Bow Critical Miss
Jeff Goslin
1, hit yourself or something equally bad happens(dropped weapon, hit party
member if missile weapon, etc). Simple, elegant, concise. One problem.
Playing 2E, we have a fighter who specialized in bow, giving him 3 attacks
per round. Since 5% of attacks, statistically, will be natural 1's,
statistically, every 7th round, he will roll a critical miss.
Problem is... most often, he's firing at unengaged targets(ie targets out of
melee range of the party), so, if he rolls a natural 1, he's not going to
hit a party member, which is the defacto standard for a missile weapon
natural 1(much to the chagrin of our magic user, who likes to toss daggers
rather ineptly once he's out of spells). So, what happens when our intrepid
bowman rolls a 1 if there's nothing for a wayward arrow to hit?
Since I honestly can't think of anything "bad" else that can happen to him,
the only thing to say is "you broke your bow". But honestly, a bow string
doesn't snap every 20 shots, let's be honest. What else could happen on a
critical miss with a bow? The only other thing, thinking about it, is for
the bow to fly out of his hands. *TWANANANANGGGG* kind of thing, flying
thru the air in front of him. But would an expert bowman really drop his
bow? I can see a swordsman dropping his sword as the result of a wacky hand
hit or something(critical miss), but not a bowman who is not under direct
attack. Any thoughts?
--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Nikolas Landauer
> Any thoughts?
Yes. Drop critical misses. They add little to a game, and almost
every implementation of them sucks and is unrealistic.
There's a reason they're not in D&D.
--
Nik
Mr. M.J. Lush
Jeff Goslin <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Critical hits in our campaign are easy, natural 20, double damage, natural
>1, hit yourself or something equally bad happens(dropped weapon, hit party
>member if missile weapon, etc). Simple, elegant, concise. One problem.
>
>Playing 2E, we have a fighter who specialized in bow, giving him 3 attacks
>per round. Since 5% of attacks, statistically, will be natural 1's,
>statistically, every 7th round, he will roll a critical miss.
Solution your fumble chance is Way Too High, find a way to lower it
(a saving throw vs Fumble would be at least scale with level).
--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
JB
"Nikolas Landauer" <daci...@hotmail.diespam.com> wrote in message
news:080920040535345570%daci...@hotmail.diespam.com...
AOL
Stephenls
do something stupid every 7th round.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
Ken Andrews
Questions always come around. This one's been answered before, in this same
newsgroup. Some possibilities:
1) He misses his grip, the arrow drops off to one side, he loses all attacks
for the rest of the round.
2) He strains a muscle. Suggest -1 to all attacks for the next hour.
3) He tears a muscle. Suggest -3 to all attacks for the next day.
4) String breaks, he punches himself in the face (yes, I have seen people
who pull directly back towards themselves) or the string whips him.
5) (Bad one) The arrow's a bit too short (they're all hand-made, after
all), he pulls a bit too far back, the arrow comes back such that the head
is now back of (or on top of) the webbing between thumb and forefinger.
When he releases, it either slices along that surface and the length of his
forefinger or it digs in and rips right through that section of his hand.
Moonself
"Jeff Goslin" wrote
In my party we use critical miss only for melee weapons: when critical
missing with bow the arrow just fly high.
If you want to apply penalties, you could think something like:
1) the string hits the arm due to a clumsy movement <I've actually
seen that happening to a rookie bowman: he got a black mark on his arm
for one week>. 1d4 damage or something like that
2) not the bow, but the arrows fall <they weren't properly loaded on
the string>: for that round no more shoot <takes some time to grab
new arrows>
3) what else...oh yes, the arrow fly really high, forcing all the
party to stare at it screaming "HOME RUN!". They all lose action in
that round and are spotted if they were hiding. :)
Just some stupid ideas but I hope they helped.
Moonself
3)
Mark Blunden
> In article <tqKdnZ3hMLX...@comcast.com>,
> Jeff Goslin <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Critical hits in our campaign are easy, natural 20, double damage,
>> natural 1, hit yourself or something equally bad happens(dropped
>> weapon, hit party member if missile weapon, etc). Simple, elegant,
>> concise. One problem.
>>
>> Playing 2E, we have a fighter who specialized in bow, giving him 3
>> attacks per round. Since 5% of attacks, statistically, will be
>> natural 1's, statistically, every 7th round, he will roll a critical
>> miss.
>
> Solution your fumble chance is Way Too High, find a way to lower it
> (a saving throw vs Fumble would be at least scale with level).
Our DM insists on using critical fumbles. His implementation more-or-less
mirrors critical hits - you roll again, and if your roll is still low enough
to miss, it's a critical fumble, otherwise it's just a miss.
Not that I'm particularly fond of this version, as it ties you fumble chance
to your opponent's AC, which is silly. As stated, the best solution is not
to use critical misses at all.
--
Mark.
Andy
On a natural 20 you do require a reroll to check if the threat becomes a
crit don't you? In which case on a 1 you could argue that you had to roll
again and another 1 was a fumble or the like.
Personally I don't touch fumbles with a bargepole, they're unnecessary and
don't really add to the game (IMO). A 1 is a miss, that's it, unless you're
firing into melee in which case there are rules to determine if you hit
someone else.
Andy
Telemnar
We use an open-ended approach to critical misses. If you roll a 1 on a D20
attack roll, then roll a D10 and subtract that value from the 1 (with 0
being 0, not 10). If you happen to roll a 9, then subtract that and roll
the D10 again. Keep subtracting and rolling as long as you roll 9s. After
the rolling, apply your bonuses. If this is better than 0, you just
missed. If less, then the magnitude of how far below 0 describes the
magnitude of the critical failure. Then the DM just makes something up to
describe what happens on the failure.
eg. D20 roll = 1. Roll D10=9, attack roll is now -8. Roll D10 again=3.
Attack roll is now -11. If your modifiers are better than 11, you are OK.
If not, critical failure.
This way, at lower levels (where your modifiers are lower), it is easier
to get a critical failure. At higher levels, it is extrodinarily hard to
get a critical failure, but not impossible.
Jeff Goslin
news:080920040535345570%daci...@hotmail.diespam.com...
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Yes. Drop critical misses. They add little to a game, and almost
> every implementation of them sucks and is unrealistic.
I suppose that's one way to go, but it's not the way we'll be going. I'm
not going to add critical hits, something that I think adds tremendously to
the game(adding excitement), without adding an equally bad thing for the
exact opposite.
I guess it's just your campaign where critical misses don't work, but our
critical misses are meant to provide balance to the game, not realism. Plus
which, it provides for something to roleplay in an otherwise dull combat.
Not only that, but some of our most amusing moments stem from spectacular
misses. It's downright fun to critically miss sometimes!
EG: Our party of 8 ~3rd level characters were riding along a road when a
single enterprising kobold stepped out into the road and demanded everyone's
money. After a bit of laughter, the paladin whipped out his throwing hammer
and tried to toss it at the kobold, for a critical miss. The character
right behind the paladin happened to be the magic user, who was almost
knocked unconscious by the hammer hitting him in the face as it slipped out
of the paladin's hand.
Stephenls
> I suppose that's one way to go, but it's not the way we'll be going. I'm
> not going to add critical hits, something that I think adds tremendously to
> the game(adding excitement), without adding an equally bad thing for the
> exact opposite.
In that case I would suggest changing the system so that critical misses
are either more rare or less severe.
> I guess it's just your campaign where critical misses don't work, but our
> critical misses are meant to provide balance to the game, not realism. Plus
> which, it provides for something to roleplay in an otherwise dull combat.
> Not only that, but some of our most amusing moments stem from spectacular
> misses. It's downright fun to critically miss sometimes!
> EG: Our party of 8 ~3rd level characters were riding along a road when a
> single enterprising kobold stepped out into the road and demanded everyone's
> money. After a bit of laughter, the paladin whipped out his throwing hammer
> and tried to toss it at the kobold, for a critical miss. The character
> right behind the paladin happened to be the magic user, who was almost
> knocked unconscious by the hammer hitting him in the face as it slipped out
> of the paladin's hand.
That really seems more like slapstick comedy than dramatic excitement,
to me.
Nikolas Landauer
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> > Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Yes. Drop critical misses. They add little to a game, and almost
> > every implementation of them sucks and is unrealistic.
>
> I suppose that's one way to go, but it's not the way we'll be going. I'm
> not going to add critical hits, something that I think adds tremendously to
> the game(adding excitement), without adding an equally bad thing for the
> exact opposite.
You already *HAVE*. Critical hits are *JUST* as bad for the players as
they are good. In fact, they're *worse* for the players.
Critical hits = increase in randomness.
Increase in randomness = favors enemies, not PCs.
Critical misses = increase in randomness.
Increase in randomness = favors enemies, not PCs.
You're fucking the players twice.
--
Nik
Keith Davies
Not to mention, if a monster goes down because of a crit it was...
probably going to go down *anyway*. OTOH, monsters almost *need* crits
to worry PCs.
Note that in a 'balanced' encounter the players will probably be able to
get in about four times as many attacks (consider: 4 Ftr10 vs. 1 Ftr10
-- this is a 'balanced' encounter, CR10 vs. a 10th-level party). If one
of the PCs gets a crit, the poor bastard goes down a *little* bit
faster... but if the bastard gets lucky and *he* gets a crit, he might
actually put some 'real hurt' on the PC.
Criticals are more important and useful to monsters; adding fumbles to
the mix just adds insult to injury.
Also, weapons different in the critical behavior (increased threat
range, increased multiplier, etc.). Are you going to monkey with that
at the other end, too? I expect it'd be easier to fumble with a flail
than a sword, after all.
Keith
--
Keith Davies
keith....@kjdavies.org
"Some do and some don't. I *hate* that kind of problem."
"Understandable. Consistency is important with fuck ups."
David Klassen
> 1, hit yourself or something equally bad happens(dropped weapon, hit party
> member if missile weapon, etc). Simple, elegant, concise. One problem.
>
> Playing 2E, we have a fighter who specialized in bow, giving him 3 attacks
> per round. Since 5% of attacks, statistically, will be natural 1's,
> statistically, every 7th round, he will roll a critical miss.
The way I did critical hits and misses in 2e was a bit different. I really hated
the idea that 10% of the time something out of the ordinary was going to
happen. That and if you can *only* hit on a natural 20, it is *always*
going to be a crit. That didn't make sense to me or my group.
So what we did was say, on a natural 20 (which always hits) you get to
roll again. If that hits again, then you roll damage twice. Now, even
though a natural 20 always hits, you won't be crit'ing everything that
is nominally unhittable. Oh, and if you rolled another 20, continue.
If you rolled a 1, the "fumble" was that you overexposed yourself in the
fight allowing your opponent a free, single, attack. Of course, if they
rolled a 20 on that freebee...
And I *swear* I came up with this system LONG before 3e!
David Klassen
> 1, hit yourself or something equally bad happens(dropped weapon, hit party
> member if missile weapon, etc). Simple, elegant, concise. One problem.
>
> Playing 2E, we have a fighter who specialized in bow, giving him 3 attacks
> per round. Since 5% of attacks, statistically, will be natural 1's,
> statistically, every 7th round, he will roll a critical miss.
The way I did critical hits and misses in 2e was a bit different. I really hated
Keith Davies
It's a pretty common system, though. I know we were using it.
