D&D thread
-
@Atazhaia said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall You have to remember that crit and fumble does apply to the monsters as well as the players. They are not a onesided thing, and they do add excitement to the combat. Combat is also not a routine situation, unless everything you do is combat.
That said, weapon straight off breaking I'd probably not put on my fumble table. A lowering of durability or similar is fairer methinks, then the weapon would only break if it was already damaged from before or very fragile.
D&D has the foundational assumption that combat is common. Not everything you do, but common and routine. It's kinda baked into the system. And not a matter of good or bad, just a design choice. So yes, in D&D combat is routine, while not being everything you do. Part of the framing conceit of D&D is that you're adventurers, whose job is going into dangerous places and facing dangerous threats on a regular basis.
And I don't see the excitement of "oh, I'm a bumbling moron who can't hold onto their weapon." Or "I got lucky and did a little bit more damage." And anything more than that causes really warped situations that (and I've used those tables) both turn play into a slog and make the narrative just a bad comedy show.
And saying "well, more competent people fumble less" doesn't make it better--all it does is make it more annoying.
Personally, I dislike games like Zelda: Breath of the Wild--I don't want to have to deal with weapon durability even if the computer is tracking it. And having to track it at the table is just obnoxious.
I must reiterate that this is all a matter of taste, not objective goodness or badness. What's good for me may be bad for you. And as long as we're not both trying to play at the same table, that's totally fine.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
the computer is tracking it
Now that you've spelled it out I'm beginning to suspect why I don't see a problem with 3.5e (and its kitchen sink spawn). My opinion is based solely on vidya. When the computer does the rolls and the math, it doesn't seem like a problem.
I really should sit down at a real table one day... but I'm afraid I'll make a total fool out of myself.
-
@Benjamin-Hall And there we have something to agree on. Streamlined resolution, which to me means to minimize rolls. So combat would be roll one roll for how well you succeed followed by a roll for damage, if success. And the way I have played, crit success is a doubling of damage dies. Fumble is a roll on the fumble table.
I am also used to rolling for where the hit strikes, dunno how D&D is in that regard. Both DoD and Eon uses deatiled hit areas, due to the armor system and combat mechanics. I am trying to figure how to abolish that for normal rolls.
And as far as how durability works, it only comes into play when defending with your weapon/shield. Not when attacking.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
the computer is tracking it
Now that you've spelled it out I'm beginning to suspect why I don't see a problem with 3.5e (and its kitchen sink spawn). My opinion is based solely on vidya. When the computer does the rolls and the math, it doesn't seem like a problem.
I really should sit down at a real table one day... but I'm afraid I'll make a total fool out of myself.
I recommend picking up 5e for tabletop. Unless you're one of those <blue text>filthy people who likes piloting a spreadsheet</blue text>. It really is the "best parts" version of D&D.
And yes, when a computer is doing all the heavy lifting, things can be much more crunchy. You do get (independent of that) some really borked numbers, but that's a different matter.
@Atazhaia A single combat turn in 5e is generally
- Low levels, weapon types: Movement and one or two attack rolls, each of which is 1d20 + mods vs AC plus a damage roll. Both of which can be rolled together in most cases, since a crit just deals a few extra dice.
- High levels, weapon types: Movement and several attacks. 5e scales with number of attacks, rather than damage per attack. Unless you're a rogue, who generally only get one attack but it can deal a lot of damage.
- Low levels, castery types: Movement and a spell, which could be an attack or could cause someone to make a saving throw (1d20 + mods vs caster's DC), and generally deals damage and/or causes some sort of condition.
- High levels, castery types: Movement and a spell. The slowdown here comes because the choices of what to cast (and the actual resolution of each cast) tends to increase with level.
Combats tend to last 3-5 rounds, with # of PCs + # of monsters turns (although monsters tend to be much more simple than PCs, because there are more of them). I can do a standard (non-trivial) combat in 20-30 minutes, as long as people aren't derping around and not paying attention. Of my 3 hour sessions, I tend to have 1-2 combat encounters (ok, 0 - lots, averaging 2), taking up about an hour of the session.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
@Atazhaia A 1 is a guaranteed miss. Even if you'd normally have hit. But otherwise, yes.
