Just because the odds of rolling something are low does not mean it will never happen. As someone who has rolled a perfect character (18s across the board) back in the old school D&D days of 3d6 straight down the line, in front of witnesses, I can tell you it can and will happen.
Do you also not use any motor vehicles because there's a chance you'll get into an accident?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because the odds of rolling something are low does not mean it will never happen. As someone who has rolled a perfect character (18s across the board) back in the old school D&D days of 3d6 straight down the line, in front of witnesses, I can tell you it can and will happen.Do you also not use any motor vehicles because there's a chance you'll get into an accident?
I drive all the time, there are things you can do to minimize your risk...like not driving down the wrong side of the road, or driving while blindfolded.
Here is another dumb analogy...Do I not go outside because I might get struck by lightning?...Of course I go outside...but I'm not going to go outside in a thunderstorm while carrying around a lightning rod.
Right now, I plan to completely eliminate my risk of getting ridiculous dice rolls by not playing games that use ridiculous dice pools.
Lol. Wow great examples of how you can't make everyone happy. I know so many people that enjoy rolling lots of dice. yet there someone goes comparing rolling a lot of dice to death in an improbable circumstance. Maybe stick to chess and games with out luck at all. might be closer to what your looking for. I think there is a few dice-less RPG's out there.
You do know that switching systems isn't going to help that?
If you're assuming impossibly bad luck to begin with, you're not going to see any improvement, no matter the system, unless you have a system with 0 luck involved. For example, you could be completely useless in PF1 if every attack you roll is a natural 1. Or if every enemy rolls a 18 on their save constantly (this actually happened earlier this week, with only one save being below a die roll of 16).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol. Wow great examples of how you can't make everyone happy. I know so many people that enjoy rolling lots of dice. yet there someone goes comparing rolling a lot of dice to death in an improbable circumstance. Maybe stick to chess and games with out luck at all. might be closer to what your looking for. I think there is a few dice-less RPG's out there.
Or we can have a game where we don't roll ridiculous pool of dice for every damage, and you can get reliable attacks, saves and you're not a total stooge in skills. Oh, wait I have one and I'm not paying a dime for this "failing is cool" game.
I mean bigger pool of dice is way down on my priority list to change in PF2, but simultaneously, it's just that it's one more thing I don't like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as I've heard "basically Pathfinder requires you to use a 3pp app to manage their character" more often than I did hear that pen and paper is the only correct way and using software kills the spirit of the game. We live in the age when we have the tools to make our life easier, discarding them in the name of nostalgia makes no sense to me.Most of the time it isn't 'nostalgia.' It's limited table space and keeping people in the game rather off on the web somewhere.
Limited table space is a huge thing for me. Very often people will bring large notebook computers to a game which have significant space footprints.
In terms of the “nostalgia” concern, I would argue that we’re playing a game for fun. We shouldn’t have to worry about productivity, efficiency, etc. I work with a woman who runs a horse-drawn carriage business on the side, and no one would want to travel to/from work in this manner but it is a lot of fun for some people on their wedding day or on other special occasions.
Character Building software is out and out bad for learning how to play the game. Consistently I see people who exclusively use such software fail to learn basic rules (of the game and their character).
Yep, this is a major problem, particularly given the very complicated nature of PF1e in its current form with its huge range of classes, feats, archetypes, etc. and the even larger number of interactions of such features.
I mean bigger pool of dice is way down on my priority list to change in PF2, but simultaneously, it's just that it's one more thing I don't like.
Same here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well dice can be loaded (not intentionally i'm sure) but the odds of you actually rolling that is quite frankly next to impossible, if the rolls are properly made, and for sure would never happen again (well almost). (Its 1 out of 101,559,956,668,416) So i'm going to say that either the dice were badly crafted/loaded or you didn't roll them properly, because the odds are less than pretty much every other thing in your daily life that you actually rolled that by chance.Just because the odds of rolling something are low does not mean it will never happen. As someone who has rolled a perfect character (18s across the board) back in the old school D&D days of 3d6 straight down the line, in front of witnesses, I can tell you it can and will happen.
Using averages and other homebrew options has 2 problems I can see right off the bat.
#1 It defeats the purpose of having the rules in the first place if you are just going to replace them with whatever you feel like anyways.
#2 For people like me who play almost exclusively PFS/Organized play, where you are required to play RAW, it just isn't even an option.
While playing V:TM eons ago, a friend of mine tried to do something that was supposed to be impossible. He had 10d10 and the ability to reroll a natural 10 and add those successes. He needed 10 for a success and needed 8 successes... which sounds nearly impossible.
He rolled nineteen 10s. Nine of them came on the first 10d10 roll.
