What if the critical failure/critical hit systems were reformed in such a way that the consequences are dispensed to others.
A critical failure roll would result in an ally near you having a potential lethal incident as a result of your actions.
A critical success roll would result in an ally near you succeeding in a particularly effective way as a result of your actions.
This change would make such rolls (1, 20) more involving at the level of group dynamics.
We would loose you reposting this thread to let us know you have not died this week.
Thank goodness, too. I'd be worried about user if he didn't.
>reposting this thread
Are you implying that this isn't an original idea?
I can assure you that the thought is fresh from my mind, and that I have not expressed it at any time prior to this night.
>Doesn't have her little toe extended
BARBARIAN!
Neuroshima does that
And it sucks. It sucks really, really hard. When 4 people roll 3d20 each, the chance of rolling critical failure (only failures affect entire party, success is "private") is just waaaay too high and entire group is rekt by single bad roll.
If anything, having your pinky extended is a serious faux paux and a sign of being uncultured swine. But for whatever reason Americans consider it to be the epitome of manners, just like they don't see anything wrong with putting their napkin on the neck.
So who's barbarian here, colonist?
Probably the guys who started two world wars, Eurocuck.
I don't like the idea of a chain reaction.
Also bad luck becomes a problem not just for the player, but the whole party.
>Also bad luck becomes a problem not just for the player, but the whole party.
But so too with good luck. Would it not balance out?
>1/10 chance of something retarded happening
>simulational logic of the mechanics makes no sense either
It's a stupid idea.
Most good ideas are.
>So who's barbarian here, colonist?
I like to imagine this guy is really an Amerifat pretending to be a Britbong...
...and this guy is really a Britbong pretending to be an Amerifat.
This is a terrible idea. For the sake of your players, please don't.
When I DM, they already do. As long as it makes sense.
>Bob is holding the goblin by the arms! Jeff sees the opening!
>Crit Fail
>Jeff panics at the sudden decision and in a moment of confusion strikes Bob with his axe!
>Bob takes the full damage! A nasty gash on his shoulder!
>Jeff sees the goblin distracted, snarling at Bob! Jeff sees the opening!
>Crit Success
>Jeff leaves the goblin reeling and screeching! A deep wound!
>It stumbles towards Bob! Bob can use his reaction to bring his shield down on the poor goblins head!
>Bob: I do!
>Hits: Goblin takes 1d4+S bludgeoning damage and is floored! He's in a daze!
This not only doesn't make sense it is also also hypocritical how eager Americans want to part of the wars.
>Are you implying
No, he's directly calling you out on it.
No, most good ideas are sensible, and stupid ideas are bad by definition.
The sad part is that you not only believed what you typed, but you no doubt thought it was a snappy and cool response. It was not. It just makes you look like a vapid tryhard, which is exactly what you are.
Stop playing shit systems and having shit ideas.
...
Don't be a troll.
Stop being an idiot.
Critical failures are stupid enough as is.
I don't know why so many people love the idea of trained swordsmen bumbling around like idiots and stabbing themselves.
The only systems I've seen them done ok are 1d100 based, where a crit fail isn't something you'll see once or twice a session. An even then those are more along the lines of jamming your gun or losing an action instead of stabbing yourself like a fucking mongoloid.
>how eager Americans want to part of the wars.
You mean not joining WW1 after Germany sank large numbers of merchant ships and civilian cruise ships and only joining when Germany asked Mexico to declare war on us? Or do you mean the second world war where we didn't declare was on Japan until they bombed our navy and Germany declared war on us?
Not that guy and that whole conversation is fucking dumb, but WW1 was literally 100 years ago.
When it comes to WW2, America was very clearly gearing up for war and Japan decided to get the jump on them by blowing up the navy they had spent the last 3 years building. America had established a bunch of policies to essentially give free/cheap weapons and resources to the allied forces long before pearl harbour.
> trained swordsmen bumbling around like idiots and stabbing themselves
>Critical failures
wut
...
>tl;dr: I remember the best and ignored the 99% of trash threads.