I ended up shifting things at one point, though. The lower the number
on the die, the better the hit. A natural 20 *always* hit, but for half
damage. 16..19 was a normal hit. 11..15 was +1d, 6..10 was +2d, 2..5
was +3d. 1 always missed. Your 'damage bonus' shifted the die roll
down. I could have the threshholds wrong; it's been a *long* time.
So,
$roll = d20().
$tohit = $roll + $strhit + $magic + etc.
$quality = $roll - $strdam - $magic - etc.
The primary purpose of this was to get rid of the 'killed him on
strength and magic alone' effect. If you had a total of +5 to damage
you'd do an additional die of damage, if you had +2 you *might* (about
40% of the time) get that additional die. At +10 damage you'd usually
get two additional dice of damage, etc. The die was based on the weapon
used; a dagger did d4 damage, so you'd get bonus d4s, a longsword used
d8 so you'd use d8s.
3e crits are *much* simpler to apply overall, though.
Sampo Smolander
> Since I honestly can't think of anything "bad" else that can happen to him,
> the only thing to say is "you broke your bow".
Get some fumble tables from some other game.
For example, Runequest had quite decent d100 tables that gave a variety
of things that could happen due fumbling.
Also Rolemaster is famous for having lots of tables. I cannot
remember, but probably it would have fumble tables as well.
Keith Davies
Oh yes, it has fumble tables.
Mad Hamish
<sampo.smolan...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>Get some fumble tables from some other game.
>
>For example, Runequest had quite decent d100 tables that gave a variety
>of things that could happen due fumbling.
>
>Also Rolemaster is famous for having lots of tables. I cannot
>remember, but probably it would have fumble tables as well.
Yep, including instant kills on the character who fumbled...
Rupert Boleyn
ether:
> Our DM insists on using critical fumbles. His implementation more-or-less
> mirrors critical hits - you roll again, and if your roll is still low enough
> to miss, it's a critical fumble, otherwise it's just a miss.
>
> Not that I'm particularly fond of this version, as it ties you fumble chance
> to your opponent's AC, which is silly. As stated, the best solution is not
> to use critical misses at all.
Not only that, but the more attacks you get (something linked to skill
such that more skilled fighters tend to get more attacks), the more
you fumble. Thus the 20th fighter using great cleave to slaughter vast
armies of 1st level goblin warriors will fumble more often than the
1st level fighter beside him.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Rupert Boleyn
<kjda...@kjdavies.kjdavies.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> On 2004-09-08, Sampo Smolander <sampo.smolan...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> > Jeff Goslin <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Since I honestly can't think of anything "bad" else that can happen to him,
> >> the only thing to say is "you broke your bow".
> >
> > Get some fumble tables from some other game.
> >
> > For example, Runequest had quite decent d100 tables that gave a variety
> > of things that could happen due fumbling.
> >
> > Also Rolemaster is famous for having lots of tables. I cannot
> > remember, but probably it would have fumble tables as well.
>
> Oh yes, it has fumble tables.
And a morning star has a fumble range of 1-8 on your d100 attack roll
- no one I know was keen on a weapon that fumbles one attack in
twelve.
Rupert Boleyn
<newslaws...@iinet.net.au> carved upon a tablet of ether:
I don't recall any of those, unless you count "roll a C crit on
yourself".
Jeff Goslin
news:2q95uiF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > Not only that, but some of our most amusing moments stem from
spectacular
> > misses. It's downright fun to critically miss sometimes!
>
> > EG: Our party of 8 ~3rd level characters were riding along a road when
a
> > single enterprising kobold stepped out into the road and demanded
everyone's
> > money. After a bit of laughter, the paladin whipped out his throwing
hammer
> > and tried to toss it at the kobold, for a critical miss. The character
> > right behind the paladin happened to be the magic user, who was almost
> > knocked unconscious by the hammer hitting him in the face as it slipped
out
> > of the paladin's hand.
>
> That really seems more like slapstick comedy than dramatic excitement,
> to me.
Note the first quoted part(specifically "amusing moments"). It is true that
critical hits and misses can incredibly heighten the drama of an intensely
dramatic moment(such as the life and death struggle between character and
monster where only a critical hit will do sufficient damage to allow the
character to live another round), but it's likewise true that critical hits
and misses(ESPECIALLY misses) can add tremendously to a humorous interlude
in a campaign.
My campaigns are about fun and high adventure. There's very little drama in
my campaigns, for the very reason that my guys are looking for a fun escape
from the stresses of everyday life. For that reason, my adventures *ALWAYS*
have at least one funny encounter, even if it's one as absurd as a single
kobold attacking a large group of horse-riding adventurers.
That's the main reason I use critical hits and misses. Not because of
realism or anything, but because it's a simple and easy way to change an
otherwise boring battle into something more interesting for the players, and
to me, that's the most important thing.
Jeff Goslin
> > I suppose that's one way to go, but it's not the way we'll be going.
I'm
> > not going to add critical hits, something that I think adds tremendously
to
> > the game(adding excitement), without adding an equally bad thing for the
> > exact opposite.
>
> You already *HAVE*. Critical hits are *JUST* as bad for the players as
> they are good. In fact, they're *worse* for the players.
>
> Critical hits = increase in randomness.
> Increase in randomness = favors enemies, not PCs.
>
> Critical misses = increase in randomness.
> Increase in randomness = favors enemies, not PCs.
>
> You're fucking the players twice.
I really don't want to get into a debate about the merits of critical hits,
suffice it to say that our campaign uses them.
That said, your argument only holds water if I only included one set of
criticals and not the other(ie used critical hits but not misses).
Naturally, PC's are attacked by monsters more frequently than the other way
around(ie in higher numbers). If I only include critical hits, monsters, by
sheer force of numbers, are more likely to get double damage. If I include
crit misses, though, they are just as likely to hit themselves as the
players are to hit themselves, and vice versa. That is to say, any given
monster attack is 5% likely to do double damage, and 5% likely to cause
damage to the monster. Same thing for the PC's.
Nikolas Landauer
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> > > going. I'm not going to add critical hits, something that I
> > > think adds tremendously to the game(adding excitement),
> > > without adding an equally bad thing for the exact opposite.
> >
> > You already *HAVE*. Critical hits are *JUST* as bad for the
> > players as they are good. In fact, they're *worse* for the
> > players.
> >
> > Critical hits = increase in randomness.
> > Increase in randomness = favors enemies, not PCs.
> >
> > Critical misses = increase in randomness.
> > Increase in randomness = favors enemies, not PCs.
> >
> > You're fucking the players twice.
>
> I really don't want to get into a debate about the merits of
> critical hits, suffice it to say that our campaign uses them.
So does mine. There's no real debate, though... Increases in
randomness favor the underdog. PCs win most fights. Therefore
increases in randomness favor those *other* than the PCs.
Besides, there's no "equally bad thing" to add. Criticals make a game
more fun, yes, but they actually hurt the PCs more than they help. In
3.x, there's still a decent balance present (i.e. reducing or removing
criticals from the game would make PCs significantly more powerful,
perhaps too powerful), but altering criticals to make them more random
is directly detrimental to the PCs. Read DMG3.5 page 28, the sidebar.
Read the whole thing.
If you're looking for slapstick, where the PCs are bumbling idiots who
rarely succeed at anything, I guess critical misses *are* what you
want.
> That said, your argument only holds water if I only included
> one set of criticals and not the other(ie used critical hits
> but not misses). Naturally, PC's are attacked by monsters
> more frequently than the other way around(ie in higher numbers).
> If I only include critical hits, monsters, by sheer force of
> numbers, are more likely to get double damage. If I include
> crit misses, though, they are just as likely to hit themselves
> as the players are to hit themselves, and vice versa. That
> is to say, any given monster attack is 5% likely to do double
> damage, and 5% likely to cause damage to the monster. Same
> thing for the PC's.
Evaluating things based on "any given attack" is your flaw here. The
PCs attack *FAR* more often than any given enemy. Therefore, any
randomness will affect them more heavily. Sure, a PC might crit
against creatures, but most PC crits will do far more damage than was
necessary to *kill* the creature. That's an instance of randomness
helping the PCs, which didn't change the outcome at all.
More PC hits kill monsters than the converse. Therefore, monster crits
are far more deadly than PC crits. Similarly, a monster fumbles; who
cares, that monster was probably going to die that round or next round
anyway. A PC fumbles; they might be *completely* fucked.
--
Nik
Mad Hamish
<rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:42:00 +1000, Mad Hamish
><newslaws...@iinet.net.au> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> On 8 Sep 2004 22:13:29 GMT, Sampo Smolander
>> <sampo.smolan...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Get some fumble tables from some other game.
>> >
>> >For example, Runequest had quite decent d100 tables that gave a variety
>> >of things that could happen due fumbling.
>> >
>> >Also Rolemaster is famous for having lots of tables. I cannot
>> >remember, but probably it would have fumble tables as well.
>>
>> Yep, including instant kills on the character who fumbled...
>
>I don't recall any of those, unless you count "roll a C crit on
>yourself".
Looks like I got confused between 2 different tables. I recalled the
mounted combat fumble as having a chance to launch yourself off your
horse and crush your skull. In the most recent Arms Lore that I have
that only inflicts a D crush crit.
Looking back at MERP you could fall and crush your skull on a failed
movement maneuver.
Rupert Boleyn
<newslaws...@iinet.net.au> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> Looking back at MERP you could fall and crush your skull on a failed
> movement maneuver.
That I remember. I also remember pole-vaulting off a horse, after
putting the lance into the ground, and breaking my neck. Such fun.
Jeff Goslin
> > I really don't want to get into a debate about the merits of
> > critical hits, suffice it to say that our campaign uses them.
>
> So does mine. There's no real debate, though... Increases in
> randomness favor the underdog. PCs win most fights. Therefore
> increases in randomness favor those *other* than the PCs.
That's a rather simplistic look at the situation. Despite your argument, it
would only favor the opposition if the outcome of the random events were
always positive. Because both sides are equally affected by positive and
negative, there is no advantage to be gained from the randomness factor.
> Besides, there's no "equally bad thing" to add. Criticals make a game
> more fun, yes, but they actually hurt the PCs more than they help. In
> 3.x, there's still a decent balance present (i.e. reducing or removing
Reminder: we're using 2E. FYI.
> If you're looking for slapstick, where the PCs are bumbling idiots who
> rarely succeed at anything, I guess critical misses *are* what you
> want.
"Fun" and "slapstick" are not one and the same. Yes, characters critically
miss. Sometimes, that critical miss results in amusement for everyone at
the table. Sometimes it's just a critical miss, roll your damage. Other
times, it's a funny event. Like most things in life, it's situationally
dependent.
> Evaluating things based on "any given attack" is your flaw here. The
> PCs attack *FAR* more often than any given enemy. Therefore, any
> randomness will affect them more heavily. Sure, a PC might crit
Characters in our campaign attack once per round in melee, 3/2 for
specialized fighters. We're using 2E rules, here, chief, keep that in mind.
That said, regardless of how many times they attack, each individual roll is
a distinct element, with 5% of doubling, and 5% of missing critically.
> More PC hits kill monsters than the converse. Therefore, monster crits
> are far more deadly than PC crits. Similarly, a monster fumbles; who
> cares, that monster was probably going to die that round or next round
> anyway. A PC fumbles; they might be *completely* fucked.