Now obviously, we were never able to replicate that. It was one of those once in a lifetime rolls. But it does happen. The poor storyteller didn't know what to do, lol.
If PFS need to follow RAW then Paizo should consider making it optional in RAW (though mostly PFS doesn't play at that high of a level does it?)
I'm pretty sure part of the intention of 2e is to make PFS work at higher level play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure part of the intention of 2e is to make PFS work at higher level play.
I really hope this isn't the case. Balancing games around "professional" play is always a road to self destruction. If they want PFS to work at higher levels of play, then develop a set of PFS houserules. Don't let PFS which affects maybe 1% of players dictate how the other 99% of players should be playing the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope this isn't the case. Balancing games around "professional" play is always a road to self destruction. If they want PFS to work at higher levels of play, then develop a set of PFS houserules. Don't let PFS which affects maybe 1% of players dictate how the other 99% of players should be playing the game.
I'm pretty sure part of the intention of 2e is to make PFS work at higher level play.
Seriously, THAT.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's an issue. Outside gaming, I've had a job where they knew that the stuff they could easily measure was about 10% of the workload. Measuring the rest would require work from the managers, and wouldn't be as numeric (therefore, not as good data in their view.) They went with the 10% plus a quick overview from the managers. Over time the overview was dropped and their faith in the 10% being representative (or that it was somehow more of the workload) was increased.
The relevance to PF? Paizo get a lot of data from PFS, amd I think they've relied on it more as time goes on. I don't think it's at all representative of how the game's played at home and that's more people than PFS by some margin.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The handful of people saying I should not play games because of my dislike of PF2's penchant for large pools of large dice are totally missing the point.
If you want people to doing an average of say 50-60 points of damage at X level...rolling 1-2 dice with a larger static modifier is (to me at least) a much better option than rolling 9d12, where the average may be right where you want it, but the extremes are super extreme.
I really hope this isn't the case. Balancing games around "professional" play is always a road to self destruction. If they want PFS to work at higher levels of play, then develop a set of PFS houserules. Don't let PFS which affects maybe 1% of players dictate how the other 99% of players should be playing the game.
I'm pretty sure part of the intention of 2e is to make PFS work at higher level play.
And PF2e in its current form is not necessary to "make PFS work at higher level play." A revision of PF1e that addresses the "power bloat" of all classes, archetypes, feats, etc. released without sufficient forethought would do the job.
Personally, I enjoy the big buckets of dice way more than high level characters doing 1d4+25 damage.
Sure its a little slower to actually add up, but it is way more fun as a martial character to get to actually do the handful of dice that has been only a casters domain for years.
As others have said, if you don't like it, just house rule that additional damage dice from magic weapons do average damage.
So a if you have a +4 greatsword, instead of 5d12, do 1d12+26
previously you had to get into vital strike, weapon size, and/or monk shenanigans to really do the whole "fistful of dice" thing, yeah. or that one archery feat that totals all your damage in one go before applying enemy DR
And PF2e in its current form is not necessary to "make PFS work at higher level play." A revision of PF1e that addresses the "power bloat" of all classes, archetypes, feats, etc. released without sufficient forethought would do the job.I really hope this isn't the case. Balancing games around "professional" play is always a road to self destruction. If they want PFS to work at higher levels of play, then develop a set of PFS houserules. Don't let PFS which affects maybe 1% of players dictate how the other 99% of players should be playing the game.
I'm pretty sure part of the intention of 2e is to make PFS work at higher level play.
as well as completely redoing their encounter design from the ground up, as paizo official's designs got so predictable that PFS 'meta' builds started showing up, leading to the wrongful kneecapping of crane wing (rather than master of many styles, the true perpetrator), among other things.
|
Some players don't handle a lot of dice rolling and math very well. I have one player that insists on rolling her dice one at a time, and a greatsword crit in her hands is a solid minute or two of pause while the math gets done. It's not fun.
Overall, I'd like to see the dice reduced, especially at higher levels and monster HP pools reduced to compensate. Not rolling the extra dice from the crit and just multiplying the damage would also help.
I don't mind rolling a lot of dice as a GM, though, so that half of the equation isn't so bad.
Not rolling the extra dice from the crit and just multiplying the damage would also help.
That's exactly what I prefer to do, and did do in 3.5 games. I'm not sure I even have 10d12 to roll if I crit with a higher level greatsword.
17d8 Stormbolts had the same problem in 1e. At some point I'd just prefer to average out some of those dice rather than trying to roll an amount of them that can barely fit in my hands, if I even own that many.
This might be a good place for an optional rule or two, allowing people to roll fewer dice and take an average roll for the others.