the game and the meat is definitly combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Talek & Luna wrote:

5) Spellcasters are going to be affected by critical failures and successes. Critically succeed on reflex saves (or rogues with evasion just succeeding) completely eliminates damage for blast spells. Martials are being given DOMA when that is something that the core of PF1 players specifically rejected.

You could not have encapsulated the martial/caster aspect of this argument any better if you had done it on purpose.

WotC and Paizo have both now suggested that martial characters might be able to do minimum damage on a missed attack, and the only people who have benefited from that discussion are people who own stock in diaper cream manufacturers.

Conversely, half damage on a successful save has always been the default for spellcasters... and now, giving monsters and martial classes a way to avoid damage on a miss is now a compelling argument for why martials need to suffer the nerf bat even more?

Having one target of a blast spell avoid the damage is nowhere near the same as losing your next action on top of the utter failure of your current action.

The Exchange

FaerieGodfather wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:

5) Spellcasters are going to be affected by critical failures and successes. Critically succeed on reflex saves (or rogues with evasion just succeeding) completely eliminates damage for blast spells. Martials are being given DOMA when that is something that the core of PF1 players specifically rejected.

You could not have encapsulated the martial/caster aspect of this argument any better if you had done it on purpose.

WotC and Paizo have both now suggested that martial characters might be able to do minimum damage on a missed attack, and the only people who have benefited from that discussion are people who own stock in diaper cream manufacturers.

Conversely, half damage on a successful save has always been the default for spellcasters... and now, giving monsters and martial classes a way to avoid damage on a miss is now a compelling argument for why martials need to suffer the nerf bat even more?

Having one target of a blast spell avoid the damage is nowhere near the same as losing your next action on top of the utter failure of your current action.

Its not the same though from my point of view. I have to expend a resource that I won't get back untill I rest. You get yours back every round. Its not an apt comparison at all. You will likely succeede on your attacks 85% of the time or more. One of my big complaints about 5E is that you will likely not miss in combat unless you roll absurdly low on a D20 (like 2 or 3). When I play martials I crave rolling a D20 and I need the anticipation of a hit or a miss for the classes to feel fun for me. I strongly like DOMA for that reason.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Talek & Luna wrote:


4) The argument that critical failures will disproportionally affect PC's more than monsters is an unknown. You cannot go by PF1 assumptions here. The skeletons in the playtest had 3 actions like PC's and the zombies had two. I am guessing that some monsters like mariliths and hydras will have more than 3. Who knows? No one yet

You actually missed the point then. Regardless of number of actions per turn, most enemies that aren't recurring villains come on the scene once and have one battle before they die. If a monster fumbles once or twice, meh, it can make an exciting fight into a disappointing comedy of errors, but it doesn't break the game.

PCs, on the other hand, are in every fight for the entire campaign. A given PC makes hundreds or even thousands of rolls over their career for every one roll made by a monster. Having a fumble system means that every PC and especially every martial PC absolutely WILL fumble many many many times... Assuming the fumbles themselves don't kill that PC.

This is why it's unbalanced and a terrible idea. I'm okay with the way Paizo is doing it in theory, because a critical failure on an attack roll doesn't inherently wreck you: it's just a miss until and unless an opponent has and uses a reaction to take advantage of it. But a fumble rule where you hit yourself or even just lose a turn is a terrible thing that punishes players for having bad dice luck, and again, frontline martial players in particular.


wrote:
1) This issue effects casters as well as martials if they make touch or ranged spell attacks. Since Paizo is keeping touch AC in the game I am assuming spells like polar ray, shocking grasp, acid arrow & inflict x wounds are all staying. So casters CAN critically fail just like martial characters.

That still disproportionately affects martials, all a caster needs to do is not use those spells.

wrote:
3) Opening up yourself to a critical damage roll MAY be pushing fumbles a bit but I took it in the same token as critically failing a reflex save. In other words you did the worst thing possible and put yourself in harms way. In combat this would be like falling for a feint. In ranged combat, maybe you are standing wide out in the open away from any cover.

So rather than giving them the flatfooted condition (which makes more sense given how you're explaining it), you decided an autocrit was better?

wrote:

2) The loss of one action does not seem like a big issue because

a) All PC's get 3 actions per turn
b) They are hinting at spells and conditions such as slow that will
penalize a combatant with the loss of an action on a turn.

Except martials disproportionately rely on their actions to get into position and deal damage compared to casters.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Earl Grey wrote:
Quote:
You stumble over unseen imaginary deceased turtle....
This is the only one that comes to my mind when thinking about fumbles. This "gem" could be found in Rolemaster. (EDIT: Or maybe it was MERP, can't remember)

It's probably both. MERP was just a Middle Earth overlay on the Rolemaster system, so they probably have the same critical fumble tables.

I ran into it in MERP, though.

Thanks, it has been a while since I played either of those. But even though those were entertaining, I wouldn’t like to see similar in PF.

There was a critical hit table in some old Dragon issue that we used in our D&D campaign, but we had to stop using it later as the criticals became too frequent. The chance for critical was a percentage calculated from the difference between the number you needed to hit and what you rolled. It became too easy to hit when we took the Armor Value system in to use, which is basicly AC to DR.

