TRPG General Chat

4:03 PM

@kviiri Actually, quicken couldn't do it, as you can only cast cantrips if you cast with your bonus action. This sounds more like homebrew.

NautArch

@Szega what's odd is he also only did that double spell once. I dunno. The other times he only cast one spell.

either way, given that i was down to 38hp and disadvantage on my attacks, I got out of there. The goal wasn't fighting in this place, it was retrieval ofs omething. So I just moved on.

Szega

@NautArch Once you get into homebrew territory, it is anyone's guess. 1/encounter ability?

NautArch

but i'm sure there will be an XP loss for that

Szega

@NautArch Remind me, why are you playing under that GM?

NautArch

@Szega i like the group. and they're close (sorry @nitsua60)

I just don't like this GM. BUt his campaign is almost over.

kviiri

4:09 PM

@Szega I remembered there being something like twin spell, but I guess that only allows casting the same spell twice or something.

Szega

@kviiri twinned lets you target 2 with a single-target spell

kviiri

@Szega Ah, right.

I don't remember sorcerer abilities as well as most classes because none of my parties ever had a sorcerer.

sevenbrokenbricks

@doppelgreener yeah, probably best to remove the comments at this point. I probably should have made that edit as soon as the first comment popped up

doppelgreener

@kviiri In a world with wizards in towers devoted to figuring out the minutae of the universe, someone would eventually notice that precisely 1 in 20 attacks fail with some horrible consequence

Shalvenay

@doppelgreener hahaha :P

doppelgreener

4:12 PM

@sevenbrokenbricks cool beans! blammo. just didn't want to remove them if you were still doing something with them. :)

kviiri

@doppelgreener And 1 in 20 attacks succeeds with horrible consequences.

doppelgreener

From what I've read though, the most weighty argument I've seen against critical fumbles is this:
- most NPCs won't be around to experience even one of them.
- the player characters will experience tons of them.
This means critical fumbles penalise the players more than help them. It also means that critical fumbles with any long-term consequence (like a character losing a limb or a weapon) exclusively impacts the players -- the NPCs won't be around long enough to care about the long-term consequences, so exclusively only the players actually suffer from them.

Szega

@doppelgreener That is not really a problem in and of itself.

kviiri

I think the after-edit version captures it.

Shalvenay

@doppelgreener that's actually not the only argument against crit fumbles in at least some corners

doppelgreener

4:17 PM

@Shalvenay whoops. i ... didn't mean to write "single" at all. brain malfunction.

@kviiri most especially captures why to not have long-term consequences in a fumble table

Szega

@kviiri My statement still stands. Making things really hard for the players is not a bad thing inherently. The problem arises when there is a dissonance between player and GM expectations.

Shalvenay

(D&D 3.x is particularly bad for them. the multiple-attacks system in 3.x interacts really badly with crit fumbles to cause P(fumble) to go up as you level your char, which is rather paradoxical if you ask me)

kviiri

That's the balance point of view - and from simulationist point of view, a super-capable fighter debilitating themselves roughly every 20 strikes doesn't make much sense.

doppelgreener

@Szega Yeah, making things harder for the players is not necessarily bad.

Shalvenay

@kviiri and getting more likely to do so on any given turn as they increase in level in D&D 3.x

kviiri

4:18 PM

@Szega Weeeell, it can also create a dissonance between GM rulings and GM expectations. By my experiences, not every GM thinks as far as doppel just did, and could naively think that a critical fumble rule is equal :)

doppelgreener

@kviiri Right, which gets at one of the other avenues of argument for having fumbles: that they're theoretically simulationist. But they're not! A trained expert doesn't experience horrible self-inflicted mistakes like that.

Szega

Note: I am not advocating the 1-in-20 fumbles we spoke of earlier, just trying to clear up the argument.

kviiri

@Szega Yep, I understand :)

And I see what you mean.

Shalvenay

@doppelgreener which is an implementation problem, not a conceptual problem. something like a Reflex save to confirm, then having them choose between losing the weapon or taking an OA, is much more realistic consequence-wise it seems

doppelgreener

@kviiri Yeah, it's a subtle trap to fall into. "Man, imagine that combat where an enemy gets an arm chopped off!" turns into Gandalf the Limbless, with Aragorn Lackhand, and Frodo carried on Samwise's back not because he's exhausted but because Frodo's got no legs left.

Szega

4:21 PM

@doppelgreener There is also the problem of injecting limb loss into a system that is not designed to handle it.

like 5e

Shalvenay

@Szega or other such debilitation, for that matter

kviiri

@doppelgreener Frodo the Quarterling, at your service.

@doppelgreener On a more serious note, this also works in reverse: buffing crits tends to work in the monsters' favor.

