|
Honestly missing your target is bad enough in the most of situations, having your enemy live another round is devestating enough considering a combat encounter normally last around 3 turns.
Then we could look at the standard fumbles like losing your weapon or hitting yourself. The case of losing your weapon lose your turn, next turn you have to spend action to pick it up again, same case with the fumbles that put you prone, both of these cause attacks of oppertunity. Then hitting yourself is basically giving the enemy a free hit at your expense.
Yay 5% chance that you will inflict the player debuffs that normally takes 2 turns to cause if used by an enemy! Fumble rules sure are fun guys, i mean look at all of this epic roleplay of me playing the role of a legendary fighter accidentally my magical sword into the aether.
No, you missing in a combat round is NOT devastating. If it is then the encounter is overpowering. Losing an action when you get three in a round is NOT devastating. If your agency is so dependent on hitting every single time in a combat than why bother making an attack roll? Why bother playing a martial? Why not just play a sorcerer with magic missile and reskin it as a martial since you cannot bear to miss on a single attack roll? This way we can reduce the monsters hit points and ignore the hit point bloat that has crept into every edition of the original game (Dungeons & Dragons) that birthed Pathfinder.
|
|
I disagree. Just because a nightmare has hooves that generate fire does not mean its whole body is immune to fire. Perhaps the hooves just are resistant due to the fact that heat is conducted there. Also, polar bears are resistant to extreme cold weather, however, I am sure there is a cold enough temperature where the polar bear's resistance to the cold can be overcome. I feel the same exact set of circumstances can apply to a nightmare.I'm just not hardline against immunity. I think immunities have a place. But they should be much less prevalent and restricted to creatures that actually heavily use the elements and status effects in question, or otherwise have a /really good/ justification for it. Such as oozes and swarms being immune to weapon crits and precision damage. Or a nightmare being immune to fire because it snorts fire and its hooves are on fire and its mane and tail are literal fire.
If it was just the hooves generating fire I'd actually agree with you. (And I do agree about the polar bear - resist is fine, doesn't need immunity.) But it also breathes fire, and its mane and tail are also made of fire, unless I'm now conflating with other media and the PF nightmare doesn't do these things. It's like an evil demonic horse-shaped fire elemental.
Immunity isn't a dirty word. It can be a valid design choice and be interesting. It just shouldn't be everywhere like in 3.x / PF1. It's fine as long as it is intuitive and makes sense, it's not fine if it's just being tacked on randomly to meet some CR-based ability quota.
Let me put the nightmare physiology in perspective for you. You have an intestinal tract that contains numerous dangerous bacteria that help your body to digest food and expel it from your system. You are NOT immune to this bacteria if they manage to appear in other areas of your body outside of the intestinal tract. Same goes with fire for the nightmare. The lungs, hooves and tail (more artistic license in my view) have a certain amount of heat resistance to them. If the heat generated is higher than the resistance rating the system fails completely. This makes sense to me because I sell lubricants and greases IRL that are rated to a certain temperature range. If that range is exceeded the lubricant breaks down and fails completely. The same would apply to the nightmare's physiology.
Immunity is a dirty word, especially to rogues. When the 3E rules launched a large amount of creatures had sneak attack immunity (undead, elementals, golems, oozes, plants, swarms, etc.) Rogue players cried and so this immunity was cut down considerably. You would feel different about immunities if they affected your martial characters far more often
|
|
No, its not the same because there is no difference between a failure and a critical failure unless you take a feat in the left column. There is a difference between a critical success and a regular success in the right column regardless of whether you have a feat or not (incidentally if you have a feat aka evasion, you get bumped one tier in the stages of success for each stage of succession). So no, it is not an apples to apples comparison at all.the more i read this the more i think there's a false dichotomy here.
Attack roll \ Save
20 or DC +10 Critical hit/double \ No damage
Success-dc+9 Normal damage \ Half damage
Failure dc -9 No damage/min w feat \ Full damage
1 or dc -10 No damage/potential react \ Double damagethere's no need to modify the system because of 4 tiers. As far as it seems saves and attack rolls have basically the same levels of success (except the half damage option is probably better than min damage)
So your stance is that because you already have to pay a feat tax for parity with saving throw based attacks, weapon attacks should be made even worse?
Sounds like a crap game.
