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.
Hey! What've you got against English professors??? <g>
Seriously, whatever we may think individually about fumbles, fumble tables, fumble decks and critical failures, I think it's obvious that the guys at Paizo are going to give their new system a serious spin with the upcoming playtest, and no amount of angst is going to stop them.
This said, what do we know?
- In most cases, a critical failure during combat is the same as a normal failure (you miss, deal zero damage from your attack).
- Some specific feats will change this situation, either improving a normal failure (allowing you to deal minimum damage even on a failure) or allowing some sort of reaction keyed to an adversary's critical failure.
This seems far less catastrophic than any fumble deck or table, and we will soon have the opportunity to test it out and ensure that it doesn't transform combat into "The Three Stooges come to Golarion".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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. :)
I recall multiple time back to back 1's happened, with physical dice and online dice rollers. In one case, I've seen 11 rolls with the highest of 5 [and in the 'new' system, likely crit fails as miss by 10 is the trigger not 1's] with a total of 7 1's. It happens and failing is MORE than enough punishment... :P
Some specific feats will change this situation, either improving a normal failure (allowing you to deal minimum damage even on a failure) or allowing some sort of reaction keyed to an adversary's critical failure.
So far this seems to be all crit fails are is triggers for other abilities: That, I'm fine with in theory as long as those abilities aren't too common. If everyone has one, it will get complicated and even more so if they have multiple ones. 'Oh you crit failed? ok those 3 get to do this and that boss guy, he gets to do this, this and this... Yeah, I KNOW you ambushed them but you 'fumbled' the first attack and now they all get to activate their abilities...'
|
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. :)
Nope, I have been playing D&D since late first edition & basic. I remember role-master and have little love for that system.
All that I ask is that you read what I have written and judge it by its own merits. I am not asking you to bring your personal baggage from past games/systems into it. Stating that me wanting critical failures (fumbles) in the system and an option for a crit chance is akin to a fighter falling on his sword by rolling a 1 is unfair and disingenuous. Debate the pro's and con's of my post with what I have written. That's all I ask and I only see it as being fair. Thank you
|
|
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.Hey! What've you got against English professors??? <g>
Seriously, whatever we may think individually about fumbles, fumble tables, fumble decks and critical failures, I think it's obvious that the guys at Paizo are going to give their new system a serious spin with the upcoming playtest, and no amount of angst is going to stop them.
This said, what do we know?
- In most cases, a critical failure during combat is the same as a normal failure (you miss, deal zero damage from your attack).
- Some specific feats will change this situation, either improving a normal failure (allowing you to deal minimum damage even on a failure) or allowing some sort of reaction keyed to an adversary's critical failure.This seems far less catastrophic than any fumble deck or table, and we will soon have the opportunity to test it out and ensure that it doesn't transform combat into "The Three Stooges come to Golarion".
The same thing I have against people who claim that Cleave is not a correct feat name since you are not chopping something in half by the definition of the word. The poster was not trying to debate the merits of my post. The poster was trying to derail it with snark by stating that the word fumble was incorrect because I used other scenarios besides poor use of hands to describe effects of a critical failure. It would be like me arguing with you that the Cleave feat is a failure because the word Cleave does not represent you cutting two separate targets. Its just an attempt to sidestep and derail a conversation.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I was trying to be helpful. But if you're going to use language that had a common meaning in terms of the game, and then not use that meaning and expect everyone to automatically understand you, then you have no one to blame except yourself when your audience doesn't understand.
Best of luck!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Well said. I think the idea is awful, unless we similarly propose that all spells have attack rolls, and critically failing one turns the spell on the caster, maximized without possibility of a save. Or no, actually, that would be terrible, too. So let's just not have them at all, because there's no way they add to the fun of the game.