You need to make up your mind. Either players are regularly killed or they
aren't. If they aren't regularly killed, monster crits are no more deadly
than any other hit, they just do more damage.
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
> That's a rather simplistic look at the situation. Despite your argument, it
> would only favor the opposition if the outcome of the random events were
> always positive. Because both sides are equally affected by positive and
> negative, there is no advantage to be gained from the randomness factor.
You've missed an important factor here. The NPCs are only 'on stage'
for one encounter, as a rule, so any bad stuff that happens to them
(this includes the PCs' 'good stuff') isn't very important - it's
finished with when the encounter ends. However any bad stuff the PCs'
get landed with (including the NPCs' good stuff) sticks around until
the party fixes it. Because the spotlight is on the party things that
happen to them have a persistence that makes them more important than
things that happen to extras and other walk-on NPCs.
> Characters in our campaign attack once per round in melee, 3/2 for
> specialized fighters. We're using 2E rules, here, chief, keep that in mind.
How about the bowmen and dart specialists?
> That said, regardless of how many times they attack, each individual roll is
> a distinct element, with 5% of doubling, and 5% of missing critically.
So the more often they roll, the more often they fumble, and so the
more skilled they are the more they fumble. Of course all those
monsters using claw/claw/bite routines will be having it real hard,
and I grant you it might make uber-rangers in the Drizzzt style a
little less attractive.
> You need to make up your mind. Either players are regularly killed or they
> aren't. If they aren't regularly killed, monster crits are no more deadly
> than any other hit, they just do more damage.
You might want to think about that.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>"Nikolas Landauer" <daci...@hotmail.diespam.com> wrote in message
>> You're fucking the players twice.
>
>That said, your argument only holds water if I only included one set of
>criticals and not the other(ie used critical hits but not misses).
>Naturally, PC's are attacked by monsters more frequently than the other way
>around(ie in higher numbers). If I only include critical hits, monsters, by
>sheer force of numbers, are more likely to get double damage. If I include
>crit misses, though, they are just as likely to hit themselves as the
>players are to hit themselves, and vice versa. That is to say, any given
>monster attack is 5% likely to do double damage, and 5% likely to cause
>damage to the monster. Same thing for the PC's.
No, not the same thing. A natural 20 does not automatically generate a
crit. You do not have a 5% chance on any given swing of landing a crit.
Any critical miss system with a confirmation roll (ie: roll again, if that
roll misses then you crit) is heavily biased against people without a full
BAB, as well as the +5 iterative attack that the supposedly godlike fighter
is using. Whether you fumble your weapon should not be influenced by the AC
of your opponent.
What other system is there? Rolling 2 1's in a row? May as well remove the
mechanic altogether, 1:400 odds is not exactly something worth caring
about.
Malachias Invictus
> "Nikolas Landauer" <daci...@hotmail.diespam.com> wrote in message
> news:080920041550072645%daci...@hotmail.diespam.com...
> > > I suppose that's one way to go, but it's not the way we'll be going.
> I'm
> > > not going to add critical hits, something that I think adds
tremendously
> to
> > > the game(adding excitement), without adding an equally bad thing for
the
> > > exact opposite.
> >
> > You already *HAVE*. Critical hits are *JUST* as bad for the players as
> > they are good. In fact, they're *worse* for the players.
> >
> > Critical hits = increase in randomness.
> > Increase in randomness = favors enemies, not PCs.
> >
> > Critical misses = increase in randomness.
> > Increase in randomness = favors enemies, not PCs.
> >
> > You're fucking the players twice.
>
> I really don't want to get into a debate about the merits of critical
hits,
> suffice it to say that our campaign uses them.
>
> That said, your argument only holds water if I only included one set of
> criticals and not the other(ie used critical hits but not misses).
No. Either way, the increased randomness favors the enemies. Others have
already expained this.
> Naturally, PC's are attacked by monsters more frequently than the other
way
> around(ie in higher numbers). If I only include critical hits, monsters,
by
> sheer force of numbers, are more likely to get double damage.
Wrong. There is a confirmation roll involved, which skews the results in
favor of those with more skill. This generally favors the PCs and is very
rough on mook enemies.
> If I include crit misses, though, they are just as likely to hit
themselves as the
> players are to hit themselves, and vice versa.
...which is stupid. Skilled combatants should not be routinely hitting
themselves.
> That is to say, any given monster attack is 5% likely to do double damage,
and 5% likely to cause
> damage to the monster. Same thing for the PC's.
...which is completely asinine, and not the way critical hits work in any
event.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Malachias Invictus
"Sampo Smolander" <sampo.smolan...@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:cho069$4dd$6...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> Jeff Goslin <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Since I honestly can't think of anything "bad" else that can happen to
him,
> > the only thing to say is "you broke your bow".
>
> Get some fumble tables from some other game.
Arduin.
Presto
Here's a thought:
You are playing 2e I realize, but in 3e when a critical hit is rolled it is
considered a Threat. A second d20 roll is used to determine whether a
critical is actually scored (the second roll simply needs to score a hit).
A critical miss could be treated in a similar fashion; add an additional
roll to check for adverse effects of a critical miss. The second roll could
be another ttack roll, or perhaps a dexterity check or some sort of saving
throw.
--
==========
Are you a RPG Player?
Visit my website: http://www.morvia.tk
"I met Dick Cheney the other night.
I've never stood that close to evil."
- Lewis Black
Jeff Goslin
news:2lf0k0t34uqk03be6...@4ax.com...
> >players are to hit themselves, and vice versa. That is to say, any given
> >monster attack is 5% likely to do double damage, and 5% likely to cause
> >damage to the monster. Same thing for the PC's.
>
> No, not the same thing. A natural 20 does not automatically generate a
> crit. You do not have a 5% chance on any given swing of landing a crit.
*ahem*... our critical hit rule is SIMPLE. A natural 20 is double damage.
Fin. As such, any hit is 5% likely to result in a critical hit. Likewise
critical misses happen on any natural 1, for a hit to oneself or a party
member.
> is using. Whether you fumble your weapon should not be influenced by the
AC
> of your opponent.
It's not.
Jeff Goslin
news:2qbahiF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > That said, your argument only holds water if I only included one set of
> > criticals and not the other(ie used critical hits but not misses).
>
> No. Either way, the increased randomness favors the enemies. Others have
> already expained this.
Well, explain this to me again, because I guess I fail to see how an
unmodified roll of 1 or 20 can favor one side or the other if there is no
second roll for a critical hit? Remember, we're using natural 20 double
damage, natural 1 weapon fumble. Quite simply, I fail to see how that is
anything OTHER than 5% for each event on each roll.
> Wrong. There is a confirmation roll involved, which skews the results in
> favor of those with more skill. This generally favors the PCs and is very
> rough on mook enemies.
We don't use confirmation rolls. 20 is an immediate crit, 1 is an immediate
fumble. I know you're going to cry "this ain't the rule!" but bottom line,
it's our campaign, and it's how we play. THAT SAID, what I have said holds
water: 5% of all rolls are critical hits, and 5% are critical misses,
regardless of who rolls them, player or monster.
> > If I include crit misses, though, they are just as likely to hit
> themselves as the
> > players are to hit themselves, and vice versa.
>
> ...which is stupid. Skilled combatants should not be routinely hitting
> themselves.
Then they should roll less 1's. ;)
> > That is to say, any given monster attack is 5% likely to do double
damage,
> and 5% likely to cause
> > damage to the monster. Same thing for the PC's.
>
> ...which is completely asinine, and not the way critical hits work in any
> event.
That's funny, critical hits and misses have ALWAYS worked that way when
we've been playing. Funny how playing in *our* campaign can have the effect
of using *our* house rule, ain't it?
Jeff Goslin
news:ML%%c.65477$vO1.3...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> Here's a thought:
>
> You are playing 2e I realize, but in 3e when a critical hit is rolled it
is
> considered a Threat. A second d20 roll is used to determine whether a
> critical is actually scored (the second roll simply needs to score a hit).
> A critical miss could be treated in a similar fashion; add an additional
> roll to check for adverse effects of a critical miss. The second roll
could
> be another ttack roll, or perhaps a dexterity check or some sort of saving
> throw.
I appreciate the thought, but honestly, our current implementation of
critical misses and hits works just fine for us. I didn't really want this
to get into a "merits of criticals systems" kind of discussion, but I guess
these sorts of threads have a tendancy to do so.
I thank you for your suggestion, but this system has been "working" for us
for quite some time, perhaps a little less than optimally or realistically,
but it does the trick.
All I really wanted to know was "what does a bow critical miss mean when an
arrow can't hit a party member?", and I found out that information. Thank
you!
Sampo Smolander
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2qbahiF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > > That said, your argument only holds water if I only included one set of
> > > criticals and not the other(ie used critical hits but not misses).
> >
> > No. Either way, the increased randomness favors the enemies. Others have
> > already expained this.
> Well, explain this to me again, because I guess I fail to see how an
> unmodified roll of 1 or 20 can favor one side or the other if there is no
> second roll for a critical hit?
The point is: all kind of randomness favours the monsters. The nature of
the randomness (is this case, fumbles and crits) does not matter.
See it this way:
In a completely random world, the PC's would lose 50% of their fights.
This would be highly fatal, wouldn't it?
In a completely non-random world, the stronger side would always win the
fights. The PC's, supposedly, could determine which enemies are weaker and
which are stronger, and would of course only attack the weaker. As long as
they made no error in their judgement, they would always win their fights.
Jeff Goslin
> Jeff Goslin <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Well, explain this to me again, because I guess I fail to see how an
> > unmodified roll of 1 or 20 can favor one side or the other if there is
no
> > second roll for a critical hit?
>
> The point is: all kind of randomness favours the monsters. The nature of
> the randomness (is this case, fumbles and crits) does not matter.
Consider two equal fighters, AC, hit points, damage, THAC0, everything the
same, one being a PC, one being an NPC. How does randomness favor the NPC
over the PC?
In the instance where two fighters are NOT the same in some way, the
randomness factor that the underdog has is outweighed by the ability factor
of the favorite. The underdog might get a lucky critical hit, but the
favorite is still going to kick his ass more often than not.
So, does randomness favor the underdog, as someone else succinctly put it?
I suppose in the short term, yes, it does. However, in the grand scheme, if
characters are not dying, if monsters are not defeating characters more
often as a direct result of this randomness, it is a moot point to make the
statement in the first place, because, quite simply, the randomness is
overcome by the abilities of the characters. Since characters are NOT
generally getting laid out left and right by critical hits, it's a safe
statement to make that critical hits and the randomness they represent carry
no explicit favor one way or the other.
Donald Tsang
>> The point is: all kind of randomness favours the monsters. The nature of
>> the randomness (is this case, fumbles and crits) does not matter.
>
>Consider two equal fighters, AC, hit points, damage, THAC0, everything the
>same, one being a PC, one being an NPC. How does randomness favor the NPC
>over the PC?
Look, don't be stupid. If the weenie monsters can only hit you on
a 19 or 20, they're critting on 50% of their hits on you. If you
hit on a 11-20, you crit only 10% of your hits on them. The 3E
two-roll system makes it so that you crit on 5 (or 10 or 15)% of
your successful hits.
