| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My desire is logical and consistent with the success tiers of the game. Your desire is based purely on emotion.
Wow.
|
What if his armor drops banana peels when it's struck?That'd be one of those reactions I talked about: I don't mind if an ability can exploit a critical failure, I just disagree with the fumble without such a reaction. I wouldn't expect it to shoot peels 200' to hit an archer though.
What if it is made of mirrored metal like a highly polished bronze or silver that causes the sunlight to reflect brightly into the attackers eyes?Again, as a reaction SURE! it's going to take a special feat/training ect for it to happen. It's not something that 'just happens' if you crit fail: the darkened cavern doesn't suddenly brighten just because you rolled badly.
Or maybe he is just such an effective fighter that he rope a dopes attackers into making a critical mistake by frustrating them and making them grow careless.I see a pattern... Sounds like another of those reaction things...
All of these things are plausible ( the bananas are a bit silly but then again so is the bag of tricks)Yes, plausible AS REACTIONS and not as the average thing that happens normally in combat.
What are you talking about? I am wearing highly polished armor of unusual material that shines brightly in the sun. You have to look at me as you aim your arrow. The bright light causes you to have to shield your eyes after making a shot. Its not that hard to understand. The armor isn't reflecting light as a reaction. Its doing that because of the conditions.
Maybe you annoyed a powerful trickster God like Loki. Maybe he sends a ghost of me to whisper "Martials suck!" just as you are about to slash the Ogre with your great sword. You turn your head for a brief moment and in a fit of anger scream out "Talek! I'll slay you!" The ogre's look of fear turns to joy as the blade passes within inches of his chest and you are left open and exposed since your sword arc went wide and your body is left exposed . Before you can raise your guard the monster brains your head with a massive smash for critical damage!I could easily see that happening with a critical fumble and I made that up off of the top of my head.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are you talking about? I am wearing highly polished armor of unusual material that shines brightly in the sun. You have to look at me as you aim your arrow. The bright light causes you to have to shield your eyes after making a shot. Its not that hard to understand. The armor isn't reflecting light as a reaction. Its doing that because of the conditions.
It reflects 360 degrees hundreds of feet with a strong enough entensity to blind... Yeah, that's hard to buy. Even I I buy THAT, it affects me is I reposition myself at an angle that isn't blinding? If it ISN'T a reaction, it's not something that happens often enough to cover crit failures.
Maybe you annoyed a powerful trickster God like Loki. Maybe he sends a ghost of me to whisper "Martials suck!" just as you are about to slash the Ogre with your great sword. You turn your head for a brief moment and in a fit of anger scream out "Talek! I'll slay you!" The ogre's look of fear turns to joy as the blade passes within inches of his chest and you are left open and exposed since your sword arc went wide and your body is left exposed . Before you can raise your guard the monster brains your head with a massive smash for critical damage!
I could easily see that happening with a critical fumble and I made that up off of the top of my head.
Sigh... No, just no... it ALREADY is old and tired just from your examples... Am I going to get hit by wandering birds [underwater], step in gopher holes [inside], and other such nonsense... No, just no... it all makes as much sense as the moon men taking a break from moving the moon across the sky to knock my weapon out of my hand because it's tuesday...
missing an attack isn't the same as losing an action 5 percent of the time. i wouldn't want spellcasters to waste a spell slot 5 percent of the time either. fumbles for nobody. and before you say "casters have a limited amount of spells per day."
Spells ignore A Target's Armor, can be tailored to Target Lower Saving throws, Generally have the Capacity to Affect Several Targets at once, can be done at longer ranges, generally have effects more crippling than raw damage, can be tailored to the lowest resistance, and casters have more than enough spellpower to cast a meaningful spell every round of combat and still have enough utility spells to solve every issue out there.
a country having one or two nukes in thier arsenal doesn't change the devastation said country could do to a signifficant portion of the planet with merely a single nuke. if you look at the Stuff Moses did in the bible, those are all comparable to the power level of a 5th level wizard casting maybe 3rd level spells.