Szega

@Shalvenay There are only optional rules for them for a reason. That being that DnD is usually used for high fantasy games with big heroes.

Shalvenay

@Szega aye, and even if you're using the option of having critical failures -- ascribing horrific consequences to them is no good

losing limbs is out of proportion to the frequency they occur at even with a confirmation roll

Szega

@Shalvenay Actually even the optional rules do not include such things on nat-1s. They give them as a consequence of nat-20 on attacks.

Shalvenay

4:24 PM

@Szega aye. I'm speaking from experience here not just what the rules provide

Szega

you cannot self-inflict by accident

NautArch

@Shalvenay yup. as shown by our percentil confirmation roll. Really only 95% or above creates longstanding problems (or something needing greater restoration to fix.)

kviiri

I'm not a big fan of the "optional rules" paradigm. Relies too much on the GM making only good calls. Then again, it's better than having every GM homebrew something of their own...

@NautArch Oh, you had a confirmation roll at least... I thought the 95% meant the chance to not fumble at all and all fumbles are like that.

Szega

@NautArch Oh that was the 95%! I thought only a 1 would have missed. This is marginally more reasonable.

NautArch

@Szega first it's the fumble, then it's percentile. Closer to 100 is bad. 100 is instadeath.

kviiri

4:26 PM

What.

Szega

@NautArch Damn

NautArch

@Szega yeah, when i was DMing one guy fumbled and rolled 100

that sucked

Szega

@kviiri Optional does not mean "optional every time", but optional in the game, but then consistent. It is not a ruling.

never really had a problem with it

kviiri

@Szega I would consider the choice to use or not use it a ruling anyway.

@Szega I don't really doubt that, but I think you're likely to be a very good GM. You probably wouldn't make many or even any bad calls when picking rules to use and rules to ignore.

Szega

@kviiri Well, it is similar. But codifying it make is better than "regular" ruling that slip into table rules.

kviiri

4:29 PM

@Szega Okay, that's true.

Szega

@kviiri I am honored :)

kviiri

But in more general audiences, I think the heavy emphasis on rulings, optional rules and GM fiat reeks of "System designed for experienced GMs". That's problematic as the current edition of DnD is a very common system for beginner play.

doppelgreener

@kviiri Hmm. Across the course of a battle, players tend to experience more actions than monsters individually (because the monsters die), but in combats with more monsters than player characters, the monsters as a group will experience more actions. More actions = more chances of critical success/fumbles.

Short-term benefits become long-term consequences when inflicted on the opposite side, such as via death.

Thus critical success tables that involve, say, "the target dies instantly" will have more impact on players than monsters. That trigger on a monster just kills it 1-2 turns early, that trigger on a player is a huge impact on the story and a potential plot derailment.

kviiri

It's likely to be a less pronounced problem for those who play published adventures, but at least I, upon first starting to GM, was more interested in making my own stuff than following a story set out in a book.

It's not a bad way to feel, until one realizes that sometimes the enjoyability of an RPG can be quite fickle.

nitsua60

@NautArch Isn't there a theory in ~~psychology~~ parenting that we can endure anything as long as we can see an endpoint approaching?

NautArch

4:39 PM

@nitsua60 absolutely. and i'm living proof right now. HAHAHAHAAH on the update.

kviiri

@NautArch Have you told the GM how you feel about his game? How has he responded to feedback?

NautArch

@kviiri I've attempted to. It didn't go well.

but i won't do another campaign with him

kviiri

That's probably wise, especially if they have a strong conviction towards their unusual playstyle.

I would recommend playing something else to broaden their horizons but if I recall correctly you're DnD all the way

NautArch

@kviiri kinda. we did try iron kingdoms (and liked it, until the same GM started pulling the same stuff) and paranoia.

kviiri

@NautArch You need a contending GM to disrupt his monopoly :)

NautArch

4:56 PM

@kviiri We've got one starting up as soon as this ends. We also run our alternate campaign which is rotating GMs.

I'd like to start suggesting alternate RPGs for the alternate campaign

kviiri

@NautArch Sounds cool!

NautArch

One of my buddy's not in this group has been wanting to GM Savage Worlds

kviiri

We had some fun with rotating GMs except well, we didn't have the usual level of playstyle consensus. That's a bit of a bummer.

I would like to try rotating GMs with a deliberately simple on-the-rails playstyle

NautArch

we've had good luck with it

kviiri

I'm going to teach a handful of people to play RPGs this year, if for nothing else, because I've found that my current friends are so resistant to change that it's best I have a separate group of players to do my more experimental stuff with :)

nitsua60

5:36 PM

@NautArch Legendary/Lair Action? If it's a biiig boss I could imagine a nova of six "things," but they'd be blowing their wad on it. Also, as a GM I'd probably be spreading things out a bit more.... But time stop or a legendary multiattack at the end of the turn immediately preceding yours... I suppose it could happen. (More likely, though, just struggling to keep up.)

