- Our wizard rolled an 18 on Invisibility. The critical failure table - which I generally don't like much myself - just had it stun him. He didn't fall down stairs. Huzzah. Not really that thrilling. If it's worth rolling to see if you could succeed, fail, critically succeed, or critically fail . . . then those should all matter. If they won't matter, it's probably just worth saying spellcasting not under stress is just a normal success without bothering to roll.
But if you do roll, a 17 should suck and an 18 should critically suck. Harmless results shouldn't be allowed otherwise it's really just a check between success and critical success.
- It's bleeding odd that you can torso shoot a skeleton with a cutting arrow for full damage. Shoot a rib off? Crack the sternum? I aimed for the skull just because I didn't want that to be a thing.
- Handsome has like a hundred arrows or something laying around for him. I'm probably just going to grab a few extras and toss the rest. I don't even have quivers for them all, or the need for them all.
- Handsome, by the way, still has no armor. I'd expected to loot some by now but then again, having DR 0 hasn't been such a big deal. It might be later, but it's been fun living dangerously.
- I'm enjoying playing but I'm curious how I'll make the transition back to GMing when that comes around soonish.
I get where you're coming from, as a narrative tool it should follow narrative logic. Bad Things should be meaningfully bad or else you're just wasting your time.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, from a statistical/actuarial approach, the purpose is to make Bad Things occur on a given actuarial schedule, with the interplay of those statistical probabilities making for a textured weave that can be translated into narrative. Some people prefer one approach, others the other one. I prefer the statistical approach myself, but I understand the appeal of the narrative one.
Perhaps skeletons should have a variation of Injury Tolerance to represent their framework bodies. I'm not sure what the parameters or point cost should be, but it shouldn't be very hard to figure out.
Pretty much - it either should provide some value for the rolls in both directions, or don't bother. If you bother, then ensure there is value for the rolls in both directions.
Delete"But if you do roll, a 17 should suck and an 18 should critically suck. Harmless results shouldn't be allowed otherwise it's really just a check between success and critical success."
ReplyDelete"But if you do roll, a 17 should suck and an 18 should critically suck. Harmless results shouldn't be allowed otherwise it's really just a check between success and critical success."
ReplyDeleteI agree. I've been toying with treating all spell failures as Information spell failures, thus all spell failures would cost the //full cost// of the spell. If that seems like too much suck, allow the caster to mitigate the same way as for a critical failure, they can buy a Perk (and honestly I'd let the same perk do double duty here).