-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Agent 451
Pretty sure insects have blood, but it likely isn't red (since there are no lungs needed to transport oxygen there isn't a need for hemoglobin). How else are nutrients distributed to the cells?
Insects and some mollusks use a fluid called hemolymph instead of blood, the difference being that hemolymph is not contained in a closed circulatory system. In most insects, this "blood" does not contain oxygen-carrying molecules such as hemoglobin because their bodies are small enough for their tracheal system to suffice for supplying oxygen.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Agent 451
Pretty sure insects have blood, but it likely isn't red (since there are no lungs needed to transport oxygen there isn't a need for hemoglobin). How else are nutrients distributed to the cells?
Correct, they have a substance called Hemolymph that effectively acts as blood. Crazy side note, they don't have dedicated hearts (as compared to a vertebrate). Their hearts are outside of their (or at least, what would be their) circulatory system and is more akin to a stomach, as it churns out pre-digested nutrients, it creates high and low pressure within the exoskeleton forcing Hemolymph to circulate, and distributing mostly sugars through the body.
Further more, it's not just a matter of breathing, but also heat distribution. Larger beetles, like Stag beetles for example, are under debate if their wings can really be called Vestigial, as lifting the wings helps cool off the abdomen and keep them from over heating.
And lets not get into anchoring space for the muscles on an exoskeleton and the exponential higher food intake necessary to keep the overall very inefficient insect model up and running... (lets just mention that there is a reason insects tend to be omnivorous and voracious, and that Spiders are largely successful due their ability to wait motionless for extreme periods of a time.)
Edit: Swordsage'd
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Long story short:
Insect anatomy is quite different from ours, and does not scale up well.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
The Battle of, say, Waterloo had 180,000 combatants, and yet 450 soldiers did not inexplicably drop their muskets every six seconds (unless, of course, they were dead). Having such a high chance of gruesome screwups is preposterous.
I could argue you're simplifying the mechanic, because it includes everything from dropping their weapon to hitting the wrong target to failing to reload to tripping to any number of dumb mistakes. I actually find 450 still reasonable out of 180,000 people. People are inherently fallible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Randomguy
This means that if a level 20 fighter spent one hour sparring against a practice dummy, he would stab himself (or drop his sword) six times.
I think your math is off. I only see any level fighter having 1.5 critical mistakes in an hour. Which, again, makes sense to me.
Regardless, I agree any crit. fail mechanic would be hard-pressed to be realistic, but it makes one damn good storytelling and drama element.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gnomish Wanderer
I think your math is off. I only see any level fighter having 1.5 critical mistakes in an hour. Which, again, makes sense to me.
.
Does it make sense to you that a Wizard in the same hour would be mathematically less likely to have your 1.5 critical mistakes in an hour spent attacking a practice dummy with a dagger than the Fighter? Because, given the way iterative attacks progress, the Wizard's smaller number of attacks than the Fighter's will produce that expected result.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Oh, right, that's where he was coming up with 6 misses, I didn't think about extra attacks. *shrugs* You both have a sound argument there, but I like the mechanic nonetheless. Like I continued to say in that last message, it serves its use as a dramatic element far better than as a realistic element.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Khedrac
Splitting oozes are actually worse that non-splitting.
Take one Ooze with 80hp and an archer
Rapid shot 1st:
2 Oozes with 40hp: 40,40
rapid shot 2nd:
40,20,20
rapid shot 3rd:
20,20,20,20
The third rapid shot ought to target one of the 20s, splitting it into two 10s which can then be perma-killed.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doug Lampert
<snip>
So my favored example of why fumble rules are bad isn't from the era of muskets, where fumbles were suprisingly common, it's from me driving to and from work. Say I face a moderate stress task requiring a roll on average each trip (at least 10 trips a week, or 520+ a year). If the accident rate is more than one fender bender per decade or two at that rate then it's VASTLY too high.