I really don't consider your logic on what is a poor game or not. You can't even seem to handle a simple magic item like the ring of sustenance according to your other thread so I can see how you cannot handle the simple concept of a critical fumble. You just hate magic. Admit it. Its the first step in correcting your problem
|
|
So no, it is not an apples to apples comparison at all.Critical fumbles and critical hits are not equal quantities. They do not even the scales when placed against one another.
You are correct because critical failures won't scale nearly as well as critical successes because PF2 does not have bounded accuracy. So, you still get bonuses to attack rolls from your class, gear, proficiency, buffs, etc. If you are an average 5th level fighter in pathfinder assuming that there is a similar attack bonus scaling you will be between +12 to +15. You are telling me that DM's are gonna throw monsters that on average require you to hit AC 27 to AC 30 at this level to even make critical failures viable? I hardly doubt it. Most monsters will be in the AC range of 16 to 21. So, worst case scenario you critical fail on a range of rolling 1. Best case scenario you critical hit the monsters on a roll of 10+ on a D20. You are right! They don't scale evenly at all. You are far more likely to critically hit an AC of 16 in this game than critically fumble (55% critical hit chance with a +15 to hit vs 5% critical fumble chance by rolling a 1). This assumption seems natural since they told us that attack bonuses are not set by bounded accuracy and monster AC's of the skeletons and zombies in the playtest seemed to mimic the AC of skeletons and zombies in PF1
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a game. It is supposed to be fun. Most people do not find critical fumbles fun. Therefore, the onus is sorta on you to provide any evidence that they'd add something to the game that is worth making it less fun for most people.
You have yet to present anything resembling a convincing argument in this regard.
|
|
A 5% chance is NOT a huge deal. Its an incredibly small deal.If that's true then that also means that any feature that interact with it is ALSO not a huge deal and/or an incredibly small deal and is easily ignored... If it happen so little, why add a new subsystem to punish people with it?
Secondly, it isn't 5%. It's also miss by 10 too so the percentage rises as AC does.
Secondly, I don't agree with you as to why fumbles increase with AC, especially with ranged targets. It JUST plain doesn't make sense: no matter HOW many times you state your opinion, it continues to offer no logical reason for it. Repetition if the same point isn't very helpful.
As you first idea is a bust, maybe try to figure out another perspective or maybe stop trying to convince others that your logic overrides theirs.
As long as the attack bonuses scale similar for fighters in PF1 to PF2 there is no issue. If fighters attack bonuses scaled like D&D 5E then you would have a legitimate point.
Why are you so afraid of an extremely minimal risk? I mean how you would even become an adventurer at all escapes me. The reason for adding it is that its added to the whole system as a cornerstone of success rule and they are designing feats around this system to help enhance and mitigate these degrees of success. It makes no sense to have this system at all if it only exists to make rulings on skill checks and saves. Why have a degree of success or failure in those areas then? What does it matter if you picked the lock or picked it really well? Does a trap only go off on a critical failure or a failure. Its added complexity and that complexity needs to be there in the heart of the game which is combat
|
|
This is a game. It is supposed to be fun. Most people do not find critical fumbles fun. Therefore, the onus is sorta on you to provide any evidence that they'd add something to the game that is worth making it less fun for most people.
You have yet to present anything resembling a convincing argument in this regard.
How does the four degrees of success make anything more fun? What does it matter if you succeed in picking a lock or critically succeed in picking a lock? How is it more fun if you critically fail at picking the lock and ruin it? If you can give me a concrete reason why this is important in other areas of the game but NOT combat then you can convince me.
The game is not always about being on easy mode. There should be a balance, a ying/yang to every roll made. Stop coddling martials. They need to grow up and adventure in the game world just like everyone else.
|
|
Where are you sourcing these claims? Because yes I do expect there to be enemies with 27 to 30 AC at that level.
I am sourcing these claims by looking at monsters from the bestiary. Mummy CR5 AC20, nightmare CR5 AC 19, Ogre CR3 AC17, minotaur CR 4 AC 14, Hellhound CR3 AC 16, Gargoyle CR 4 AC 16
By comparison a stone golem is a CR 11 and has an AC of 27. Cloud Giant is a CR 13 and has AC 25, an effreet is CR 8 and has AC21. The Pit Fiend is CR 20 and has AC 38. None of these monsters seem like their AC is outta whack for a martial character to hit if she is within a 1-4 level range of these monsters. (Wizards on the other hand, good luck. That's the reason touch AC is in the game. If you are a wizard and attack it with your staff or sword, you are toast. Best to run and live to fight another day.)
|
|
The game will survive if we have to jump 20 times before rolling a dice. The question is if it will be more fun.Why don't you just take a deep breathe and relax Dracoknight? Asking martials to follow the same four degrees of success is not cementing caster supremacy. The game will survive if you critical fail an attack roll.How about you stick that to your own games then Talek & Luna? The general dislike for the fumbles seems to outweight those who likes it, and its to a far minority to the point you might be better off just houseruling it rather than making it a general rule.