If you would be upset about a caster wasting a spell slot then how do you explain the reason for spell resistance still being a part of the game? Shouldn't it be sent to the scrap heap of game design since a failure wastes an action?
I also don't buy your arguement that spells can be tailored with precision so that they can overcome any weakness. If spellcasters all combined the flexibility of sorcerers for casting and the vast ability to know all spells as a cleric then you would have a valid point. However, since Vancian casting is still a thing so you have to memorize spells and you have to make choices. So you could have an enchanter being crippled when fighting undead and golems, fire wizards against devils, electrical weilders vs undead, etc. This is all hand waved away by the assumption that every caster is a wizard with a vast library or a cleric but this is not often the case.
even a Sorcerer or Oracle can simply take a different spell of a different level for each defense plus there are spells like most instaneous conjurations that ignore spell resistance. but i also dislike spell resistance because it was such a commonly misused mechanic that was mostly a feat tax or a spell slot tax to overcome.
Spell resistance for PCs is useless, and for NPCs, 2 feats turn it into a joke as does a 4th level swift action spell that lasts until the target dies. and even without that feat chain or that spell, spell resistance rarely affects your best spells because so many ways to increase your effective caster level for the spells most important to you.
and even if a spellcaster doesn't have a spell of the appropriate type prepared, they likely have a scroll or few of it or if you are a sontaneous caster, you can blow a third level slot to temporarily learn any spell you wish and change it with each casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blind loyalists, that is what the game has.LOL I'm FAR from that. I have plenty of issue with the status quo and am far from a yes man...
And yes, I would totally love a looney tunes vibe in my Pathfinder, the overflow of chaotic energies interfering with the natural flow of the world exists all over the place.I think pathfinder hit it's 'looney toons' limit with goblins... :P
As to the full plate argument, maybe the character is so well armored the archer has to try some unorthodox shot to hit him, and it ends up biting him in the rear?yeah... no. That explains the FIRST time... What about EVERY SINGLE TIME after that for EVERY other person on the ENTIRE planet? This is a constant of the universe type rule so an explanation must therefore work in the vast majority of situations: your example is the corner case, the exception not the rule.
Nothing makes sense about every single creature that EVER picked up a bow is required to perform exotic trick shots because the target is wearing plate vs no armor.
Just wanted to confirm she IS FAR from a blind loyalist. Like I virtually never see her arguing on paizo's side. now pessimist that one fits.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, you don't have to be a blind loyalist to realize that crit fumble rules are fuggin terrible
I've said it before I'm against them but if they were going to be a thing they would need to be really slight penalties.
Edit: oh and just to note I don't play that "use your unrelated post to reinforce my argument" game That's not how I roll.
"Give me the strength to split the world in two..."The worthiest will get sick of the struggle and cannibalize their siblings.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?
I ate all the rest.
And now I've gotta eat you.
"Give me the strength to split the world in two..."The worthiest will get sick of the struggle and cannibalize their siblings.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?I ate all the rest.
And now I've gotta eat you.
And say oh, Space master mother mother
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's talk about archery fumbles.
I have watched a few Olympic games, with top-tier athletes shooting their bows. I have probably seen something like a thousand arrow shots, and no one ever dropping their bow, shooting themselves or other bystanders.
Their 'fumble' means putting the arrow slightly off the bullseye, and scoring a 7 instead of a 9 or 10. That's the kind of thing that happens 5% of the time to extremely skilled archers, and some of them probably 'fumble' less often than that.
So, rolling an 1 is an auto-miss: makes sense. Anything worse than that, not much.