I second the idea that fumbling attack roll spells would mean much. In my personal experience it is very rare for a spellcaster to use attack roll spells since most spell schools don't have any, with none of the iconic spells using attack rolls and divine casters having basically no way to fumble since 90% of the time they are using buffs which use no rolls whatsoever.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Critical fumbles slow combat, already the slowest aspect of any game, they disproportionately punish martials, already the weakest character type in the game, they increase the chances of an ignominious death, something many if not most players find unsatisfying and unfun. I'm not seeing much virtue in their inclusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Critical fumbles slow combat, already the slowest aspect of any game, they disproportionately punish martials, already the weakest character type in the game, they increase the chances of an ignominious death, something many if not most players find unsatisfying and unfun. I'm not seeing much virtue in their inclusion.
Not to mention that in general, the higher level you get the more often you attack and cast spells, which means more experienced heroes fumble more often.
I'm just gonna repeat I;m not pushing for the fumble rules I'm just a stickler for details. Technically with the new +10 or -10 it will be considerably less likely for someone to crit fumble a simple skill check at higher levels only difficult checks for their level would really risk it. So critically fumbling should be the same across all 20 levels with harder actions making you more likely to crit fail.
Once again still aginst crit fumbles. and if crit fumbles were going to be a thing the downside would need to be slight.
Why is everyone complaining about critical fumbles when it has been explicitly explained that a critical failure in combat has no special effect beyond a normal failure - it's just a miss for no damage.
In fact the only difference between a critical failure and a normal failure in combat that has been revealed concerns specific feats. There is a fighter feat allowing a normal failure to do minimum damage, while a critical failure is still a miss for no damage. And there is a paladin feat, IIRC called Retributing Strike, which allows a reaction against adversaries who make a critical failure in combat. There are probably a few other special feats and monster abilities which also key off of critical failures.
So the OP and other fumble worriers should still their frantic hearts, there is no fumble table or deck on the horizon for PF2.0.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is everyone complaining about critical fumbles when it has been explicitly explained that a critical failure in combat has no special effect beyond a normal failure - it's just a miss for no damage.
Because the OP is arguing in favor of critical fumbles being added to the core rules as a necessary part of the game. I'd urge you to go back and actually read the OP... but everything you needed to know to answer your condescending rhetorical question was actually included in the thread title.
This may or may not be a horrible troll thread... but if it is, when has a horrible troll thread ever been improved by the addition of more horrible trolls?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you please provide information where it reveals that fighters get more attacks as they go up in levels? I've missed that.
We have already seen feats that change action economy (sudden charge has already been mentioned). It is not unreasonable to infer that at higher levels there will be even more ways to combine actions to allow more attack in the same circumstances.
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
Reminds me of the DCC RPG. Very punishing system for casters as they can trigger crazy wild effects for screwing up their arcana checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 in 8000 seems pretty unlikely to me.
Physical dice are slightly more likely to produce the same result on a reroll than a different roll, unless you get fancy. It's still pretty unlikely to roll 3 1s in a row but more than 1/8000.
Computerised dice rollers may have hidden biases and those are hard to check.
Physical dice are slightly more likely to produce the same result on a reroll than a different roll, unless you get fancy.
That sounds... unlikely. At least with a d20. Something like a d4 or d6 is far easier to bias, since those don't roll as much. Are we talking a 5.001% chance here of getting the same number twice, or something more significant?
1 in 8000 seems pretty unlikely to me.Physical dice are slightly more likely to produce the same result on a reroll than a different roll, unless you get fancy. It's still pretty unlikely to roll 3 1s in a row but more than 1/8000.
Computerised dice rollers may have hidden biases and those are hard to check.
I know some online dice rollers that seems to get 'stuck in a rut' sometimes: times when it tends to skew high or low. There are times I wait to roll/post in a game if the trend has been bad.
Physical dice: I know I have a set of dice that always seems to roll better than average. A combo of minor imperfections in the die and your personal throwing method can easily shift the odds in your favor.
Computerised dice rollers may have hidden biases and those are hard to check.
