Jump to content


Recommended Posts

On 8/11/2018 at 10:39 AM, ttuckerman said:

Ranger has been vastly changed.  No spells, no favored terrain or enemies.  No feat to shoot two arrows.  He is just a weak fighter that can track.

 

I can actually appreciate the removal of spells from the ranger. There have been a lot of spell-less ranger ideas floating around, and from what I understand they were very popular with PF1. And it has to do with the way that druids and rangers have evolved to overlap quite a lot over the years. Namely, 3rd edition D&D gave druids an animal companion(formerly a ranger only thing) while simultaneously expanding the ranger's spellcasting ability(encroaching on the druids role as the nature spellcaster).

 

But getting rid of favored terrain, favored enemies, and the animal companion is stripping the ranger of everything that makes a ranger. Seriously. That's really all that has separated the ranger from the fighter since 2e.

 

On 8/11/2018 at 12:11 PM, SamuraiJack said:

 

We were told at Origins that critical combat failures were not finished perhaps...

 

Until they figure out a way to handle critical failures for spells that affects them with the same frequency that they affect physical attacks, I'll always be of the opinion that they're designed solely to punish players for being a BDF. "Oh, you rolled a 1 on your attack? Well, you just broke your super expensive/rare magic weapon and now you're useless until you can replace it." Or if you're lucky it's just "A 1? Well, you just threw your weapon across the room and fell prone. Now you have to provoke an AoO to stand up and waste your next two turns going to pick up your weapon and then coming back to the fight."

 

As the number of attacks goes up, the chance of a critical failure increases by a value greater than 1. It's not exponentially, maybe logarithmically? I can't remember the mathematical term for it, because that's not my strong point. But yea, unless they do something like "if the enemy rolls a critical success on its spell save it means you have a critical fail on your spell," then spellcasters will have a natural advantage simply because of how so many of their spells don't require attack rolls. Either that or they're going to go the 4e route of everything being an attack roll and everyone having a Will Defense/Reflex Defense/Constitution Defense value. Which, well, that would just cement in my mind the idea that they're trying to recreate 4e with PF2.

 

I really, really dislike critical failure effects...

Edited by Unruly
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Unruly said:

I really, really dislike critical failure effects...

 

I completely agree. They don't really reflect things that actually happen when people fight. They don't reflect anything in the genre fiction. They disproportionately punish multiple-weapon users. They get more common as character skill levels rise. And I don't think they're much fun.

 

But more than that, critical failures were explicitly left out of 3e because they disproportionately affect PCs.

 

NPCs are disposable. In almost every case, combat NPCs show up for one encounter and then are never seen again, so if one of them arrives, fumbles, and is useless for the entire battle until it is killed, this is just a minor anecdote. If the same happens to a PC, the effects are much more significant. And if a PC is killed as a result of ignominious failure, that can wreck the story that the players and GM are creating together.

 

The same is true of critical hits, btw (since any PC will be swung at many more times in the course of a campaign than any NPC) but it was felt that enough players wanted critical hits that the benefits outweighed the costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Doug Sundseth said:

 

I completely agree. They don't really reflect things that actually happen when people fight. They don't reflect anything in the genre fiction. They disproportionately punish multiple-weapon users. They get more common as character skill levels rise. And I don't think they're much fun.

 

But more than that, critical failures were explicitly left out of 3e because they disproportionately affect PCs.

 

NPCs are disposable. In almost every case, combat NPCs show up for one encounter and then are never seen again, so if one of them arrives, fumbles, and is useless for the entire battle until it is killed, this is just a minor anecdote. If the same happens to a PC, the effects are much more significant. And if a PC is killed as a result of ignominious failure, that can wreck the story that the players and GM are creating together.

 

The same is true of critical hits, btw (since any PC will be swung at many more times in the course of a campaign than any NPC) but it was felt that enough players wanted critical hits that the benefits outweighed the costs.

Put me in the same boat as you guys.

 

In my early days of AD&D, I liked the crit failure tables. But with time, I realized that it gives a disadvantage to PCs as many have lingering affects further battles and exhausts resources. Something that's not a problem to the enemies as they are expected to lose in RPGs, so no worries.

 

If a crit system takes into account the gradual improvement of warriors, essentially making them less likely to have a crit failure, then I may reconsider my position. For example, a fighter's weapon specialization, the weapon they can fight with in their sleep, should by default make it much less likely for them to critically miss. A higher BAB, representing combat experience, should make any failure less likely and/or less severe. So none of this "1 in 20 chance of great failure".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cranky Dog said:

Put me in the same boat as you guys.

