• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PnP RPGs OT || Come play the REAL RPGs

Emarv

Member
First time DM starting next week. I played as a PC back in 3.5e for a semester or two in college but it's been a while. Nervous and I've been looking up lots of tips.

One thing I can't find is one PC wants to have an "investigator" background which I can't find official versions of. I see random links online to what look like semi-homebrew backgrounds.

My question is: does that background officially exist, and if not, could a potentially overpowered homebrew background affect gameplay balance?
 

ultron87

Member
First time DM starting next week. I played as a PC back in 3.5e for a semester or two in college but it's been a while. Nervous and I've been looking up lots of tips.

One thing I can't find is one PC wants to have an "investigator" background which I can't find official versions of. I see random links online to what look like semi-homebrew backgrounds.

My question is: does that background officially exist, and if not, could a potentially overpowered homebrew background affect gameplay balance?

Backgrounds just let you have some additional class skills and maybe a bonus feat, right? That's pretty unlikely to cause any horrible cascading balance issues. Just make sure they meet the prerequisites for the feat and it should be fine.
 

Muddimar

Member
Quick question...

Part of my story involves Astreus, Lord of Air (a Deity). This floating city in the story is protecting the fallen bow of Astreus. What in the world does a Deity do battle with? I'm stuck lol.
 

Mike M

Nick N
Quick question...

Part of my story involves Astreus, Lord of Air (a Deity). This floating city in the story is protecting the fallen bow of Astreus. What in the world does a Deity do battle with? I'm stuck lol.
You could probably pick any random myth for examples. Other deities, demons, giants, monstrous creatures, etc.
 

Vagabundo

Member
Just thought I'd pop in and post about a great session we had recently.

The Fallcrest Five in their continued battled with the Iron Circle were infiltrating the Iron Keep. I'm running Reavers of the Harkenwold in 4e. It's a pretty good adventure. They are nearing the end after a large scale army battle send the Iron Circle packing they are looking to free the old Baron of Harkenwold.

They found out about some escape tunnels leading into the keep from underground. This is a side dungeon of my own devising. It was good fun. So I placed a vicious trap and then a solo encounter with a young black dragon. I dont usually usual battle maps but I decided to go all out for this one and it was worth it. There was lots of acid spiting from the dragon, some great archer work from the Ranger, but the Half Orc fighter who went toe to toe with the dragon came out worst.

Near the end the dragon grabbed the half orc and flew up into the dark carvern. The rest of the group had the bright idea to ready attacked and then throw a sunrod to where they thought the dragon was so they could target it. Worked like a charm and all the attacks hit causing the dragon still clutching the struggling half-orc to fall dead into the deep part of the water.

There was a bunch of skill checks with the half-orc struggling to hold his breath and free himself from the death clutch. Great fun. This session they spend most of it going through the dragon's hoard and exploring the rest of the caves.

LhIe8pQ.jpg


Quick question...

Part of my story involves Astreus, Lord of Air (a Deity). This floating city in the story is protecting the fallen bow of Astreus. What in the world does a Deity do battle with? I'm stuck lol.

Maybe the Lords of the other elements. It depends on the myth makeup of your world. Maybe all the elements at war is one of the myths about how the world was made.

What kind of themes are you going for?
 
They've hinted at a new book of mechanics, and we are due the next adventure path near Gencon I'm imagining, but since they don't do Gencon anymore it's flexible.


Also Tome of Beasts from Kobold Press is super soon!
 
Why not play 5th? It's pretty cool.

I really really fucking wish I could. I love 5th from what I've seen of it. 3.5 is kind of really eh for me. Too many issues with it.

But there isn't a group running 5th I know of near me.

Anyway it was.... boring. Fuck. I made a rogue and the combat was against an army of 200 mooks. Level 10 group, these mooks died in pretty much one hit to anything. But it took fucking hours. Dunno what the GM was thinking.
 

dude

dude
I really really fucking wish I could. I love 5th from what I've seen of it. 3.5 is kind of really eh for me. Too many issues with it.

But there isn't a group running 5th I know of near me.

Anyway it was.... boring. Fuck. I made a rogue and the combat was against an army of 200 mooks. Level 10 group, these mooks died in pretty much one hit to anything. But it took fucking hours. Dunno what the GM was thinking.

Ugh, I hate these types of battles in RPGs. In general, combat is usually one of the weaker areas of P&P RPGs, I don't get why some DMs overuse it so much.
Combat in 3.5 is interesting when it's more than rolling a die again and again, when you're up against impossible odds and have to think creatively and use various skills. I mean, it's true for basically any system, but especially for 3.5 when there are very little abilities in combat (unless you're playing a wizard.)
 
Ugh, I hate these types of battles in RPGs. In general, combat is usually one of the weaker areas of P&P RPGs, I don't get why some DMs overuse it so much.
Combat in 3.5 is interesting when it's more than rolling a die again and again, when you're up against impossible odds and have to think creatively and use various skills. I mean, it's true for basically any system, but especially for 3.5 when there are very little abilities in combat (unless you're playing a wizard.)