Aaaaand none of those rolls should have even been rolls. You do not have a critical failure chance when attacking a training post. It is a non-combat activity that does not, since there is no external stressor, require any roll.
There is significant information in the non-tabular portions of the sourcebooks. Have you considered basing your opinions on something other than themselves?
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
the computer is tracking it
... I don't see a problem with 3.5e (and its kitchen sink spawn). ...
I really should sit down at a real table one day... but I'm afraid I'll make a total fool out of myself.
It's not hard. Seriously, it isn't. Dilettantes will always want the newest thing, sure, but their estimate of the difficulty of a system that allows meaningful differences between characters is rather inflated.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
@Atazhaia said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall ...
D&D has the foundational assumption that combat is common. Not everything you do, but common and routine. It's kinda baked into the system. And not a matter of good or bad, just a design choice. So yes, in D&D combat is routine, while not being everything you do. Part of the framing conceit of D&D is that you're adventurers, whose job is going into dangerous places and facing dangerous threats on a regular basis.
False, the fundamental assumption of d20 is linear vs bell probability, aka high adventure.
And I don't see the excitement of "oh, I'm a bumbling moron who can't hold onto their weapon." Or "I got lucky and did a little bit more damage." And anything more than that causes really warped situations that (and I've used those tables) both turn play into a slog and make the narrative just a bad comedy show.
...
That's because you do not have the proper sense of adventure.
-
@Gribnit said in D&D thread:
It's not hard. Seriously, it isn't. Dilettantes will always want the newest thing, sure, but their estimate of the difficulty of a system that allows meaningful differences between characters is rather inflated.
I did consider throwing in with the play-by-post here. But then
... well, whatever happened to him
Maybe @Benjamin-Hall could DM another one? Although because of our time differences (I think
was the only one from this coast) + tendency to waffle I don't predict raging success. Or not. I have new vidya to play anyway.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
tendency to waffle I don't predict raging succes
I could waffle about this, maybe.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity I'm in Europe, and I'm definitely up for giving it another shot. But yeah, we need a DM.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity Sadly I'm running 2 games currently (one online, one in person) and that's my limit. I prefer online-but-synchronous to play by post as well.
-
-
@PleegWat easiest way is to use the best-known ruleset overall, so, AD&D (2.0) is indicated since it's been the most common basis used in media. Can't use anything older because the Tolkien estate still has enough money right now to get stroppy about it.
Now, this being the best-known ruleset, it remains to be dealt with that nobody knows it / will admit to knowing it / will use it. 3.5 is much more actually workable. However, particularly around DR and such, the broadest human zeitgeist is still at AD&D. DragonBall Z using 3.0 DR/+ is an outlier.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
@Gribnit said in D&D thread:
I could waffle about this, maybe.
I much prefer crêpes myself
I can't stand the diacritics. Crepes are okay tho. Well, I guess they're okay. Not sure I should use that term if waffles are on the table.
Actually, potato pancakes should be considered.
Yknow, a waffled potato crepe might be pretty good. But then why not just have a waffle.
I should probably say latkes, specifically, vs just potato pancakes, but there certainly are other kinds.
Maybe if I start with a extra-thick crepe batter and then cook it in a really oily waffle iron, under a potato. Actually, if the oil is the right kind I could probably just submerge the waffle iron in the oil. Also thinking about using an extra-thin but elastic pancake batter, maybe.
-
@Gribnit said in D&D thread:
AD&D (2.0) is indicated since it's been the most common basis used in media. Can't use anything older because the Tolkien estate still has enough money right now to get stroppy about it.
So, that one time we played with D&D 1.0 rules we pissed off the Tolkien estate? Awesome!
-
@Atazhaia said in D&D thread:
@Gribnit said in D&D thread:
AD&D (2.0) is indicated since it's been the most common basis used in media. Can't use anything older because the Tolkien estate still has enough money right now to get stroppy about it.