...
That first example makes me cringe.
You're a bad DM.
Your first example is cancer, and I would never work together with anyone else in the party if that kinda shit happened.
It's even worse if you're playing a d20 system and the mage is able to end encounters in one turn without haveing to make a single roll.
So not only are martials weaker than mages by design, but martials also have to deal with a 5% chance of completely fucking their shit up because they rolled a one on the die.
What a shit foot-grip, that bitch needs training
well done, you posted it again
While America was gearing up for war, most of that was supplying Britain, the USSR, and other countries through the Lend Lease Act. While the US getting involved may have seemed like an inevitability to some and indeed the US was preparing for war, is it really unreasonable to prepare for a conflict when conflict is all around you? Besides that the US had no direct plans for war, Germany was a regional threat that was being combated by countries supported by the Lend Lease Act while Japan was being contained through embargoes and the fact that the IJN could never hope to match the US and Royal Navies. So while the actions the US took helped result in war (looking primarily at the embargo on Japan which forced them to look for other sources of raw materials if they were to continue their war with China) that alone doesn't suggest eagerness to get involved with war.
Also why is WW2 relevant but WW1 not, especially when the guy himself was responding to a post about both world wars? Are events 71 years ago relevant but events 98 years ago not? One should remember that most of the Second World War is rooted in the first and many of the influential individuals from the second world war either fought in the first or were major figures during the first. Claiming that the first is irrelevant while the second is relevant is like claiming that the Korean, Vietnam, and Afghan wars were unimportant but that the cold war was.
See
>Fighter tries to do something
>Crit failure
>Maims his own team mate
Most people seem to think crit fails should be "LOL so funny and random" shit.
excuse me, but what is wrong with a "normal" CS/CF system?
Even at the basic level, the simple fact is that CS/CF systems are harshly biased against the players, and no DM seems to realize that.
Players will have to make orders of magnitude more rolls than any given NPC, simply because any given NPC won't be around nearly as long as the players, and the consequences of any critical failures an NPC does roll won't persist for nearly as long for the same reason.
And then you have the fact that even if an NPC is a long-term one, like a BBEG or whatever, that no GM has them make rolls "off-screen" unless it's necessary. I've never, in all my years of gaming, EVER heard of a GM who uses critical fumbles come to the table and say "Yeah while the BBEG was conquering the lands of Goodpeople, he rolled a critfumble and chopped his own head off, so there's that."
tl;dr: Players make way more rolls than NPCs, and have to live the consequences of those rolls way longer, so even if something has an equal chance of happening to a player as an NPC, it's biased against the players by the reality of the game as a mechanical interface
If you mean "normal" as in "nat1 means you always fail, nat20 means you always succeed, nothing stupid happens," then whatever.
but in a CS/CF system there is also the CS part, nut just fumbles...
Yes, and critical successes have the same problem, just in reverse: One affects an NPC and thus is pretty transient, one affects a PC and thus will stick around for a long time.
If I chop off the orc's hand because I got a CS, that... is really only going to matter for the rest of this one fight (give or take the resources we don't burn because of the nerfed combatant), because it's not like the next round of orcs are going to have one of their hands chopped off.
If I chop off my own hand because I got a CF, that's going to stick around until we get a chance to rest and heal up (which certainly includes the rest of this fight, and probably the next several fights), or possibly forever if it's not a system with easy limb-regeneration.
maybe CS/CF should carry less permanent penalties than a chopped off hand?
Goes back to:
>If you mean "normal" as in "nat1 means you always fail, nat20 means you always succeed, nothing stupid happens," then whatever.
I can't really criticize that system, because if the group isn't wasting time on rolls that have no possibility of failure/success, then it barely has any effect.
supposedly there is something between
>you hit normally
and
>you amputate both his arms
?
Well, seeing as how even something as low-impact as D&D's critical hits system swings wildly between "does nearly nothing" to "splatters characters at full health," you're aiming for a fine line and I wish you luck in finding it.
well, you can amputate just one arm, I guess