Martials in general is already F'd by the power balance wastly favoring casters to the point they can easily be replaced by either summons or Gishes. You dont see any martial end a encounter with a single action, unless its a single enemy standing wide open, and the Barbarian runs in and crit it with his battleaxe. To drag the favor into the martials shall we then also enforce the wild magic rules onto every caster? We might aswell play 40k at this point.
Maybe not if you have health conditions. But on the plus side you will be in better shape if you do. Pathfinder, better than the gym for creating lower body strength! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you so afraid of an extremely minimal risk?
You haven't answered me why it's important is it truly IS such a minimal risk. What does it add to the game? As far as I can see, it's not fun.
I mean how you would even become an adventurer at all escapes me.
I have no idea what the point of this is.
The reason for adding it is that its added to the whole system as a cornerstone of success rule and they are designing feats around this system to help enhance and mitigate these degrees of success.
Yes, they created a system and HAVE something that happens when an attack critical fails: reactions that trigger. There is no NEED for fumbles. None. At all.
It makes no sense to have this system at all if it only exists to make rulings on skill checks and saves. Why have a degree of success or failure in those areas then? What does it matter if you picked the lock or picked it really well? Does a trap only go off on a critical failure or a failure. Its added complexity and that complexity needs to be there in the heart of the game which is combat
NOT every spell/skill has a specific critical failure.
Not all effects list all four degrees of success. If an effect doesn't list a critical success entry, that means there is normally no special effect for critically succeeding, so you just use the result for a success. Similarly, if an effect doesn't list a critical failure entry, there is normally no special effect for critically failing, so you just use the result for a failure.
What you are trying to to is FORCE everything to have a crit failure line and that isn't how they've said the game works.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does the four degrees of success make anything more fun?
Oh, a host of ways, some of which I'll go into below. Having them on Saves is particularly important given that it's the way they're fixing Save or Lose effects, something the game has needed for many years.
What does it matter if you succeed in picking a lock or critically succeed in picking a lock? How is it more fun if you critically fail at picking the lock and ruin it?
Because it introduces an element of risk into what was otherwise a boring and non-interactive process. Which it totally does. Also because it standardizes the ability to succeed critically on skills, which was an imprecise and overly variable factor in PF1.
It's also worth noting that not all skills will have such critical failure options, and that that's okay. Critical failures are a thing in the new system, but hardly an absolutely universal one.
If you can give me a concrete reason why this is important in other areas of the game but NOT combat then you can convince me.
That's simple: Combat is already risky. There's already a 'bad luck screws you' mechanic in the form of enemies getting a critical hit on you. By adding another when you fumble you're basically doubling the number of such events, and that feels punitive and unpleasant.
Especially since you're tying this new failure to what you do and not what the enemy does which, in a fight unlike a static challenge, tends to make the PCs feel incompetent. Feeling incompetent sucks.
The game is not always about being on easy mode. There should be a balance, a ying/yang to every roll made. Stop coddling martials. They need to grow up and adventure in the game world just like everyone else.
Martials have always been the weakest option in Pathfinder overshadowed by casters in every way. Playing them has always been hard mode, and making that more true is not fun. Telling them to 'suck it up' comes off as a giant dick move and will not win you friends or influence people to your cause.
Nor does adding new penalties to them make them 'like everyone else'. Spell casters don't have to worry about critically failing their spell casting roll either, and suffer no penalties beyond their spell not working when someone critically succeeds on a Save.
|
|
I am sourcing these claims by looking at monsters from the bestiary. Mummy CR5 AC20, nightmare CR5 AC 19, Ogre CR3 AC17, minotaur CR 4 AC 14, Hellhound CR3 AC 16, Gargoyle CR 4 AC 16
Uh...you do know they're completely changing the math assumptions in PF2, right?
I mean, they're not going the bounded accuracy route, but that in no way means a single one of those numbers will be the same (or even similar) to those in PF1. Or that attack bonuses will be the same.
