Failure, RNG, and a way to solve it.

[Verzen]

In the scientific field, MOST scientific discoveries that are ground breaking actually show up by accident, causing the scientist to be like, "Oh. That's interesting..."

I am a huge fan of the RNG but I know a lot of people hate the RNG. The primary reason they hate the RNG is because it wastes turns, makes them feel useless, makes them feel like they aren't contributing.. But maybe the RNG that is involved in the inventor does beneficial things if it fails, but not what you were trying to do. For example..

An unstable feat/ability...

Unstable is changed to you can do it multiple times BUT every time you attempt it, you have to roll. If you roll a 1, then sparks fly out and you can't use it again until repaired. BUT if you roll a 2-5 then you fail to activate the machine and the machine rolls on a random chart of random effects that it could possibly be. You roll a 1d10 for type of damage dealt and then you roll on another chart that explains what happens. Some tube comes lose, everyone within a 5 foot radius takes damage. Or the machine goes haywire and shoots a bolt of lighting in a direction that you choose.

So the random effects from an unstable ability aren't entirely common. More often than not, you'll get the effect you want from it, but there's always a 'chance' that something can go wrong with your inventions, but always keeping it in the inventors favor so they have 'some' control over it and they don't feel like it's a feast or famine class.

[Verzen]

I also feel something like this would help to keep and maintain that mad Rick and Morty feel as well. Or like any mad scientist who knows just enough to be dangerous, but his inventions sometimes dont work appropriately, but still stuff manages to occur and often it just turns out for the best. That would be a pretty fun concept.

[TheGentlemanDM]

You are right that you need to 'fail up', but I suspect that more randomness and unpredictability isn't something that most people are going to want in the base of the class.

Your proposal is a good idea for a Mad Scientist Class Archetype which modifies the core of how Unstable works.

But for the core of the class, for something that every Inventor is going to get, abilities need to be a little more grounded and reliable.

At the moment, from the ideas bouncing around the forum, I think the best way to handle the failure RNG on Unstable is to:
- a) make it a very hard Crafting check for your level (which effectively lowers the flat DC steadily as you level), and
- b) ensure that the effect still happens on a failed check. The failure locks you out of further attempts, and potentially causes you to take the damage, but the primary outcome of your actions is not in doubt.

It removes the randomness from the tactical level, and moves it to the strategic level.

Players should (aside from the randomness already invoked by dice rolls), feel like their tactical decisions matter, but introducing complexities that have to be dealt with later is fine.

[Verzen]

i think people may be more 'accepting' of the randomness if it was randomness that benefited them in some way. Like .. everyone feels good.. if there's a crit, for example. It's random. It's a benefit.

People feel bad.. if they roll a 1 though.

[graystone]

Verzen wrote:

i think people may be more 'accepting' of the randomness if it was randomness that benefited them in some way. Like .. everyone feels good.. if there's a crit, for example. It's random. It's a benefit.

I wouldn't be thrilled. If I want/need a damaging blast so that the boss that goes next turn doesn't wreck the fighter, getting a healing spray when I'm already at max doesn't make me feel good in the least... The issue with random charts is that even if the results aren't bad they are in no way guaranteed to be useful/helpful in your current situation: if I'm drowning, I'm not feeling good if my water breathing rig lets me featherfall instead... I'm still drowning and I'm not falling anywhere... In essense, I still completely failed at what I need and that feels just as bad as if I rolled a 1 and failed the check.

As such, I'd have 0% interest in wacky random tables wonder build into the base class. Now you want them to make a Rick the mad scientist class archetype that does nothing but roll on random tables, well more power to you.

[Martialmasters]

I think the random table would be fun. But I agree with others that it's better for some kind of variant.

Now if you want my opinion. Failing upwards is always the way to go. I wish they'd of done that with the swashbuckler.

But as for the unstable actions and that high flat check. I think it should be up to player choice.

Right now I view unstable actions as focus power adjacent. Because it takes ten minutes to repair your innovation to use unstable actions again.