Oh no, these weren't impossible odds. We were 10th level+ characters. These mooks had 6hp and hardly any chance to really hit us. But it made sense for the enemy to have 200 enemies so he really made us fight 200 fucking mooks.

Not enough AOE in the world to speed that shit up. I honestly felt like leaving but I'm hoping the non-combat portions of the game (or non "hey lets fight 2000000 enemies" combat) is good enough to keep me engaged next time.

edit: Oh you were saying combat is interesting when you have to do that stuff. yeah.
 
Just want to pop in and brag about my 3.5/Pathfinder character from a tabletop game that meets about every two weeks.

I am playing an undead Dread Necromancer (Necropolitan template from Libris Mortis), prestiged into a Dread Witch (from Heroes of Horror). My character's whole gimmick is intimidating foes into fear and submission; I have a +47 to Intimidate right now, so anything I target is going to cower. I am basing him on the antagonist in the first part of Resident Evil 4 (the tall scary dude with the beard; I forget his name).

I recently used Create Undead to turn a Red Dragon we had just fought into a Wight. So I have a Wight Red Dragon following me around (which is confusing when I say it outloud), annihilating anything that I can't scare into submission.

I also recently acquired my own castle thanks to a lucky draw from a Deck of Many Things, where I am housing a succubus who I convinced to be one of my wives. The castle is being patrolled by a zombified Chimeric Ankheg and a skeletonized Necrothane, and there are eight human skeletons that I use as personal servants while I'm there. The outdoors are being guarded by a party of Hell Knight mercenaries (they're alive; I had to pay them, but still).

We're currently traversing the Emerald Spire, which is a superdungeon that has an entire Pathfinder sourcebook dedicated to it. Pretty soon I'm going to acquire a Wish (thanks to some quest fulfillment stuff), which I'm going to try and use to eliminate the need for Onyx from my reanimation spells.

There are five other people in the party, but none of them are doing nearly as much roleplay stuff as I am, so I think I have kind of turned into the main character of the campaign. This is the first time that's ever happened to me; normally I'm just an ancillary support guy. It's pretty neat!
 

peakish

Member
Ugh, I hate these types of battles in RPGs. In general, combat is usually one of the weaker areas of P&P RPGs, I don't get why some DMs overuse it so much.
Combat in 3.5 is interesting when it's more than rolling a die again and again, when you're up against impossible odds and have to think creatively and use various skills. I mean, it's true for basically any system, but especially for 3.5 when there are very little abilities in combat (unless you're playing a wizard.)
As a novice DM of fantasy games I ran into this situation in my last session, with a fight against a few skeletons dragging out ridiculously. It was especially a problem because the players were rolling really poorly and refused to hit anything. Since battles can be exciting (we had one earlier in the evening which felt really good, but it was also against a more interesting foe), I want to keep some of them in but I don't want repeats of this.

I'm thinking of some solutions to this for future play:

  • Plant more outs inside boss battles, like magic devices that can be used to turn them into the PCs favour. Basically diversify the win conditions. Remind the PCs of these options if they start out ignoring them.
  • As the PCs are low level they have few abilities available. Plant more scrolls and potions leading up to the fight to give them options and be a bit more powerful.
  • Consider keeping the PCs in the dark re: AC and fudge rolls in their favour if the battles drag out. Maybe even lower the AC of hard-to-hit creatures and compensate in other ways to make the PCs feel a bit more powerful. I've opened this discussion with my players since some of them like being in the dark while others prefer knowing what they're up against.

I'm expecting it'll take some time to become comfortable with the amount of combat in my scenarios, right now I'm running premades to get the feel for the game.
 

dude

dude
As a novice DM of fantasy games I ran into this situation in my last session, with a fight against a few skeletons dragging out ridiculously. It was especially a problem because the players were rolling really poorly and refused to hit anything. Since battles can be exciting (we had one earlier in the evening which felt really good, but it was also against a more interesting foe), I want to keep some of them in but I don't want repeats of this.

I'm thinking of some solutions to this for future play:

  • Plant more outs inside boss battles, like magic devices that can be used to turn them into the PCs favour. Basically diversify the win conditions. Remind the PCs of these options if they start out ignoring them.
  • As the PCs are low level they have few abilities available. Plant more scrolls and potions leading up to the fight to give them options and be a bit more powerful.
  • Consider keeping the PCs in the dark re: AC and fudge rolls in their favour if the battles drag out. Maybe even lower the AC of hard-to-hit creatures and compensate in other ways to make the PCs feel a bit more powerful. I've opened this discussion with my players since some of them like being in the dark while others prefer knowing what they're up against.

I'm expecting it'll take some time to become comfortable with the amount of combat in my scenarios, right now I'm running premades to get the feel for the game.

Those are very good points. I

A few extra points to consider, with fun examples.
* For me, the main thing was realizing the win condition doesn't even have to be defeating the enemy. Usually, I'll the player a very clear objective - Find the Heart of Sapphire, turn on the switch to open the bridge etc. Then I'll put a very difficult boss battle in their way. Then the players don't really have to fight anything if they don't want to or if they're smart enough to figure another way to achieve their goal. Maybe they'll try sneaking around or running through? Then a potentially time-sinking battle can turn into an exciting chase scene or suspenseful sneaking scenario.