If you argue that the archers aren't in a stressful situation and they are shooting at a fixed target, you are partially right. There is stress, since they are competing for the most important award they have dedicated their life to. The target is indeed quite easy to hit, but the bullseye less so, and they are shooting in the third range increment (although their bows are exceptionally accurate). Regardless, they are hitting on a 2, so I'm sure that if they had trained for shooting at moving targets they would have very good at that, anyway.
I think if we wanted to do a more statistical analysis of crit misses we would need to study the SCA. That's got to be pretty close to the real thing (at least reasonably so) and a lot of those guys are well trained.
If we're talking sport competitions, what about the biathlon? An athlete skis up to the zone, does a five-shot full attack against targets around the same size as a 9-10 on an archery target, and continues skiing because the competition is measured by speed.
Biathletes are impressive.
What they do is not exactly a full attack, maybe, but still I have yet to see a gun blow up or one of them shooting someone in the public instead of the target. Sometimes they miss, that's all that's happening.
People who believe that critical fumble rules are somehow "realistic" should really avoid getting into knife fights.
I've actually stabbed myself - deep - in the thigh with a knife once. Then again, I'm a 1st level Commoner.
If we're talking sport competitions, what about the biathlon? An athlete skis up to the zone, does a five-shot full attack against targets around the same size as a 9-10 on an archery target, and continues skiing because the competition is measured by speed.Biathletes are impressive.
What they do is not exactly a full attack, maybe, but still I have yet to see a gun blow up or one of them shooting someone in the public instead of the target. Sometimes they miss, that's all that's happening.
Biathlon is especially interesting because breath and pulse control is critical to rifle accuracy, and they're switching constantly between going flat-out for the skiing portion, and having to collect themselves for the marksman portion.
On the other hand, they use .22LR rifles, which is just about the weakest cartridge you can get, and as such has near zero recoil in a large rifle. It'd be a lot more interesting if they went back to using high-powered service rifles.
|
|
What are you talking about? I am wearing highly polished armor of unusual material that shines brightly in the sun. You have to look at me as you aim your arrow. The bright light causes you to have to shield your eyes after making a shot. Its not that hard to understand. The armor isn't reflecting light as a reaction. Its doing that because of the conditions.It reflects 360 degrees hundreds of feet with a strong enough entensity to blind... Yeah, that's hard to buy. Even I I buy THAT, it affects me is I reposition myself at an angle that isn't blinding? If it ISN'T a reaction, it's not something that happens often enough to cover crit failures.
Sigh... No, just no... it ALREADY is old and tired just from your examples... Am I going to get hit by wandering birds [underwater], step in gopher holes [inside], and other such nonsense... No, just no... it all makes as much sense as the moon men taking a break from moving the moon across the sky to knock my weapon out of my hand because it's tuesday...Maybe you annoyed a powerful trickster God like Loki. Maybe he sends a ghost of me to whisper "Martials suck!" just as you are about to slash the Ogre with your great sword. You turn your head for a brief moment and in a fit of anger scream out "Talek! I'll slay you!" The ogre's look of fear turns to joy as the blade passes within inches of his chest and you are left open and exposed since your sword arc went wide and your body is left exposed . Before you can raise your guard the monster brains your head with a massive smash for critical damage!
I could easily see that happening with a critical fumble and I made that up off of the top of my head.
Right..Just because gods bother to answer your daily prayers, wormholes erupt from other dimensions threating the cosmos and giants creep forward from the mountains my examples are utterly preposterous...Umm..ok
|
|
even a Sorcerer or Oracle can simply take a different spell of a...missing an attack isn't the same as losing an action 5 percent of the time. i wouldn't want spellcasters to waste a spell slot 5 percent of the time either. fumbles for nobody. and before you say "casters have a limited amount of spells per day."