This means roll a 1 on the check, roll a 1 to confirm, roll another 1 to reconfirm is MAYBE about right (assuming you only roll once per trip rather than once per round or once per decision), but it's probably still too common and remember that this tripple 1 includes accidents that don't acually seriously injure anyone or total either car.
If it's much worse than that then my insurance company needs to be informed so they can raise my rates.
Skill checks (such as drive) are not subject to fumble rule except by houserule
Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Which means that any task which has a DC of 1 + your ranks in a skill is impossible to fail at unless a circumstance penalty applies. Nine ranks means you can complete all routine tasks to perfection every time. The implications of this are almost as interesting as those of a flat 20% failure chance.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
Which means that any task which has a DC of 1 + your ranks in a skill is impossible to fail at unless a circumstance penalty applies. Nine ranks means you can complete all routine tasks to perfection every time. The implications of this are almost as interesting as those of a flat 20% failure chance.
I'd hope so, nine ranks implies a 6th level character who has spent every level focusing skillpoints on that skill, they ought to be able to do it correctly everytime (barring problems, which could be represented by circumstance penalty).
I haven't failed to tie up my shoe's correctly for many years, except when I was really tired (circumstance penalty) or distracted (circumstance penalty).
in RL people can do a task repeatedly for most of their life and make very few errors (production line manufacturing), errors do occur because people still go into work when ill (circumstance penalty) or hung over (circumstance penalty) and repeating a task endlessly is dull, resulting in lapses of concentration (circumstance penalty).
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Agent 451
Pretty sure insects have blood, but it likely isn't red (since there are no lungs needed to transport oxygen there isn't a need for hemoglobin). How else are nutrients distributed to the cells?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect#...latory_systems
Peristalsis, apparently.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
only1doug
I'd hope so, nine ranks implies a 6th level character who has spent every level focusing skillpoints on that skill, they ought to be able to do it correctly everytime (barring problems, which could be represented by circumstance penalty).
Nine ranks yes... but you can easily get +9 modifier at level 1.
4 ranks
+2 masterwork tool
+3 skill focus
or
14 in relevant stat and +1 competence item (100gp)
for easy stuff.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
only1doug
I'd hope so, nine ranks implies a 6th level character who has spent every level focusing skillpoints on that skill, they ought to be able to do it correctly everytime (barring problems, which could be represented by circumstance penalty).
Apologies, I misspoke - you don't need nine ranks, you need nine points of bonus. A 2nd-level Illumian character who maxes an attribute and devotes half his power word to it will have +6, so he needs only three skill ranks, which is just barely enough that he can't do it cross-class until the next level. But in all his class skills, if he can spare 3 out of the 5 ranks he can have in the skill, he's incapable of failing everyday applications. Elves and the like can hit +5 so they need only 4 ranks, and that's possible first level. Only humans and the like, with attributes no better than 18, are incapable of rendering a task "solved" at 2nd level, and even they can do it if they can buy a masterwork tool.
Quote:
I haven't failed to tie up my shoe's correctly for many years, except when I was really tired (circumstance penalty) or distracted (circumstance penalty).
Tying your shoes is probably DC 5. DC 10 is more like skipping or dancing the length of a short sidewalk without tripping over your own feet (assuming no obstacles) - easy but not automatic, especially if you're inherently clumsy (Dexterity penalty) or have no talent for movement (0 ranks in Tumble, Perform: Dance, or perhaps even plain old Jump if you buy that it has some applications that are DEX-based rather than STR).
Quote:
in RL people can do a task repeatedly for most of their life and make very few errors (production line manufacturing), errors do occur because people still go into work when ill (circumstance penalty) or hung over (circumstance penalty) and repeating a task endlessly is dull, resulting in lapses of concentration (circumstance penalty).
I now find myself tempted to apply a penalty to the attack rolls of career adventurers because butchering bugbears has become so routine that they fall asleep while doing it. (The penalty would be unlikely to make them miss, it'd just be a good gag and maybe a limiting factor on Power Attack.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ahenobarbi
+3 skill focus
Much as I like Skill Focus, it does cost a feat, so you have to really want it.
