Should Pathfinder 2e (or D&D) game masters roll dice? | More Than 7 Minutes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- What if there was a way to make being a game master 100% easier, and only 5% less fun? Watch this video to check out how!
------------
Support the channel by checking out my Pathfinder Infinite products here:
Beginner Cheat Sheets:
www.pathfinder...
GHOULS Are Creepy:
www.pathfinder...
GOBLINS Are Unpredictable:
www.pathfinder...
Or buy me a coffee: ko-fi.com/king...
------------
I am not affiliated with Paizo in anyway, just a huge fan! Check out more Paizo products here: paizo.com/prod...
![[Limbus Company - Teaser] Season5 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8anKuEeZLeI/mqdefault.jpg)
I'd try this if there were a foundry module for it.
Foundry does a lot of the mental work for you, I've even set it up to the point where if I'm afk the players can still do their turns (assuming I don't have to roll something as the DM) and pass their turns over to someone else.
Foundry is amazing.
This is a staple of the Cypher system. In pathfinder I am curious how you plan to work this into the secret roles the GM is supposed to do from time to time.
One final thought: besides a possible surprise round why should initiative be random? Role to see which side goes first and then let the players decide in which order their actions happen.
There are some game syatems like Numinera where this is essentially how this works. It is an interesting idea.
I would probably still make it +10 if I were to do this though, only because it is quicker on maths.
Edit: Actually, I would make it +10 because checking your example it doesn't work. In the first one where the DM rolls they need a 9 to hit, so a 45% chance for the monster to hit. The second one though, the player needs a 13, which is a 35% chance for the monster to hit. If you use 10 rather than 11 though you get +7 and DC18 which needs you to roll an 11 on the save, meaning a 45% chance to hit, the same as the first.
This is why you should check the mathematics.
I checked the mathematics on Excel (not to actually use the tool but to color the numbers so it is easier to understand since I'm dumb) and it actually checks out, the only problem is enemies that get to crit by exceeding the AC by 10 crit on one result more
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BdjVTAlyxkvORhak17YMLxcZQmiKqbPYttuHXPgFYOw/edit?usp=sharing here's the sheet
This is genius! But it has 2 problems, and one of them is it screws with the balance a bit.
Prob 1: It gives the monsters 5% more chances of landing a crit.
Taking your example:
Attacking an AC of 17 with a +8 means it will crit on 19 and 20 (10% chance).
Defending against a DC of 19 with a +6 means the attack will crit on 1, 2 and 3 (15% chance).
Fix: make the crit be a difference of 11 instead of 19 👌
Prob 2: (Someone already pointed it out) It gives players meta-knowledge on the attacking power of the npcs.
Fix: don’t reveal the DC 👌
I will pass on this suggestion, but I love these kinds of discussions.
Please keep’em coming!
Here's one difference; when a monster rolls low and misses a player, they don't know what the monster rolled. If the player rolls high on defense, they know how good their roll is, this gives the players more meta information, with which they can figure out the attack value of the monster. (Players will often do this with monster AC's currently)
Not sure this is bad, but you do expose more meta knowledge.
I'm starting my very first campaign this Friday. I have been binging all of your videos. I seriously think you're the best resource for all things PF2E, at least from the perspective of someone who has never played PF2E before
I think an adapted version of this that converts enemy save rolls to DCs that the player rolls against would be great. I think it would make save targeting more enjoyable.
I might caution against the initiative version of this though: acting all together is really really strong.
Yes, I would absolutely love to hero point away enemy crits
OHHH THAT IS HUUUUGE. I might just implement this system for that reason alone. My players arent using their hero points enough lol
Spent way too much time with a friend working this out, It works if you treat match as a failed save rather the normal "match it beat it"
"That'd feel bad if I rolled the right number but didn't save?!" Blind DC
And hero point to reroll defence roll feels pretty sweet to me (as the DM knowing a crit will wiff because of that) because it incentives using and earning hero points!
I would prefer the magic number be twelve on the monster side and ten on the player side, just to make it less overhead for players.
Rolling saves could be fun, but strict and confusing for players… “ok roll DC24, now a DC23.. oh and the boss, DC28”, “no you can’t just roll all the dice at once and choose who gets what”
I like to put initiative for big enemy groups like this:
Divide group into smaller groups so that total number of initiatives is party size + 1.
8 goblins + 1 wolf vs Party of 3 would be 3 Gobs, 3 Gobs, 2 Gobs + 1 Wolf
Bit tedious to keep track still, but digitally its easy enough xd
This is a pretty good way to do it. Having all NPCs/monsters go at once can be devastating to the players as they can all mob up and attack one after the other. It's better to have the players mixed inbetween. (I might've typed this immediately before the King said the same thing 😅)
Interesting concept, but I'm currently running all my games online, so I think I'll keep rolling dice for now. :)
King Oogatonton where can the people get such a similar fabulous hat
I use NPC as 12+Modifier, and the players roll standard. So enemy attacks are attack modifier +12. The players use Armor Modifer (AC-10) and it works fine. The only issue I’ve had is “Meets Beats” favors the attacker.
Also, I use average damage for monsters and, unless the rogue is sneaking, group initiative. Keeps things moving and tactically fun.
I do roll when dungeon crawling for “random” encounters (preplanned story monsters that I decide to have the dice tell me where they are) and when it’s a big thing for the group and tensions are high (a duel for example). The random encounter rolls are secret and the high stakes are public.
As a result, I don’t fudge dice, I really don’t roll that much, my players roll more and are very engaged, combat is fast and brisk. All around very very happy with this methodology
Cool! Sounds like it can work pretty well for some tables. What made you settle on 12 + Modifier for NPCs?