* Interesting environments. P&P gives players a lot of room to think about creative solutions outside the system, so give them chances to do that. Invent interesting mechanisms, vertical levels etc to leverage during combat. Make sure to describe the area in detail to get their imagination going. Don't be afraid to let the players one-shot an enemy or even severely damage it through smart use of the environment.

*This is basically the same as the first point, but whatever. It's all about the scenario. One of the more interesting battles we had was against a fort filled with well-trained knights (like, 200 of them). I was a player in that game, and we got in as guests and slept in a guest room. We woke up to find a squad of soldiers trying to burn us alive in the room. It was basically chaos as we tried to run away from the castles. Most of the battle was the fighters fending away squads as the thief scouted around and the mage casting AoE to give us the time to inch further towards the exit. We knew it was hopeless to take on the whole fort, so we had to be very smart and careful. It eventually ended when we managed to get into the room of the fort's Lord (the thief climbed to the window from another room) and put a knife to his throat until he called of the attack and we got out.
 

peakish

Member
Those are very good points. I

A few extra points to consider, with fun examples.
* For me, the main thing was realizing the win condition doesn't even have to be defeating the enemy. Usually, I'll the player a very clear objective - Find the Heart of Sapphire, turn on the switch to open the bridge etc. Then I'll put a very difficult boss battle in their way. Then the players don't really have to fight anything if they don't want to or if they're smart enough to figure another way to achieve their goal. Maybe they'll try sneaking around or running through? Then a potentially time-sinking battle can turn into an exciting chase scene or suspenseful sneaking scenario.

* Interesting environments. P&P gives players a lot of room to think about creative solutions outside the system, so give them chances to do that. Invent interesting mechanisms, vertical levels etc to leverage during combat. Make sure to describe the area in detail to get their imagination going. Don't be afraid to let the players one-shot an enemy or even severely damage it through smart use of the environment.

*This is basically the same as the first point, but whatever. It's all about the scenario. One of the more interesting battles we had was against a fort filled with well-trained knights (like, 200 of them). I was a player in that game, and we got in as guests and slept in a guest room. We woke up to find a squad of soldiers trying to burn us alive in the room. It was basically chaos as we tried to run away from the castles. Most of the battle was the fighters fending away squads as the thief scouted around and the mage casting AoE to give us the time to inch further towards the exit. We knew it was hopeless to take on the whole fort, so we had to be very smart and careful. It eventually ended when we managed to get into the room of the fort's Lord (the thief climbed to the window from another room) and put a knife to his throat until he called of the attack and we got out.
Thanks, this is pretty great advice. That castle scenario sounds amazing in the way that only PnP games can provide.
 
Some random musings I've had

1 - How do you guys handle stealth checks in dark places while holding a light source? Generally I am inclined to auto-fail a stealth check because it would be patently obvious where you're hiding, providing the person the check is against is using vision to detect stealthed players.

2 - Do you make your players map out their own exploration? I'm starting to shift towards a more relaxed use of maps. On one hand, I view maps as the closest thing your players have to a physical representation of your world... but at the same time time I think it'd be fun to have your players do checks to realize they're lost in dungeons.

3 - What is the balance between running DND as a board game vs running DND as shared storytelling? This is probably a subject that is different depending on your own group. I wish I knew the answer for my own group. There are many times when I wish I could go more story telling but I worry my players want more "game"
 

dude

dude
Some random musings I've had

1 - How do you guys handle stealth checks in dark places while holding a light source? Generally I am inclined to auto-fail a stealth check because it would be patently obvious where you're hiding, providing the person the check is against is using vision to detect stealthed players.

2 - Do you make your players map out their own exploration? I'm starting to shift towards a more relaxed use of maps. On one hand, I view maps as the closest thing your players have to a physical representation of your world... but at the same time time I think it'd be fun to have your players do checks to realize they're lost in dungeons.

3 - What is the balance between running DND as a board game vs running DND as shared storytelling? This is probably a subject that is different depending on your own group. I wish I knew the answer for my own group. There are many times when I wish I could go more story telling but I worry my players want more "game"

1. Very dependent on the situation. If they're in pitch dark and holding a light source they better put it out if they want to sneak around. Common sense always trumps system rules for me, so I wouldn't even let the players roll - You're a beacon in the dark, you can't sneak.

2. Usually no. But our games are less "tactical" in the sense of using maps of minis, so maps are usually drawn on the spot to show the player something specific that could be unclear etc. It could be fun to let the players roll, but that could be leaving it to much to chance rather than player involvement.

3. For us it's 0-1 for shared storytelling. We don't use minis, our maps are bare-bones, combat is 100% verbal with the occasional doodle to make placement clear. This is why we've drifted away from D&D over they years to more storytelling-based systems (like Burning Wheel or Exalted 3e which we're playing now.)
 
1 - How do you guys handle stealth checks in dark places while holding a light source? Generally I am inclined to auto-fail a stealth check because it would be patently obvious where you're hiding, providing the person the check is against is using vision to detect stealthed players.
If the player is out in the open in the pitch blackness with the light source, then I would rule that they are being observed and cannot immediately stealth, but if they're behind cover then technically the observer can only see the light itself (if it expands beyond the cover) and the player(s) still have a chance to stealth away if they abandon their light source.
 

