Good argument against it Unicore. I think that with the new rules all the consequences may not be apparent off hand but just the ones you've found sway me to the side of no crit fumbles even with a slight penalty.
Edit: *oh yeah I did not care for the damage item thing*
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The big issue with this is that they're getting rid of HP for items in general, instead going with a 'dents' system, with only a few dents per item (the number's been cited as 3 for at least some items, and I doubt it goes over 5 or so), so this version winds up unnecessarily punitive two because all you can do is give weapons dents and they have far fewer of those than they had HP in PF1.
The big issue with this is that they're getting rid of HP for items in general, instead going with a 'dents' system, with only a few dents per item (the number's been cited as 3 for at least some items, and I doubt it goes over 5 or so), so this version winds up unnecessarily punitive two because all you can do is give weapons dents and they have far fewer of those than they had HP in PF1.
I understand why they would be want to get rid of hp for items, although that seems to have interesting repercussions for objects generally. Where did you hear about this? if weapons have 3 to 5 dents, that would be about the same as basic have in HP. I have no idea what dents do mechanically, as far as if 1 = broken or not so it would be hard to say how that system would interplay with my existing critical fumble rule, but for gritty games where Martials should be carrying back up weapons, 3 - 5 critical failures in one fight being enough to force a weapon change is right about where I would want my mechanic to be.
oh yeah I did not care for the damage item thing
I didn't think most would care for it. It is definitely a rule for the grittier style of play where things like ammunition is tracked. Hence why I would never want any critical failure for basic attack rule to be mandatory in the new system.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand why they would be want to get rid of hp for items, although that seems to have interesting repercussions for objects generally. Where did you hear about this?
It's mentioned in the Glass Cannon podcast, I believe, in regards to Thieve's Tools (which do get a dent on a crit failure, by the way) and on shields (which get a dent when they get used for DR and the damage exceeds their hardness), but is clearly how they're generally handling object damage.
if weapons have 3 to 5 dents, that would be about the same as basic have in HP. I have no idea what dents do mechanically, as far as if 1 = broken or not so it would be hard to say how that system would interplay with my existing critical fumble rule, but for gritty games where Martials should be carrying back up weapons, 3 - 5 critical failures in one fight being enough to force a weapon change is right about where I would want my mechanic to be.
I agree that this seems pretty harsh for a typical Pathfinder game, but I can definitely see it for something notably grittier. It's certainly the most realistic fumble rule I've seen in a while.
And one dent didn't seem to result in 'broken' I don't think (though I'd have to re-listen to be sure), but we don't know how many do. It could easily vary from item to item.
|
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.
No, that's the best part of save or suck. The worst part of save or suck is that the creature can make a save every round to throw off the effect. Its garbage. Before save or suck meant if you failed your save it SUCKED because you were stuck until someone dispelled it.
There is no reason to create 1000 spells for casters. All that you are doing is bringing in someone else's flavor of the month spell. We are gonna create fire immune creatures so that we can create a "waterball" spell that does the same damage and gets by fire immunity. That's dumb design. Its the spell caster version of the martial golf club bag. Wait let me hit the guy with my adamantium, silver, holy, axiomatic, chaotic, unholy, frost, fire, electric, acid, cold iron sword! Its not fun and just completely dumb to carry around x number of swords to get by x number of resistances. Spell bloat is not a positive.The feat chain was designed so that you had a delay in power. It made as much sense as saying I cannot get fireball at level one and fighters had so many feats that it was never an issue.
Honeslty, Its a fair question to ask since you are so BIASED towards martial characters and even a 5% chance of a failure is TOO MUCH for you to handle. I don't think you play the game much at all
|
|
I mean maybe? You'll more likely suffer the worst possible effect if the examples are standard across the board.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.
Exactly my point. But we need to coddle martials because they can't assume the same risk/reward mechanic as everyone else because that is apparently too much for them to handle
|
|
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.
I am not debating for a fun/not fun standpoint. I am debating that a rule apply across the board evenly unless a good reason for the exemption be warranted. The arguments against it so far are.
1) Not fun - Invalid. If its not fun to critical fail on an attack roll its NOT fun to critcal fail on a save, skill check or ability check
2) Martials make too many rolls and therefore % chance of a fumble is too high. Bunk considering the math used. Critical failures are MUCH more likely on saves or skill checks since there are not as many levers for success in those challenges as there are for attck rolls. Less in the way of support from magic items, feats, spells, etc
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, Deadmanwalking. I fail spell resistance checks much more often, especially if I do not take the feat taxes of spell penetration and greater spell penetration until the very high levels of play. So your counterpoint is bunk.
Do all the monsters you fight have Spell Resistance? That's not typical. In the current AP volume I'm running it's 24/71 enemies and just over 1/3, and that's padded by quite a lot of low CR demons (9 of them, I believe), which probably pushes that well above average.
Also, can you casually avoid fumbles by choosing a particular attack option? Because avoid SR is pretty casually doable with just the right spell selection.
It's just not a good comparison.