Soneone has studied the history of criticals in D&D:

https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/a-short-history-of-critical -hits-in-dd/

P.s. Sorry for not noticing that had already posted the exact same dead turtle fumble earlier.

EDIT: For those interested the Dragon magazine article I was referrring to is issue 39 page 34 ”Good hits and bad misses”. https://www.annarchive.com/files/Drmg039.pdf. As you can see it could be brutal.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I feel like this whole issue may already be solved anyway, since all it takes is enough monsters or NPCs with effects that trigger on a critical failure attack roll for it to feel like martials interact with the 4 degrees of success via their attacks anyway...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

How do you get around the fact that with any fumble rules high level characters are more likely to fumble than a low level one? more attacks = more chances for something to go wrong.

It just doesn't make sense.

And to all those with such fond memories of rolemaster - I played exactly one game. My very first attack ended up caving in the chest of an ally!


High level characters don't necessarily get more attacks dragonhunterq.


The ones most likely to be affected by fumble rules, more likely than not, do. Those that don't would be the exception rather than the rule. My point remains.


Can you please provide information where it reveals that fighters get more attacks as they go up in levels? I've missed that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
And to all those with such fond memories of rolemaster - I played exactly one game. My very first attack ended up caving in the chest of an ally!

I am actually a huge fan of Rolemaster-- my "fond memories" of the game, critical fumbles notwithstanding-- are as recent as last year.

But I will admit, it took me eight years to warm up to the game after it took me ninety minutes to roll up a lizardman fighter, and during our first session, on my very first attack roll, he bit his own head off.

There's a lot of Rolemaster DNA in my Sellswords & Godwars simulacrum game... but critical fumbles are not among it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Can you please provide information where it reveals that fighters get more attacks as they go up in levels? I've missed that.

Without re-reading hundreds of posts, we do know that:

- there is a feat which gives additional reactions (perhaps fighter only, perhaps just early acquisition for fighters);
- there is a feat which allows a miss to deal minimum damage instead of, well, missing.

I do not recall anything about getting additional attack actions.

The Exchange

Fuzzypaws wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:


4) The argument that critical failures will disproportionally affect PC's more than monsters is an unknown. You cannot go by PF1 assumptions here. The skeletons in the playtest had 3 actions like PC's and the zombies had two. I am guessing that some monsters like mariliths and hydras will have more than 3. Who knows? No one yet

You actually missed the point then. Regardless of number of actions per turn, most enemies that aren't recurring villains come on the scene once and have one battle before they die. If a monster fumbles once or twice, meh, it can make an exciting fight into a disappointing comedy of errors, but it doesn't break the game.

PCs, on the other hand, are in every fight for the entire campaign. A given PC makes hundreds or even thousands of rolls over their career for every one roll made by a monster. Having a fumble system means that every PC and especially every martial PC absolutely WILL fumble many many many times... Assuming the fumbles themselves don't kill that PC.

This is why it's unbalanced and a terrible idea. I'm okay with the way Paizo is doing it in theory, because a critical failure on an attack roll doesn't inherently wreck you: it's just a miss until and unless an opponent has and uses a reaction to take advantage of it. But a fumble rule where you hit yourself or even just lose a turn is a terrible thing that punishes players for having bad dice luck, and again, frontline martial players in particular.

Again you are putting your own assumptions on what a fumble means. I never ONCE stated a fumble as you hitting yourself with your weapon. Let me give you a scenario to illustrate a crit off of a fumble.

DM: The ogre moves up to your rogue Lisa and attacks.

Lisa: Maribeth activates nimble dodge as a reaction bumping her AC from 19 to 21.

DM: (nods and rolls D20 and gets a 2+ Ogre's attack roll of 9 = 11) The Ogre overreaches trying to strike you as you nimbly tumble away from its massive club. The weapon thuds into the ground and the ogre is exposed as his reach is over-extended. Its a critical fumble folks.

Rich: Great! I'm next. I have my fighter take advantage of the opportunity and power attack. I rolled a 15 does that hit?

DM: Yes, Aldric's sword easily finds its mark. The ogre tries to shore up his defense but he was left wide open due to the fumble. Roll damage.

In this instance the monster overextended itself. Happens in fights all the time. So does bad luck like slipping on dewy grass, getting sun in your eyes, being distracted by a cry or shout, falling for a feint, etc. With these rules you will likely get a crtical fail in combat when rolling a 1. You can take a fumble 5% of the time. Its not a big deal at all.

The Exchange

willuwontu wrote:
wrote:
1) This issue effects casters as well as martials if they make touch or ranged spell attacks. Since Paizo is keeping touch AC in the game I am assuming spells like polar ray, shocking grasp, acid arrow & inflict x wounds are all staying. So casters CAN critically fail just like martial characters.