You could use something like random.org. They use atmospheric radio noise to get truly random results.
|
My suggestion would be to include a "frustration" mechanic. Maybe everytime you crit fail, you go up one point in frustration adding a -1 to attack but a +1 to damage per point.
from what I can tell the new system is trying to step away from these statistical bonuses and lead more towards simplifies methods, but i think its a concept worth visiting.
Maybe use an action and roll a will save to "Purge" your frustration if you dont want the -1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds... unlikely. At least with a d20. Something like a d4 or d6 is far easier to bias, since those don't roll as much. Are we talking a 5.001% chance here of getting the same number twice, or something more significant?Physical dice are slightly more likely to produce the same result on a reroll than a different roll, unless you get fancy.
I'm not talking about biased dice. You're more likely to get a result from the a ring of results on the die which includes the number on top when you picked it up. Yes, you can get fancy to avoid this but the natural way to roll has this effect. From 16 2/3 % to ~20% on a d6, or from 10% to ~13% on a d10 by my tests. I haven't tried this with a d20.
|
|
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!
It actually makes perfect sense. If all you do is throw punches in rapid succession, not every single punch is going to be a telling blow. You have to learn to block, dodge, interrupt and counter blows as well. You never see trained professionals just throw punch after punch and all of them land as killing blows.
| 1 person 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!
It actually makes perfect sense. If all you do is throw punches in rapid succession, not every single punch is going to be a telling blow. You have to learn to block, dodge, interrupt and counter blows as well. You never see trained professionals just throw punch after punch and all of them land as killing blows.
Lets not talk about trained professionals unless we are them. Its the single most useless TTRPG discussion out there.
|
|
Critical fumbles slow combat, already the slowest aspect of any game, they disproportionately punish martials, already the weakest character type in the game, they increase the chances of an ignominious death, something many if not most players find unsatisfying and unfun. I'm not seeing much virtue in their inclusion.
How is a fumble where you lose one action slowing down the game? I think it would increase the game speed because less dice are being rolled and we don't have to wait for you to determine if you are going to take that third swing, hold your action or do something else with it.
It does not UNFAIRLY punish martial characters because martial characters are REWARDED with extra damage on a critical hit. Just like how blaster spells are being rewarded with extra damage on a critical fumble and NO damage on a critical success, martial characters should follow the same formula. Its really not that hard to understand.
|
|
Lets not talk about trained professionals unless we are them. Its the single most useless TTRPG discussion out there.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!
It actually makes perfect sense. If all you do is throw punches in rapid succession, not every single punch is going to be a telling blow. You have to learn to block, dodge, interrupt and counter blows as well. You never see trained professionals just throw punch after punch and all of them land as killing blows.
Thats a weak arguement. Anyone can watch a professional and draw observations from how they conduct themselves. I may not be an MMA fighter but I can draw a valid conclussion that they just don't stand still and throw roundhouse after roundhouse at each other untill someone falls
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Critical fumbles slow combat, already the slowest aspect of any game, they disproportionately punish martials, already the weakest character type in the game, they increase the chances of an ignominious death, something many if not most players find unsatisfying and unfun. I'm not seeing much virtue in their inclusion.How is a fumble where you lose one action slowing down the game? I think it would increase the game speed because less dice are being rolled and we don't have to wait for you to determine if you are going to take that third swing, hold your action or do something else with it.
It does not UNFAIRLY punish martial characters because martial characters are REWARDED with extra damage on a critical hit. Just like how blaster spells are being rewarded with extra damage on a critical fumble and NO damage on a critical success, martial characters should follow the same formula. Its really not that hard to understand.
Martials make more dice rolls than blasters, they will fumble more often. Blasters do more damage due to AOE, martials barring a change are incredibly weak at AOE even if they build to it. Martials tend to need to put themselves at risk to do their damage already, blasters can in general deal damage from far far away. Most players find fumble rules unfun, its really not that hard to understand.
|
|
Why is everyone complaining about critical fumbles when it has been explicitly explained that a critical failure in combat has no special effect beyond a normal failure - it's just a miss for no damage.Because the OP is arguing in favor of critical fumbles being added to the core rules as a necessary part of the game. I'd urge you to go back and actually read the OP... but everything you needed to know to answer your condescending rhetorical question was actually included in the thread title.