Martials are not the weakest characters by far. They only drop off into the extremely high levels of play that hardly anyone reaches anyway. Whether it is Paizo or WOTC, both companies confirm that very few people are playing into high level consistently as part of a campaign. Its easy to roll a min max 18th wizard and account for every contingency because you did not have to organically grow that character and you can take the optimal feats, spells, magic items etc. Its much more difficult to make every choice and stick with it for 18 odd levels. Martials dominate for the first 4 levels of game play, are outstanding contributors from 5th to 14th and only start dropping off in power at the extreme levels of 18+ when you are on crazy planes of existence where normal rules do not apply. If PC's were still doing dungeon crawls at 18th level, martials would still be powerhouses. Its more DM style than inherent weaknesses in the class designs
I'm not getting into the whole Martial/Caster Disparity debate here. That's a really long conversation and tangential to my main points. I'll note that I do agree they tend to dominate the game for the first couple of levels, but feel that falls off much more quickly than you do (with serious issues starting to crop up as early as 6th or 7th level due to mobility issues and casters getting utility stuff, and only getting worse from there). That doesn't mean they can't contribute by any means, but it means they could contribute better if they'd played a partial caster or something instead of a martial.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not debating for a fun/not fun standpoint. I am debating that a rule apply across the board evenly unless a good reason for the exemption be warranted. The arguments against it so far are.
1) Not fun - Invalid. If its not fun to critical fail on an attack roll its NOT fun to critcal fail on a save, skill check or ability check
2) Martials make too many rolls and therefore % chance of a fumble is too high. Bunk considering the math used. Critical failures are MUCH more likely on saves or skill checks since there are not as many levers for success in those challenges as there are for attck rolls. Less in the way of support from magic items, feats, spells, etc
There's also the fact that, per description, other things lack critical fail options as well. Or critical success options. They're not universal, just common.
Also, the fact you can critical fail on a Save is fun, because it's symmetrical and enemies doing that is super fun. It also adds tension, which can be fun (and can make the possibility fun on many skill checks as well).
The enemy critical failing on an attack roll and losing an action? Not actually super fun. You doing it? Also not fun.
|
|
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...
Those are fine points Unicore and I can understand where you are coming from.
My whole point in starting this thread was that I felt the designers jumped the gun and said there is NO penalty for a critical fumble in combat. I am totally against that concept, offered some suggestions and asked for some feedback on what else might work. The vast majority of responses have indicated that they cannot conceive of ANY type of a penalty for a critical failure and I completely disagree. Maybe my suggestions are not the best and maybe they won't work for everyone. I'm ok with that. I am not ok with martials or casters or creatures or anyone else you want to define as a combatant that makes an attack roll not suffer any ill effects in combat from a critical failure. That's all my point has been about from page one.
Yes, the third attack is a risk. That's the point of combat. I am sure that they will release feats for every type of combatant to lower than -10 difficulty so that whether you are sword & board, sword/free hand, two-hander or dual wielder you will be given a choice to make that third option viable. The game for martials should come down to rock/paper/scissors. No single option or build is the "I win" button. Each option should have a strength and a weakness versus another option. This has not worked for WOTC/Pathfinder throughout their history because the emphasis has always been on getting more hits for more damage.
Why not allow defensive options for fighters? Why not allow a feat called tortoise shell for sword & board. You lose an action to gain +5 to your AC against one attack. If an enemy misses you can use your reaction to make an attack roll against that opponent. This would allow the fighter an interesting choice of her reaction so that even if the enemies are static her reaction isn't useless.
Everyone in the game needs choices and if you allow a critical failure in combat then you can devise feats to get around or exploit them. That was the main purpose the developers indicated in the critical hits and critical failures blog and martials need to be involved in that discussion as much as casters and skill monkeys
|
|
I am not debating for a fun/not fun standpoint. I am debating that a rule apply across the board evenly unless a good reason for the exemption be warranted. The arguments against it so far are.
1) Not fun - Invalid. If its not fun to critical fail on an attack roll its NOT fun to critcal fail on a save, skill check or ability check
2) Martials make too many rolls and therefore % chance of a fumble is too high. Bunk considering the math used. Critical failures are MUCH more likely on saves or skill checks since there are not as many levers for success in those challenges as there are for attck rolls. Less in the way of support from magic items, feats, spells, etc
There's also the fact that, per description, other things lack critical fail options as well. Or critical success options. They're not universal, just common.
Also, the fact you can critical fail on a Save is fun, because it's symmetrical and enemies doing that is super fun. It also adds tension, which can be fun (and can make the possibility fun on many skill checks as well).
The enemy critical failing on an attack roll and losing an action? Not actually super fun. You doing it? Also not fun.
The same symmetry exists with attack rolls and mook monsters would have a harder time as a high armor class is more often a benefit to players than monsters. If you don't believe me, look up the bestiary
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The same symmetry exists with attack rolls and mook monsters would have a harder time as a high armor class is more often a benefit to players than monsters. If you don't believe me, look up the bestiary
I specifically addressed this, but I will do so again:
For most people, the enemy fumbling isn't fun. You didn't do anything to contribute to their fumble. Your choices in the combat mattered not at all to that occurring. It is not fun.
It's mechanically useful for them to fumble, sure, but that doesn't make it fun or a good addition to the game.
Do we know yet if a caster would take a penalty on an attack roll in the same round as they cast a spell?
|
|
Do we know yet if a caster would take a penalty on an attack roll in the same round as they cast a spell?
They do not, unless the spell used an attack roll anyway (spells that use an attack roll count as attacks). Doing so has been discussed as a totally valid tactic.
Though, since most spells are two actions, it does require already being in range to attack in most cases.
For early level characters it certainly is, IME; and fumble rules do not dictate every combat may be your last, sounds a tad dramatic, I mean, let's not get hysterical,.
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. .