Quote:
14 in relevant stat and +1 competence item (100gp)
Competence items? Whazzis?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Treblain
Here's one: the Invisible Blade requires Point Blank Shot and Far Shot. The Invisible Blade is based on feinting, which can only be used in melee.
Yeah back from page three.
However this is cause the Invis Blade was originally a 10 level PrC with throwing abilities added in for those levels. WotC just didnt remove the pre-reqs when they chopped it to 5 levels
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
Apologies, I misspoke - you don't need nine ranks, you need nine points of bonus. A 2nd-level Illumian character who maxes an attribute and devotes half his power word to it will have +6, so he needs only three skill ranks, which is just barely enough that he can't do it cross-class until the next level. But in all his class skills, if he can spare 3 out of the 5 ranks he can have in the skill, he's incapable of failing everyday applications. Elves and the like can hit +5 so they need only 4 ranks, and that's possible first level. Only humans and the like, with attributes no better than 18, are incapable of rendering a task "solved" at 2nd level, and even they can do it if they can buy a masterwork tool.
If they focus on the task or are inherently suited for it. I see no real problem with that
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
Tying your shoes is probably DC 5. DC 10 is more like skipping or dancing the length of a short sidewalk without tripping over your own feet (assuming no obstacles) - easy but not automatic, especially if you're inherently clumsy (Dexterity penalty) or have no talent for movement (0 ranks in Tumble, Perform: Dance, or perhaps even plain old Jump if you buy that it has some applications that are DEX-based rather than STR).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
I now find myself tempted to apply a penalty to the attack rolls of career adventurers because butchering bugbears has become so routine that they fall asleep while doing it. (The penalty would be unlikely to make them miss, it'd just be a good gag and maybe a limiting factor on Power Attack.)
I'd argue that something attacking you will focus your mind greatly, unless it is no threat. If your PCs are spending all day hitting stuff that isn't dangerous to them then yes, give a penalty to attack rolls.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
Much as I like Skill Focus, it does cost a feat, so you have to really want it.
Makes sense if you are going to do something a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
Competence items? Whazzis?
According to pricing guidelines in DMG p 285. magic item giving +1 competence bonus to a specific skill costs 100gp. A reasonable price to make work more effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
antonis777
make pease with everyone!
You meant grow peas With everyone, right :smallwink:
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ahenobarbi
According to pricing guidelines in DMG p 285. magic item giving +1 competence bonus to a specific skill costs 100gp. A reasonable price to make work more effective.
I thought the standard was 50 gp. for a +2? Some of the ones in the PHB are more, and a lot of them have charges, but only the Alchemist's Lab is north of 100.
Quote:
You meant
grow peas With everyone, right :smallwink:
No, I believe he meant "please download my computer virus because Mother Russia needs your credit card number more than you do". I hope you didn't click his link.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
I thought the standard was 50 gp. for a +2? Some of the ones in the PHB are more, and a lot of them have charges, but only the Alchemist's Lab is north of 100.
Masterwork tools from PHb give +2 circumstance bonus. Custom magic item giving +1 competence bonus to a skill (according to guidlines in DMG) costs 100gp. But they stack :smallbiggrin:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
No, I believe he meant "please download my computer virus because Mother Russia needs your credit card number more than you do". I hope you didn't click his link.
Huh didn't notice it till now... hmm I'm pretty sure the domain shouldn't be .gr ...
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ahenobarbi
Masterwork tools from PHb give +2 circumstance bonus. Custom magic item giving +1 competence bonus to a skill (according to guidlines in DMG) costs 100gp. But they stack :smallbiggrin:
Wait, magic items? Okay, I definitely have to reread that section. The virtual nonexistence of non-consumable magic items below 1000 gp has been a thorn in my side for some time.
Quote:
Huh didn't notice it till now... hmm I'm pretty sure the domain shouldn't be .gr ...