Spells ignore A Target's Armor, can be tailored to Target Lower Saving throws, Generally have the Capacity to Affect Several Targets at once, can be done at longer ranges, generally have effects more crippling than raw damage, can be tailored to the lowest resistance, and casters have more than enough spellpower to cast a meaningful spell every round of combat and still have enough utility spells to solve every issue out there.
a country having one or two nukes in thier arsenal doesn't change the devastation said country could do to a signifficant portion of the planet with merely a single nuke. if you look at the Stuff Moses did in the bible, those are all comparable to the power level of a 5th level wizard casting maybe 3rd level spells.
If you would be upset about a caster wasting a spell slot then how do you explain the reason for spell resistance still being a part of the game? Shouldn't it be sent to the scrap heap of game design since a failure wastes an action?
I also don't buy your arguement that spells can be tailored with precision so that they can overcome any weakness. If spellcasters all combined the flexibility of sorcerers for casting and the vast ability to know all spells as a cleric then you would have a valid point. However, since Vancian casting is still a thing so you have to memorize spells and you have to make choices. So you could have an enchanter being crippled when fighting undead and golems, fire wizards against devils, electrical weilders vs undead, etc. This is all hand waved away by the assumption that every caster is a wizard with a vast library or a cleric but this is not often the case.
That's a lame argument. Just like the reason they don't have weapon damage reduction based upon type any longer. Its dumb as an idea and I shouldn't have to double my spell selection at each level to compensate for the great reflex save, great will save, great fire resistance, great electrical resistance, etc. I should be able to make a thematic caster just like you should be able to make a thematic sword master. Its not that hard of a notion to understand.
|
|
Let's talk about archery fumbles.
I have watched a few Olympic games, with top-tier athletes shooting their bows. I have probably seen something like a thousand arrow shots, and no one ever dropping their bow, shooting themselves or other bystanders.
Their 'fumble' means putting the arrow slightly off the bullseye, and scoring a 7 instead of a 9 or 10. That's the kind of thing that happens 5% of the time to extremely skilled archers, and some of them probably 'fumble' less often than that.So, rolling an 1 is an auto-miss: makes sense. Anything worse than that, not much.
If you argue that the archers aren't in a stressful situation and they are shooting at a fixed target, you are partially right. There is stress, since they are competing for the most important award they have dedicated their life to. The target is indeed quite easy to hit, but the bullseye less so, and they are shooting in the third range increment (although their bows are exceptionally accurate). Regardless, they are hitting on a 2, so I'm sure that if they had trained for shooting at moving targets they would have very good at that, anyway.
You are comparing Olympic archery to the stress of combat? Really? Are you joking?
A fair comparison would be football, which by the way uses the term fumble quite often to describe what happens when a player carrying the football loses it before being ruled down. It can happen due to being hit by the defender, being stripped of the ball,and a multitude of other reasons. Quarterbacks do panic and make poor decisions when faced with a pass rush or a defense that has excellent coverage of receivers downfield. By your estimation, fumbles would never occur in football because that would be UNFAIR, nor would interceptions because the quarterback would always be accurate and he would either hit his target, causing a reception or miss the target, resulting in an incomplete pass. Fumbles happen with more frequency than the roll of a 1 in D20 games.
since when can you choose martials based purely on thematics without suffering? Have a theme based on a melee weapon? screwed when enemies fly. polearm user? step up. etc.
|
|
since when can you choose martials based purely on thematics without suffering? Have a theme based on a melee weapon? screwed when enemies fly. polearm user? step up. etc.
You drink a potion or activate a magic item to fly or previewed in Pathfinder notes take the feat that allows you to leap 30 feet in the air to attack an aerial opponent.. You use polearm feats that allow you to attack close up or you simply take a step back. When the demons as an outsider type who as a species are immune to swords attacks you, feel free to get back to me. Otherwise you are just attempting a straw man
swarms, characters that aren't supposed to like magic, enemies with high ac in general
EDIT:also by the logic of being worse or investing points into it dosen't count as a problem (I'd argue that a feat is worth more than a spell prepared) you can deal with sometimes doing less damage.
|
|
What are you talking about? I am wearing highly polished armor of unusual material that shines brightly in the sun. You have to look at me as you aim your arrow. The bright light causes you to have to shield your eyes after making a shot. Its not that hard to understand. The armor isn't reflecting light as a reaction. Its doing that because of the conditions.It reflects 360 degrees hundreds of feet with a strong enough entensity to blind... Yeah, that's hard to buy. Even I I buy THAT, it affects me is I reposition myself at an angle that isn't blinding? If it ISN'T a reaction, it's not something that happens often enough to cover crit failures.