There ARE a wide range of fumble charts and some ARE one roll and you are dead. Secondly, even something as simple as the barbarian crit hitting the wizard with his +5 mage killing Tetsubo can drop a PC with a simple 'attack friend' fumble. Thirdly, 'drop your weapon' fumbles can have dire consequences in the right environment. Dropping the weapon that's currently letting you fly or breathe underwater can cause issues or suddenly finding yourself without weapons vs a monster that requires magic weapons to hit takes a whole person out of the fight: that alone can swing a fight towards a wipe, especially is you DO play a strategic and tough combat and THEN disarm yourself.
PS: and if you think low levels can be deadly, then why would you want to make that worse by adding 'three stooges' into fights? Nothing says 'fun' when the fighter loses his greatsword down a pit and has to fist fight the ogre while the rogue goes in for a backstab and falls prine at it's feet... No, not deadly at all...
They do not, unless the spell used an attack roll anyway (spells that use an attack roll count as attacks). Doing so has been discussed as a totally valid tactic.
Deadmanwalking, you really deserve a friendly and helpful award.
If this is the case, the Gish/Magus/fighter-mage already has an edge on a martial character, unless their spell selection is awful. I have no doubt that combat spells are going to be better than regular attacks at -5 and -10.
Third attacks are already looking pretty questionable most of the time.
Without a critical failure mechanism for basic attacks third attacks for most characters (even martials), are probably going to be: I have nothing better to do with this action, lets see if I can get lucky.
With a critical failure mechanism (even a relatively trivial one) third attacks are going to be reserved for situations where there is nothing to lose (the combat is essentially over), where the battle feels almost over but the monster is going next and your attack might drop them, or for characters highly trained in physical combat with feat resources dedicated to mitigating critical failures.
I get the sense that Talek&Luna is arguing that the second option sounds better than the first, and I understand why, it does make you think twice about just standing still and swinging your weapon as a default strategy. I would like to be able to choose this as an optional rule, I don't think it needs to be baked into the vanilla version of the game because it adds complexity that mostly increases the danger Player characters face.
I think that the argument that critical failures on attack roles will unfairly punish martial characters is probably false. Character's built for combat will (especially in a system that punishes critical failures) have feats that make sure they always have something better to do than take an attack with a high probability of backfiring. It is the sometimes martials that will be penalized by a critical failure mechanism, and even more so when they dedicate more than one action per turn to attacking. Martials, with feats dedicated for mitigating critical failure (perhaps something like evasion but for attack rolls) will love more severe critical failure rules even more than monsters, because their characters will probably be the only ones built to avoid them.
Synopsis: Critical Failure on attack rolls would have the most likely effect of making combat more dangerous for characters making attack rolls, unspecialized in the type of combat they are engaging in. The more serious the critical failure, the less people will make attack rolls unless they are in a style of combat the character is trained in.
Synopsis: Critical Failure on attack rolls would have the most likely effect of making combat more dangerous for characters making attack rolls, unspecialized in the type of combat they are engaging in. The more serious the critical failure, the less people will make attack rolls unless they are in a style of combat the character is trained in.
You are ignoring the fact that crit fails go up along with AC. This means that even those trained in 'a style of combat' get penalized if you make a target harder to hit: in essence, NO MATTER the style of combat, the harder it is to hit, you fumble more even if your type of combat style doesn't directly interact with the target. So your bow strings break more often when attacking a plate mail person vs an unarmored person because...? I fire an attack cantrip at someone in cover and somehow that makes it more likely to shot the guy behind me with it?
So I disagree that is isn't 'punishing' people that have to make attack rolls: if you make a creature challenging to hit that then means that you fumble more even though you are still JUST as proficient in your style of combat.
If improved evasion lets you eventually turn all critical failures into regular failures, there could easily be feats that would have the same effect on your weapon attack rolls, and there could easily be feats along the way that give you rerolls or singular opportunities to not be affected.
Graystone, your point about armor is an interesting one, but this seems like it will already be the issue with feats that trigger powers off of other's critical misses. Why does wearing better armor make you more skilled at riposting?
Critical failure charts and such thing as "hitting the guy behind me" are not options that I am personally calling for, and I would discourage people from using critical failure mechanics that are that wonky. But more toned-down critical failure options might still work in certain types of games (remember I am not calling for every mechanic to list a separate critical failure mechanic, just that it should be a supported option).
What I hear as your core argument is that critical failure and critical success are much less dependent on luck in a system that gives criticals based upon the ease or difficulty of the task, and trying to make optional systems from the past that were based on critical actions being a result of luck (natural 20s and 1s) is a bad idea with a floating critical range.
Does this same argument not apply to many of the other features of the game now, like skill checks and saving throws?
Why does wearing better armor make you more skilled at riposting?
The difference is that that represents the foe being good at riposting and taking advantage of opening, not be being awful at what I do. For me, there is a BIG difference in leaving a hole in your defense a savvy for can take advantage of and just random attacks of bad luck. I don't see the reaction to a crit fail any different that flanking: The enemies used good tactics and takes advantage of your distraction.
What I hear as your core argument is that critical failure and critical success are much less dependent on luck in a system that gives criticals based upon the ease or difficulty of the task, and trying to make optional systems from the past that were based on critical actions being a result of luck (natural 20s and 1s) is a bad idea with a floating critical range.
For me, that's a big part of it: if we were talking about JUST melee it would make some better sense but when you take all the styles of combat, it doesn't make sense anymore. The back and forth of melee leaves parries and counterattacks while ranged/magic doesn't and makes the increase of crit failure nonsensical IMO.