Dreavus

Member
Some random musings I've had

1 - How do you guys handle stealth checks in dark places while holding a light source? Generally I am inclined to auto-fail a stealth check because it would be patently obvious where you're hiding, providing the person the check is against is using vision to detect stealthed players.

2 - Do you make your players map out their own exploration? I'm starting to shift towards a more relaxed use of maps. On one hand, I view maps as the closest thing your players have to a physical representation of your world... but at the same time time I think it'd be fun to have your players do checks to realize they're lost in dungeons.

3 - What is the balance between running DND as a board game vs running DND as shared storytelling? This is probably a subject that is different depending on your own group. I wish I knew the answer for my own group. There are many times when I wish I could go more story telling but I worry my players want more "game"

Point three sounds like it might be better accommodated by different game systems if you want to move more heavily into the storytelling end, although I don't know much about DND 5th edition if that's what is currently at your table. My group switched from DND 4th to Dungeon World a while back, and it's a sizable shift from the tactical combat of 4th to the more free form there-isn't-really-even-initiative combat of dungeon world (among many other things). It's more about the players describing what they do, then seeing if it "activates" a move in the fiction of the game; it's pretty cool. It took a lot of getting used to but it's been a very enjoyable as we got better at it.

If a more storytelling-heavy style is something you want to try with the group, then I'd say go for it, whether that means switching systems or not. Since you are the DM, switching for at least a "trail period" shouldn't be too big of an ask from the group just to see what it's like. I'm reasonably sure that if you brought it up they wouldn't mind giving something else a shot especially if you are continuing to DM it.
 
3 is largely dependent on group. Though I personally find DND less good for certain types of storytelling than other systems. Fate and other systems are better for that imo. Lots of room for player input, and less gameplay/story flops due to bad character builds.
 

Fou-Lu

Member
I play in quite a few play by posts but I really miss playing D&D in person. It's so hard to find a day where everyone can get together when I go to school and most of my friends work jobs without set hours.
 

Woorloog

Banned
Some random musings I've had

1 - How do you guys handle stealth checks in dark places while holding a light source? Generally I am inclined to auto-fail a stealth check because it would be patently obvious where you're hiding, providing the person the check is against is using vision to detect stealthed players.

Realistically, auto-fail almost certainly, some odd circumstances aside where others can only observer the light and not the holder.

In our group's current game, with a homebrewn system, it probably would work if a player rolls so-called "miracle crit": 20 and then 20 again. Our GM decided that since it is quite unlikely, it will do pretty much impossible things (for example, a single arrow bouncing around and killing all sufficiently weak enemies).
(Indeed, we generally roll d20 for most things, since 1, ie a critical fail, will make things even worse, and 20 allows to try for a "miracle crit" if nothing else.)


In a scifi RPG; i might rule that it is a normal stealth roll, if the observer isn't tracking visual light or heat but something else.
 
Realistically, auto-fail almost certainly, some odd circumstances aside where others can only observer the light and not the holder.

In our group's current game, with a homebrewn system, it probably would work if a player rolls so-called "miracle crit": 20 and then 20 again. Our GM decided that since it is quite unlikely, it will do pretty much impossible things (for example, a single arrow bouncing around and killing all sufficiently weak enemies).
(Indeed, we generally roll d20 for most things, since 1, ie a critical fail, will make things even worse, and 20 allows to try for a "miracle crit" if nothing else.)


In a scifi RPG; i might rule that it is a normal stealth roll, if the observer isn't tracking visual light or heat but something else.

I've always really disliked the crit/fumble on skill checks thing. But that's because it just furthers the gap between casters and mundane. Like why even bother playing a rogue when 1/20 times I'll tumble down the stairs and break my neck (climbing stairs) despite otherwise being a demigod of dexterity.

It also annoyingly makes melee fighters weaker as they level up. Since now they get more attacks a round, which means more chances for a 1 and "lol u throw ur sword" that can end in character death, instead of just a miss. Even worse if the DM includes self damage.

It clashes with anything but comedic settings. My plumber isn't fucking up all the plumbing in the house 1/20 times.
 
A 1 being a fumble, I feel needs to be case by case. A level 10 Fighter rolling 1 on a regular melee attack and losing his sword or getting it stuck in a wood beam is just so very unlikely considering their experience. A plain auto-miss regardless of stats is fine there. But a Ranger attempting to leap from one rooftop to another should absolutely have a negative consequence on a 1.
 
A 1 being a fumble, I feel needs to be case by case. A level 10 Fighter rolling 1 on a regular melee attack and losing his sword or getting it stuck in a wood beam is just so very unlikely considering their experience. A plain auto-miss regardless of stats is fine there. But a Ranger attempting to leap from one rooftop to another should absolutely have a negative consequence on a 1.

The negative consequence is failing and whatever that entails. Idk why it would need to be spiced up further. I think 5e further discourages "whacky fumble bumble" stuff. Or at least I think I read that somewhere.