If you get three attacks a round, you'll hit yourself (or an ally
within melee range) more often than if you only get one attack a
round. I don't know if your fumble system aborts multiple-attack
sequences on a fumble or not, so I won't comment on that (except
to say that, if it does, this system REALLY favors the novice over
the experienced fighter)
If I want to assassinate a general, do I tell him to get into melee
combat with the opposing side's champion while his archers are
firing on the 90%-cover enemy troops? The general will get hit by
5% of the arrows from his own side, which could quickly bring him
down if there are a hundred or more archers...
These are not good features. It's not that randomness favors the
monsters; it's that randomness favors the unskilled. If you're
constantly going up against opponents that are vastly more skilled
than you are, sure, you might like this system (unless you've hired
a bunch of archers...); this is not the normal case in D&D or AD&D
of any edition.
Donald
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>"Sampo Smolander" <sampo.smolan...@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>news:chqbc9$4pj$2...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
>> Jeff Goslin <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Well, explain this to me again, because I guess I fail to see how an
>> > unmodified roll of 1 or 20 can favor one side or the other if there is
>no
>> > second roll for a critical hit?
>>
>> The point is: all kind of randomness favours the monsters. The nature of
>> the randomness (is this case, fumbles and crits) does not matter.
>
>Consider two equal fighters, AC, hit points, damage, THAC0, everything the
>same, one being a PC, one being an NPC. How does randomness favor the NPC
>over the PC?
If a PC wins a fight, he needs to look forward to the next fight. If an
NPC wins a fight, the game is over.
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
> "Matt Frisch" <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> news:2lf0k0t34uqk03be6...@4ax.com...
> > >players are to hit themselves, and vice versa. That is to say, any given
> > >monster attack is 5% likely to do double damage, and 5% likely to cause
> > >damage to the monster. Same thing for the PC's.
> >
> > No, not the same thing. A natural 20 does not automatically generate a
> > crit. You do not have a 5% chance on any given swing of landing a crit.
>
> *ahem*... our critical hit rule is SIMPLE. A natural 20 is double damage.
> Fin. As such, any hit is 5% likely to result in a critical hit. Likewise
> critical misses happen on any natural 1, for a hit to oneself or a party
> member.
Of course this means a bunch of goblins attacking a 20th level fighter
wearing all his shiny toys only ever critical. Yeah, that makes sense.
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
> Well, explain this to me again, because I guess I fail to see how an
> unmodified roll of 1 or 20 can favor one side or the other if there is no
> second roll for a critical hit? Remember, we're using natural 20 double
> damage, natural 1 weapon fumble. Quite simply, I fail to see how that is
> anything OTHER than 5% for each event on each roll.
Okay. Firstly, the PCs are generally expected to win and, unless your
game is very atypical, are often outnumbered. That means the bad guys
will critical more often (more attacks), and it matters more, because
they're already going to lose, so anything that might give them a
boost is good for them. Fumbles matter not at all for the bad guys
because you'll never see them again, and all a fumble does is mean
they lose faster.
> Then they should roll less 1's. ;)
With the result that high level fighters fumble more often than low
level ones, and that dragons fumble more often than goblins.
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
> Consider two equal fighters, AC, hit points, damage, THAC0, everything the
> same, one being a PC, one being an NPC. How does randomness favor the NPC
> over the PC?
>
> In the instance where two fighters are NOT the same in some way, the
> randomness factor that the underdog has is outweighed by the ability factor
> of the favorite. The underdog might get a lucky critical hit, but the
> favorite is still going to kick his ass more often than not.
This is where you're messing up - if there was no randomness the
underdog would always lose. The more randomness, the less the superior
fighter's skill matters.
> So, does randomness favor the underdog, as someone else succinctly put it?
> I suppose in the short term, yes, it does. However, in the grand scheme, if
> characters are not dying, if monsters are not defeating characters more
> often as a direct result of this randomness, it is a moot point to make the
> statement in the first place, because, quite simply, the randomness is
> overcome by the abilities of the characters. Since characters are NOT
> generally getting laid out left and right by critical hits, it's a safe
> statement to make that critical hits and the randomness they represent carry
> no explicit favor one way or the other.
No, it's safe to say that the extra randomness does not outweigh the
PC's superiority.
Jeff Goslin
news:8lj1k0duuk2bmcc1c...@4ax.com...
> Of course this means a bunch of goblins attacking a 20th level fighter
> wearing all his shiny toys only ever critical. Yeah, that makes sense.
Didn't say that it did. However, the overriding mantra for the D&D combat
system has always been that it is a vast oversimplification of combat for
the sake of speed of resolution. Along that vein, we use simple critical
hits and misses.
That said, it doesn't seem incredibly unlikely that every hit by an inferior
foe is one that finds the chinks in the superior armor and skills of an
overwhelming foe, mainly because it's only by a lucky hit in a vulnerable
spot that these minor foes will ever actually hit, resulting in a rather
nasty hit whenever they do manage to hit the guy. Something to consider.
Jeff Goslin
> Okay. Firstly, the PCs are generally expected to win and, unless your
> game is very atypical, are often outnumbered. That means the bad guys
> will critical more often (more attacks), and it matters more, because
> they're already going to lose, so anything that might give them a
> boost is good for them. Fumbles matter not at all for the bad guys
> because you'll never see them again, and all a fumble does is mean
> they lose faster.
Ok, so explain it to me again... why does it matter if they get more
criticals if they are going to lose the battle? You keep harping on that,
but I honestly don't see why it matters if monsters get more criticals than
player characters if the monsters are, more likely than not, going to find
themselves tits up in a few rounds?
Not only that, but the monsters are more likely to critically hit themselves
given the fact that they outnumber the party(in your example). When we're
talking about "mass monsters", like orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc, a critical
miss might as well be a death blow. It all evens out in the end.
> > Then they should roll less 1's. ;)
>
> With the result that high level fighters fumble more often than low
> level ones, and that dragons fumble more often than goblins.
Dragons don't fumble, actually. It's called a DM's screen. ;)
Jeff Goslin
news:chqek4$2h6g$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Look, don't be stupid. If the weenie monsters can only hit you on
> a 19 or 20, they're critting on 50% of their hits on you. If you
> hit on a 11-20, you crit only 10% of your hits on them. The 3E
> two-roll system makes it so that you crit on 5 (or 10 or 15)% of
> your successful hits.
To your comment, I say "so what?" So what that a monster crits 50% of the
time it hits you? Remember, we recognize that this system is flawed,
unrealistic, and simplistic, but we play with it anyways, mainly because
it's FAST. In a campaign that is not really focused on combat, realism is
not an important factor. For people who want an accurate reflection of
combat, it obviously doesn't work, but for us, it works just fine.
> These are not good features. It's not that randomness favors the
> monsters; it's that randomness favors the unskilled. If you're
> constantly going up against opponents that are vastly more skilled
> than you are, sure, you might like this system (unless you've hired
> a bunch of archers...); this is not the normal case in D&D or AD&D
> of any edition.
Actually, in our campaign, because combat is less frequent, we do tend to go
up against the larger, more powerful creatures, and less of them. So that
helps reduce the impact of this randomness factor you're railing against.
Donald Tsang
>> With the result that high level fighters fumble more often than low
>> level ones, and that dragons fumble more often than goblins.
>
>Dragons don't fumble, actually. It's called a DM's screen. ;)
You have GOT to be kidding. If a 20th level Fighter is going to
fumble one round in five (attacking four times a round), a dragon
should fumble almost as often (claw/claw/bite; claw/claw/wing/wing/bite).
Anything else would be inconsistent with your "roll of 20 is always
double damage, and a roll of 1 is always a fumble" rule.
Donald
Jeff Goslin
> > In the instance where two fighters are NOT the same in some way, the
> > randomness factor that the underdog has is outweighed by the ability
factor
> > of the favorite. The underdog might get a lucky critical hit, but the
> > favorite is still going to kick his ass more often than not.
>
> This is where you're messing up - if there was no randomness the
> underdog would always lose. The more randomness, the less the superior
> fighter's skill matters.
And that is where *YOU* are messing up - since the superior fighter's skills
more often than not overcome this "randomness" factor, the less the
randomness factor matters.
> No, it's safe to say that the extra randomness does not outweigh the
> PC's superiority.
If that were true, PC's would die on a more regular basis than they do.
Donald Tsang
>"Donald Tsang" <ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> Look, don't be stupid. If the weenie monsters can only hit you on
>> a 19 or 20, they're critting on 50% of their hits on you. If you
>> hit on a 11-20, you crit only 10% of your hits on them. The 3E
>> two-roll system makes it so that you crit on 5 (or 10 or 15)% of
>> your successful hits.
>
>To your comment, I say "so what?" So what that a monster crits 50% of the
>time it hits you? Remember, we recognize that this system is flawed,
>unrealistic, and simplistic, but we play with it anyways, mainly because
>it's FAST.
It doesn't bother you? Why have crits and fumbles at ALL, then?
Eliminating it would make combat go even faster (not having to figure
out whom you hit with your fumble, etc). There's absolutely no reason
to keep a rule that makes the combat system *worse*.
>In a campaign that is not really focused on combat, realism is
>not an important factor. For people who want an accurate reflection of
>combat, it obviously doesn't work, but for us, it works just fine.
Why talk about a house rule for a part of the system that isn't "an
important factor" for you in the first place?
>Actually, in our campaign, because combat is less frequent, we do tend to go
>up against the larger, more powerful creatures, and less of them. So that
>helps reduce the impact of this randomness factor you're railing against.
They never have armies, or at least bodyguards? One thing I *would* like
to see is a dragon turning to his kobold archer team, after being nailed
for the sixth time, and shouting "STOP HELPING!"
At any rate, there's no reason for your crit/fumble system. At all.
It doesn't make the game more fun (because the better you are at
fighting, the more you're screwed by it), and it slows down the
game by a measurable degree whenever someone rolls a '1'.
Donald
Jeff Goslin
You seem to be a stickler for the rules... Me, not so much...
Believe you me, if I want to put a hurtin on a character for whatever
reason, the creature attacking him just got a 20, and gee whiz, guess what,
I didn't even have to look at the roll! It's rare that I decide to do
something like that, but believe me, I reserve the prerogative to do such
things to improve the enjoyment of my players experience. As someone
pointed out, there is nothing quite so dramatic as needing a great hit to
bring down the awesome beast they are facing, and to do it just before you
have your lights turned out.
Along the same lines, I reserve the right, as DM, to change any hit to a
miss for any monsters attack roll. I'll spare character lives if players
are working hard to get them spared, and so on. Like I said, I let my
players enjoy the game. I have no compunctions about killing PC's mind you,
but sometimes, a fudged die roll on the part of the DM is warranted.
I take it you work under the premise that the dice are king, yes? I will
often reroll healing spells for player characters that are doing good
roleplaying work when they heal. If a player is being particularly
argumentative for some reason, I will knock their player unconscious for the
remainder of a battle to shut them up. These are things that I do NOT out
of spite or anything, but because the experience is what is most important.
Fun, good times, etc. If a player is playing well, he deserves to be
rewarded(with good healing rolls, for example), if a player is bringing down
the rest of the party, he deserves to be punished(with unconscious
characters). That's my style, I guess it's not yours.
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
> That said, it doesn't seem incredibly unlikely that every hit by an inferior
> foe is one that finds the chinks in the superior armor and skills of an
> overwhelming foe, mainly because it's only by a lucky hit in a vulnerable
> spot that these minor foes will ever actually hit, resulting in a rather
> nasty hit whenever they do manage to hit the guy. Something to consider.