Does this same argument not apply to many of the other features of the game now, like skill checks and saving throws?
Not IMO. We're talking about direct interaction in these cases: a spell hits you, you try to pick a lock, you jump over a hole, you climb a tree, you sweet talk the barmaid, you... If you're not doing something to yourself but some faraway target, then the increased difficulty doesn't make much sense: a crit fail would be something like increasing the distance with a miss with a splash weapon: I don't see an increase with difficulty here.
There ARE a wide range of fumble charts and some ARE one roll and you are dead.For early level characters it certainly is, IME; and fumble rules do not dictate every combat may be your last, sounds a tad dramatic, I mean, let's not get hysterical,.
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. .Which game are you talking about?
My favourite all-time critical result is from Arduin Grimoire: "Buttocks torn off, Shock, Fall."
Rolemaster: "Very close! Strike to foe's groin area. All vital organs are destroyed immediately. Foe dies after 24 rounds of agony." OR "Powerful strike flips foe into the air before smashing him to the ground. Foe breaks both arms and hits his head. Foe is in a coma for 2 months."
Been a while since I pulled out Arduin. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: My "bias toward martial characters" I haven't played a pure martial in my last like three campaigns over the last 5 years.
investigator (3 years of play)
Treesinger druid (bout 5 sessions)
Evoker (2 years of play)
Summoner (About a year of play)
Ranger (almost 8 years since i played it last but a 3 year campaign)
2nd edition Pyrogean Wizard (a decade of play)
So any bias TOWARD martials on my part is in your head my dude. I'm biased toward shrinking a disparity by not kicking the weaker classes in a core rulebook mechanic.
Gotta love falling in shock after your ass is ripped off, though...
The one I remember the most is when a lapdog jumped up and ripped out the throat of the big burly fighting guy... It's owner was a cakewalk in comparison.
jack russels will lunge at your eyes with their foreclaws.
I'd be all for Critial Fumbles if Criti Hits were better. If they were to look at a game like Dungeon Crawl Classics, classes get crit severity based on level and the effects get worse the higher you are. Its pretty awesome.
There ARE a wide range of fumble charts and some ARE one roll and you are dead.For early level characters it certainly is, IME; and fumble rules do not dictate every combat may be your last, sounds a tad dramatic, I mean, let's not get hysterical,.
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. .Which game are you talking about?
My favourite all-time critical result is from Arduin Grimoire: "Buttocks torn off, Shock, Fall."
Rolemaster: "Very close! Strike to foe's groin area. All vital organs are destroyed immediately. Foe dies after 24 rounds of agony." OR "Powerful strike flips foe into the air before smashing him to the ground. Foe breaks both arms and hits his head. Foe is in a coma for 2 months."
Been a while since I pulled out Arduin. ;)
Their was some like that for 1st edition D&D too. I have both chopped my own head off and killed an ally (Our healer non the less!) from those damnable charts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*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
The enemies have the same chances as you do, thats the balance to the risk.
Also from Post 1:
A) A critical failure results in the loss of one action. If no other actions are available this round, this missed action carries over to the next round.
B) A critical fumble results in the fumblerer exposing herself to extreme danger and risk. The next single attack roll against her is a critical hit if it succeedes. If the attack misses or no attacks are made against the fumbler then the effects of the critical fumble expire at the start of the next round.
Loses actions, chances of extreme risks, a auto counter-crit. Plus with how criticals works in PF2 you basically risk at critical failing yourself on every hit as you have the "fail with 10 or more" mechanic in.
You did not suggest for anything "minor" here. You and i may disagree one the importance of actions, but i do not see this "balance" other than reducing character agency just because "shit happens".
I'd be all for Critial Fumbles if Criti Hits were better. If they were to look at a game like Dungeon Crawl Classics, classes get crit severity based on level and the effects get worse the higher you are. Its pretty awesome.That could maybe work, a fighter might deal triple weapon damage on a critical at 7th level, and quadruple damage at 15th or something.
Its not just extra damage though. For example only the Warrior (DCC version of The Fighter class) gets access to Crit table V. Things on this table include cutting an opponent's scalp, dealing an extra +2d12 damage and blinding the target until healed or a blow destroys the opponents ear, dealing an extra 1d12 damage and he suffers permanent deafness.
|
|
No, Deadmanwalking. I fail spell resistance checks much more often, especially if I do not take the feat taxes of spell penetration and greater spell penetration until the very high levels of play. So your counterpoint is bunk.Do all the monsters you fight have Spell Resistance? That's not typical. In the current AP volume I'm running it's 24/71 enemies and just over 1/3, and that's padded by quite a lot of low CR demons (9 of them, I believe), which probably pushes that well above average.
Also, can you casually avoid fumbles by choosing a particular attack option? Because avoid SR is pretty casually doable with just the right spell selection.
It's just not a good comparison.
Martials are not the weakest characters by far. They only drop off into the extremely high levels of play that hardly anyone reaches anyway. Whether it is Paizo or WOTC, both companies confirm that very few people are playing into high level consistently as part of a campaign. Its easy to roll a min max 18th wizard and account for every contingency because you did not have to organically grow that character and you can take the optimal feats, spells, magic items etc. Its much more difficult to make every choice and stick with it for 18 odd levels. Martials dominate for the first 4 levels of game play, are outstanding contributors from 5th to 14th and only start dropping off in power at the extreme levels of 18+ when you are on crazy planes of existence where normal rules do not apply. If PC's were still doing dungeon crawls at 18th level, martials would still be powerhouses. Its more DM style than inherent weaknesses in the class designsNo. It just so happens that you usually run into spell resistance just as you get some appreciable power, usually around 7th level plus (drow, minor demons/devils and such) and continues up till you quit game at the very high levels. Yes, at the very low levels of 1-6th it is not much of a concern at all.