This may or may not be a horrible troll thread... but if it is, when has a horrible troll thread ever been improved by the addition of more horrible trolls?
I am in fact arguing for inclusion of critical fumbles because PF2 is centering game play based on four tiers of success. They are critical failure, failure, success and critical success. All rolls from just the tidbits the designers have thrown out, whether they are skill checks, spell saves or ability checks have this system. The only exception to this are combat rolls? Why? Because martials feel it is UNFAIR that they have a critical failure in making an attack but not when making skill checks or saves. I say that is complete garbage and needs to go. It is not a troll thread. Its an honest observation of the PF2 playtest based upon the small bit of information that has been presented so far.
|
|
Martials make more dice rolls than blasters, they will fumble more often. Blasters do more damage due to AOE, martials barring a change are incredibly weak at AOE even if they build to it. Martials tend to need to put themselves at risk to do their damage already, blasters can in general deal damage from far far away. Most players find fumble rules unfun, its really not that hard to understand.Critical fumbles slow combat, already the slowest aspect of any game, they disproportionately punish martials, already the weakest character type in the game, they increase the chances of an ignominious death, something many if not most players find unsatisfying and unfun. I'm not seeing much virtue in their inclusion.How is a fumble where you lose one action slowing down the game? I think it would increase the game speed because less dice are being rolled and we don't have to wait for you to determine if you are going to take that third swing, hold your action or do something else with it.
It does not UNFAIRLY punish martial characters because martial characters are REWARDED with extra damage on a critical hit. Just like how blaster spells are being rewarded with extra damage on a critical fumble and NO damage on a critical success, martial characters should follow the same formula. Its really not that hard to understand.
Than honestly, PF2 might not be for you because the four tiers of success will effect the vast majority of rolls in the game. So what your telling me is that you are fine with a critical failure while jumping across a pit but you will burn the system down with a critical failure because you rolled a 1 while swinging your sword?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martials make more dice rolls than blasters, they will fumble more often. Blasters do more damage due to AOE, martials barring a change are incredibly weak at AOE even if they build to it. Martials tend to need to put themselves at risk to do their damage already, blasters can in general deal damage from far far away. Most players find fumble rules unfun, its really not that hard to understand.Critical fumbles slow combat, already the slowest aspect of any game, they disproportionately punish martials, already the weakest character type in the game, they increase the chances of an ignominious death, something many if not most players find unsatisfying and unfun. I'm not seeing much virtue in their inclusion.How is a fumble where you lose one action slowing down the game? I think it would increase the game speed because less dice are being rolled and we don't have to wait for you to determine if you are going to take that third swing, hold your action or do something else with it.
It does not UNFAIRLY punish martial characters because martial characters are REWARDED with extra damage on a critical hit. Just like how blaster spells are being rewarded with extra damage on a critical fumble and NO damage on a critical success, martial characters should follow the same formula. Its really not that hard to understand.
Than honestly, PF2 might not be for you because the four tiers of success will effect the vast majority of rolls in the game. So what your telling me is that you are fine with a critical failure while jumping across a pit but you will burn the system down with a critical failure because you rolled a 1 while swinging your sword?
I doubt you know enough about PF2 or me to decide whether it is for me or not. Critical failures on melee attacks permitting some monsters to take a reaction works fine IMO and is just as likely as what you suggest. Will PF2 not be for you if thats how it turns out?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martials make more dice rolls than blasters, they will fumble more often. Blasters do more damage due to AOE, martials barring a change are incredibly weak at AOE even if they build to it. Martials tend to need to put themselves at risk to do their damage already, blasters can in general deal damage from far far away. Most players find fumble rules unfun, its really not that hard to understand.Critical fumbles slow combat, already the slowest aspect of any game, they disproportionately punish martials, already the weakest character type in the game, they increase the chances of an ignominious death, something many if not most players find unsatisfying and unfun. I'm not seeing much virtue in their inclusion.How is a fumble where you lose one action slowing down the game? I think it would increase the game speed because less dice are being rolled and we don't have to wait for you to determine if you are going to take that third swing, hold your action or do something else with it.