Given that the way D&D's armour works almost all hits are ones that
found a gap in the armour that means every hit you take while wearing
plate should be a critical. The obvious fix is that if you need a 20
to hit you can't crit.
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
> "Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:mnj1k01ev0rdcunfb...@4ax.com...
> > Okay. Firstly, the PCs are generally expected to win and, unless your
> > game is very atypical, are often outnumbered. That means the bad guys
> > will critical more often (more attacks), and it matters more, because
> > they're already going to lose, so anything that might give them a
> > boost is good for them. Fumbles matter not at all for the bad guys
> > because you'll never see them again, and all a fumble does is mean
> > they lose faster.
>
> Ok, so explain it to me again... why does it matter if they get more
> criticals if they are going to lose the battle? You keep harping on that,
> but I honestly don't see why it matters if monsters get more criticals than
> player characters if the monsters are, more likely than not, going to find
> themselves tits up in a few rounds?
Because it weakens the party. It also means that the monsters may not
lose.
> > With the result that high level fighters fumble more often than low
> > level ones, and that dragons fumble more often than goblins.
>
> Dragons don't fumble, actually. It's called a DM's screen. ;)
IOW your house rule is broken enough that you need to cheat to make it
work. Good rule, that - why do you bother rolling the dice?
Donald Tsang
>> That said, it doesn't seem incredibly unlikely that every hit by an inferior
>> foe is one that finds the chinks in the superior armor and skills of an
>> overwhelming foe, mainly because it's only by a lucky hit in a vulnerable
>> spot that these minor foes will ever actually hit, resulting in a rather
>> nasty hit whenever they do manage to hit the guy. Something to consider.
>
>Given that the way D&D's armour works almost all hits are ones that
>found a gap in the armour that means every hit you take while wearing
>plate should be a critical. The obvious fix is that if you need a 20
>to hit you can't crit.
This still doesn't solve the "if you need a 19 to hit, you crit
half the times you hit" problem. The d20 solution (confirming roll)
is very cool, IMO, in that it neatly solves this conundrum (if you
feel you need critical hits at all, that is).
Donald
Erol K. Bayburt
>Critical hits in our campaign are easy, natural 20, double damage, natural
>1, hit yourself or something equally bad happens(dropped weapon, hit party
>member if missile weapon, etc). Simple, elegant, concise. One problem.
>
>Playing 2E, we have a fighter who specialized in bow, giving him 3 attacks
>per round. Since 5% of attacks, statistically, will be natural 1's,
>statistically, every 7th round, he will roll a critical miss.
>
>Problem is... most often, he's firing at unengaged targets(ie targets out of
>melee range of the party), so, if he rolls a natural 1, he's not going to
>hit a party member, which is the defacto standard for a missile weapon
>natural 1(much to the chagrin of our magic user, who likes to toss daggers
>rather ineptly once he's out of spells). So, what happens when our intrepid
>bowman rolls a 1 if there's nothing for a wayward arrow to hit?
>
>Since I honestly can't think of anything "bad" else that can happen to him,
>the only thing to say is "you broke your bow". But honestly, a bow string
>doesn't snap every 20 shots, let's be honest. What else could happen on a
>critical miss with a bow? The only other thing, thinking about it, is for
>the bow to fly out of his hands. *TWANANANANGGGG* kind of thing, flying
>thru the air in front of him. But would an expert bowman really drop his
>bow? I can see a swordsman dropping his sword as the result of a wacky hand
>hit or something(critical miss), but not a bowman who is not under direct
>attack. Any thoughts?
As others have already posted, critical misses/fumbles are a *bad* idea, and
the game is better off without them.
I don't care for critical hits, either. The best that can be said about the 3E
critical hit rules, IMO, is that they're tolerably mild and that they inhibit
DMs from creating braindead critical hit house rules.
But since you're playing 2E, and if you insist on critical misses, my advice
would be to make a "natural 1" be "the attack misses, and due to some minor
pratfall, the character loses his next attack as well." (Note: Next attack, not
next round. If the character gets 3 attacks per round, a "1" will cost him only
one of those attacks, not all three.)
For a bowman, the minor pratfall might be "archer drops arrow, loses next
shot."
A "breaks weapon" or "hits self" or "hits friend" result is waaaay to much for
the sort of critical miss you're talking about here. For that matter, it's more
powerful than the auto double damage on a 20 you've got at the other end.
You might even want to make critical hits & misses a bit more subtle: E.g. On a
"natural 20" the character gains a +1d10 bonus to hit on his next attack; on a
"natural 1" the character suffers a -1d10 penalty on his next attack." Salt
with flavor text to taste.
--
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
> "Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:83k1k0hq8h360orc4...@4ax.com...
> > > In the instance where two fighters are NOT the same in some way, the
> > > randomness factor that the underdog has is outweighed by the ability
> factor
> > > of the favorite. The underdog might get a lucky critical hit, but the
> > > favorite is still going to kick his ass more often than not.
> >
> > This is where you're messing up - if there was no randomness the
> > underdog would always lose. The more randomness, the less the superior
> > fighter's skill matters.
>
> And that is where *YOU* are messing up - since the superior fighter's skills
> more often than not overcome this "randomness" factor, the less the
> randomness factor matters.
No. If the superior fighter's skill really did that you wouldn't
bother rolling - he'd just win.
> > No, it's safe to say that the extra randomness does not outweigh the
> > PC's superiority.
>
> If that were true, PC's would die on a more regular basis than they do.
That just means you're facing very clearly inferior foes. Look, this
is one of the things about the game Rolemaster that people either love
or hate - it's got an extreme degree of randomness built in, and even
with cautious play it's possible for a very skilled, high level
fighter to be wasted by a single goblin or skeleton with one hit. It's
very random. The default AD&D2 rules are at the other end - once you
get a few levels under your belt (and therefore have a buffer in your
hit points) it's very predictable when it comes to melee combats. Your
rules push the system closer to the Rolemaster end of things, and make
close fights more dodgy. You might well like this effect, and that's
fair enough, but denying it's there is just silly.
Rupert Boleyn
(Donald Tsang) carved upon a tablet of ether:
> This still doesn't solve the "if you need a 19 to hit, you crit
> half the times you hit" problem. The d20 solution (confirming roll)
> is very cool, IMO, in that it neatly solves this conundrum (if you
> feel you need critical hits at all, that is).
Definately. However Jeff seems to think that speed is all important,
except when speed would mean dropping the critical system...
Donald Tsang
>> >Dragons don't fumble, actually. It's called a DM's screen. ;)
>>
>> You have GOT to be kidding.
>
>
>
>I take it you work under the premise that the dice are king, yes?
No. But I won't play in a game where the rules are competely at
the whim of the DM. The rules define how the universe "works",
and, unless you have direct intervention by a being who can warp
the laws of the universe (usually a deity), it's utterly unfair for
the DM to screw with the rules because he feels like it.
I've played in enough games like that, thank you.
>I will often reroll healing spells for player characters that are
>doing good roleplaying work when they heal. If a player is being
>particularly argumentative for some reason, I will knock their
>player unconscious for the remainder of a battle to shut them up.
And they don't just pack up their things and leave? I venture to
guess that most of the participants in this here newsgroup would...
>These are things that I do NOT out of spite or anything, but because
>the experience is what is most important. Fun, good times, etc.
Be realistic. You do these things out of spite, because a player is
annoying you. If you can't even understand that, you really need
some remedial socialization lessons. Or something.
>If a player is playing well, he deserves to be rewarded (with good
>healing rolls, for example), if a player is bringing down the rest
>of the party, he deserves to be punished (with unconscious characters).
What does "bringing down the rest of the party" mean in this context?
"Bringing down the DM's wrath by being annoying"?
Grow up.
Donald
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>"Donald Tsang" <ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
>news:chqpui$2l6t$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
>> Jeff Goslin <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> With the result that high level fighters fumble more often than low
>> >> level ones, and that dragons fumble more often than goblins.
>> >
>> >Dragons don't fumble, actually. It's called a DM's screen. ;)
>>
>> You have GOT to be kidding. If a 20th level Fighter is going to
>> fumble one round in five (attacking four times a round), a dragon
>> should fumble almost as often (claw/claw/bite; claw/claw/wing/wing/bite).
>> Anything else would be inconsistent with your "roll of 20 is always
>> double damage, and a roll of 1 is always a fumble" rule.
>
>You seem to be a stickler for the rules... Me, not so much...
You get more and more similar to Cope, with his attitude of "Fuck the
players". If you don't play fair, don't play at all. Why not just be
straight up about it and say that only players can fumble?
First Prophet of Kaos
>"Sampo Smolander" <sampo.smolan...@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>news:chqbc9$4pj$2...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
>> Jeff Goslin <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Well, explain this to me again, because I guess I fail to see how an
>> > unmodified roll of 1 or 20 can favor one side or the other if there is
>no
>> > second roll for a critical hit?
>>
>> The point is: all kind of randomness favours the monsters. The nature of
>> the randomness (is this case, fumbles and crits) does not matter.
>
>Consider two equal fighters, AC, hit points, damage, THAC0, everything the
>same, one being a PC, one being an NPC. How does randomness favor the NPC
>over the PC?
Since the NPC goes away after the encounter and the PC sticks around
to deal with the randomness again, the PCs random-goods matter less,
and his random-bads matter more.
If the spotlight was on the NPC, for some reason, then he's the one
who'd be disfavoured.
>So, does randomness favor the underdog, as someone else succinctly put it?
It's irrelevant, actually. What matters is that randomness also
favours the one who has to put up with it the least.
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
Rupert Boleyn
> I take it you work under the premise that the dice are king, yes?
Certainly not. However, good rules mean you don't have to over-rule
them often. Bad ones mean the opposite.
> I will
> often reroll healing spells for player characters that are doing good
> roleplaying work when they heal. If a player is being particularly
> argumentative for some reason, I will knock their player unconscious for the
> remainder of a battle to shut them up. These are things that I do NOT out
> of spite or anything, but because the experience is what is most important.
> Fun, good times, etc. If a player is playing well, he deserves to be
> rewarded(with good healing rolls, for example), if a player is bringing down
> the rest of the party, he deserves to be punished(with unconscious
> characters). That's my style, I guess it's not yours.
That's bullshot and I'd not be coming back to a session where the GM
acted like, no matter who got rewarded or punished. For one thing it's
extremely heavy-handed, and for another it's punishing meta-game
behaviour with in-game penalties. Worst of all, it's the GM suffering
Little Tin God syndrome. The GM isn't god, and shouldn't be allowed to
act like he is.
Jeff Goslin
> IOW your house rule is broken enough that you need to cheat to make it
> work. Good rule, that - why do you bother rolling the dice?
To provide a semblance of control on the players part, of course, to lull
them into a false sense of empowerment, why do you think? I mean, I'm a
total control freak, I fudge every die roll that I make. I do what I want
when I want, players be damned!! MUAHAHAHA!!!
What the hell, chief? What does it matter to you how WE have fun when
playing? For the record, it's a rare event when I fudge a roll, but it
happens, and when it does, I have a good reason, and am working in the best
interests of my players, and, most importantly, it happens without their
knowledge. "Ignorance is bliss", so the saying goes.