I'm not getting into the whole Martial/Caster Disparity debate here. That's a really long conversation and tangential to my main points. I'll note that I do agree they tend to dominate the game for the first couple of levels, but feel that falls off much more quickly than you do (with serious issues starting to crop up as early...
1) No. It just so happens that you usually run into spell resistance just as you get some appreciable power, usually around 7th level plus (drow, minor demons/devils and such) and continues up till you quit game at the very high levels. Yes, at the very low levels of 1-6th it is not much of a concern at all.
2) Well I am glad we agree there. Its just so annoying to constantly read the "Woe is me. I am a martial character stuck in a caster's world lament that appears on these forums so often. Martials dominate the game for a long period of moat gamers time and can continue to do so until the very high levels of game play which most gamers don't ever reach unless they are running an ad hoc adventure. Even with mobility issues and terrain, a martial with the correct choices can still be very effective. I am just tired of reading from posters that I need to adjust but if you ask for martials to have to adjust then its all caster bias and taking away martial agency. Which is bunk
Slight question; is there an Official stance on Critical Failures? I see some people that do whatever, others break out the Crit fail chart or deck but is it actually in Core or one of the Errata rules?
What I'm saying is, if you don't want Crit fails, don't? I run it with my friends sparingly myself but it seems something easily avoided.
|
|
*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
The enemies have the same chances as you do, thats the balance to the risk.
Also from Post 1:
A) A critical failure results in the loss of one action. If no other actions are available this round, this missed action carries over to the next round.
B) A critical fumble results in the fumblerer exposing herself to extreme danger and risk. The next single attack roll against her is a critical hit if it succeedes. If the attack misses or no attacks are made against the fumbler then the effects of the critical fumble expire at the start of the next round.
Loses actions, chances of extreme risks, a auto counter-crit. Plus with how criticals works in PF2 you basically risk at critical failing yourself on every hit as you have the "fail with 10 or more" mechanic in.
You did not suggest for anything "minor" here. You and i may disagree one the importance of actions, but i do not see this "balance" other than reducing character agency just because "s#~+ happens".
A) Right, 1 missed action counts for a missed action so that way a critical failure is a risk. If you just swing like mad with your third attack and crit fumble then you lose an attack next turn. If you are a caster and you move in and cast a touch spell like vampiric touch and fumble, you lose an action next turn also. ( I am assuming vampiric touch is a 2 action cast. Most spells are hinted as costing two actions)
b) I am sorry if I was unclear. It was an either or aspect. Not both, That would be total garbage and I would never advocate that. Let me give you an example
Dracoknight - I attack the mummy and roll 15 with my bonus of +11, thats a hit. Then I attack the mummy and roll a 1. Critical fumble
DM-- Ouch that hurts. Do you want to lose your third attack or have a chance for the mummy to crit you next round if it hits.
Dracoknight - Well my AC is pretty high and he missed me twice already so I will risk a critical hit. I will use my third action to ready my shield in case I get hit to mitigate the damage.
See by this example you get a choice and your choice may affect what the monster does next. Does the mummy ignore the rogue sneak attacking it to try and crit you. Does it wander past you to attack the fire mage. Alot more can happen because of the critcal failure and that keeps the combat from becoming static and boring. You have more agency than if a critical failure was never part of the game because you have to give more thought to your actions than " I swing, I swing, I swing again"
|
|
Slight question; is there an Official stance on Critical Failures? I see some people that do whatever, others break out the Crit fail chart or deck but is it actually in Core or one of the Errata rules?
What I'm saying is, if you don't want Crit fails, don't? I run it with my friends sparingly myself but it seems something easily avoided.
So far, the official rule is there are results for a critical failure roll when making an attack. There may be exceptions where monsters or players can spend a reaction to take advantage of a critical but that is all just speculation at this point.
|
|
Their was some like that for 1st edition D&D too. I have both chopped my own head off and killed an ally (Our healer non the less!) from those damnable charts.There ARE a wide range of fumble charts and some ARE one roll and you are dead.For early level characters it certainly is, IME; and fumble rules do not dictate every combat may be your last, sounds a tad dramatic, I mean, let's not get hysterical,.
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. .Which game are you talking about?
My favourite all-time critical result is from Arduin Grimoire: "Buttocks torn off, Shock, Fall."
Rolemaster: "Very close! Strike to foe's groin area. All vital organs are destroyed immediately. Foe dies after 24 rounds of agony." OR "Powerful strike flips foe into the air before smashing him to the ground. Foe breaks both arms and hits his head. Foe is in a coma for 2 months."
Been a while since I pulled out Arduin. ;)
That is an insanely poorly designed critical fumble and you should be rightly ticked off at that. That is crazy.
I am not advocating something so utterly ridiculous at all. I am advocating that there are times that any combatant whether they are PC or NPC be at risk of bad luck just as they can benefit from good luck. True agency comes from a risk of failure as well as a chance for success. Its the drama of the die roll that makes it all worth the while.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) No. It just so happens that you usually run into spell resistance just as you get some appreciable power, usually around 7th level plus (drow, minor demons/devils and such) and continues up till you quit game at the very high levels. Yes, at the very low levels of 1-6th it is not much of a concern at all.