And what if the Ranger has a +100 jump modifier and the DC is like... 40? A 1/20 chance to just fail seems ridiculous. People irl do some pretty insane parkour and definitely don't fall and die 1/20 times. DND characters are stronger than regular people.

Micheal Phelps. What happens if he rolls a 1 on a swim check? He's done more than 20 races, and hasn't been at risk of drowning. Sometimes failure on a well trained skill just isn't possible. If you want failure to be possible, impose some penalties or increase the DC. Making it a 1/20 chance to auto fail on a skill is ludicrous and that's why the game doesn't have that as a rule.
 
The negative consequence is failing and whatever that entails. Idk why it would need to be spiced up further. I think 5e further discourages "whacky fumble bumble" stuff. Or at least I think I read that somewhere.

And what if the Ranger has a +100 jump modifier and the DC is like... 40? A 1/20 chance to just fail seems ridiculous. People irl do some pretty insane parkour and definitely don't fall and die 1/20 times. DND characters are stronger than regular people.

Micheal Phelps. What happens if he rolls a 1 on a swim check? He's done more than 20 races, and hasn't been at risk of drowning. Sometimes failure on a well trained skill just isn't possible. If you want failure to be possible, impose some penalties or increase the DC. Making it a 1/20 chance to auto fail on a skill is ludicrous and that's why the game doesn't have that as a rule.

Failure on a well trained skill is entirely possible. The worlds greatest athletes still slip, trip, or misguage their attempts and end up injured. Sprains, torn ligaments, breaks, even knocks in the head to lose conciousness happen. Now add to that that many things that players attempt just aren't normal. Jumping from rooftop to rooftop is not something a Ranger would train with any regularity. So slipping at some point and falling is not at all out of the realm of possibility no matter how high their Athletics or even just straight Str or Dex is.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my first post but what I meant was that a Nat 1 failure on an attempt at something normal would just result in a plain failure while a Nat 1 failure on something more risky/irregular/spectacular in attempt should have a reprecussion.

In my roof to roof example.. If the DC is 15 and the Ranger rolls a 12, they could slip but have a chance or two to recover through Dex saves. If they roll a 1, perhaps they don't get that chance. But if that same Ranger is attacking a creature with an AC of 15 and roll a 12, the arrow glances off it's armor doing no damage while a 1 means they were perhaps distracted and miss wide.

Players will often times want to try to do the coolest and wildest things they can think of. And that's fine. However if the world you're running is to have the feel of risk vs. reward, then there needs to be consequences.
 

Woorloog

Banned
I've always really disliked the crit/fumble on skill checks thing. But that's because it just furthers the gap between casters and mundane. Like why even bother playing a rogue when 1/20 times I'll tumble down the stairs and break my neck (climbing stairs) despite otherwise being a demigod of dexterity.

It also annoyingly makes melee fighters weaker as they level up. Since now they get more attacks a round, which means more chances for a 1 and "lol u throw ur sword" that can end in character death, instead of just a miss. Even worse if the DM includes self damage.

It clashes with anything but comedic settings. My plumber isn't fucking up all the plumbing in the house 1/20 times.

We also have "fumble", meaning sometimes when you roll 1, you get to re-roll, with 20 (or sufficiently high roll) negating the original 1 and possibly having some additional effect. Not sure how fumbles are in DnD... we just use the name for a specific thing for some reason. Back when we played DnD for a short while, we didn't use any optional/additional rules.

The comedy 1s, fumbles and 20-20s add to our game are worth it though. Our game is not a parody and overall lacks humor but our own antics create that, to balance the general dark feel of the setting. It is always ridiculously amusing when certain member rolls 1, then under 10 with D20 and has his axe fly toward something (statistically unusually many times toward my character, once my character almost lost an arm to that). There has been a couple of awesome kills that way. And despite being silly, we worked this into our game and now that member has some ability to throw things effectively.
(The original reason for throwing the weapon on critical fails is that the character lacked axe skill, and due to several reasons, he cannot learn the skill anymore, though he does have kind of an advanced skill with it... It is complicated.)


Our GM's homebrew system was pretty rudimentary at first, and it has been developed as the game went on. Now it is rather odd, compared to commercial systems, probably. Most certainly it is something that is impossible to write down and try to sell to others, it is rather unintuitive without living two years with it.


One good thing about it is that since it is a system without classes (kinda, effectively every player is their own class and our GM has templates for enemies), melee characters and wizards etc. are all equally viable, in theory.
In practice, this depends on players imagination, as we get to create our own skills, abilities and spells (everything's cleared with the GM, of course), though our GM has granted us some abilities he came up with, usually due to story events. If skills aren't quite useful enough, we usually tweak them as we go if necessary. Since our game is really more about role-playing than rule-playing, everyone sticks to their character's class (or perhaps theme is more apt) quite faithfully.
 
We also have "fumble", meaning sometimes when you roll 1, you get to re-roll, with 20 (or sufficiently high roll) negating the original 1 and possibly having some additional effect. Not sure how fumbles are in DnD... we just use the name for a specific thing for some reason. Back when we played DnD for a short while, we didn't use any optional/additional rules.