 

In my early days of AD&D, I liked the crit failure tables. But with time, I realized that it gives a disadvantage to PCs as many have lingering affects further battles and exhausts resources. Something that's not a problem to the enemies as they are expected to lose in RPGs, so no worries.

 

If a crit system takes into account the gradual improvement of warriors, essentially making them less likely to have a crit failure, then I may reconsider my position. For example, a fighter's weapon specialization, the weapon they can fight with in their sleep, should by default make it much less likely for them to critically miss. A higher BAB, representing combat experience, should make any failure less likely and/or less severe. So none of this "1 in 20 chance of great failure".

You have never actually read the optional Critical Failure rules for PF1, have you?

 

The system already does exactly that.

 

First comes the Natural 1 - a 5% chance that something may have gone wrong - which then must be confirmed with a second failed attack check - you know, rolling based that thing that goes up with every level of a Fighter?

 

And then things can go wrong. So if Bob hits on everything but a three or less, he will need to roll three or less after rolling a Natural 1 for things to really go pear shaped.- so a 15% of a 5% chance.... While Rodney the Clumsy - picking up a bow in his inept and untrained hands might miss on everything below a 15 when shooting at the barn door. He rolls a 1 (Whoops!) and then may fumble on a 14 or lower (why he picked up a bow in the first place...?)

 

Yes, that 5% is there, but it needs to be confirmed.

 

Likewise, a Crit needs to be confirmed - 20 being typical for the chance to roll, followed by another successful attack to confirm the Crit.

 

So, Bob will have a much greater chance of hitting and a greater chance of Critting than Rodney - who has a much lower chance of hitting and a higher chance of fumbling.

 

But you are still looking at low probability. Even Rodney still needs to make that 5% before he needs to see if he does something numb.

 

Then, Paizo being Paizo, they made decks for entertaining criticals and fumbles.

 

Myself, I go with straight up extra damage from a crit (barring feats), and a fumble being 'Make a Str check to keep hold of your weapon - succeed and you lose your next attack, fail and you lose the weapon'. (Which, again, means that a Fighter with a Str of 16 is more likely to keep his weapon - and is also more likely to have iterative attacks, so losing one attack may not seem that bad.) But this is just my personal houserule - not anything resembling 'Official'.

 

The kids game starts with the kids deciding whether or not they want the Crit/Fumble decks for that session, sometimes yes, sometimes no - with the kids liking the Fumble deck more often that the Crit deck....

 

The Auld Grump - time to teach Brigid how to sing 100 Bottles of Beer for her mommy's listening pleasure. ::P:

Edited by TheAuldGrump
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far I've read up through most of the classes, and I can't say I'm liking any of it.  Giving everyone 5 ability score boosts every 5 levels is crazy.. no one is ever going to have weaknesses or a dump stat that gives them flavor.. i mean why would you not put one into your level 1 dump stat to fix the modifier.. 

 

It feels like they've taken the soul out of the game.. races don't really give much benefit at all now with abilities tied up in ancestry feats..

 

PFS is going to be horrible with everyone having the same stats, same feats and no flavor.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hated adding to the attributes when choosing classes and everything else.

 

I would rather spend my points the way I WANT to spend them, thank you ever so very much.

 

If Grump does end up wanting to run it, I will use my Veto. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheAuldGrump said:

You have never actually read the optional Critical Failure rules for PF1, have you?

 

The system already does exactly that.

 

I do remember it, but the chance of failure is also based on the enemy's AC. So fighting something that has incredibly tough armor, or is incredibly nimble won't just increase your chance of missing, but missing incredibly.

 

It makes even less sense if you're using ranged weapons. The first level local militia could shoot the broadside of a barn all day with little risk. But if instead of a barn its a bored ancient dragon with high DR, standing still for laughs, then they're snapping bow strings, or shooting an ally in the knee forcing an early retirement, at every twentieth arrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cranky Dog said:

I do remember it, but the chance of failure is also based on the enemy's AC. So fighting something that has incredibly tough armor, or is incredibly nimble won't just increase your chance of missing, but missing incredibly.