Quite simply, our rule works for us, even though you don't happen to approve
of it. I wonder what we'll end up doing without your approval of our
heathenistic gaming lifestyle. It will be difficult, but we will find a way
to trudge forth from day to day without your approval. We will, as they
say, soldier on.
Jeff Goslin
> Definately. However Jeff seems to think that speed is all important,
> except when speed would mean dropping the critical system...
Speed is not compromised except in a GOOD way. In a *ROLEPLAYING* way.
After all, the game is all about roleplaying, not combat. Besides, how hard
is it to double damage? You've got to be pretty "special" to consider
doubling a number to be something that would take a while.
Basically, speed *IS* important, but some things are more important than
speed, like roleplaying. That is, after all, what the game is all about.
--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Rupert Boleyn
<aut...@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> "Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:nhs1k0dn0tt0lss9v...@4ax.com...
> > Definately. However Jeff seems to think that speed is all important,
> > except when speed would mean dropping the critical system...
>
> Speed is not compromised except in a GOOD way. In a *ROLEPLAYING* way.
> After all, the game is all about roleplaying, not combat. Besides, how hard
> is it to double damage? You've got to be pretty "special" to consider
> doubling a number to be something that would take a while.
>
> Basically, speed *IS* important, but some things are more important than
> speed, like roleplaying. That is, after all, what the game is all about.
Rolling a natural '1' or '20' is not 'roleplaying'. As for it being
slower - of course it is, especially the fumble - who got hit, or what
happened otherwise has to be determined, etc. BTW, doesn't the fact
that your armour has no effect on whether your clumsy oaf friends can
hit your or not when they fuck up seem stupid to you?
Rupert Boleyn
<aut...@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> To provide a semblance of control on the players part, of course, to lull
> them into a false sense of empowerment, why do you think? I mean, I'm a
> total control freak, I fudge every die roll that I make. I do what I want
> when I want, players be damned!! MUAHAHAHA!!!
>
> What the hell, chief? What does it matter to you how WE have fun when
> playing? For the record, it's a rare event when I fudge a roll, but it
> happens, and when it does, I have a good reason, and am working in the best
> interests of my players, and, most importantly, it happens without their
> knowledge. "Ignorance is bliss", so the saying goes.
Ah, yes. "Mummy knows best." I suppose you're a socialist, too.
First Prophet of Kaos
>"Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:nhs1k0dn0tt0lss9v...@4ax.com...
>> Definately. However Jeff seems to think that speed is all important,
>> except when speed would mean dropping the critical system...
>
>Speed is not compromised except in a GOOD way. In a *ROLEPLAYING* way.
>After all, the game is all about roleplaying, not combat.
Sorry, you're thinking of Vampire. Most likely the LARP variety.
Just pulling numbers off the top of my head, I'd say D&D is about
30/70 on the roleplay vs combat scale, by default. Of course, I'm
buying into your dichotomoy, but it would take too much effort to do
otherwise at this time.
Jeff Goslin
> Jeff Goslin <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >I take it you work under the premise that the dice are king, yes?
>
> No. But I won't play in a game where the rules are competely at
> the whim of the DM. The rules define how the universe "works",
> and, unless you have direct intervention by a being who can warp
> the laws of the universe (usually a deity), it's utterly unfair for
> the DM to screw with the rules because he feels like it.
>
> I've played in enough games like that, thank you.
That's great! Of course, you can divine the outcome of a die roll behind a
DM's screen, can't you? The most important thing here is that the players
are never aware of what happens on my die rolls. That means that whether I
do it or not, they don't know about it.
More importantly than that, the assumption is that I'm doing this with some
malevolence in mind. I'm not. I work for the betterment of the experience
for the players as a group, not as individuals. I'm not being the vengeful
DM, out to control characters lives and the outcome of battles and whatnot.
I'll fudge a few rolls to keep things interesting and to keep things moving,
but other than that, I don't generally mess with die rolls.
> >I will often reroll healing spells for player characters that are
> >doing good roleplaying work when they heal. If a player is being
> >particularly argumentative for some reason, I will knock their
> >player unconscious for the remainder of a battle to shut them up.
>
> And they don't just pack up their things and leave? I venture to
> guess that most of the participants in this here newsgroup would...
No, because A) they don't realize it's going on, and B) I am doing it for
the improvement of the experience.
> >These are things that I do NOT out of spite or anything, but because
> >the experience is what is most important. Fun, good times, etc.
>
> Be realistic. You do these things out of spite, because a player is
> annoying you. If you can't even understand that, you really need
> some remedial socialization lessons. Or something.
NO, I'm doing it because the player is annoying *EVERY PLAYER*. My feelings
as DM rarely get into it. If the players are getting annoyed with player X
because he won't shut up or something(is generally being an ass for whatever
reason), the most expedient method of ending the problem is to knock the
player's character out, removing him from the game for a bit. You might
think it as acting out of lustful power or something, but really it's done
simply to make sure EVERYONE has the most aggregate fun. Reminder, the
players rarely annoy *ME*, but they often annoy each other, and I, as a
decent DM, notice such things, and put an end to them as quickly as
possible, simply to make sure that everyone has as much fun as possible. If
a "shut it, you" doesn't work, a character knockout will.
> >If a player is playing well, he deserves to be rewarded (with good
> >healing rolls, for example), if a player is bringing down the rest
> >of the party, he deserves to be punished (with unconscious characters).
>
> What does "bringing down the rest of the party" mean in this context?
> "Bringing down the DM's wrath by being annoying"?
>
> Grow up.
You are *VASTLY* overestimating my powermongering. "Bringing down the rest
of the party"(meant to say "players") means that they are taking away from
the fun of the game through their out of game actions. Maybe they are being
obnoxious or something. Maybe they are monopolizing the game to the
detriment of other players. Whatever it may be, if they are being annoying,
and they don't check it soon, they'll find themselves on a bad run of luck.
As soon as their annoyingness stops, their bad luck will stop. It's quite
that simple.
Jeff Goslin
> Certainly not. However, good rules mean you don't have to over-rule
> them often. Bad ones mean the opposite.
It's actually not the RULE that provides a problem. I'll fudge any roll, at
any time, not just crits, if it suits my purposes. I don't overrule the
rules often, but I DO overule on occasion, for my own purposes.
> That's bullshot and I'd not be coming back to a session where the GM
> acted like, no matter who got rewarded or punished. For one thing it's
You are welcome to leave. It's how we play, and we seem to like it. My
players, ignorant though they are of my dice fudging, seem to be enjoying
the campaign. I guess FUN is not what's important to you, and that's your
choice.
> extremely heavy-handed, and for another it's punishing meta-game
> behaviour with in-game penalties. Worst of all, it's the GM suffering
> Little Tin God syndrome. The GM isn't god, and shouldn't be allowed to
> act like he is.
Not fer nothin, but in my campaign, at my table, in my house, if you don't
like the way things are going, you know where the door is. In essence, yes,
I am the god of that campaign. I don't do it to be mean, I do it to make
things go smoothly and have fun. I don't have a god-complex about DMing,
despite my sig, I just want to ensure that my campaign is enjoyable, and to
accomplish that task, I use a variety of tools, one of which happens to be
dice fudging. Scuze the shit out of me. But then again, you're not playing
in my campaign, so it shouldn't matter a lick to you. But feel free to
continue venting your outrage.
Jeff Goslin
> > knowledge. "Ignorance is bliss", so the saying goes.
>
> Ah, yes. "Mummy knows best." I suppose you're a socialist, too.
More or less, that's very applicable.
As to my politics, I'm actually a capitalistic libertarian.
Jeff Goslin
> It doesn't bother you? Why have crits and fumbles at ALL, then?
> Eliminating it would make combat go even faster (not having to figure
While we favor speed, we also favor roleplaying above most everything else.
If we get an opportunity to role play during combat, we take advantage.
That's one thing the crits do for us, in both directions. It's fun to
figure out how one hit a monster for a crushing blow, or to figure out how
one missed most heinously. You might not find it fun, but we do. *shrug*
> Why talk about a house rule for a part of the system that isn't "an
> important factor" for you in the first place?
For the roleplaying factor it provides.
> They never have armies, or at least bodyguards? One thing I *would* like
> to see is a dragon turning to his kobold archer team, after being nailed
> for the sixth time, and shouting "STOP HELPING!"
SEE??? Now you're getting the hang of the reasons we use em. Seriously.
Some of our best, most amusing moments are as a result of critical misses.
And that's what it's all about, the fun.
Jeff Goslin
news:iti1k0tki0mvvajvl...@4ax.com...
> Since the NPC goes away after the encounter and the PC sticks around
> to deal with the randomness again, the PCs random-goods matter less,
> and his random-bads matter more.
Why would it matter if the PC hangs around after the fact? Except for the
occassional dungeon crawl, our campaign is mostly wilderness travelling and
whatnot. In those instances, it's pretty rare for a party to be involved in
back to back or even close together combats, and, as such, has time to
recover from most battles, including getting healed and so on. Again, why
does it matter, except for a dungeon crawl?
> It's irrelevant, actually. What matters is that randomness also
> favours the one who has to put up with it the least.
But... both sides are experiencing POSSIBLE randomness with every roll of
the die, and in equal amounts. Once the battle is over, one side is
victorious and subsequently healed(in general), and the other side is dead.
That's it. I don't know why you guys can't see that this randomness does
not affect ANYONE beyond a single roll. It's a single event, and it's
balanced on both sides of both parties, there's little more to say about it.
Rupert Boleyn
<aut...@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> And *believe* me, monsters in my campaign fumble.
But not your dragons.
First Prophet of Kaos
<aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"First Prophet of Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:iti1k0tki0mvvajvl...@4ax.com...
>> Since the NPC goes away after the encounter and the PC sticks around
>> to deal with the randomness again, the PCs random-goods matter less,
>> and his random-bads matter more.
>
>Why would it matter if the PC hangs around after the fact? Except for the
>occassional dungeon crawl, our campaign is mostly wilderness travelling and
>whatnot. In those instances, it's pretty rare for a party to be involved in
>back to back or even close together combats, and, as such, has time to
>recover from most battles, including getting healed and so on. Again, why
>does it matter, except for a dungeon crawl?
HP are not the only resource.
>> It's irrelevant, actually. What matters is that randomness also
>> favours the one who has to put up with it the least.
>
>But... both sides are experiencing POSSIBLE randomness with every roll of
>the die, and in equal amounts.
Untrue. The PCs put up with as much randomness as *all* the NPCs put
together.
Once the battle is over, one side is
>victorious and subsequently healed(in general), and the other side is dead.
>That's it. I don't know why you guys can't see that this randomness does
>not affect ANYONE beyond a single roll.
I see two possibilities for why you can't see that it *does*: either
you 'fudge' the rolls often enough to negate it, or you're as stupid
as MSB says you are.
Note that neither are exclusive.
Jeff Goslin
> If the player is being an ass, knocking his character out isn't going
> to hinder him. The player can be an ass regardless of the state of
> his character.
This is true, but a widely accepted roleplaying rule is that if your
character is unconscious, you can't speak in the game, a rule that is
acceptably enforced by the other players simply saying "you can't speak,
you're unconscious", which most players seem to respect.
That said, I don't play with players who are generally asses. I guess more
generally than that, I don't associate with PEOPLE who are generally asses.