My point was that if you pick the right spells it's never a problem at all. And that the adventure I'm currently running (the PCs are 8th level right now, it ends at 10th) has something like 1 in 3 enemies with SR, and is likely well above average in that regard.
2) Well I am glad we agree there. Its just so annoying to constantly read the "Woe is me. I am a martial character stuck in a caster's world lament that appears on these forums so often. Martials dominate the game for a long period of moat gamers time and can continue to do so until the very high levels of game play which most gamers don't ever reach unless they are running an ad hoc adventure. Even with mobility issues and terrain, a martial with the correct choices can still be very effective. I am just tired of reading from posters that I need to adjust but if you ask for martials to have to adjust then its all caster bias and taking away martial agency. Which is bunk
Martials are currently weaker than Casters, especially in terms of narrative power. This is an objective fact, and explains why people get very reasonably sensitive about having their power further limited in any additional ways.
However, it is true that this difference in power is not quite as great as some people make it out to be and a well built martial character can be a useful and effective character well into the high levels of the game...just usually not as useful as they would be if they were a caster (this is especially true if you count 4 level casters like Ranger and Paladin as martials).
|
|
RE: My "bias toward martial characters" I haven't played a pure martial in my last like three campaigns over the last 5 years.
investigator (3 years of play)
Treesinger druid (bout 5 sessions)
Evoker (2 years of play)
Summoner (About a year of play)
Ranger (almost 8 years since i played it last but a 3 year campaign)
2nd edition Pyrogean Wizard (a decade of play)So any bias TOWARD martials on my part is in your head my dude. I'm biased toward shrinking a disparity by not kicking the weaker classes in a core rulebook mechanic.
So you only play a character if he/she is overpowered? Because that is your claim for casters. Martials are not weaker classes. They only suffer at the higher levels because you need magic to survive in extremely hostile environment. Is it my fault that the DM wants to run us in the elemental plane of fire or ends up using spells against the party because martial characters slice their NPC equivalent like a hot knife through butter without breaking a sweat?
Martials dominate low level play. Casters only dominate the very high levels of play because those combats are taking place in environments that are hostile to life & are not normally accessible to the party without specific spells. Martials can function at high level well enough if the DM is inclined to make it work. Its a lot to juggle and honestly most players I have gamed with tend to lose focus on their characters after ten levels of play and want to try something fresh.|
|
1) No. It just so happens that you usually run into spell resistance just as you get some appreciable power, usually around 7th level plus (drow, minor demons/devils and such) and continues up till you quit game at the very high levels. Yes, at the very low levels of 1-6th it is not much of a concern at all.My point was that if you pick the right spells it's never a problem at all. And that the adventure I'm currently running (the PCs are 8th level right now, it ends at 10th) has something like 1 in 3 enemies with SR, and is likely well above average in that regard.
2) Well I am glad we agree there. Its just so annoying to constantly read the "Woe is me. I am a martial character stuck in a caster's world lament that appears on these forums so often. Martials dominate the game for a long period of moat gamers time and can continue to do so until the very high levels of game play which most gamers don't ever reach unless they are running an ad hoc adventure. Even with mobility issues and terrain, a martial with the correct choices can still be very effective. I am just tired of reading from posters that I need to adjust but if you ask for martials to have to adjust then its all caster bias and taking away martial agency. Which is bunkMartials are currently weaker than Casters, especially in terms of narrative power. This is an objective fact, and explains why people get very reasonably sensitive about having their power further limited in any additional ways.
However, it is true that this difference in power is not quite as great as some people make it out to be and a well built martial character can be a useful and effective character well into the high levels of the game...just usually not as useful as they would be if they were a caster (this is especially true if you count 4 level casters like Ranger and Paladin as martials).
1) Picking the right spells over and over again IS a problem. It takes away from my agency. I want to play specific kinds of casters and both spell resistance and immunites artifically narrow this scope. Its a big deal and quite tiresome that you have to do the same tropes over and over. Just like its NOT FUN for a rogue to have a large number of creatures immune to sneak attack its not fun for me to have a large number of creatures immune to fire or lightning or whatever. Its my agency that is being taken away and I am loathe that you express 100% support for anothers agency but tell me I have to be clever and work aroud the game quirks.
2) True but you know what its a cooperative game. We all need to share spotlight and if there is a jerk caster constantly trying to overshadow you then you need to talk with your friend. I love playing a barbarian. Conan is my hero! I hope they have an unarmored barbarian armor class option sow I can be all rippling muscles and a snarl. I don't need to be the top diplomat, top sneak (just pretty good :) ), top crafter, top perceptive guy to feel competent. I just need to kick ass in combat. I can do that and accept a critical fumble. ( I mean, come on, Conan knocked himself out by drunkenly running into a wall. If that is not a critical fumble I don't know what is. ) I am just asking for some penalty for a fumble because it creates agency. If there is no fear of failure because it either does not exist or the penalty for failure is so weak that it does not matter. See my post above regarding multiple attacks. If you swing and swing and swing again and no other options matter except damage then you WILL have a devaluation of martial agency. If martials have to make choices with consequence then they GAIN a tremendous amount of agency
|
|
If improved evasion lets you eventually turn all critical failures into regular failures, there could easily be feats that would have the same effect on your weapon attack rolls, and there could easily be feats along the way that give you rerolls or singular opportunities to not be affected.