So, that one time we played with D&D 1.0 rules we pissed off the Tolkien estate? Awesome!
Only if somebody played as the hobbit. Or elf. Or, probably wizard or ranger. Or the dwarf. To get in trouble with the human fighter requires going along with them being Aragorn or Baragorn or w/e. Which they obviously are but not to the point of copyright law.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
there's no way I'll accept that 2e and before were in any way "sensible". They were piles of unconnected mechanics thrown together without thought.
That’s exactly what makes them my D&D of choice: the later ones are too clinical for my taste, and I enjoy the chaos of second edition. (Even if it’s been almost ten years since I played it.)
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
I prefer to reserve my "things going horribly wrong" for plot moments. You tried to do some kind of ritual, but you misunderstood the requirements. Etc. Not routine actions.
I prefer it when the chance of “things going horribly wrong” is inversely proportional to the character’s skill at actually doing it right, but always remains non-zero. A character with essentially no skill at wielding a sword should have a decent chance of hitting himself, one who has been training and fighting with a sword for years might do so, but shouldn’t have anywhere near the same chance as the unskilled person.
@Atazhaia said in D&D thread:
D&D seems to be all power fantasy where you walk around with a party of übermenschen slaying dragons left and right with little risk of bad stuff happening to the PCs.
That is the type 19 (of 28) gamemaster:
- AD&D'er - "The 100 peasants beat at your fighter ineffectually with their sticks and pitchforks until you have slain them all. A heroic effort on your part."
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
My guiding principle is that things that happen a lot should have very simple resolution mechanics. It's ok if things that only happen once in a blue moon are more complex, but the stuff that happens once or more per turn (on average)? Should be very fast. Basically a "critical path optimization." I prefer more, smaller turns over fewer, more complex turns.
So you're already practicing CD after all
-
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
chance of hitting himself, one who has been training and fighting with a sword for years might do so, but shouldn’t have anywhere near the same chance as the unskilled person.
And in at least 3.0 and 3.5 RAW they don't. Because they don't even need to roll for some uses. Helpless opponents in combat qualify for coup-de-grace in 3.0, and as indicated some of the text in the 3.5 DMG makes this rather clearer, many non-combat actions do not require rolls.. Of 100 peasants, only maybe dealing with 10 of them would even require an attack roll for a mid-level fighter.
Some DMs deal with this more or less like "If you wouldn't get XP for killing it, you don't have to roll to do so", iirc from the last time anyone did per-combat vs story XP.
With later editions than 3.5 having removed Rule 0, of course, GMs there do whatever they must.
it does seem a bit clinical now that I restate it, but that may be for other reasons.
-
@Benjamin-Hall I think Hasbro will give you a discount on a 3rd seat if you bought your DMG within the first 2 years. Did you get the GOTY pack ?
-
Reasons why I dislike critical fails in pretty much every edition of D&D:
- Happens more often the more attacks you have – as @Benjamin-Hall mentioned, having 4x attacks per round shouldn't mean that you have 4x the chances to crit-fail in a round
- It's worse for the players than for the monsters, even if you give them each the exact same mechanics. Because a monster's job is to die gloriously in battle (barring plot-related reasons), and a PC's job is to survive a battle. If a monster fumbles all battle long, everyone gets some laughs, and then you move on. If a PC fumbles all battle long, there's a decent chance that they just died. Depending on edition, the PC's HP only needs to hit zero once to end a career, but monsters hit zero HP all day long. This gets especially bad the stronger your fumbles are, leading to:
- Fumble mechanics, in D&D, are "whatever the GM thought was a good idea at the time." The mildest (and also most common) fumble mechanics tend to be "you lose the rest of your turn," which is, again, extra-punishing for high-level PCs with extra attacks per round. (D&D 3E, in particular, could get 8x attacks per round easily, and even higher with further investment.) Other mechanics like "you lose your weapon" or "your weapon breaks" are even more punishing.
- Special mention: GMs who use fumbles to shit on their players. Sometimes literally. "You shit your pants" is a common trope for immature GMs and immature writers of RPGs.