Yes it is. Crit failures happen 5% of the time. You are telling me that its ok that blink spells, displacement spells, cloaks, displacer beats, fog clouds and others that have a chance to turn any attack, even a critical success into a miss are believable and acceptable but my thought of a martial character in armor that might supply a 5% chance to critical fail is absurd? Really? I think you just want to argue to argue.
|
|
swarms, characters that aren't supposed to like magic, enemies with high ac in general
EDIT:also by the logic of being worse or investing points into it dosen't count as a problem (I'd argue that a feat is worth more than a spell prepared) you can deal with sometimes doing less damage.
I will give you diminutive swarms, high ac is not a deterrent in any Pathfinder game I have played since martials easily hit most Armor Classes pretty quickly. A feat is worth far less than a mid to high level spell because you do use it as often as circumstances allow. If you take improved initiative for example, as long as you are in a combat situation it is always effective. The DM never says "Whoa there Conan. This is the 10th fight you have been in tonight. I am afraid that improved Initiative no longer applies to you. "
So you managed to find one creature. Let me give you some examples of mine that casters are gimped on. Dragons, fire/cloud/storm giants, demons, devils, undead, swarms (for mind effects), undead, ettins (mind effects), angels, certain elementals, drow, minotaurs (maze spells),golems, plant monsters (Immunity to all mind-affecting effects, charms, compulsions, morale effects ,patterns, phantasms, paralysis, poison, polymorph,sleep effects and stunning.) and Efreeti (fire). I am sure I can uncover far more monsters if I bothered to comb through the bestiaries. Its far more than just swarms, which certain casters get penalized with too
Also if you can use magic as a fighter and its not breaking your theme why can't your theme use wands or scrolls?
|
|
We already have critical failures. Nat 1s always miss.
You're going to have to justify why MORE than that should happen. So far, you have not.
My justification is that PF2 is going four degrees of failure to success for all rolls but combat. I have not heard a honest to goodness reason beyond "It would be so unfair!" You need to give me a reason why its such a true hindrance to combat rolls. Nothing anyone has said here leads me to believe otherwise.
If they take critical successes away from saving throws (especialy the evasion sucess on a critical save. Then fine, I will stop harping on needing a critical failure in combat to balance that out. However, I doubt that is happening anytime soon so I want the balance of a crit failure to balance a crit success. Just like it happens for spell casters.
|
|
Also if you can use magic as a fighter and its not breaking your theme why can't your theme use wands or scrolls?
You have me confused. How does using a wand or a scroll make a difference?
If a creature is immune to fire its immune to fire. That would be like me saying. "What is the big deal? Its immune to swords. Pull out your mace. "
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We already have critical failures. Nat 1s always miss.
You're going to have to justify why MORE than that should happen. So far, you have not.
My justification is that PF2 is going four degrees of failure to success for all rolls but combat. I have not heard a honest to goodness reason beyond "It would be so unfair!" You need to give me a reason why its such a true hindrance to combat rolls. Nothing anyone has said here leads me to believe otherwise.
If they take critical successes away from saving throws (especialy the evasion sucess on a critical save. Then fine, I will stop harping on needing a critical failure in combat to balance that out. However, I doubt that is happening anytime soon so I want the balance of a crit failure to balance a crit success. Just like it happens for spell casters.