Graystone, your point about armor is an interesting one, but this seems like it will already be the issue with feats that trigger powers off of other's critical misses. Why does wearing better armor make you more skilled at riposting?
Critical failure charts and such thing as "hitting the guy behind me" are not options that I am personally calling for, and I would discourage people from using critical failure mechanics that are that wonky. But more toned-down critical failure options might still work in certain types of games (remember I am not calling for every mechanic to list a separate critical failure mechanic, just that it should be a supported option).
What I hear as your core argument is that critical failure and critical success are much less dependent on luck in a system that gives criticals based upon the ease or difficulty of the task, and trying to make optional systems from the past that were based on critical actions being a result of luck (natural 20s and 1s) is a bad idea with a floating critical range.
Does this same argument not apply to many of the other features of the game now, like skill checks and saving throws?
Exactly my points throughout this thread Unicore. These are great points.
|
|
For early level characters it certainly is, IME; and fumble rules do not dictate every combat may be your last, sounds a tad dramatic, I mean, let's not get hysterical,.
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. .There ARE a wide range of fumble charts and some ARE one roll and you are dead. Secondly, even something as simple as the barbarian crit hitting the wizard with his +5 mage killing Tetsubo can drop a PC with a simple 'attack friend' fumble. Thirdly, 'drop your weapon' fumbles can have dire consequences in the right environment. Dropping the weapon that's currently letting you fly or breathe underwater can cause issues or suddenly finding yourself without weapons vs a monster that requires magic weapons to hit takes a whole person out of the fight: that alone can swing a fight towards a wipe, especially is you DO play a strategic and tough combat and THEN disarm yourself.
PS: and if you think low levels can be deadly, then why would you want to make that worse by adding 'three stooges' into fights? Nothing says 'fun' when the fighter loses his greatsword down a pit and has to fist fight the ogre while the rogue goes in for a backstab and falls prine at it's feet... No, not deadly at all...
I never advocated for harming your friends. I am constantly advocating for a penalty of SOME SORT to be imposed on a character for a critical failure. It creates agency because people won't just spend all their time in static combat swinging for the fences even if they know they cannot hit. They may move for a flank, they may ready a shield, use the bo staff parry option or take feats/weapons to mitigate or nullify these chances of failure. But the chance of failure has to EXIST for these choices to matter. The fact that these choices do matter creates AGENCY.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am constantly advocating for a penalty of SOME SORT to be imposed on a character for a critical failure. It creates agency because people won't just spend all their time in static combat swinging for the fences even if they know they cannot hit. They may move for a flank, they may ready a shield, use the bo staff parry option or take feats/weapons to mitigate or nullify these chances of failure. But the chance of failure has to EXIST for these choices to matter. The fact that these choices do matter creates AGENCY.
I'd rather have those secondary options stand on their own as useful options than punish/make worse attacking. IMO, the fact that you wasted an action missing is more than enough to punish someone that rolls a crit fail: it's weighing the odds of hitting vs other actions you can take.
Secondly, it throws a wrench into various tactics. For instance, you have a pile of low level npc's on a wall to fire arrows at a monster, army, pc's ect. In the past, even if they needed a 20, they could provide a viable threat with enough attacks. With fumbles, they's all end up tossing their weapons at the enemy before they could do anything useful... :P
So IMO, it's actually a loss of agency by removing the option to "swing for the fences", not because it's tactical or what they want to do but because you'll punish them for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what cilantro is, I don't eat fancy foods with outlandish french/spanish/italian/whatever names in them. They're usually too expensive and require an acquired taste to actually enjoy.
I live in Houston. Voting instructions here are posted in English, Mexican Spanish, and Vietnamese. In practical terms, that means that roughly 2/3 of all food here contains cilantro (aka "Coriander") -- usually the cheaper the food, the more cilantro in it. I love the stuff precisely because it screams "cheap comfort food" to me. I have a friend, though, who has the recessive genetic marker that makes cilantro taste like dead bugs or soap or something. She wants to ban it by law.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: My "bias toward martial characters" I haven't played a pure martial in my last like three campaigns over the last 5 years.
investigator (3 years of play)
Treesinger druid (bout 5 sessions)
Evoker (2 years of play)
Summoner (About a year of play)
Ranger (almost 8 years since i played it last but a 3 year campaign)
2nd edition Pyrogean Wizard (a decade of play)So any bias TOWARD martials on my part is in your head my dude. I'm biased toward shrinking a disparity by not kicking the weaker classes in a core rulebook mechanic.
So you only play a character if he/she is overpowered? Because that is your claim for casters. Martials are not weaker classes. They only suffer at the higher levels because you need magic to survive in extremely hostile environment. Is it my fault that the DM wants to run us in the elemental plane of fire or ends up using spells against the party because martial characters slice their NPC equivalent like a hot knife through butter without breaking a sweat?
Martials dominate low level play. Casters only dominate the very high levels of play because those combats are taking place in environments that are hostile to life & are not normally accessible to the party without specific spells. Martials can function at high level well enough if the DM is inclined to make it work. Its a lot to juggle and honestly most players I have gamed with tend to lose focus on their characters after ten levels of play and want to try something fresh.
Low levels, maybe level 1 to 3...MAYBE. Sleep and color spray are still mass fight enders after all.
As for only playing OP, no not really, i don't optimize particularly heavily. What I want is martials to get a little closer to the casters in areas outside of raw DPR. Martial DPR is fine as long as they have some way to force full attacks (archery/pounce/etc)
You're confusing a claim that martials are underpowered in significant aspects of play for the claim that casters are overpowered.