- On the other side, 2E's Combat & Tactics crits usually favored the monster, too. It's pretty common for dashing heroes to take down titanic monsters. Well, the heroes wielding typical weapons roll 2d4 on the crit-severity table, while the titans roll 2d6 or even 2d8.
- It makes magic-users even stronger than weapon-users, and they generally are stronger than weapon-users. Lots of D&D spells you'd use in combat have no attack rolls; they either force saving throws, or throw effects on the battlefield (walls, spikes, walls with spikes on them, etc.).
-
@PotatoEngineer well, up until 4.0, there was Rule 0 to fall back on.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
@Applied-Mediocrity Sadly I'm running 2 games currently (one online, one in person) and that's my limit. I prefer online-but-synchronous to play by post as well.
#MeToo, but I'd gladly participate in play by post. I haven't played anything at all since
-
@PotatoEngineer said in D&D thread:
Fumble mechanics, in D&D, are "whatever the GM thought was a good idea at the time."
My son backed a kickstarter for something called Critically F***ed. It's a card deck that you (or the DM) can draw from when you crit fail (so probably quicker than rolling against a table). I haven't actually looked at his deck, but AIUI each card has a set of effects, one for melee, one for spells, etc. I think they are intended to be more humorous than punishing, but I've only heard a few of the effects, and I don't remember any of them.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
I really should sit down at a real table one day... but I'm afraid I'll make a total fool out of myself.
That's half the fun IMO. One of my most memorable sessions recently is when my character and another decided to go off on their own and fake being a terrorist group to draw out the real terrorists. It wasn't well planned out, we annoyed people more than scaring them, and we ended up getting kidnapped by the terrorists and had to improvise our way out. Great fun, all started off by making a fool out of myself
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
Critical fails are just "you're a bad person who is incompetent surprisingly often."
So...realism? Or maybe just better suited for IT role playing than fantasy?
-
@boomzilla said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
Critical fails are just "you're a bad person who is incompetent surprisingly often."
So...realism? Or maybe just better suited for IT role playing than fantasy?
If it was realistic IT roleplaying, the critical fail range would be 1-18.
-
This discussion reminded me of how well Eon solves the skill level, difficulty and skill check problem. With just the annoyance of rerolls. Normal difficulty roll being 3d6 vs skill value, want equal or lower. Any 6 is rerolled with 2 dies, continue until no more 6 or definite fail. Increased difficulty means adding more d6 to the base roll. For cit must roll majority 1s in first roll and succeed with the check (otherwise normal success). Fumble is majority 6s in initial roll and failing the check, otherwise normal fail.
This also means that any increase in skill will just make you less likely to fail, but never immune to it. And it also increases the rarity of crits and fumbles.
-
@izzion said in D&D thread:
@boomzilla said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
Critical fails are just "you're a bad person who is incompetent surprisingly often."
So...realism? Or maybe just better suited for IT role playing than fantasy?
If it was realistic IT roleplaying, the critical fail range would be 1-18.
If you're really keen it's 1-16
-
@izzion said in D&D thread:
If it was realistic IT roleplaying, the critical fail range would be 1-18.
Roll d20 for Kneeling check.
*rolls*
Crit fail! You begin to kneel as carefully as you can, but instead you sit on your own dick. Your painful shriek alerts the wild Management (CR 15) circling around your workplace. Also, the server catches fire.
-
@Atazhaia said in D&D thread:
This discussion reminded me of how well Eon solves the skill level, difficulty and skill check problem. With just the annoyance of rerolls. Normal difficulty roll being 3d6 vs skill value, want equal or lower. Any 6 is rerolled with 2 dies, continue until no more 6 or definite fail. Increased difficulty means adding more d6 to the base roll. For cit must roll majority 1s in first roll and succeed with the check (otherwise normal success). Fumble is majority 6s in initial roll and failing the check, otherwise normal fail.
This also means that any increase in skill will just make you less likely to fail, but never immune to it. And it also increases the rarity of crits and fumbles.