I don't need to give you anything, because I already see the pointlessness of trying to change your mind. You, being the proponent of going further, need to convince me. (Or rather, the PDT, since it is their decision.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We already have critical failures. Nat 1s always miss.
You're going to have to justify why MORE than that should happen. So far, you have not.
My justification is that PF2 is going four degrees of failure to success for all rolls but combat. I have not heard a honest to goodness reason beyond "It would be so unfair!" You need to give me a reason why its such a true hindrance to combat rolls. Nothing anyone has said here leads me to believe otherwise.
If they take critical successes away from saving throws (especialy the evasion sucess on a critical save. Then fine, I will stop harping on needing a critical failure in combat to balance that out. However, I doubt that is happening anytime soon so I want the balance of a crit failure to balance a crit success. Just like it happens for spell casters.
Not every roll uses all four degrees of success. On some rolls, a crit success isn't any better than a success. On others, a crit fail isn't worse than a failure. Attack rolls are not the only rolls that is true of. That is the case for many skills and certain spells as well.
Given that, you need to provide a good reason that adding a constant crit fumble chance to attacks would make the game more fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a core rule? Nah. As a curse, oh yeah. ;)
Also if you can use magic as a fighter and its not breaking your theme why can't your theme use wands or scrolls?You have me confused. How does using a wand or a scroll make a difference?
If a creature is immune to fire its immune to fire. That would be like me saying. "What is the big deal? Its immune to swords. Pull out your mace. "
your confused because you ignored "fighter that dosen't like using magic" as a suggestion I gave for a theme that isn't well supported. if you're supposed to be a knight that doesn't like dealing with foul sorcery you can't use potions but since you ignored that I assumed that potions and scrolls don't count as spoiling a theme for you.
Also if you can use magic as a fighter and its not breaking your theme why can't your theme use wands or scrolls?You have me confused. How does using a wand or a scroll make a difference?
If a creature is immune to fire its immune to fire. That would be like me saying. "What is the big deal? Its immune to swords. Pull out your mace. "
but against a creature with fire immunity. you can still use a spell that deals cold, acid or electricity damage and against a creature that is immune to mind effects, you can still use glitterdust to blind them or cast haste to make your fighter do it for you.
but casters don't play Artillery because there are far nastier effects a caster can inflict than damage and fireball is merely a vessel to deliver dazing spell.
and most fighters who specialize enough in one fighting style to inflict respectable damage do so by literally being useless at every other style, because strength and base attack are not enough at high levels, because a swordsman who switches to a mace literally no longer has thier sword feats while they carry the mace and might as well be a member of the warrior NPC class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a core rule? Nah. As a curse, oh yeah. ;)
A curse that makes your critical misses extra nasty sounds awesome actually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
my examples are utterly preposterous...Umm..ok
I'm glad we can agree. ;)
Really? I think you just want to argue to argue.
Shockingly enough I think this of you...
See the thing is you're equating spells, divine intervention, and dimensional tears in the fabric of space time to... mundane combat... Things that SHOULDN'T happen 5% of the time. An eclipse doesn't happen 5% of the time: same with earthquakes, meteor strikes, extradimensional invasions, random independent spell effects, ect...
So to put it bluntly, you have totally, 100% failed to convince me that your suggestion has the slightest bit of merit or would in ANY way improve the game in a way I'd enjoy.
are you sure it didn't fail to convince your 95%? or 99.999%? can you even truely know it didn't fail to convince you by only .0000358%?
are you sure it didn't fail to convince your 95%? or 99.999%? can you even truely know it didn't fail to convince you by only .0000358%?
As far as I'm concerned, there is always a 1 in 20 chance of being convinced of anything. I think we should therefore agree Graystone was convinced 5%.
He just didn't roll a 1.
I think gray is a she... I think so anyways. I'm mostly going by the avatar. So far I can't think of anything I've convinced her of but I haven't tried it 20 times yet so maybe...