We already know that the Save Math is completely different (a max Wis Cleric with no investment otherwise will wind up with Save DCs of around 40 at 20th level, and everyone adds their level on all Saves).
Why in the world would you assume AC and Attack Bonus would be the same?
Its really so me as a DM can laugh evily at my players! its for DM fun!
*evil laugh*
(I will say failure is a part of any game so when you guys start talking about taking regular misses away we are gonna fight. Oh a fighter is to well trained to ever miss blah blah blah Just saying don't take it any further.)
Oh. My. Gawds.
Please take a chill pill on the bickering before some unfortunate moderator has to step in and ban hammer some folks.
I get the fiery passion. Play testing does not even begin for another 3 months and some change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Minimal risk" is an argument? I mean as if getting into combat isnt bad enough already? If combat is not a risk then the encounters you are meeting then i would argue your encounters are too easy to the point you feel to add even another step of risk. Also Talek & Luna: even if its PF1 or PF2 the fumbles i am accustomed to make you lose the entire turn, not merely an action. The PF2 action system does not change this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stop coddling martials. They need to grow up and adventure in the game world just like everyone else.
Are we even talking about the same game at this point?
Would be an interesting way to do spell reflection however. Crit save Enjoy your own fireball!
Wait, you mean the target can't grab the spell and hurl it back on a critical success, this will not stand!Ah, groovy, just degrees for saves.Yup. Which is why I also mentioned nothing bad happening to the caster when someone critically succeeded on a Save. :)
You know what, if the spell is described as creating a physical object that is the source of the attack, it may be an interesting idea. Example: "A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point". So my super-dexterous, lightning reflexes rogue delicately catches the bead so it doesn't explode right away... and throws it back. Sweet!
You know what, if the spell is described as creating a physical object that is the source of the attack, it may be an interesting idea. Example: "A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point". So my super-dexterous, lightning reflexes rogue delicately catches the bead so it doesn't explode right away... and throws it back. Sweet!
Hey, it sounds like stuff such as this could be in, deflecting spells with your shield back at the caster.
I'm jazzed for shields getting more action.
Yes! That would be a good definition for Legendary proficiency in Reflex saves, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't consider your logic on what is a poor game or not. You can't even seem to handle a simple magic item like the ring of sustenance according to your other thread so I can see how you cannot handle the simple concept of a critical fumble. You just hate magic. Admit it. Its the first step in correcting your problem
I don't hate magic, i actually quite enjoy it, i enjoy it being powerful. The key difference is that i enjoy the actual act of casting spells and their effects being powerful, not a swarm of piddling magic items chipping away at the very few restrictions on magic use making it abuseable.
You're arguing for taking the weak option and making it even weaker. There is already no parity between spell saves and melee attacks. 2 of 4 options on melee attacks are no damage without feat expenditure where only 1 of 4 options on spellcasting is. When people argue for making the weak option even weaker their perspective on balance is profoundly skewed.
My arguments on the ring of sustenance can be chalked up to differences in campaign style, differences in the use of random encounters, and differences in how hard our gm's go after the party once they've attracted the attention of a BBEG. Your issues with critical fumbles are steeped in bad math and punishing an already weak option even more.
|
|
Why are you so afraid of an extremely minimal risk?You haven't answered me why it's important is it truly IS such a minimal risk. What does it add to the game? As far as I can see, it's not fun.
I mean how you would even become an adventurer at all escapes me.I have no idea what the point of this is.
The reason for adding it is that its added to the whole system as a cornerstone of success rule and they are designing feats around this system to help enhance and mitigate these degrees of success.Yes, they created a system and HAVE something that happens when an attack critical fails: reactions that trigger. There is no NEED for fumbles. None. At all.
It makes no sense to have this system at all if it only exists to make rulings on skill checks and saves. Why have a degree of success or failure in those areas then? What does it matter if you picked the lock or picked it really well? Does a trap only go off on a critical failure or a failure. Its added complexity and that complexity needs to be there in the heart of the game which is combatNOT every spell/skill has a specific critical failure.
Not all effects list all four degrees of success. If an effect doesn't list a critical success entry, that means there is normally no special effect for critically succeeding, so you just use the result for a success. Similarly, if an effect doesn't list a critical failure entry, there is normally no special effect for critically failing, so you just use the result for a failure.What you are trying to to is FORCE everything to have a crit failure line and that isn't how they've said the game works.