So, that always helps. But, everyone has their moments, and this is one way
to reduce it "in game".
> Now, maybe the player realizes that the only reason he got knocked out
> is because he's being an ass, and he really doesn't want to be an ass.
> That might stop him.
Yes, it might. There *have* been extreme occasions where someone simply
wouldn't let something drop, would not heed the warnings coming from all
directions, did not take my warnings to heart, and so I would specifically
look at them, throw the dice in the middle of the table, and without looking
at the dice, say "OH GEE, LOOK AT *THAT*, A CRITICAL HIT! MAX DAMAGE! NOW
SHUT IT!", and if he shuts it, I'll reroll the dice. Sometimes, negative
reinforcement is the best way to accomplish your goals.
> But then, so would taking five minutes to say "Dude, quit being an ass
> already."
We do that as well, but I'm *sure* you've met the player who simply won't
let something go. How do *you* deal with that player when the five minute
speech doesn't work?
> >players rarely annoy *ME*,
>
> I smell a lie.
Actually, they honestly rarely do. There is a specific instance that I get
*REALLY* annoyed at. Generally, the players will spend EONS planning their
strategy, then go with what they call "Plan A" regardless of their previous
plan, "Plan A" being full frontal assault. As far as I am concerned, that
time is purely wasted time. Given our limited schedule of playing, I like
to get the most out of our time. However, that doesn't warrant any kind of
DM retribution or anything, I just find it irritating that they take so long
to figure out a plan and then it ends up being the same every time. DM
Retribution is reserved for simple cases of assholishness gone overboard.
First Prophet of Kaos
<aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"First Prophet of Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:4in2k0phdiom9cga4...@4ax.com...
>> If the player is being an ass, knocking his character out isn't going
>> to hinder him. The player can be an ass regardless of the state of
>> his character.
>
>This is true, but a widely accepted roleplaying rule is
Irrelevant, to someone who is being an ass.
>> But then, so would taking five minutes to say "Dude, quit being an ass
>> already."
>
>We do that as well, but I'm *sure* you've met the player who simply won't
>let something go.
No, actually I haven't.
>How do *you* deal with that player when the five minute
>speech doesn't work?
Give him two options: deal with it after the game, or get out of the
game.
Hypothetically, of course. I've never had to actually deal with such
a person.
JB
"Jeff Goslin" <aut...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9dCdnViO_NE...@comcast.com...> news:8lj1k0duuk2bmcc1c...@4ax.com...
> > Of course this means a bunch of goblins attacking a 20th level fighter
> > wearing all his shiny toys only ever critical. Yeah, that makes sense.
>
> Didn't say that it did. However, the overriding mantra for the D&D
combat
> system has always been that it is a vast oversimplification of combat
for
> the sake of speed of resolution. Along that vein, we use simple
critical
> hits and misses.
That isn't true or 3.x wouldn't bother with things like "attacks of
opportunity" or provide such a wide choice of combat manoeuvres and
options.
Your critical hit and fumble rule fits the 2E combat system quite well
though. It makes no sense and it's rubbish.
Varl
<rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> You've missed an important factor here. The NPCs are only 'on stage'
> for one encounter, as a rule, so any bad stuff that happens to them
> (this includes the PCs' 'good stuff') isn't very important - it's
> finished with when the encounter ends. However any bad stuff the PCs'
> get landed with (including the NPCs' good stuff) sticks around until
> the party fixes it. Because the spotlight is on the party things that
> happen to them have a persistence that makes them more important than
> things that happen to extras and other walk-on NPCs.
So, if extras and other walk-on NPCs stayed around a bit longer, like
recurring villainous NPCs the PCs learn to love to hate, any criticals
against those NPCs would also be more important because they would remove
the NPC from the adventure until the NPC takes care of the injury.
Criticals imc, whether delivered or received, don't have a on-stage
priority for whom they happen to effect.
>> That said, regardless of how many times they attack, each individual
>> roll is
>> a distinct element, with 5% of doubling, and 5% of missing critically.
>
> So the more often they roll, the more often they fumble, and so the
> more skilled they are the more they fumble. Of course all those
> monsters using claw/claw/bite routines will be having it real hard,
> and I grant you it might make uber-rangers in the Drizzzt style a
> little less attractive.
Unless one happens to use a system of diminishing percentages which
eventually, with enough skill, will reduce the chance to fumble to 0.
Critical hits work the same way imc only reversed: the greater skilled you
get, the better chance you have of critically hitting something. Creatures
also enjoy this benefit, though they seldom gain levels since I play 2e,
but that actually is something I could change. Hmmm. I have to make note
of that one.
--
The storm wins initiative, and attacks. -Adlon, describing Hurricane
Charlie.
Kevin Lowe
"Jeff Goslin" <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
> You are welcome to leave. It's how we play, and we seem to like it. My
> players, ignorant though they are of my dice fudging, seem to be enjoying
> the campaign.
Your players either suspect you cheat, or know you cheat and have a
pretty good idea about when. That or they are all idiots, but the odds
of that are much lower than the odds that they have been on to you from
day one.
> I guess FUN is not what's important to you, and that's your
> choice.
Have you ever wanted to play a video game in an arcade, but a little kid
is occupying the game in question by waggling the joystick and
pretending to "play" the game even though they haven't put any money in?
The kid is having FUN. But it's not actually playing the game, and it's
getting in the way of someone who wants to actually play the game.
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Phil Pettifer
> But... both sides are experiencing POSSIBLE randomness with every roll of
> the die, and in equal amounts. Once the battle is over, one side is
> victorious and subsequently healed(in general), and the other side is dead.
> That's it. I don't know why you guys can't see that this randomness does
> not affect ANYONE beyond a single roll. It's a single event, and it's
> balanced on both sides of both parties, there's little more to say about it.
The important factor is how much randomness there is in that single
roll.
Lets say we have a 20th level fighter with 200 hit points attacked by
a 1st level fighter with 10 hit points. The chance in by-the-book DnD
of the 1st level fighter winning are miniscule.
Complete randomness would be something like 'Roll a D6 each round, on
a 1 you kill your opponent' i.e. 0% skill, 100% random. The 1st level
fighter is as likely to win as the 20th level fighter (in fact more
likely in this case as he attacked first).
No randomness would be something like 'Do 1 hit point of damage per
level per round'. i.e. 100% skill, 0% random. The 1st level fighter
will lose to the 20th level fighter every single time, even though he
attacked first.
Something a bit more random than by-the-book DnD would be adding a
rule like 'If you roll a 20, followed by another 20 (to confirm the
critical) then your opponent is killed'. The 1st level fighter now has
at least a 1 in 400 chance of killing the 20th level fighter - which
is a huge improvement for him but bad for the 20th level guy.
Having critical fumbles increases the randomness. As we've just seen,
increased randomness is bad for the more skilled guys, and good for
the lesser skilled guys. As the vast majority of the time the PCs are
'the more skilled guys' increased randomness is worse for them and
better for the things they fight (the 'lesser skilled guys').
I don't think I can explain it any clearer than that so I'm hoping you
now understand.
Malachias Invictus
> "Jeff Goslin" <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Once the battle is over, one side is
> >victorious and subsequently healed(in general), and the other side is
dead.
> >That's it. I don't know why you guys can't see that this randomness does
> >not affect ANYONE beyond a single roll.
>
> I see two possibilities for why you can't see that it *does*: either
> you 'fudge' the rolls often enough to negate it, or you're as stupid
> as MSB says you are.
>
> Note that neither are exclusive.
The latter is clearly true, though; quit being so charitable.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Malachias Invictus
> Jeff Goslin <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >If a player is being
> >particularly argumentative for some reason, I will knock their
> >player unconscious for the remainder of a battle to shut them up.
>
> And they don't just pack up their things and leave?
How could they? They are unconscious.
Malachias Invictus
> In essence, yes, I am the god of that campaign.
> I don't have a god-complex about DMing,
The prosecution rests, your honor.
Malachias Invictus
> As to my politics, I'm actually a capitalistic libertarian.
You have previously shown that to be bullshit. I call shenanigans on you.
Clawhound
I'm with the FUN guy. To me, the GM's main purpose is to engage the
players. As long as they players are engaged, and have adventures worth
talking about, he is succeeding well. This includes deciding whether the
dice rolls add or subtract to the fun. (That is, you are role-playing,
not roll-playing).
Case in point: I had a character die via a random moster who rolled a
crit in a surprise attack. That wasn't fun. The death was pointless.
"Your cleric has been cut in half by an ankegh, and his body taken away
before you can do anything" is not fun. This death left everyone with a
bitter taste in their mouth.
On the other hand, "Your cleric is mortally wounded and must be saved"
is fun. That would be a fudge, but a much more fun fudge. Remember, the
point of adventure is not to feel powerless. The point of adventure is
to feel able and capable in the face of mortal danger.
I am of the opinion that random encounters should not kill party
members. In fact, most encounters should not kill anyone. Important
encounters, on the other hand, where you are fighting for something that
means something, THAT is worth dying for. If my cleric had died
defending someone from that ankegh, THAT would have been fun. If my
cleric had died fighting to the end against a big baddie, THAT would
have been fun. But random death? No.
Remember, role-playing is not roll-playing. It's not dice rolling. It's
creating a genre in play-time. If you are playing Call of Cthulhu,
bizarre death is only a few steps away, but you play the game expecting
that. In super-hero adventure, death is rare. You don't expect to die at
all. In heroic adventure, you expect to live or die doing heroic things,
but not randomly. But in none of these games do you expect, "die came up
unlucky, you are dead." That leaves the players feeling powerless.
So, the GM's job is to run his game and achieve the feel of the game's
genre. Sometimes the die rolls will help that. Sometimes the die rolls
will cause grief. The GM makes a judgement on which will happen and
fudges where necessary.
Of course, if you are role-playing in the roll-playing genre, this is
all moot, but your characters have to know that.
CH
Telemnar
<matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 20:01:20 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <aut...@comcast.net>
> scribed into the ether:
>
>> "Donald Tsang" <ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
>> news:chqpui$2l6t$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
>>> Jeff Goslin <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> >> With the result that high level fighters fumble more often than low
>>> >> level ones, and that dragons fumble more often than goblins.
>>> >
>>> >Dragons don't fumble, actually. It's called a DM's screen. ;)
>>>
>>> You have GOT to be kidding. If a 20th level Fighter is going to
>>> fumble one round in five (attacking four times a round), a dragon
>>> should fumble almost as often (claw/claw/bite;
>>> claw/claw/wing/wing/bite).
>>> Anything else would be inconsistent with your "roll of 20 is always
>>> double damage, and a roll of 1 is always a fumble" rule.
>>
>> You seem to be a stickler for the rules... Me, not so much...
>
> You get more and more similar to Cope, with his attitude of "Fuck the
> players". If you don't play fair, don't play at all. Why not just be
> straight up about it and say that only players can fumble?
>
For some players and DMs, "playing fair" doesn't mean letting the rules
and dice be supreme. And it certainly isn't about "fucking the players".
It's about maximizing the enjoyment the players are having in the game.
Some players may resent the idea that the DM might be altering some roles,
and if the majority of a party is like that, the DM shouldn't mess with
the roles. Other players take it as a given that the DM has final say.
However you DM a game, as long as the players do not feel that the DM is
being unfair and as long as most (if not all) players are having fun in a
session, then whether the roles were fudged or not is immaterial.