It does not UNFAIRLY punish martial characters because martial characters are REWARDED with extra damage on a critical hit. Just like how blaster spells are being rewarded with extra damage on a critical fumble and NO damage on a critical success, martial characters should follow the same formula. Its really not that hard to understand.
this, a hundred percent. the only way to interrupt a spellcaster is to ready a ranged attack with the intent to interrupt the caster and that is technically not guaranteed due to how easy it is to succeed at concentration checks.
blasters get their bonus damage by being able to damage a mob of opponents all at once, which most martial characters suck at even when specialized at the task, plus most blasters have a lot more utility than just blasting, the only thing a martial character can do is make attack rolls and skill checks. but fumbles unfairly punish olympian grade martial characters.
i am going to use a bit of foul language here to vent my stress at how fumble rules don't make sense,
how the f!!~ does a professional blademaster of superhuman skill that rivals a f!@~ing shonen protagonist have a chance of impaling his goddamned ally with a dropped sword every time he f@!!ing swings it at his opponent? even real world professional gunslingers know how to fire a gun into a melee combat without accidentally hitting their buddy. and that requires a lot more control than simply not tripping or dropping a sword in melee combat. even as an ametuer who has practiced with a pair of scimitars, as well as a glaive, i know fully well how to shorthaft a glaive for close quarters combat or strike a vital area with a sword in close quarters combat and deal some damage. these features are just part of f&$$ing basic training with the goddamned weapon.
and i'm not even a master swordsman, i just have proficiency in a handful of historical martial weapons i trained with, and i don't even f*&~ up 1 in 20 times, let alone 1 in 8,000 or or 1 in 160,000 swings even against mobile targets which i actually have fought before.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is "handringing"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is "handringing"?
That's what you're doing when you put on your rings in the morning, right?
What is "handringing"?That's what you're doing when you put on your rings in the morning, right?
Its what you do with a ring not meant for your ear. [or nose, belly button, ect]
or you can infer that the word was meant to be handwringing. ;)
| 3 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!
It actually makes perfect sense. If all you do is throw punches in rapid succession, not every single punch is going to be a telling blow. You have to learn to block, dodge, interrupt and counter blows as well. You never see trained professionals just throw punch after punch and all of them land as killing blows.
That is what the iterative penalty is there to reflect.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does not UNFAIRLY punish martial characters because martial characters are REWARDED with extra damage on a critical hit. Just like how blaster spells are being rewarded with extra damage on a critical fumble and NO damage on a critical success, martial characters should follow the same formula. Its really not that hard to understand.
I'd just like to point out that in the previewed rules casters are already at an advantage.
Martials:
-Critical success: double damage
-Success: normal damage
-Failure: no damage
-Critical failure: no damage.
Casters (with blasts) have it reversed because it's not an attack roll but a saving throw, so:
-Critical failure: double damage
-Failure: normal damage
-Success: half damage
-Critical success: no damage.
Why would you want to punish martials further? If you introduce a rule that a critical success on a saving throw reflects the spell on the caster, than sure, but as it stands... no.
We don't know much about how hardness or item hp works yet, but the closest thing I could think of to make a mechanic like this somewhat interesting and not devastating for PCs, is if a critical fail did something like 1 point of damage to a weapon. Thus a string of critical fails has a chance to ruin a blade, or poor maintenance on enemies weapons might factor in as well, but it would not be one failed critical and something terrible happens.
Since we already know that shields take damage over the course of a campaign, it seems like soldier-types are going to need to have the skills to repair damaged gear anyway and some mechanic on the character sheet is going to have to be present for keeping track of your shield's hp, so it makes sense it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to track weapons as well.