Responses to your observations & questions in order
1) A minimal risk is necessary to balance out the extreme ease of criticals in the pathfinder 2 beta test. I don't see why monsters have to have a reaction to go off on a crit. Why are you dead set against being penalized by a crtical failure when I bring it up but you seem to be FINE with a monster gaining a reaction to punish you for a critical failure. I can't wait to hear the explanation for this.
2) I find it hard to beleive that you would be an advernturer willing to risk life and limb when you are litteraly fighting tooth and nail not to be inconveienced 5% of the time. Buck up little camper and put your armor on. I mean seriously, casters have to be creative and deal with resource management, spell resistance, spell immunity, anti magic zones, concentration checks, poor armor, poor saves, poor hit points, poor attack rolls. Is there not one instance where you stand to have a poor chance just on a miniscule 1 out of 20?
3) For the answer to this refer to #1 above.
4) Yes because a very few are auto successes and when they are they have restrictions on them that limit their use. Magic Missile is a good example. It always hits except when interrupted by shield spells, globes of invulnerability, certain monster immunities (ju-ju zombies), anti magic fields, spell resistance, broaches of shielding, etc.
5) I cannot FORCE anything on anyone. I am not a game designer. Just a passionate lover of D&D/Pathfinder rules and I am tired of a small minority (and yeah we forum posters are a small minority) insisting that martials have it so bad and casters have it so good. Give it a rest. It gets old after awhile
|
|
I really don't consider your logic on what is a poor game or not. You can't even seem to handle a simple magic item like the ring of sustenance according to your other thread so I can see how you cannot handle the simple concept of a critical fumble. You just hate magic. Admit it. Its the first step in correcting your problem
I don't hate magic, i actually quite enjoy it, i enjoy it being powerful. The key difference is that i enjoy the actual act of casting spells and their effects being powerful, not a swarm of piddling magic items chipping away at the very few restrictions on magic use making it abuseable.
You're arguing for taking the weak option and making it even weaker. There is already no parity between spell saves and melee attacks. 2 of 4 options on melee attacks are no damage without feat expenditure where only 1 of 4 options on spellcasting is. When people argue for making the weak option even weaker their perspective on balance is profoundly skewed.
My arguments on the ring of sustenance can be chalked up to differences in campaign style, differences in the use of random encounters, and differences in how hard our gm's go after the party once they've attracted the attention of a BBEG. Your issues with critical fumbles are steeped in bad math and punishing an already weak option even more.
Martials are not weak options and I am tired of people claiming that they are. The only thing that martials cannot do that casters can is influence where the battles take place. Martials deal and soak a great deal of damage. How is making a meele attack as a martial bad math? Do you even play the game? I watch round after round of martials hitting on a four or better. The only way they are truly challenged is if the DM overpowers them with NPC classes or monsters 5 or more levels above their CR. Look up my prior list off the bestiary and tell me that martials have it so rough. You have to subpar build a martial to have a poor chance to hit against monsters in the appropriate CR range.
Yes I do have an issue with your post on the ring of sustenance because I feel you are deceptive. Would you be against a skill feat in survival that automatically gave you what the ring of sustenance does? I don't think you would be.
I am just sick and tired of not have options for casters. I can't blast because I out damage everyone. I can't cast save or suck/die spells because the DM uses them against PC's and therefore the martials feel they are too op. I can't use utility spells because they ruin skill checks even though skills will now unlock feats that will approximate what spells can do. Its just a load of garbage.
To seriously fix the caster/martial imbalance all they have to do is bring back the old saving throw chart. Yes, spells should be difficult to save against at 1rst level. At 20th level they should be trivially easy to save against. Thats why the high level spells were so devastating because they were so trivial to save against. I mean seriously if you fail a save by rolling a 4 you should keel over and die or disintegrate. If you don't I will be dead in a round under an avalanch of attacks. Pre-3E I only used spells like hold monster or finger of death as last ditch efforts because I figured there is little chance of an enemy rolling a 3 or lower on a D20. Hold Monster was considered such a loser that you could target 3 or more monsters. If you chose less than three each monster got a progressive penalty on the save due to the fact that they were likely to make it.
|
|
"Minimal risk" is an argument? I mean as if getting into combat isnt bad enough already? If combat is not a risk then the encounters you are meeting then i would argue your encounters are too easy to the point you feel to add even another step of risk. Also Talek & Luna: even if its PF1 or PF2 the fumbles i am accustomed to make you lose the entire turn, not merely an action. The PF2 action system does not change this.