That still disproportionately affects martials, all a caster needs to do is not use those spells.

wrote:
3) Opening up yourself to a critical damage roll MAY be pushing fumbles a bit but I took it in the same token as critically failing a reflex save. In other words you did the worst thing possible and put yourself in harms way. In combat this would be like falling for a feint. In ranged combat, maybe you are standing wide out in the open away from any cover.

So rather than giving them the flatfooted condition (which makes more sense given how you're explaining it), you decided an autocrit was better?

wrote:

2) The loss of one action does not seem like a big issue because

a) All PC's get 3 actions per turn
b) They are hinting at spells and conditions such as slow that will
penalize a combatant with the loss of an action on a turn.
Except martials disproportionately rely on their actions to get into position and deal damage compared to casters.

I listed being crit as an option instead of losing an attack. If you want to impose flat footed instead. I am fine with it and would consider it a good compromise. I just think that you should suffer SOME kind of penalty for a critical fumble in any kind of situation, especiall the situation that is likely to comprise the MAJORITY of game time.

FIghters using more actions to get into combat is not a valid excuse, especially with them previewing a feat like sudden charge that lets them double move and attack in combat for two actions. Most spells have been noted will cost 2 actions so a caster suffers as great a penalty for fumbling while casting spells.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talek & Luna wrote:
Again you are putting your own assumptions on what a fumble means.

Because that is the commonly accepted meaning for the gaming term “fumble”. If you are using a different meaning than the norm then you need to explain that rather than assume everyone will jump ship with you to your assumptions without explanations.

As for the example you gave.... that’s not a fumble, that’s a critical failure... the system Paizo is showcasing.

The Exchange

Fuzzypaws wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:


4) The argument that critical failures will disproportionally affect PC's more than monsters is an unknown. You cannot go by PF1 assumptions here. The skeletons in the playtest had 3 actions like PC's and the zombies had two. I am guessing that some monsters like mariliths and hydras will have more than 3. Who knows? No one yet
. But a fumble rule where you hit yourself or even just lose a turn is a terrible thing that punishes players for having bad dice luck, and again, frontline martial players in particular.

Besides, how many times do you roll a natural '1' in your games? If you are getting a natural '1' so often that the loss of an action would be traumatizing for you then maybe you need new dice. :)

The Exchange

Rysky wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:
Again you are putting your own assumptions on what a fumble means.

Because that is the commonly accepted meaning for the gaming term “fumble”. If you are using a different meaning than the norm then you need to explain that rather than assume everyone will jump ship with you to your assumptions without explanations.

As for the example you gave.... that’s not a fumble, that’s a critical failure... the system Paizo is showcasing.

I disagree. Nowhere does the word fumble mean that you harm yourself. If you want to get technical, then here is what the word fumble means.

Fumble: use the hands clumsily while doing or handling something.

So, yeah English professor I will be glad to now use the word critical failure to describe a terrible roll instead of a fumble. But no where once did I say that a critical fumble (my words) caused a combatant to critically damage itself. Only that it gave an opportunity for an enemy combatant to score a critical hit by rolling a regular success on an attack roll in the same round that the critical failure occurred.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talek & Luna wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:
Again you are putting your own assumptions on what a fumble means.

Because that is the commonly accepted meaning for the gaming term “fumble”. If you are using a different meaning than the norm then you need to explain that rather than assume everyone will jump ship with you to your assumptions without explanations.

As for the example you gave.... that’s not a fumble, that’s a critical failure... the system Paizo is showcasing.

I disagree. Nowhere does the word fumble mean that you harm yourself. If you want to get technical, then here is what the word fumble means.

That is exactly what it means in gaming terms. I don’t care what the technical or literal meaning of the word is, look around here and other gaming boards and you will find it to unanimously refer to dropping your weapon (or snapping a bowstring) or hitting yourself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Talek & Luna wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:
Again you are putting your own assumptions on what a fumble means.

Because that is the commonly accepted meaning for the gaming term “fumble”. If you are using a different meaning than the norm then you need to explain that rather than assume everyone will jump ship with you to your assumptions without explanations.

As for the example you gave.... that’s not a fumble, that’s a critical failure... the system Paizo is showcasing.

I disagree. Nowhere does the word fumble mean that you harm yourself. If you want to get technical, then here is what the word fumble means.

Fumble: use the hands clumsily while doing or handling something.

So, yeah English professor I will be glad to now use the word critical failure to describe a terrible roll instead of a fumble. But no where once did I say that a critical fumble (my words) caused a combatant to critically damage itself. Only that it gave an opportunity for an enemy combatant to score a critical hit by rolling a regular success on an attack roll in the same round that the critical failure occurred.

Based on your posts, I'm going to guess that you're fairly new to D&D and PF. There's a long history of critical fumbles in this game, going back to the 80s (maybe also the 70s).

So when people bring up fumbles (or fumble charts), they typically think of the word as it has historically been used in D&D and similar games. That you're not doing that is what's throwing people off.

It's ok, though. Now that we have some things set straight, we can put this conversation back on course and have some constructive comments. Hopefully. :)

51 to 100 of 457 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Ignore handringing by Martial characters. Critical failures NEED to count for meele & ranged attack rolls in Pathfinder 2E! All Messageboards