I recall that the White Wolf games (Vampire the Masquerade et al) had a faintly-similar mechanic, but botched it so that the higher your skill, the higher the chance of a crit-fail.
Their mechanic is to roll a pile of d10s; 7+ is a success, 10 is two successes (or, in some versions, "1 success and roll another die"), 1 is "subtract one success." Botch happens when there are more 1s than successes.
The problem is that with that 2-6 range of "nothing," adding more dice (having more skill) makes botches more common. They're still pretty rare, but they go from 10% to 11% to 12% as you add more dice.
-
@PotatoEngineer said in D&D thread:
The problem is that with that 2-6 range of "nothing," adding more dice (having more skill) makes botches more common. They're still pretty rare, but they go from 10% to 11% to 12% as you add more dice.
I have not verified the math but am agreeing in advance in order to kick Whitewolf sooner. Knowing what the curves look like when they interact isn't as optional in game design as they think.
-
@PotatoEngineer said in D&D thread:
I recall that the White Wolf games (Vampire the Masquerade et al) had a faintly-similar mechanic, but botched it so that the higher your skill, the higher the chance of a crit-fail.
That was the case in the original World of Darkness games.
Their mechanic is to roll a pile of d10s; 7+ is a success
That is the mechanic from the second World of Darkness series, when White Wolf basically decided to reboot their setting in the way TV shows began doing too around the same time.
The original mechanic is to roll a number of dice equal to your level in the thing you’re attempting, against a variable difficulty (1 < difficulty ≤ 10), aiming to roll equal to or higher than the difficulty; a die that does so is a success. Each 1 rolled cancels a success, and if you still have 1s left after all have been cancelled, you botch — this is just like in the later system.
Clearly, this causes more botches the higher the difficulty (which is probably intentional), but also the higher your level.
It took them the better part of ten years to realise this was a problem, and fixed it in Wraith: The Great War and (IIRC) all future original WoD games. From then on, if you got one or more 1s, you botched, but only if you rolled no successes at all — even a single success would be enough to prevent a botch. This improves things drastically, except for anyone with only a single die to roll, who still has a 1-in-10 chance of botching.
Also, talking of poor botch rules: Cyberpunk 2020. System is to roll 1D10 + stat + skill, but a 1 on the die means a roll on the fumble table, where 1–4 is just a regular failure but above that, the degree you screw up goes up with the roll.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in D&D thread:
@izzion said in D&D thread:
If it was realistic IT roleplaying, the critical fail range would be 1-18.
Roll d20 for Kneeling check.
*rolls*
Crit fail! You begin to kneel as carefully as you can, but instead you sit on your own dick. Your painful shriek alerts the wild Management (CR 15) circling around your workplace. Also, the server catches firedo something.FTFB
-
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
Also, talking of poor botch rules: Cyberpunk 2020. System is to roll 1D10 + stat + skill, but a 1 on the die means a roll on the fumble table, where 1–4 is just a regular failure but above that, the degree you screw up goes up with the roll.
Clearly, they took the "higher is better" approach from the perspective of the GM's amusement.
-
@PotatoEngineer Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but think about it: one time in every ten rolls you fail, no matter how good you are at the task — and of those failures, 60% goes badly wrong to some degree or other.
You’re trying to take candy from a baby, a task the GM rates as Easy, difficulty 10. You have Empathy 10 and Persuasion/Fast Talk skill +10, so basically, you always roll at least 21. Yet one attempt in ten you not only fail to get the candy, if you happen to then roll a 7+ on your fumble roll, “they’re violently opposed to anything you want to do” which gives a further 1D10 roll, so that on 1–4 on that, the baby attacks you.
-
-
@PleegWat said in D&D thread:
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
the baby attacks you.
So, they start crying?
1D4 psychic damage and take a level of exhaustion
-
@Jaloopa Surrounded by crying babies, warrior-priest Ogrok collapsed in exhaustion. He was dead before he hit the floor.
-
@PleegWat said in D&D thread:
@Jaloopa Surrounded by crying babies, warrior-priest Ogrok collapsed in exhaustion. He was dead before he hit the floor.