*Sigh*
Dracoknight, please, PLEASE, read my posts thoroughly. I have never stated that you shoud lose your entire turn or harm yourself due to a critcial failure. I do believe that you should suffer a minor penailty for 1 round only due to bad luck. I don't consider this a catastrophic "Out to Get Martials" wish because you do extra damage on a crit. Now if all a crit did was confirm a hit then I would agree with you there would be no reason to penalize a roll of a 1 either. There should always be a balance between risk and reward
|
|
Constant critical fumbles sounds super boring. At least when I crit fail a saving throw it could be one of any number of effects.
I also agree that it doesn't make narrative sense to suddenly become a butterfingers when you try to fight a heavily armored foe.
It is not butterfingers. Its the inability to effect someone superior to you. You may be a boxer. I am not. I would assume I would be heavily outclassed if I stepped into the ring with a professional boxer even if consideration was given to put us in the same weight class. I would assume he would cause me to critically fail at some point and utterly destroy me as long as he took the contest seriously.
I don't see how a 1 on a D20 would show up constantly. If it does for you, you may need some new dice :)
|
|
I am sourcing these claims by looking at monsters from the bestiary. Mummy CR5 AC20, nightmare CR5 AC 19, Ogre CR3 AC17, minotaur CR 4 AC 14, Hellhound CR3 AC 16, Gargoyle CR 4 AC 16Uh...you do know they're completely changing the math assumptions in PF2, right?
I mean, they're not going the bounded accuracy route, but that in no way means a single one of those numbers will be the same (or even similar) to those in PF1. Or that attack bonuses will be the same.
We already know that the Save Math is completely different (a max Wis Cleric with no investment otherwise will wind up with Save DCs of around 40 at 20th level, and everyone adds their level on all Saves).
Why in the world would you assume AC and Attack Bonus would be the same?
It seems logical to me. So what you are telling me is that for some reason spell DC's and saves are going to scale up by level + proficiency + stat bonus but they are going to totally gimp martials by recreating some weird To Hit Armor Class 0 (THAC0) table for PF2? Give me a break.
It is also intuitive that they keep the same attack minus the multi-attack penalties because they have already stated that you have three actions and each attack after the first has an increasing -5 penalty. It would be highly unlikely for the attack matrix to even be feasilble if my example of a 5th level fighter was something other than +12/+7/+2. They are giving you the same attack table as P1. They are just not forcing you to stand still for each full attack. Feats will allow you the customization to attack. This is what makes power attack viable in PF2. If you crit a minotaur (AC14), with your first attack using power attack (very possible as you only need to roll 12+ ) then you follow up with your second attack needing a 7 to hit.
Is spell casting roll a thing in PF2? I thought I read something about a check of some kind.It is not. Which was pretty much my whole point, really.
Was kinda Mine as well:
Roll for defence, no more static AC...
Hell, a lot of Rolls vs Static Numbers sub-systems could use some reworking.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martials are not weak options and I am tired of people claiming that they are. The only thing that martials cannot do that casters can is influence where the battles take place. Martials deal and soak a great deal of damage. How is making a meele attack as a martial bad math? Do you even play the game? I watch round after round of martials hitting on a four or better. The only way they are truly challenged is if the DM overpowers them with NPC classes or monsters 5 or more levels above their CR. Look up my prior list off the bestiary and tell me that martials have it so rough. You have to subpar build a martial to have a poor...
And here it is. This entire thread is your own personal beef. Despite the guides showing disgusting returns on blasting in pf1, the fact that the only reason save or suck isn't valued is because it is so all or nothing, not because the gm uses them against pcs.
Sick and tired of not having options for casters? Literally every book with crunch in it they've put out has more options for casters, the spell list is 2-3X larger than the feat list, plus you don't have to chain through four useless feats to get to the one effective one, and even then casters have two whole classes of feats plus a couple general feats that only they get access to.
Honestly i'm just a little amused that you've got the gall to ask if someone else even plays the game before going into that rant.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And here it is. This entire thread is your own personal beef.
That was so blatantly obvious from the start that I'm surprised how many people answered to this thread in a serious way.
That was so blatantly obvious from the start that I'm surprised how many people answered to this thread in a serious way.And here it is. This entire thread is your own personal beef.
Yay someone else who gets why all my comments where farcical.