1 in 8000 seems pretty unlikely to me.Physical dice are slightly more likely to produce the same result on a reroll than a different roll, unless you get fancy. It's still pretty unlikely to roll 3 1s in a row but more than 1/8000.
Computerised dice rollers may have hidden biases and those are hard to check.
I know some online dice rollers that seems to get 'stuck in a rut' sometimes: times when it tends to skew high or low. There are times I wait to roll/post in a game if the trend has been bad.
Physical dice: I know I have a set of dice that always seems to roll better than average. A combo of minor imperfections in the die and your personal throwing method can easily shift the odds in your favor.
I like the game science dice myself. They seem pretty random for all its ups and downs. My current die that is being punished is my d20 with a d20 in it. If any of my dice were going to roll 3 1's in a roll it would be that one.
I like the game science dice myself. They seem pretty random for all its ups and downs. My current die that is being punished is my d20 with a d20 in it. If any of my dice were going to roll 3 1's in a roll it would be that one.
They are pretty good. I'm notorious in my group for rolling badly. I wasn't sure how much of it was bad dice and how much was confirmation bias. So I went and rolled all of my D20s 1000 times each, recorded all the results and performed a Chi Square test on them to check randomness (I still have a spreadsheet of all of the D20s I own.). Ten of the 18 dice I have failed the test, most pretty badly. They are currently separated from my others, maybe I'll play with weighting some of them or something just for the hell of it one of these days. My two Game Science D20s are two of the eight that passed.
After that I've gotten a bit crazy about precision milled dice. Milling gives much better weight distribution and size regularity. Casino dice are milled for this reason. Aluminum dice are lovely, and they feel wonderful in the hand. They have enough weight to feel substantial, but are light enough that they shouldn't ding up the table unless it's particularly soft, steel ones will probably damage the table and the supper cool tungsten ones /will/ damage your table. The three I've got all pass the test just fine. I got mine from Kickstarter campaigns, sadly none of them seem to be being sold as individual D20s these days. Two of the D20s (and a bonus D12) are from this campaign by Hal Zucati and are quite nice. He dose sell some aluminum sets, but they're kind of expensive. He has a much cheaper plastic set that I'm tempted to give a try and see how they stack up to Game Science dice (PF2 sounds like it might use more dice at once, so that's my thin excuse for lusting after more dice). He also seems to do new kickstarter campaigns fairly often (the most amusing was for enormous aluminum dice), so might be good to look for those. Got a great deal with the 2 d20s and an anodized D12 for $30. The other is a beautiful floating face die. It's a thing of beauty, but does have a tendency to land on edge occasionally. The creater does have an Etsy shop that has some, but again more expensive and mostly as full sets or D6s.
I still roll like crap sometimes. But I think it's not as bad as it used to be. Plus aluminum dice are just so cool.
[/tangent]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcasters VS Martials have always been a hot topic in D&D aswell, and the fumble rules is just yet another part of a larger discussion. I have seen some weird suggestions to add realism or simulation into the game like maintainance or chances of failure and in almost all of them just stacks to the spellcasters advantage.
The most useful spells in the Spellcasters arsenal is autohits and some of them does not even require a save. Like the fireball, even despite being a save its also on one of the lesser saves (reflex) and even then its for half damage. Only classes with evasion have much of a benefit.
On the note of actions: Action loss is always going to be devestating, even if PF2 is increasing the actions it actually does not make it less devestating to lose actions but more so as everyone else around you is going to utilize all of theirs. Being unable to use actions in D&D in general is considered a major debuff (Daze, Paralyze, Slowed, Facinated, Stunned, etc.).
So the fumble rules to me beyond the automatic miss even if your bonus would allow you to hit, is just a roulette of which random debuff i am going to get today. "Lose a action" Welp, here we get dazed for no reason. Missing is enough of a punishment in itself, why do we argue to add salt to a wound?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually don't think we even need a '1' to be an auto-fumble. I'd just make it happen when you miss by 10. I think the suggested rules, where only a creature that spends a feat can capitalize on a fumble, is the way to go. If capitalizing on a fumble is going to happen as rarely as it seems, the effect should be pretty good, too.