 

It makes even less sense if you're using ranged weapons. The first level local militia could shoot the broadside of a barn all day with little risk. But if instead of a barn its a bored ancient dragon with high DR, standing still for laughs, then they're snapping bow strings, or shooting an ally in the knee forcing an early retirement, at every twentieth arrow.

So, base the fumble off Touch AC. Problem solved. I think Grump does that, because I haven't seen THAT many Fumbles. Or maybe he just plays nice.

 

I don't know about you, but if I am shooting a dragon then I am drawing the string as far as I can, to try to get through the scales. And I have done enough archery to know that, yes, the further back you draw the bow the more likely you will mess up.

 

Hitting your arm with your bow string HURTS! And I have done it, it is not rare AT ALL. THAT is a fumble! And, yeah, after it happens you sometimes DO drop the bow.

 

My arm would be shaking all over the place if I were shooting a dragon, my feets would be wanting to go the OTHER direction. TWANG! Ow! Run away! ::P:

 

DR is not AC, so would not affect the chance of fumbling. The militia would not be fumbling every twenty shots.

 

If an Adult Green has a Touch AC of 8, and the Militia has a +2 total to hit with a bow, then the odds are pretty good that you are looking at more like one shot out of a hundred, not one out of twenty.

 

Sure, less than half the shots will be doing any damage, even if you hit, but you won't be fumbling all over the place, either.

 

Though missing the dragon would be better than hitting the dragon and ANNOYING it!

Wow! I was in a cranky mood writing this, I was frothing at the mouth until I scaled it back! SOOO glad I didn't hit SUBMIT! I can't blame BD, she has been a sweetheart. I'M the one feeling cranky.

 

I guess I REALLY hate PF2! Or maybe bad math. Or maybe just having to do math. ::P:

 

Going to check on Grumpy, then take a nap.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much. ::P:

 

She's napping right now. :wub: Handed me the baby and said 'Your turn!' - flopped down and was out like a light.

 

It probably feels like fumbling more often than the fumbles actually happening.

 

But there are a lot of rolling dice in RPGs, and, because of statistical clumping, it sometimes happens that you can get a bunch of fumbles in a row - which is what will be remembered, not that time when you went two hundred rolls with no fumbles at all.

 

And it is your own fumbles that you will remember, not those of some kobold that buttered the hilt of his sword before combat.

 

I do not go with fumbles that are all that horrible - unless the Fumble Deck is in play. (And when Pugwampis are in the battle, the Fumble Deck always comes out. The kids hate the Pugwampis!)

 

Megan is right - I do go off of Touch AC for confirming fumbles - it just seems that a moving target makes it more likely to fumble, so Dex/Dodge is counted but Armor is not. I should have been more clear.

 

And she is right about DR, too - it does not affect the chance of Fumbling, so does not pertain.

 

The Auld Grump - I cast a spell and I choke, try to use a sword and I fumble....

 

*EDIT* Real World fumbles that I have seen from archers - a girl that managed to hit herself in the back with her arrow. (Not plunging in - it went almost straight up, and the breeze carried it just far enough back that the arrow scratched her on the back on the way straight back down. No serious injuries.)

 

A Boy Scout that needed stitches on his ear, after he almost took it off with his bowstring.

 

A Boy Scout that lost a thumbnail from somehow hitting his thumb with his arrow while firing. (No, I don't know how he managed it.)

 

A Boy Scout that managed to hit the target next to the one he was shooting at - twice, once on the left, and the other on the right.

 

I have personally managed to hit my forearm with the string, there is a reason archers wear braces.

 

With a black powder weapon, I managed to catch the webbing of my right thumb in the lock, leaving me with a nice, neat, rectangular scar while loading the gun.

 

Fumbles do happen in the real world.

 

As you may guess, I was a Scout. ::P:

Edited by TheAuldGrump
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cranky Dog said:

I do remember it, but the chance of failure is also based on the enemy's AC. So fighting something that has incredibly tough armor, or is incredibly nimble won't just increase your chance of missing, but missing incredibly.

 

It makes even less sense if you're using ranged weapons. The first level local militia could shoot the broadside of a barn all day with little risk. But if instead of a barn its a bored ancient dragon with high DR, standing still for laughs, then they're snapping bow strings, or shooting an ally in the knee forcing an early retirement, at every twentieth arrow.

I will, however, point out that that is not at all what you described in the post I referenced.

 

A wee bit of goal post moving, eh?

 

The Auld Grump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TheAuldGrump said:

Fumbles do happen in the real world.