The comedy 1s, fumbles and 20-20s add to our game are worth it though. Our game is not a parody and overall lacks humor but our own antics create that, to balance the general dark feel of the setting. It is always ridiculously amusing when certain member rolls 1, then under 10 with D20 and has his axe fly toward something (statistically unusually many times toward my character, once my character almost lost an arm to that). There has been a couple of awesome kills that way. And despite being silly, we worked this into our game and now that member has some ability to throw things effectively.
(The original reason for throwing the weapon on critical fails is that the character lacked axe skill, and due to several reasons, he cannot learn the skill anymore, though he does have kind of an advanced skill with it... It is complicated.)


Our GM's homebrew system was pretty rudimentary at first, and it has been developed as the game went on. Now it is rather odd, compared to commercial systems, probably. Most certainly it is something that is impossible to write down and try to sell to others, it is rather unintuitive without living two years with it.


One good thing about it is that since it is a system without classes (kinda, effectively every player is their own class and our GM has templates for enemies), melee characters and wizards etc. are all equally viable, in theory.
In practice, this depends on players imagination, as we get to create our own skills, abilities and spells (everything's cleared with the GM, of course), though our GM has granted us some abilities he came up with, usually due to story events. If skills aren't quite useful enough, we usually tweak them as we go if necessary. Since our game is really more about role-playing than rule-playing, everyone sticks to their character's class (or perhaps theme is more apt) quite faithfully.

Idk about your system, but adding further penalties to DND just makes it really shitty because combat is pretty much all/nothing and so deadly.

Fate system type games I'm fine with fumbles and crap. They are even built into the rules!

Failure on a well trained skill is entirely possible. The worlds greatest athletes still slip, trip, or misguage their attempts and end up injured. Sprains, torn ligaments, breaks, even knocks in the head to lose conciousness happen. Now add to that that many things that players attempt just aren't normal. Jumping from rooftop to rooftop is not something a Ranger would train with any regularity. So slipping at some point and falling is not at all out of the realm of possibility no matter how high their Athletics or even just straight Str or Dex is.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my first post but what I meant was that a Nat 1 failure on an attempt at something normal would just result in a plain failure while a Nat 1 failure on something more risky/irregular/spectacular in attempt should have a reprecussion.

In my roof to roof example.. If the DC is 15 and the Ranger rolls a 12, they could slip but have a chance or two to recover through Dex saves. If they roll a 1, perhaps they don't get that chance. But if that same Ranger is attacking a creature with an AC of 15 and roll a 12, the arrow glances off it's armor doing no damage while a 1 means they were perhaps distracted and miss wide.

Players will often times want to try to do the coolest and wildest things they can think of. And that's fine. However if the world you're running is to have the feel of risk vs. reward, then there needs to be consequences.

Yeah except this is DND and these fumble rules almost exclusively punish non-casters, which is bizarre to do. Unless you also add the same rules to casting. But if you are playing a hero in DND, fumble rules just hurt the narrative. Why is my hero McBadass tripping on every single deadly dungeon run?

Of course this also depends on the setting and options the DM offers. My past DMs practically would make jumping from roof to roof mandatory to progress. Then pepper the area with like 12 jump checks. So a 1/20 chance on each roll to basically fail the entire mission was really anti-fun.

Also you're ignoring that they already did a risk/reward in my scenario. This Ranger buffed their Jump skill to +100. That's a very real cost. That's a ton of skill points. And possibly tons of money on magic items. In fact, given those magic items why is jumping from roof to roof so infeasible to you? A magic set of boots isn't magical? Why invalidate their skill by making them fail 1/20 times? I think if a player puts that much into a skill they should be rewarded by never failing in that skill unless the DC really is that high. Sure they roll a nat 1, but their magic boots that give them +80 jump can't do magic stuff to save them from falling?

But that's why I'd never play that Ranger or skillmonkey character. Why buff up diplomacy when every conversation has a 1/20 chance to end in catastrophe? Better just take charm person since spells are dependent on opponent rolls.

Why even bother investing in Jump when I have a 1/20 chance to fall? Better to just prep that Fly spell which NEVER fails.
 
I have to agree, the punishment for a 1/20 chance of failure being something that would only realistically happen 1/2000 of the time for a character with a +20 BAB or +20 in a given skill seems excessive unless it's strictly for comedy sake.
 

Woorloog

Banned
Yeah, i probably wouldn't use critical fail rules in DnD games, except for special circumstances where 1) failure is probable and 2) degree of failure matters.

But then DnD rules have a lot of stuff i don't particularly care for. Like Armor Class... sigh. Armor should be threshold/reduction (or both). Though i have vague memory that 5ed finally changed this?
 
Yeah except this is DND and these fumble rules almost exclusively punish non-casters, which is bizarre to do. Unless you also add the same rules to casting. But if you are playing a hero in DND, fumble rules just hurt the narrative. Why is my hero McBadass tripping on every single deadly dungeon run?

Of course this also depends on the setting and options the DM offers. My past DMs practically would make jumping from roof to roof mandatory to progress. Then pepper the area with like 12 jump checks. So a 1/20 chance on each roll to basically fail the entire mission was really anti-fun.