Hmm action lose I wonder if we can look at it in stages since that seems to be the way tings are moving so step 1 1 action step 2 2 etc till your complelty unable to do anything.
|
|
I doubt you know enough about PF2 or me to decide whether it is for me or not. Critical failures on melee attacks permitting some monsters to take a reaction works fine IMO and is just as likely as what you suggest. Will PF2 not...Martials make more dice rolls than blasters, they will fumble more often. Blasters do more damage due to AOE, martials barring a change are incredibly weak at AOE even if they build to it. Martials tend to need to put themselves at risk to do their damage already, blasters can in general deal damage from far far away. Most players find fumble rules unfun, its really not that hard to understand.Critical fumbles slow combat, already the slowest aspect of any game, they disproportionately punish martials, already the weakest character type in the game, they increase the chances of an ignominious death, something many if not most players find unsatisfying and unfun. I'm not seeing much virtue in their inclusion.How is a fumble where you lose one action slowing down the game? I think it would increase the game speed because less dice are being rolled and we don't have to wait for you to determine if you are going to take that third swing, hold your action or do something else with it.
It does not UNFAIRLY punish martial characters because martial characters are REWARDED with extra damage on a critical hit. Just like how blaster spells are being rewarded with extra damage on a critical fumble and NO damage on a critical success, martial characters should follow the same formula. Its really not that hard to understand.
Than honestly, PF2 might not be for you because the four tiers of success will effect the vast majority of rolls in the game. So what your telling me is that you are fine with a critical failure while jumping across a pit but you will burn the system down with a critical failure because you rolled a 1 while swinging your sword?
I don't know enough about Pathfinder 2 to make final judgement call but I would love if martials were subjected to critical failures like every one else in combat. I don't think that they need a special ability from a monster to do so, especially since no damage on a critical save is available to everyone for free and no damage on a normal save is available to rogues on a certain level. But I would happy to accept SOMETHING for martials critical failures.
By the way you never responded to my earlier post. Is it unfair to have critical failure for jumping across a pit but not have a critical failure to swinging your sword?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No because there's a huge difference in practice between jumping a pit and swinging a sword.
|
|
Martials make more dice rolls than blasters, they will fumble more often. Blasters do more damage due to AOE, martials barring a change are incredibly weak at AOE even if they build to it. Martials tend to need to put themselves at risk to do their damage already, blasters can in general deal damage from far far away. Most players find fumble rules unfun, its really not that hard to understand.Critical fumbles slow combat, already the slowest aspect of any game, they disproportionately punish martials, already the weakest character type in the game, they increase the chances of an ignominious death, something many if not most players find unsatisfying and unfun. I'm not seeing much virtue in their inclusion.How is a fumble where you lose one action slowing down the game? I think it would increase the game speed because less dice are being rolled and we don't have to wait for you to determine if you are going to take that third swing, hold your action or do something else with it.
It does not UNFAIRLY punish martial characters because martial characters are REWARDED with extra damage on a critical hit. Just like how blaster spells are being rewarded with extra damage on a critical fumble and NO damage on a critical success, martial characters should follow the same formula. Its really not that hard to understand.
this, a hundred percent. the only way to interrupt a spellcaster is to ready a ranged attack with the intent to interrupt the caster and that is technically not guaranteed due to how easy it is to succeed at concentration checks.
blasters get their bonus damage by being able to damage a mob of opponents all at once, which most martial characters suck at even when specialized at the task, plus most blasters have a lot more utility than just blasting, the only thing a martial character can do is make attack rolls and skill checks. but fumbles unfairly punish olympian grade martial
...
I disagree that your assertion of a martial class is equal to an olympian at any level below 9th. Even 9th level is pushing it. An olympian would be like 15th level and above character.