Edit: also, i reject your claim that there isn't already parity in the save 4 tier system and attack roll tier 4 system. One is based on your roll, the other based on the opponents, otherwise they're pretty dang identical. (except the attack roll system has more "do no damage" results)
I do think one of the critical weaknesses of Pathfinder (the current edition) is that standing still and swinging a weapon (or even 2) is too good of an option, and makes for very static and less interesting combats. I am glad that the full round attack went away and I hopeful that tactically sound options open up with feats that generally make taking a third attack at -10 a bad idea for most characters that are not specifically training to maximize the effectiveness of getting three attacks a turn. We have no idea how many creatures will have reactions that trigger off of critical misses and if they are common enough that people will need to think twice about attacking when the odds are against them.
I don't believe that mandatory critical fumbles are necessary, but I do hope that space is given in some kind of Dungeon Master's Guide (either as part of the core rulebook or a early supplement), that encourages different house rules for creating tone and shaking up pacing. Well crafted critical fumble rules have often created the difference between a gritty campaign and a super heroic one, and I hope that gets support.
|
|
Synopsis: Critical Failure on attack rolls would have the most likely effect of making combat more dangerous for characters making attack rolls, unspecialized in the type of combat they are engaging in. The more serious the critical failure, the less people will make attack rolls unless they are in a style of combat the character is trained in.You are ignoring the fact that crit fails go up along with AC. This means that even those trained in 'a style of combat' get penalized if you make a target harder to hit: in essence, NO MATTER the style of combat, the harder it is to hit, you fumble more even if your type of combat style doesn't directly interact with the target. So your bow strings break more often when attacking a plate mail person vs an unarmored person because...? I fire an attack cantrip at someone in cover and somehow that makes it more likely to shot the guy behind me with it?
So I disagree that is isn't 'punishing' people that have to make attack rolls: if you make a creature challenging to hit that then means that you fumble more even though you are still JUST as proficient in your style of combat.
Critical failures do go up with monster AC. That is a true statement. However monster NPC's scale very poorly with the exception of Dragons or NPC characters decked out in martial gear (aka npc fighters, blackguards, clerics, etc.) Since attack bonuses have traditionally scaled for martial characters faster than defenses have I do not see that disparity as a real threat. For untrained characters (wizards & their subclasses) it may indeed be a problem but if you are a wizard swinging a sword in melee combat at high levels I think you have more to worry about than a chance of a critical fumble.
|
|
RE: My "bias toward martial characters" I haven't played a pure martial in my last like three campaigns over the last 5 years.
investigator (3 years of play)
Treesinger druid (bout 5 sessions)
Evoker (2 years of play)
Summoner (About a year of play)
Ranger (almost 8 years since i played it last but a 3 year campaign)
2nd edition Pyrogean Wizard (a decade of play)So any bias TOWARD martials on my part is in your head my dude. I'm biased toward shrinking a disparity by not kicking the weaker classes in a core rulebook mechanic.
So you only play a character if he/she is overpowered? Because that is your claim for casters. Martials are not weaker classes. They only suffer at the higher levels because you need magic to survive in extremely hostile environment. Is it my fault that the DM wants to run us in the elemental plane of fire or ends up using spells against the party because martial characters slice their NPC equivalent like a hot knife through butter without breaking a sweat?
Martials dominate low level play. Casters only dominate the very high levels of play because those combats are taking place in environments that are hostile to life & are not normally accessible to the party without specific spells. Martials can function at high level well enough if the DM is inclined to make it work. Its a lot to juggle and honestly most players I have gamed with tend to lose focus on their characters after ten levels of play and want to try something fresh.
Low levels, maybe level 1 to 3...MAYBE. Sleep and color spray are still mass fight enders after all.
As for only playing OP, no not really, i don't optimize particularly heavily. What I want is martials to get a little closer to the casters in areas outside of raw DPR. Martial DPR is fine as long as they have some way to force full attacks (archery/pounce/etc)
You're confusing a claim that martials are underpowered in significant aspects of play for the claim that...
They can easily get into similar areas of non combat as long as it does not get into the areas of fantastic. Do I want martial paladins fighting across water without magical aid? No. Do I want martials to jump 30 feet into the air to make a meele attack? No. There are some things that you just cannot do wihtout the aid of magic. Can a martial be charismatic, a smooth talker, a detective or a crafter? Absolutely!
Every player should be able to bring something to the table and not everyone should be able to do what everyone else can do. If you want to play that type of game go play Skyrim. Its a fun game but not as a cooperative game. What did they do when they released Skyrim online? Create standard character classes where even the fighter mages where not as good as a pure fighter or a pure mage. I know. I played the game.
If you want to have your martials do magical stuff them multiclass them with a caster so that they can! I am just tired of being hit by the nerf bat in ever edition of D&D/Pathfinder so that you can feel good about yourself.
Oh and color spray sucks. You have to be right up in meele for it to be effective and it does not capture a lot of creatures. Its a 15 foot cone that effect at most six creatures and creatures usually don't clump like that. Its also very depenedent on hit dice and allows a save plus spell resistance. Sleep is a bit better, has a better range and radius effect but targets only 4 hit dice of creatures and a they get a save. Great for goblins and orcs but really nothing to write home about when fighting monster with more than 1 hit die. Spell easily becomes useless after 3rd leveland is soon forgotten.