NautArch

@nitsua60 not a big boss. just a guy in the way after the 2nd puzzle.

and before the final fight/puzzle before we go back to the material plane

nitsua60

Welp, to quote one of my favorite shows:

> "Mmm, boy. I don't know."

NautArch

yeah, i'm sadly just looking for this campaign to end. in whatever way it does.

i'm going to miss my character, but i am so unbelievably done with this GM

but i'm really going to miss my paladin

kviiri

Just out of curiosity, is this GM a relatively fresh one or one of those elder sages who has been playing since the 1970's? Or something in between?

NautArch

'elder sage', but younger than me :) He's been playing for a long time.

kviiri

5:44 PM

I guess at some point what started as a choice becomes an unviolable tradition.

NautArch

quite possibly. the table also does seem to like the fumble rules (although not all of the table enjoys this DM.)

kviiri

6:39 PM

By my experience, many of the people who like fumble rules have no more reason for liking them than just "it's the way it's supposed to be".

Then again, that's not a bad reason if that's what they need to enjoy their game... I have my share of "things I enjoy but can't really explain" too.

NautArch

7:12 PM

is this a dupe of this

i'm wary about marking things in 5e as dupes because last time i did it it automatically closed it as a dupe

is that a new function of 20k?

Szega

@NautArch gold badge i think

NautArch

@Szega it's the same answer, but a different question. In the past that's been not a dupe but it feels like it should be :)

Szega

@NautArch I think it is not. Alarm targets an area, while hut does not

NautArch

Gotcha. I was just looking at it as "Spell on moving thing"

Szega

@NautArch The issue is similar

so the answer might be the same...

NautArch

7:18 PM

i'll just plop the related down

Szega

@NautArch I can mark it as duplicate if we wanna leave it to the voters

btw, does it auto-close if you flag it? or can you not flag after you get close-vote rights?

NautArch

@Szega I'm honestly not sure. Over the weekend I flagged something and it was auto-closed. Have been scared to try again since :)

Szega

@NautArch Oh, I just noticed it is abour glyph of warding

my eyes slipped

it is not a dupe then, away to answer :)

NautArch

@Szega I'm not sure the wall of a house (stationary) is equivalent to the wall of a ship (moving)

they also state a "table" is a surface. But I think if you move that table, it becomes an object.

ah, @Rubiksmoose got it :)

Szega

@NautArch It is clearly separated into surface or object that can be closed

a table cannot be closed

usually

A door would be an interesting case, though

probably a surface though, as far as I can glean the intent

kviiri

7:33 PM

This reminds me of a debate I had with my roommates in the army... which are there more of, windows or doors?

Of course, we could debate the actual issue for barely twenty seconds before it (d)evolved into semantics of "window" and "door".

NautArch

@Szega yes, but the moose goes on to add the relevant bit that should the surface OR object be moved.

kviiri

That continued for an awesome 30 minutes or so.

Rubiksmoose

ok I know this is already answered, but should we split this into two questions? rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/112695/…

Szega

@NautArch They must have updated after the PHB release

as mine does not say that

nitsua60

@NautArch your gold dnd-5e badge means that any time you vote to close-as-duplicate a question with that tag, it'll immediately close as duplicate. (Sometimes affectionately referred to as the "dupe-hammer.")

doppelgreener

7:44 PM

@nitsua60 One exception: this is contingent on the tag being either in the original revision, or added by someone else. Someone's gold badge dupehammer won't work if the question only has the tag because because they added it themselves.

NautArch

@nitsua60 oh, man. that's some heavy responsibility.

nitsua60

@doppelgreener Sooth. Wisely, wisely.

@Szega There are some places where at low rep you have a "flag" option but once you gain the privilege/responsibility to vote you can no longer flag, just vote. IIRC.

kviiri

@NautArch The gold badge isn't common either! You're one of the eight people who have it for 5e, and other systems have only very small numbers of them.

nitsua60

Sep 22 '16 at 21:23, by nitsua60

Whoa. First dupehammer.
Think I'm gonna feel it tomorrow. I probably should've stretched.

NautArch

@nitsua60 haha! ALthough at the time of my first dupehammer, it was a dupe.

kviiri

7:49 PM

@nitsua60 At least I get the normal dialog for flagging "Should be closed" despite having had the closing privilege for quite a while now. Which reminds me - should I both flag and vote to close, or is the flag superfluous at that point?

Peter Cooper Jr.

@kviiri When you have the rep to vote-to-close, flagging-to-close is actually a vote-to-close.

Transcript for