I think gray is a she... I think so anyways. I'm mostly going by the avatar. So far I can't think of anything I've convinced her of but I haven't tried it 20 times yet so maybe...
Just wait until she rolls a 1. It'll be a critical fumble and she will not only be convinced, but will also have to stab an ally. Keep trying! There's always a 1 in 20 chance.
are you sure it didn't fail to convince your 95%? or 99.999%? can you even truely know it didn't fail to convince you by only .0000358%?
If anything could convince me that critical fumbles should be a thing, it WAS his attempt to convince me and seeing just how utterly it failed to do so: in fact I'm MORE against it that when I started out. Which IS kind of a paradox... ;)
are you sure it didn't fail to convince your 95%? or 99.999%? can you even truely know it didn't fail to convince you by only .0000358%?If anything could convince me that critical fumbles should be a thing, it WAS his attempt to convince me and seeing just how utterly it failed to do so: in fact I'm MORE against it that when I started out. Which IS kind of a paradox... ;)
So wait is it he or she? didn't even fill out your profile.
Roll for defence, no more static AC...
Hell, a lot of Rolls vs Static Numbers sub-systems could use some reworking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So wait is it he or she? didn't even fill out your profile.are you sure it didn't fail to convince your 95%? or 99.999%? can you even truely know it didn't fail to convince you by only .0000358%?If anything could convince me that critical fumbles should be a thing, it WAS his attempt to convince me and seeing just how utterly it failed to do so: in fact I'm MORE against it that when I started out. Which IS kind of a paradox... ;)
I hate when the avatars don't match the gender. I'm not hiding anything; obviously I'm an elephant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So wait is it he or she? didn't even fill out your profile.are you sure it didn't fail to convince your 95%? or 99.999%? can you even truely know it didn't fail to convince you by only .0000358%?If anything could convince me that critical fumbles should be a thing, it WAS his attempt to convince me and seeing just how utterly it failed to do so: in fact I'm MORE against it that when I started out. Which IS kind of a paradox... ;)
Whichever you prefer. For the purposes of the forums it doesn't matter and I'm not one to worry about the selection of pronouns. So whatever you're comfortable with. ;)
I'm going to go with she because that is what I have been using. That and your typing makes me think more feminine.
However TOZ use of they is very tempting as well.
You have me confused. How does using a wand or a scroll make a difference?
If a creature is immune to fire its immune to fire. That would be like me saying. "What is the big deal? Its immune to swords. Pull out your mace. ""It cannot be harmed by the hand of mortal man."
*gasp* "You don't mean... "
"Yes, my daughter. He's going to have to use his feet."
THRUD LIVES!
|
|
my examples are utterly preposterous...Umm..okI'm glad we can agree. ;)
Really? I think you just want to argue to argue.Shockingly enough I think this of you...
See the thing is you're equating spells, divine intervention, and dimensional tears in the fabric of space time to... mundane combat... Things that SHOULDN'T happen 5% of the time. An eclipse doesn't happen 5% of the time: same with earthquakes, meteor strikes, extradimensional invasions, random independent spell effects, ect...
So to put it bluntly, you have totally, 100% failed to convince me that your suggestion has the slightest bit of merit or would in ANY way improve the game in a way I'd enjoy.
1) Sarcasm seems to be lost on you. Same with the idea of making a rule fair in every situation I guess
2) We are playing in a fantasy world where dragons shouldn't be able to fly due to the laws of physics and an arch lich can dramatically change the world by wishing it to be so. Where you can bring people back from the dead and take 100 points of damage from over ten sword hits and keep on swinging as if nothing happened to you? Yeah in a world like that I could see Hades saying to himself" Yeah that Graystone is full of hubris. He thinks martials can't fumble eh. Gonna have fun toying with him today." Guess what, like Hercules, you just made the a Greater God's short list of people he is going to make miserable for that day. I could very well see that happening often in a game world where magic and gods and the mysterious happen to adventurers on a daily basis.