Hello, King OogaTonTon
Nice Hat, King OogaTonTon
We tried this in 4e. It was bad. You can very quickly determine the Monster's attack DC, then it's CR. After that, you can figure out most of it's other numbers. That's because 4e and PF2E have such tight math for monsters.
Actually, you should make it +10 because checking your example it doesn't work if you use 11. In the first one where the DM rolls they need a 9 to hit, so a 45% chance for the monster to hit. The second one though, the player needs a 13, which is a 35% chance for the monster to hit. If you use 10 rather than 11 though you get +7 and DC18 which needs you to roll an 11 on the save, meaning a 45% chance to hit, the same as the first.
This is why you should check the mathematics.
I don't think this is a good idea. If the goal is just to speed up combat then having the players roll for the GM will slow things down.
Pathfinder players, please know your characters. In session is not the first time you should be reading a spell or ability description. Every session I learn 3-7 new stat blocks. With that new spells, abilities, synergies, and personalities while keeping combat moving and entertaining. I really appreciate my powerhouse players who can answer rules questions and know when to ask for GM ruling.
I've been toying with the idea of doing "team turns" in TTRPGs for a while now just to add more tactical gameplay and difficulty a la Fire Emblem, etc. The only issue is that I still want initiative to mean something. I could do initiative for your turn during your team's moves, but that almost seems to defeat the tactical concept a bit of letting players move when they want to for coordination. I'll need to think about it some more.
Honestly as long as players that like dice get to roll it's good. With active defence that you proposed players get even more rolls. However it might take even more time to have players rolls instead of rolling a fist of dice by dm and just assign them in a random order.
If you want to do this, I’d urge you to still roll for the monster’s initiative. Having all 8 goblins take their turns at the same time is both boring and potentially lethal if you’re running the monsters intelligently.
As far as the idea itself, I’ve run game systems with this format, and they do encourage player engagement! It would be a fair amount of work for anyone using Foundry to implement, but could be an interesting change of pace
Haven't watched it yet, but my instinct is secret roles are more interesting than public roles. This is from the perspective of me, the player. I'm interested to see if you bring this up from in the video.
Edit: I think it would be much more fun to role for defense and if that works, I might try other stuff.
Isn't the average of a d20 roll 10,5?
Oh, hold on, the average is not what matters actually...
When a player cheats you can threaten to remove his privilege of rolling dice and replace his d20 rolls with the magic number 11
Does this not mess with the crit rules
I been thinking of something like this for my system, I even tried it like 10 years ago for a one-shot experiment, but there is one mayor issue. It generates a big inconsistency when the GM must resolve an action from an NPC that affect other. If a monster attack another monster (or sneak into him, or trick him, or whathever action to him) Then the GM must choose one or the other to be the one rolling. This process of arbitrary choosing may be mentally tasking and confusing, and force the GM to roll in an system that otherwise never make him roll (because is always the players that do so). I think a rule like "The one performing the action is the one rolling" may work better, if you think about it, attacks can be area of effect, but defenses are never area of effect and always affect a single target (himself), so it makes sense to make al defenses a fix number and all attacks a roll. That way you only roll once for a fireball as an example, and automatically compare with the fixed number of the 4 targets it affects, instead of making the attack automatic and having the four targets do separate rolls to see if they resist it. Im leaning towards this mode for my current system.
Super interesting idea. I'll have to see what my GM thinks.
You have to do player AC -10 but Monster attack bonus +12
interesting ideas and its been already said in a previous vid but i really like the costume
I worked it out and the statistics are close; who wins a tie throws it off a little. I would love to see the breakdown for this to compare to my notes though!
It weirdly makes sense. Me as the gm just has to come to terms with not throwing that many dice anymore
Love your content! Keep going!
For things like initiative rolls, since I use a PC for my Game Mastering, the intent is to just use an auto roller (like the one built in to Foundry) to get a bunch of results quickly.
yes wtf
If foundry supported this I'd definitely give it a shot for my main campaign. In-person games I will likely switch to this for a while and I'll just roll damage/other secret stuff/etc. not even to lower my workload, but it actually just sounds more fun and engaging as you stated. I'll have my players write their AC bonus on their sheets just like for their saves, etc.
Interesting idea.
May create a bit of a headache at first to properly get it, but once it's the norm, it should work.
On my end, I'm probably stealing the idea of using the DC for initiative in big encounters where I have lots of mooks.
I was thinking about a similar solution. Thanks for poiting out the +11. True, that fixes the math.
I have run a few systems which are player rolls everything, and I very much appreciate it.
That said I don't like fudging or having a gm fudge when I am playing. So the biggest concern isn't a factor for me. I also appreciate reduced roll systems, where the players have target numbers on their sheets, and those numbers are modified by clear and consistent mechanics... that way the players know the result from the get go
If the math is identical then it doesnt make a difference from a mechanical standpoint, but the vibes are still important.
There will never be enough rolls in a tabletop game to ensure a statistically-smooth distribution of numbers, which makes a streak of bad rolls feel inordinately worse. And players will get streaks and will notice them.
I can easily see a player being frustrated to take damage because they failed their defensive roll as opposed to taking damage because the enemy got a good roll.
So far every system that i played or seen that solely rely on the players to roll dice were.. in all honesty utter dogshit. Taking away the dice from the game master is like taking away the gears from a clock and hoping that every hour, someone adjusts the clock hands manually. Besides that, rolling dice is fun and the game master should be allowed to have fun as well.