 

I wouldn't call any of those things significant enough to be a real problem to a trained warrior. They're just flashy misses, not the sort of things that would cause the results that game fumbles would cause.

 

Yes, it's possible to drop a weapon in the real world. I've seen it maybe once every 2-4 hours of combat (that would be the equivalent of once every 1200 - 2400 rounds of combat in Pathfinder, and that's group combats, not one on one). And it's almost always newbs that have the problem. (Further note that a disarm is just that, not a drop, so not appropriate to count in this metric.) I've seen people mistake friends for enemies, but really only in deep melee involving dozens or hundreds of people, and it's still quite uncommon.

 

Now if the result of a fumble is something like, "Hilt turns in your grip. Lose any remaining attacks for this round and take a -1 to AC until your next round", I don't have a particular problem, but I don't see that as interesting enough to bother tracking when you're using a d20 for your randomizer.

 

If fumbles work well for the groups and games you run and play in, more power to you. We play for fun and if you're having fun, great.

 

But I despise them. They don't simulate anything that I've seen in actual combats. They're problematic for storytelling and game balance. And even at their best, they just draw out combat, not improve it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of how fumbles are done, the math says that a level 20 fighter with 5 attacks is going to fumble much more often than a level 1 fighter with only 1 attack. Statistics and probability being what they are, if you're rolling 5 die that all have a 1/20 chance of being a 1, then the person who rolls more die will roll more 1s. Even forcing a confirmation roll does not change this. It makes the probability of each individual attack being a confirmed critical failure lower, but it remains that the level 20 fighter is going to fail more often simply because he's rolling more often.

 

Meanwhile that level 20 wizard can just cast a level 9 fireball to hit everything for buckets of damage and have no risk of failure at all. Worst case scenario, the enemies save and take half the damage. But the wizard is never forced to critically fail unless they're using one of the relatively few spells that require an attack roll. And even then the fail condition is usually no worse than just missing. "You lose the spell" vs "You lose your weapon."

 

For those reasons I'll never do fumbles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Unruly said:

And even then the fail condition is usually no worse than just missing. "You lose the spell" vs "You lose your weapon." 

Wait you mean you don't have spells backfire with crit fails?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BlazingTornado said:

Wait you mean you don't have spells backfire with crit fails?

 

I don't use crit fails. The one DM I played with that did didn't have anything for fumbling spells other than, at worst, losing your next turn. But for weapons you could end up killing yourself with a fumble depending on what he rolled on his fail table.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sucks. I use fumbles but they're usually minor hindrances for the players. NPC foes can suffer harder consequences.

 

I think the worst I did was damage a +1 handaxe after a relentless amount of botches happened with that weapon. The player was cool with it though, he was like "Sweet I get a sidequest to get that fixed!" and I ended up using it as a hook for a sewer crawl I wanted to run.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Unit04
      My friend is playing a fighter in a Pathfinder game, so I decided to take a break from my Batman game to paint up a figure for her, though I decided to paint two.  
       
      I asked her what her favorite color is, and she said "Blue", so I painted up a mini with lots of blue.  If I paint her again I think I'd pick out the fleur-de-lis in a different color, to make it stand out some more.  
       

    • By Neatpete
      The new Kickstarter got me motivated to dig up some old bones. I realized after all these years I have never painted a dragon, so I got after it. Rather happy with how this came out.
       

    • By Floyd Ryan
      This is Barzillai Thrune, the major villain from the Pathfinder Hell's Rebels campaign. I painted him as a service to my DM because we are currently playing that campaign and my intuition tells me that it will be needed some day. The mini is extremely faithful to the original Wayne Reynolds art and I also used the same colour scheme, but I regret using my standard unimaginative "block of acryl paste" base. With the burning mace the mini would be excellent for OSL experiments and there are two fine versions of it on the forum with lighting effects, but I thought to late about the idea and was reluctant to add it to the almost finished mini.
       
       




    • By Floyd Ryan
      So here is my take on the famous Pathfinder Sorceress Seoni. I mostly kept to the original color scheme but wanted to find out how a green dress would look.
       
       



    • By Brianuk
      I don't play Pathfinder but really liked the idea of Kul Inkit being a barbarian outfitted from a crashed spaceship. I tried to include spaceship grey and bright orange to suggest this. 


  • Who's Online   26 Members, 2 Anonymous, 112 Guests (See full list)

×