(Assuming the players are not in a league or something)
Telemnar
Bad analogy. Here the little kid is blocking people from having fun. We're
saying that occasionally fudging rolls is unblocking players from having
fun.
Donald Tsang
>"Jeff Goslin" <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In essence, yes, I am the god of that campaign.
>...
>> I don't have a god-complex about DMing,
>
>The prosecution rests, your honor.
Well, so there's a question: can a god truly have a god-complex? I mean,
he *does* have the power, so he's not deluding himself...
I just prefer gods that run the game (err, world) according to consistent,
well-established rules (laws of the universe, so to speak), instead
of tampering with the results of quantum events in obvious ways...
Donald
Malachias Invictus
> Malachias Invictus <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Jeff Goslin" <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> In essence, yes, I am the god of that campaign.
> >...
> >> I don't have a god-complex about DMing,
> >
> >The prosecution rests, your honor.
>
> Well, so there's a question: can a god truly have a god-complex? I mean,
> he *does* have the power, so he's not deluding himself...
A GM has as much or as little power as is agreed upon by the players
(including the GM). Period. In many games, that falls far short of
"god"-levels.
Jeff Goslin
> >recover from most battles, including getting healed and so on. Again,
why
> >does it matter, except for a dungeon crawl?
>
> HP are not the only resource.
True, but like most resources in a D&D game, things get replenished. You
may use a potion here, a charge from a wand there, but then again, you find
potions and wands to replace those as time goes by. Hit points get healed,
spells return the next day, and so on.
> >But... both sides are experiencing POSSIBLE randomness with every roll of
> >the die, and in equal amounts.
>
> Untrue. The PCs put up with as much randomness as *all* the NPCs put
> together.
But only if all the die rolls for anything are related, which they are not.
There is, at best, a tenuous relationship inside a battle between die rolls,
extending only to note that if the monsters roll consistently well, it will
be worse for the PC's in this battle. This relationship only matters if the
PC's die. Once the battle is over, however, that relationship dissipates.
Of course, that doesn't even begin to mention that we're talking about
probabilities here, and probabilities as they relate to UNRELATED
events(those being our die rolls). Each die roll is independent from every
other die roll, and, more importantly, is not affected by the outcome of any
other roll.
Even if you weren't able to fully recover from a battle before the next one
started, you still experienced "just a battle", with all the resource drains
associated with that(HP, spells, potions, wands, etc). Since you
experienced STATISTICALLY just as many critical hits as critical misses on
both sides for all participants, the critical hits and misses did not
statistically impact the outcome of the battle.
Stephenls
> Not fer nothin, but I *did* put a smiley at the end of my dragon fumble
> statement.
Little known fact:
Putting a smiley on the end of a sentence doesn't mean "I'm joking."
It means "I'm being snarky and condescending."
--
Stephenls
Geek
"I'm as impure as the driven yellow snow." -Spike
Jeff Goslin
news:me-CA3A95.00...@individual.net...
> "Jeff Goslin" <aut...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > You are welcome to leave. It's how we play, and we seem to like it. My
> > players, ignorant though they are of my dice fudging, seem to be
enjoying
> > the campaign.
>
> Your players either suspect you cheat, or know you cheat and have a
> pretty good idea about when. That or they are all idiots, but the odds
> of that are much lower than the odds that they have been on to you from
> day one.
I know, and I honestly meant to include that little caveat when I wrote it.
I'm quite sure that my players know that I am fudging die rolls, mainly
because, as a player, I would expect a little die fudging from any DM I
encounter. I also am pretty sure I'm covert enough with it to ensure that
they don't know exactly when, but it's ok that they "suspect", and if they
ask, I have no problem saying I fudge rolls from time to time. They've been
playing for a while, and it's a bit naive to think that a DM never fudges
die rolls, so I'm quite sure that they are not clueless idiots about it.
"You're doing *WHAT*??? You're FUDGING ROLLS??? Say it ain't so!!"
Jeff Goslin
news:2qdv5eF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Jeff Goslin" <aut...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:KuGdncXuQdL...@comcast.com...
> > In essence, yes, I am the god of that campaign.
> ...
> > I don't have a god-complex about DMing,
>
> The prosecution rests, your honor.
I'm glad they do, given that they do not understand the difference between a
god-complex and being a god. ;)
Malachias Invictus
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2qdv5eF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Jeff Goslin" <aut...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:KuGdncXuQdL...@comcast.com...
> > > In essence, yes, I am the god of that campaign.
> > ...
> > > I don't have a god-complex about DMing,
> >
> > The prosecution rests, your honor.
>
> I'm glad they do,
That is likely because you do not understand the verdict.
Jeff Goslin
news:chspiq$6vm$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> well-established rules (laws of the universe, so to speak), instead
> of tampering with the results of quantum events in obvious ways...
Here's the thing. The rules are never adjusted. The world still "works the
same". What gets adjusted is a few rolls of random dies, the laws of chance
are messed with, and messed with in a way that a person would NEVER be able
to detect. If a DM rolls a die behind a screen, who's to say that the roll
was fudged? Certainly not the players, unless they tear down the screen.
"Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain!"
Most players *I* know of are not nearly so hard core as to worry about
whether the DM is fudging a roll here and there. They just want to have
fun. Maybe I play with a strange breed of players.
Jeff Goslin
news:bd241a5f.04091...@posting.google.com...
> The important factor is how much randomness there is in that single
> roll.
5% on both ends.
> Lets say we have a 20th level fighter with 200 hit points attacked by
> a 1st level fighter with 10 hit points. The chance in by-the-book DnD
> of the 1st level fighter winning are miniscule.
[deleted explanation]
A good explanation, more clear cut than most people have come up with.
> Having critical fumbles increases the randomness. As we've just seen,
> increased randomness is bad for the more skilled guys, and good for
> the lesser skilled guys. As the vast majority of the time the PCs are
> 'the more skilled guys' increased randomness is worse for them and
> better for the things they fight (the 'lesser skilled guys').
>
> I don't think I can explain it any clearer than that so I'm hoping you
> now understand.
I understand EVERYTHING people have said. I also have conceded previously
that this randomness may indeed favor the underdog in a given battle, but
that the randomness has little impact in the grand scheme, because it would
take an INCREDIBLE level of random luck(such that it would no longer be
considered random) for an underpowered foe to take out an overpowered
character. A kobold can get 10 crits in a row and STILL not take down a
10th level fighter.
What are the odds of rolling 10 natural 20's in a row? Something like a
fazillion to one? (A Fazillion is, of course, between an ubershitload and a
fuckgob) In other words, the complaint that critical hits and misses favor
the underdog is only relevant if the underdog wins, which doesn't generally
happen.
Theodore Jay Miller
> In a completely non-random world, the stronger side would always win the
> fights. The PC's, supposedly, could determine which enemies are weaker and
> which are stronger, and would of course only attack the weaker. As long as
> they made no error in their judgement, they would always win their fights.
I can see the point there. In a normal game the player
characters will have very few fights where they're completely
outclassed; the players won't choose to attack such enemies,
and the GM won't set up situations that are likely to kill
off the whole party. But the PCs will have lots of fights
where they completely outclass the enemy; they're getting
past minor obstacles or whatever.
If you completely outclass your enemy, random factors like
criticals and fumbles can do little to help you; you'll
only have a quicker victory against an enemy you'd have
beaten anyway. But they can do a lot to hurt you, causing
you to lose to an enemy you'd otherwise have won against.
So PCs will have very few fights where random factors can turn
things around and let them win instead of lose, but they'll
have lots of fights where random factors can turn things around
and make them lose instead of win. So random factors harm them
a lot more than help them.
Jeff Goslin
> A GM has as much or as little power as is agreed upon by the players
> (including the GM). Period. In many games, that falls far short of
> "god"-levels.
I would agree with that assessment. In our campaign, the first time a
situation came up that warranted it, one of the players simply said "The DM
is always right!", and the situation was more or less dropped with that
statement. I didn't force this on the players, they essentially requested
it, by their statements.
My players don't want to listen to bickering and arguing about rules
interpretations, they don't want to waste the time, and they don't want to
have the bad feelings that such arguments invariably generate. They, by
virtue of their own statements, decree my word as law, and when I make a
ruling, it's final. This is how *THEY* want to play.
But, like you said, role playing is about everyone agreeing about how they
should play. What your players like may not be what my players like. Every
situation is unique, and must be handled individually. If your DM's power
level happens to fall short of "godlike", that's your campaign. In our
campaign, the DM is the final word, there is no higher authority, and he has
absolute power, and exercises the power benevolently.
Jeff Goslin
news:2qecapF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
> > Not fer nothin, but I *did* put a smiley at the end of my dragon fumble
> > statement.
>
> It means "I'm being snarky and condescending."
Actually, it's more of a "nudge nudge wink wink say no more" kind of thing.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:19:21 +1200, Rupert Boleyn
> <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> > You've missed an important factor here. The NPCs are only 'on stage'
> > for one encounter, as a rule, so any bad stuff that happens to them
> > (this includes the PCs' 'good stuff') isn't very important - it's
> > finished with when the encounter ends. However any bad stuff the PCs'
> > get landed with (including the NPCs' good stuff) sticks around until
> > the party fixes it. Because the spotlight is on the party things that
> > happen to them have a persistence that makes them more important than
> > things that happen to extras and other walk-on NPCs.
>
> So, if extras and other walk-on NPCs stayed around a bit longer, like
> recurring villainous NPCs the PCs learn to love to hate, any criticals
> against those NPCs would also be more important because they would remove
> the NPC from the adventure until the NPC takes care of the injury.
That follows, yes. However, as they're not (I assume) the spotlight
characters any special effect on them is still less significant than
if it had happened to a PC.
> Criticals imc, whether delivered or received, don't have a on-stage
> priority for whom they happen to effect.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.
> Unless one happens to use a system of diminishing percentages which
> eventually, with enough skill, will reduce the chance to fumble to 0.
> Critical hits work the same way imc only reversed: the greater skilled you
> get, the better chance you have of critically hitting something. Creatures
> also enjoy this benefit, though they seldom gain levels since I play 2e,
> but that actually is something I could change. Hmmm. I have to make note
> of that one.
However, Jeff goes with a flat 5%. Your way is more like D&D3.x's.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Rupert Boleyn
carved upon a tablet of ether:
> Case in point: I had a character die via a random moster who rolled a
> crit in a surprise attack. That wasn't fun. The death was pointless.
> "Your cleric has been cut in half by an ankegh, and his body taken away
> before you can do anything" is not fun. This death left everyone with a
> bitter taste in their mouth.
>
> On the other hand, "Your cleric is mortally wounded and must be saved"
> is fun. That would be a fudge, but a much more fun fudge. Remember, the
> point of adventure is not to feel powerless. The point of adventure is
> to feel able and capable in the face of mortal danger.
>
> I am of the opinion that random encounters should not kill party
> members. In fact, most encounters should not kill anyone. Important
> encounters, on the other hand, where you are fighting for something that
> means something, THAT is worth dying for. If my cleric had died
> defending someone from that ankegh, THAT would have been fun. If my
> cleric had died fighting to the end against a big baddie, THAT would
> have been fun. But random death? No.
You could try changing your random encounters so they're with less
dangerous creatures.