That's what happens when you worship Ilmater.
-
@Jaloopa said in D&D thread:
@PleegWat said in D&D thread:
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
the baby attacks you.
So, they start crying?
1D4 psychic damage and take a level of exhaustion
Surely there should be a fortitude save against the exhaustion
-
@izzion said in D&D thread:
Surely there should be a fortitude save against the exhaustion
:pathfinder:A successful Fortitude save (DC 17 + caster level) reduces the duration of the exhaustion effect to one round.
-
@izzion said in D&D thread:
@Jaloopa said in D&D thread:
@PleegWat said in D&D thread:
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
the baby attacks you.
So, they start crying?
1D4 psychic damage and take a level of exhaustion
Surely there should be a fortitude save against the exhaustion
Will for this one, is an option for evil individuals, as I am allowing. And have now allowed. And will now allow.
-
@PleegWat said in D&D thread:
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
the baby attacks you.
So, they start crying?
It’s Cyberpunk 2020, the baby is probably packing at least an Uzi Miniauto 9.
-
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
@PleegWat said in D&D thread:
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
the baby attacks you.
So, they start crying?
It’s Cyberpunk 2020, the baby is probably packing at least an Uzi Miniauto 9.
Juicer babies crying do megannoyance.
-
Just had a fight take 14 rounds (sets of turns, average is about 4). Not even a boss fight. Not even the hardest fight of the session. But the party couldn't roll worth crap. If we'd have been playing with crit fails, they'd all have been dead by self inflicted wounds.
-
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
Just had a fight take 14 rounds (sets of turns, average is about 4). Not even a boss fight. Not even the hardest fight of the session. But the party couldn't roll worth crap. If we'd have been playing with crit fails, they'd all have been dead by self inflicted wounds.
Sounds like a GMing problem tbh
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
But the party couldn't roll worth crap. If we'd have been playing with crit fails, they'd all have been dead by self inflicted wounds.
None of the crit fail tables I work with does self-inflicted wounds. The worst in self-harm is "you drop your weapon on your foot, take 1 HP damage" and then have to spend a turn picking the weapon back up. You have some sort of fascination with locking onto that one example of crit fail meaning you hit yourself for full damage and ignoring the fact that it's an exception, and a very bad version of what should happen when you crit fail.
A proper crit fail table should cause an inconvenience or a situation that is recoverable from. It should not be something that causes direct harm. But more of something that causes a situation where you need to improvise or adapt to unexpected circumstances. That's something that leads to good and interesting fights, rather than a routine of "I smash enemy until he dead".
But we do have very different ideas of what is fun I guess. I like the peril and danger and am working on a more dynamic system that also has risktaking in fights built in. While you seem to prefer completely predictable no-danger no-dynamic systems where nobody can fail or die.
-
@Atazhaia said in D&D thread:
But we do have very different ideas of what is fun I guess. I like the peril and danger and am working on a more dynamic system that also has risktaking in fights built in. While you seem to prefer completely predictable no-danger no-dynamic systems where nobody can fail or die.
You really should get a refund on that mind-reading class.
I'm totally fine with peril and danger and dynamic risktaking. I don't want it to come from random chance, however. Especially random chance that paints the characters as incompetents using crappy gear. And yes, even a 1/100 chance of dropping your weapon or breaking your weapon counts as such. A gun that had a 1% chance of jamming is dangerously defective. A sword that has a 1% chance of breaking on use is dangerously defective. A warrior who drops his weapon 1% of the time is an incompetent.
I want danger and risk and dynamism to come from things like
- player choices, especially reaching beyond the "buttons" (ie trying for more than the abilities directly allow)
- terrain (especially dynamic terrain)
- enemy tactics
- player and enemy goals beyond "let's fight until one of us is dead"
- etc.
That is, things that are actually interesting and enhance the narrative and show player (and DM) skill. Things that enhance player (and DM) agency, not remove it. Not "oops, I rolled a 1, sucks to be me."