Also you're ignoring that they already did a risk/reward in my scenario. This Ranger buffed their Jump skill to +100. That's a very real cost. That's a ton of skill points. And possibly tons of money on magic items. In fact, given those magic items why is jumping from roof to roof so infeasible to you? A magic set of boots isn't magical? Why invalidate their skill by making them fail 1/20 times? I think if a player puts that much into a skill they should be rewarded by never failing in that skill unless the DC really is that high. Sure they roll a nat 1, but their magic boots that give them +80 jump can't do magic stuff to save them from falling?

But that's why I'd never play that Ranger or skillmonkey character. Why buff up diplomacy when every conversation has a 1/20 chance to end in catastrophe? Better just take charm person since spells are dependent on opponent rolls.

Why even bother investing in Jump when I have a 1/20 chance to fall? Better to just prep that Fly spell which NEVER fails.

Every example you have provided is covered by my statement of taking the Fumble rule and applying it in a case by case basis.

But really, it seems we just have different tastes in how we like to play or see the game played. I am not at all a fan of gamifying a PnP RPG. Min/Maxing or allowing Min/Maxing completely removes the reward of accomplishment. If you know you will never, ever, fall from a risky jump because you have insanely overpowered stats from magical items, why wouldn't you just abuse that to trivialize the challenge? You would. So now the DM has to implement excessive situations to prevent that abuse. But then that trivializes your having gained those magical items at all. It's a silly circle.

Now I'm also not a fan of ridiculously harsh rulesets that make every encounter stacked against the party and relishes in the minutiae of making sure you eat 3 meals and drink plenty of water and track and replenish every bit of ammo or spell material requirement. There should be balance. Players should be able to feel heroic but shouldn't just waltz all over every encounter or puzzle. When the game is too hard or too easy, then I really don't see the point. In either extreme, there isn't anything to be gained by playing things out as the end result is pretty much pre-determined.

All of this is in the DMs hands and subject to each individual DMs discretion. My interpretation of Fumble would be in a game that didnt allow a character to get magical items that could prevent failure in the first place and to my knowledge, it's not possible to do so in 5e at all without Homebrew items.

I know that plenty of people will disagree with my interpretations and that's fine as there are games run in so many different styles that there is something for everyone. I'm just explaining my PoV on the issue.

Edit: And it should go without saying that my interpretation would also incur risk on a caster. A Wizard falling from a great height woild have limitations. They would have to pass a fairly high skill check or a series of skill checks to successfully cast Fly because it's not reasonable to say they would have perfect concetration when they are unexpectedly falling to their possible death.
 

dude

dude
I think it depends on how you view "critical fail". A critical fail doesn't have to be you dropping your sword or sliding on a banana peel, it could simply be a dramatically bad situation. For example, botching a roll to lock-pick could result in you actually opening the door only to see a guard facing you behind it. I like to think of botches, fumbles and critical fails as a chance to add something unexpected to the game without making the PCs look like dumb-asses.
One way I found of doing this quickly when I can't think of anything on the fly (which can occasionally happen in combat botches), is to ask the players to suggest bad stuff to happen on the fumble.

Another thing we do that has been quite helpful is adopting the "Say Yes" rule from Burning Wheel as a general guideline - If there is no dramatic significance to a roll, you really shouldn't roll it. A character who had 100 skill points in jump only really needs to roll when his jumping ability is put into a question. I'd say only when there's a feasible, common-sense, chance of failure. There's no use in making someone roll a die when his only chance of failure is fumbling it. It's usually not in the spirit of the game. If it's established he can easily jump between close roof tops, I'll only make him roll when the environment is significantly disadvantageous to him or the distance is much higher than what has been established.
 

Mike M

Nick N
My rule: Roll a 1, prompts a roll of the percentage die. At a base level anything under 50 doesn't do anything at all, and there are a few percentile ranges after that which have varying degrees of severity. The higher level/more skilled the character is, the less the chances the d100 roll has an effect.
 
I think it depends on how you view "critical fail". A critical fail doesn't have to be you dropping your sword or sliding on a banana peel, it could simply be a dramatically bad situation. For example, botching a roll to lock-pick could result in you actually opening the door only to see a guard facing you behind it. I like to think of botches, fumbles and critical fails as a chance to add something unexpected to the game without making the PCs look like dumb-asses.
One way I found of doing this quickly when I can't think of anything on the fly (which can occasionally happen in combat botches), is to ask the players to suggest bad stuff to happen on the fumble.

Another thing we do that has been quite helpful is adopting the "Say Yes" rule from Burning Wheel as a general guideline - If there is no dramatic significance to a roll, you really shouldn't roll it. A character who had 100 skill points in jump only really needs to roll when his jumping ability is put into a question. I'd say only when there's a feasible, common-sense, chance of failure. There's no use in making someone roll a die when his only chance of failure is fumbling it. It's usually not in the spirit of the game. If it's established he can easily jump between close roof tops, I'll only make him roll when the environment is significantly disadvantageous to him or the distance is much higher than what has been established.


This. Crit fails to add drama not humiliation.
 