Secondly, no matter how good you are, bad stuff happens. Ever hear of death from friendly fire? Ever read about innocents being killed in a drive by shooting when they were never an intended target of the assailant? This stuff happens all the time.Third, I never said that a critical failure should result in a martial harming her allies. NO, I don't think that martials are clueless clutzes that can barely draw their blade without cutting off their own hand. They should be on the same four tier success program as everyone else. My originnal post theorized a loss of one action for 1 round only or a chance to have an enemy hit them for critical damage on a retaliation hit in the round. Some people like to gamble, others don't, so I felt it was a fair option. Critical failure on rolling a 1 DOES NOT come up often at all. If you are rolling so many "1's " that this causes a major issue for you then maybe you need to buy some new dice.
|
|
No because there's a huge difference in practice between jumping a pit and swinging a sword.
I call baloney on your assessment. Swinging a sword in combat is MUCH more stressfull than jumping a pit. Someone is trying to kill you! Combat is the closest thing to true chaos. Plans never survive contact with the enemy and you constantly have to adjust tactics. There is a far greater variable of things going wrong when fighting than doing something mundane like jumping, swimming or climbing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Call baloney all you want. How many tens or hundreds of thousands of rounds are fired for every incident of friendly fire? How do you manage that miniscule chance at a table without stopping combat and bogging it down.
|
|
It does not UNFAIRLY punish martial characters because martial characters are REWARDED with extra damage on a critical hit. Just like how blaster spells are being rewarded with extra damage on a critical fumble and NO damage on a critical success, martial characters should follow the same formula. Its really not that hard to understand.I'd just like to point out that in the previewed rules casters are already at an advantage.
Martials:
-Critical success: double damage
-Success: normal damage
-Failure: no damage
-Critical failure: no damage.Casters (with blasts) have it reversed because it's not an attack roll but a saving throw, so:
-Critical failure: double damage
-Failure: normal damage
-Success: half damage
-Critical success: no damage.Why would you want to punish martials further? If you introduce a rule that a critical success on a saving throw reflects the spell on the caster, than sure, but as it stands... no.
If cantrips worked that way you would have a point but from the spells preview they don't seem to. When I cast a fireball I spend a resource slot that I most likely won't get back. When I use a wand I have to spend resonance. When you swing a sword it costs you nothing, you can swing your sword next round and the round after for infinity unless your character is removed from combat. I don't get to cast fireball ad nausea therefore I get half damage on a save.
Let me put it to you this way. Would you say that if we were playing in a modern setting that if I threw a grenade at you in the open field and it blast area included you, you should suffer no damage if there is no cover between you and the blast? Fireball works on the same principal. Its not that hard to figure out.
|
|
Call baloney all you want. How many tens or hundreds of thousands of rounds are fired for every incident of friendly fire? How do you manage that miniscule chance at a table without stopping combat and bogging it down.
Real easy. "Ryan, I see you rolled a 1 on a D20. That is a critical failure. You lose one action. Ok, Bob what are you doing this round?"
Next
Call baloney all you want. How many tens or hundreds of thousands of rounds are fired for every incident of friendly fire? How do you manage that miniscule chance at a table without stopping combat and bogging it down.
I'm not for critical fails but I will say that the game isn't a perfect simulation some things are meant to be more symbolic. So you probably are not going to perfectly recreate the 1 in 38 thousand or whatever that the chance for an actual critical fail might be. but if its very unlikely its probably close enough. ofcourse my thought if you want to keep critical fails is just make the fails be very slight disadvantages. like a -2 here or their.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that your assertion of a martial class is equal to an olympian at any level below 9th. Even 9th level is pushing it. An olympian would be like 15th level and above character.
I'm not sure where this comes from, and I know the d20 makes it kind of wonky, but in PF1 a 1st level character with an 18, skill focus, and a point in a class skill can break the world record long jump with a '19'. At 9th level, breaking the world record becomes routine.