What I'd love to see is the failing upwards.

If you fail the check. You still use the action you tried. You take some fire damage as currently. And your locked out of unstable actions until you repair your innovation.

Issue is I think current innovation are balanced around the idea of really only using one per fight.

So how do we retain that power? While allowing a second unstable action? My thought. Is place some wording that prevents you from doing the same unstable action the following round. So if you used explosion. You couldn't use explosion again next round. But you could use it the round after. Or. If you picked up a different unstable action. You could use that instead The next round. This would prevent things like back to back megaton strike. As example. Wich currently I feel would be rather overpowered to be able to do at lower levels.

Then the higher level feat that lets you do two unstable actions before risking checks. Can let you use the same unstable action the next round, Wich you couldn't do with my proposed change.

[Keraki]

I have an idea, change explode that from an action to a result from a failed Unstable check. A crit failure would target the inventor as well for damage and lock the innovation till repair.
So
Crit success: Sam as success + ailment to target
Success: base ability
Failure: Innovation 'Explodes'
Crit Failure: Innovation Explodes even on you.

[Dubious Scholar]

Keraki wrote:

I have an idea, change explode that from an action to a result from a failed Unstable check. A crit failure would target the inventor as well for damage and lock the innovation till repair.

So
Crit success: Sam as success + ailment to target
Success: base ability
Failure: Innovation 'Explodes'
Crit Failure: Innovation Explodes even on you.

Oh I'm sure your allies will love being caught in this. Let's not.

[Loreguard]

I kind of liked the idea behind this concept, somewhat specifically how they know their item and learn to expect the unexpected and react to manipulate it and learn from it.

It seems from the Sticky post, that the current method of determining the results of unstable were not the ones they were planning on going with anyway, so they have already said they won't be having it be an action you commit to, to gamble your actions away. They said they may be leaning towards having them roll after the first use, so they know if they will be able to use it again or not. (although honestly that seems to kill some of the flavor of NOT knowing when it will give out)

However, if you had a fail-forward option, it might be cool.

If you choose to take an unstable action, before completing it you roll your check. Flat check DC 17 (or whatever it ends up being).

If you fail your check, your item Seizes, and will cease being able to use unstable actions until fixed. However, it in itself does not eat an action. However, a failed unstable check and it Seizes it offers a new ACTION they can choose to use at that time, as long as they didn't get a natural 1.

For 1 action you can vent the blast caused by the unstable operation seizing.
Option 1:
You stoke the power momentarily but quickly vent it around you.
Effect: everyone adjacent to you takes 1 splash fire damage. [not you]
Option 2:
You let the energy build and it blows out in a rather less controlled manner.
Effect: the inventor (or construct invention) and any others adjacent to it take 1/2 normal explosion damage.
Option 3:
You stoke the energy long enough, and vent it directly at an someone adjacent to you.
Effect: The inventor (or construct invention) makes a strike attack against an adjacent target using 1/2 the normal explosion dice. The inventor takes splash damage equal to reduced number of explosion dice.

If the roll on the flat check for unstable is a 1, the invention is less controlled than expected. They don't have the choice to not respond, it will explode. The option to vent(#1) producing splash damage will also damage the inventor or construct, in addition to the adjacent creature. If they don't want it to explode everywhere, they can choose an variant op option 3, venting it harmlessly away from anything that could be harmed (basically choosing no target), but they still takes the splash damage.

This leaves a bit of flavor of the unexpected.

You don't know for sure if you will be able to use your ability again or not. But if you fail, you have some weaker options you can use as a quick action as a result.

The special effect on a natural 1 seems to also me flavorful, although it wouldn't be necessary. However, I think recognizing natural 1s and 20s on flat checks has definite value as a game mechanic. So I presented it as an option.

This make the unstable things interesting have have the flavor of being somewhat unreliable, but would not typically force you to eat up actions for nothing. Even in my example of when you might get forced to do something, you at least have choices and might get some value out of one of them.