I don't really like "1 = auto fail no matter what." I do like the idea of "A natural 1 gives you a -10 to the check," so that you can still succeed if you're doing something easy. I also like Mike M's percentage roll idea above.
 

peakish

Member
I thought Take 10/20 was implemented to solve all these trivial/boring/simple/uneventful skill checks without the possibility of failure even being involved ...

That said, I haven't introduced this option to my players yet so I'm part of the problem. At least for now, with only a few sessions under our belt, rolling still has a charm which will soon pass. Then I'm thinking I'll introduce this to them and only require rolls when something stressful is going on.
 
I thought Take 10/20 was implemented to solve all these trivial/boring/simple/uneventful skill checks without the possibility of failure even being involved ...

That said, I haven't introduced this option to my players yet so I'm part of the problem. At least for now, with only a few sessions under our belt, rolling still has a charm which will soon pass. Then I'm thinking I'll introduce this to them and only require rolls when something stressful is going on.

I like that certain systems basically stress "why the fuck are you having them roll unless failure is meaningful, or interesting?"

And yes Take 10/20 do alleviate that shit, for DMs that allow it.
 
I'm not sure where the 1 = slip on banana peel or stab yourself in the eye thing comes from. I mean, sometimes that's the right choice, but mainly a GM should be coming up with something interesting for any dice rolls. 1 just means that action beat is not in the player's favor.

So rolling a 1 on a jump doesn't mean a 1/20 chance to fall and break your leg, unless the environment calls for it. It might mean attempting to long jump, landing awkwardly short, and making a noise that has the potential to be heard by enemies. It might not even be heard by enemies, but the GM describes it in such a way that it makes the players nervous. Stuff like that.

Now if it's climbing, say, a relatively high, rain-soaked cliff, it might mean taking some damage given the context. If the player had the information that this thing looked unsafe and went ahead anyway, followed by rolling a 1, time to take out the damage dice even if they weren't high enough for you to normally do so.

This is the spirit that I was trying to express. Falling from a 1 story rooftop wouldn't be death and might not even result in damage. 4 stories up, damage would happen but not death. A 100ft fall? Well if you or someone else doesn't help by the time the appropriate amount of rounds pass.... You're in for some serious hurt.
 
This is the spirit that I was trying to express. Falling from a 1 story rooftop wouldn't be death and might not even result in damage. 4 stories up, damage would happen but not death. A 100ft fall? Well if you or someone else doesn't help by the time the appropriate amount of rounds pass.... You're in for some serious hurt.

Why though? High level DND characters can be like demi-gods physically.

A wizard can teleport people across the globe, or summon magical beasts to fight for him. My fighter can't shrug off a 100 ft drop?

Or is this also context dependent? Would it be a problem for a high level superhuman physical character?
 
Why though? High level DND characters can be like demi-gods physically.

A wizard can teleport people across the globe, or summon magical beasts to fight for him. My fighter can't shrug off a 100 ft drop?

Or is this also context dependent? Would it be a problem for a high level superhuman physical character?

There's an inherent difference between casting spells and taking damage. Regardless of level, taking (using the Pathfinder numbers as an example) 60 damage isn't shrugging anything off. I also don't know why you keep trying to counter my examples with cases of extremely high level characters. Most campaigns don't even last that long in my experience and from what I've heard.
 
I may be coming from a Tome of Battle perspective where mundane characters can still achieve basically supernatural results through sheer training.

Ive never used that book but iirc Star Wars uses similar systems for it's Force Powers... Which is really all one needs to know about it. I'm not at all into the concept of DBZ style training to OP levels in a Fantasy RPG. A Superhero one? Sure. But it clashes with the idea of swords and boards and orcs and such in my opinion.
 

Dreavus

Member
I like that certain systems basically stress "why the fuck are you having them roll unless failure is meaningful, or interesting?"

And yes Take 10/20 do alleviate that shit, for DMs that allow it.

Coming from Dungeon World, every roll is a risk for the players to get a number bad enough for me to escalate the situation with a GM move, so we've been getting used to this style. If I can't see a way to escalate then that's a decent indicator to consider not rolling. It's pretty good for minimizing dead air roll results.

If he has enough HP, he can in Pathfinder. The damage for 100 ft is 10d6 (or upward of 60 damage).

Just have him narrate a three point super hero landing. Boom, zero damage.
 
You should only be rolling when the GM dictates when something is up for chance, and the dice should be fumbled properly. So if your dude is a master thief then he probably shouldn't be being asked to roll just to do a mundane task.

A 1 - hell, a failed skill check in general - should NOT mean 'you fail at the thing, you scrub'. You should be failing forwards.

Your rogue has to creep up some steps. He's a master thief, but he rolls a 1 on his stealth check. What to do? Well, your rogue wasn't counting on the rotten stair. They manage to stifle the noise, but now their foot is caught in the stair and they'll need to get up the stairs quickly! The guard is comimg!

Slowing the story down because you rolled a 1 is bad GMing. Your character may well be the victim of fate if their luck is that bad. Maybe they really did screw up. But simply saying 'you fail and everything goes horribly wrong' is wonky.
 
Top Bottom