There are already official rules for this in the d20SRD (and saving throws as defences, etc), you probably already know, just if you're interested.
Was kinda Mine as well:
Roll for defence, no more static AC...
More refined versions of those, maybe taking a few hints from RuneQuest/BRP.
Constant critical fumbles sounds super boring. At least when I crit fail a saving throw it could be one of any number of effects.
I also agree that it doesn't make narrative sense to suddenly become a butterfingers when you try to fight a heavily armored foe.
I mean maybe? You'll more likely suffer the worst possible effect if the examples are standard across the board.
This is a game. It is supposed to be fun.
Define "fun." I can assure you that every single poster on this messageboard will give you a different definition of what they find "fun." Some might have similar elements to them, but no definition will be the exact same.
If "fun" is "steamrolling through encounters with little to no difficulty, strategy, or hangups," then sure, a system that creates difficulty and hangups, as well as promotes on-the-fly strategy, such as the Fumble rules, is badwrong and therefore not welcome at such tables whose "fun" is defined as the above.
But if players define their "fun" in an almost opposite way, and want games that can have snags in them which make the game more difficult and tactically challenging for players to overcome (and thereby making their victory much more satisfying as a result), then the Fumble rules can potentially provide such an outlet for the players to enjoy.
Define "fun."
In pathfinder, combat rules without fumble rules bakes in... :P
I enjoy games like rolemaster but you know going in not to get attached to any character because no matter how minor the combat may be, it could be your last. That's not pathfinder IMO. Now if you want to make a house/optional rule to alter that basic assumption, sure why not. Base though?
promotes on-the-fly strategy: What? Tossing away your weapon or stabbing your friend in the back in no way "promotes on-the-fly strategy". At all. You can have plenty of difficulties and strategy without some 'slapstick' falling prone, losing your grip and general 'three stooges' antics. If someone wants harder fights, they can just throw away their weapons and occasionally attack party members on their own without inflicting fumbles on the game at large.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Define "fun." I can assure you that every single poster on this messageboard will give you a different definition of what they find "fun." Some might have similar elements to them, but no definition will be the exact same.
If "fun" is "steamrolling through encounters with little to no difficulty, strategy, or hangups," then sure, a system that creates difficulty and hangups, as well as promotes on-the-fly strategy, such as the Fumble rules, is badwrong and therefore not welcome at such tables whose "fun" is defined as the above.
But if players define their "fun" in an almost opposite way, and want games that can have snags in them which make the game more difficult and tactically challenging for players to overcome (and thereby making their victory much more satisfying as a result), then the Fumble rules can potentially provide such an outlet for the players to enjoy.
Okay, I have a few responses to this:
#1: I'd absolutely cede the argument regarding fun if the majority of people seemed to find the idea of fumbles to be enjoyable. They do not.
Indeed, my first post on this thread where I explain that and why it is true has gotten more favorites than any other post I've ever made, and I've been posting here for the better part of a decade and more than 12,000 posts.
#2: I strongly disagree with your equating of players who want to avoid fumbles as the same as those who do not enjoy tactical challenges. Indeed, many of those I know who enjoy tactical challenges hate the fumble rules most of all.
Y'know why? Because good tactics can't let you avoid a fumble (well, not beyond maxing your to-hit, which you were doing anyway). They are a thing that just comes up, not through enemy action but pure luck, and screws you. That's very rarely a fun time. Clever or well designed enemies with excellent tactics are a fun challenge, but fumbles are just an annoying distraction from the tactical scenario for many people who enjoy such tactics. The only tactically interesting thing about fumbles is specific abilities to take advantage of them...which PF2 already has without full fumble rules.
People aren't objecting to fumbles because they make the game harder, they're objecting because they're fairly unrealistic in most cases, feel disempowering to most characters, unfairly target martials (the weakest characters in the game), and really serve basically no useful purpose not better served by doing something else (ie: making the game harder can be done lots of ways that aren't fumbles and don't feel disempowering or annoying to large numbers of players).
The only thing they really uniquely do is make the game harder at unpredictable intervals in the middle of combat, and frankly a string of low rolls does that too.
What strikes me as odd is well a couple things.
1) The whole stabbing in the back thing. Sorry been shot more times that that. And it seems pretty unrealistic unless you're going for som AoE swing.
2) Ranged don't suffer. Really? Did no one come up with ways for that? Bow string snaps, spell fizzles, spel or shot goes wide. Or is it because the rules seem to have worse issues if you mess from range anyway(Scatter, or hitting team mates come to mind)
3) Spell casters don't fumble. I mean not in Pathfinder but I keep seeing insane Stories about Wild Magic failings.
Now I will adimit they aren't fun if they happen all the time or the failure is just so wacky to take you out of the game. But stuff happens. I mean who hasn't rolled a 1 in real life and dropped something. But again, I can see where people are coming from.
What strikes me as odd is well a couple things.
1) The whole stabbing in the back thing. Sorry been shot more times that that. And it seems pretty unrealistic unless you're going for som AoE swing.
2) Ranged don't suffer. Really? Did no one come up with ways for that? Bow string snaps, spell fizzles, spel or shot goes wide. Or is it because the rules seem to have worse issues if you mess from range anyway(Scatter, or hitting team mates come to mind)
3) Spell casters don't fumble. I mean not in Pathfinder but I keep seeing insane Stories about Wild Magic failings.
Now I will adimit they aren't fun if they happen all the time or the failure is just so wacky to take you out of the game. But stuff happens. I mean who hasn't rolled a 1 in real life and dropped something. But again, I can see where people are coming from.
Ranged aren't up in a monster's grill when their weapon snaps and wild magic is at best, locale based, some weird optional/house rule, or 2nd edition and irrelevant to pathfinder. (I personally hated wild magic because it was yet another chart to reference mid combat, so what you got was players taking a long time to decide what to cast, then taking a long time finding the result on the table.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People critically succeeding a save, and the mage fumbling, are two different things. A critical success evading a fireball ignores all damage, do not make the caster hot a fellow, slip and lose control of the spell pouch, or lose a turn standing up because they slipped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never stated that you shoud lose your entire turn or harm yourself due to a critcial failure. I do believe that you should suffer a minor penailty for 1 round only due to bad luck. I don't consider this a catastrophic "Out to Get Martials" wish because you do extra damage on a crit. Now if all a crit did was confirm a hit then I would agree with you there would be no reason to penalize a roll of a 1 either. There should always be a balance between risk and reward
Talek&Luna, I am someone who believes that critical fumbles for attack roles should be a optional rule supported by the system, without being forced into play for everyone, however having looked carefully at the options, I think a lot of the old optional rules don't work with the new +/-10 mechanic, and we will need some new options. Lets look at the likely consequences of some different ideas:
If critical fumble means lose your next action, giving you a one round penalty or have some other less than one round negative consequence:
You massively incentivize the taking of power attack for martials and the use of third actions for things other than attacking (this is not necessarily a bad consequence). People will be generally hesitant to attack on a third action unless the consequences of losing their first attack next round are negligible, (the fight is almost over, your party member is going to get the last kill going next, etc.). Casters have no penalty like this (their spells cannot backfire), and, since they will usually have lower attack bonuses, they will be much less likely to consider using physical attacks, because the loss of a future action could be absolutely devastating to them. I think the over all net affect of this ruling is that physical attack option is a little more dangerous and you make non-martial characters very hesitant to ever make physical attacks, or atleast more than one of them. Every Martial character will go for feats like power attack because the risk of losing one future action on the roll of a 1 might be worthwhile, but losing it on a 6 or less is starting to look pretty nasty.
That feels enough like a game changer that it probably shouldn't be a default mechanic, but is one that could be supported with a house rule for a game where you want to discourage fighter/wizard type builds and make the choice to attack with a weapon less of a default option and more of something that has to be carefully considered.
Personally, my suggested critical fumble option is: Your weapon takes 1 point of damage on a attack roll that critically fails.
This means that one critical failure here or there has no direct consequence, but they add up over an extended battle and characters who have not invested in sturdy weapons or back up weapons run some risk of jumping immediately from combat to combat without taking time to care for their weapons. For the most part, taking that third attack, because you can, is still a better choice than not taking that attack, but there will be occasions (your weapon is already damaged, for example), where you may think twice, and an opportunistic enemy that sees you critically fumble might choose to press their advantage and attempt to sunder your weapon next round.
A lot of players and GMs will choose not to play by either of these rules because they add extra stuff to consider, will reward certain character builds while penalizing others, and will change the dynamic of combat significantly. All of those are fine reasons to not want to play with them. But, as optional rules, they give every GM different ways to affect the mood and theme of their campaign and I think that is a good thing.