Okay, Greek not Russian. The alphabets are similar.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amphetryon
Does it make sense to you that a Wizard in the same hour would be mathematically less likely to have your 1.5 critical mistakes in an hour spent attacking a practice dummy with a dagger than the Fighter? Because, given the way iterative attacks progress, the Wizard's smaller number of attacks than the Fighter's will produce that expected result.
If the fighter is practicing striking and resetting more rapidly? Yes. And 6 major mistakes (anything that takes time to recover from outside of resetting your stance) over the course of an hour is bloody low for intensive training. Which should have a lower rate than combat where you have to deal with the whole enemy moving and trying to foul up your actions, plus your whole system working at a higher rate. A 1-2% rate of mistakes like dropping your sword, having your blade turn in hand causing you to need to reset your grip, slipping do to poor weight placement/terrain and such actually seems about right for all but the most skilled and disciplined fighters.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gnomish Wanderer
I could argue you're simplifying the mechanic, because it includes everything from dropping their weapon to hitting the wrong target to failing to reload to tripping to any number of dumb mistakes. I actually find 450 still reasonable out of 180,000 people. People are inherently fallible.I think your math is off. I only see any level fighter having 1.5 critical mistakes in an hour. Which, again, makes sense to me.
Reloading doesn't use a check in 3.5. Hitting the wrong target is still hitting. Tripping is preposterous to even include in the situation. So no, I'm not simplifying anything - critical failure beyond the standard "you automatically miss" is punishing mundanes for absolutely no reason.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ashtagon
The method of circulation was never at issue, the fact is there's still a blood-like liquid analog.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Agent 451
The method of circulation was never at issue, the fact is there's still a blood-like liquid analog.
Except that it doesn't transport oxygen. It's kinda like comparing blood plasma and red blood cells.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Sorry, I didn't make that completely clear. I was referring to the transport of nutrients within insects, not oxygen transport.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jindra34
If the fighter is practicing striking and resetting more rapidly? Yes. And 6 major mistakes (anything that takes time to recover from outside of resetting your stance) over the course of an hour is bloody low for intensive training. Which should have a lower rate than combat where you have to deal with the whole enemy moving and trying to foul up your actions, plus your whole system working at a higher rate. A 1-2% rate of mistakes like dropping your sword, having your blade turn in hand causing you to need to reset your grip, slipping do to poor weight placement/terrain and such actually seems about right for all but the most skilled and disciplined fighters.
And yet, a Wizard could cast, read Scrolls, or use a Wand or Staff for that entire time with nary a mishap. So could a Cleric. That's not troubling?
Moving to mundanes, let's take a TWF based Fighter, and a TWF based Rogue. Which one is going to make more mistakes, mathematically, in an hour of combat training: the one who is trained to fight, or the trained sneak whose combat training is "hit hard, hit fast, get the hell outta Dodge"? Curiously, the Fighter is more likely to have problems handling his weapon than the Rogue is.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amphetryon
And yet, a Wizard could cast, read Scrolls, or use a Wand or Staff for that entire time with nary a mishap. So could a Cleric. That's not troubling?
Moving to mundanes, let's take a TWF based Fighter, and a TWF based Rogue. Which one is going to make more mistakes, mathematically, in an hour of combat training: the one who is trained to fight, or the trained sneak whose combat training is "hit hard, hit fast, get the hell outta Dodge"? Curiously, the Fighter is more likely to have problems handling his weapon than the Rogue is.
By the same logic, a martial arts student on his or her first day of class in an hour-long session would make fewer mistakes than the black belt instructor. Yep, that makes sense.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amphetryon
And yet, a Wizard could cast, read Scrolls, or use a Wand or Staff for that entire time with nary a mishap. So could a Cleric. That's not troubling?
It is. And its something I firmly believe is absolutely wrong and would also change or add if I had the chance. And because their efforts and abilities would channel much greater energies/forces the critical failures would be much more dramatic.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mattie_p
By the same logic, a martial arts student on his or her first day of class in an hour-long session would make fewer mistakes than the black belt instructor. Yep, that makes sense.
I did tae-kwon-do for a couple years and only had a critical fail once (at blue), so that seems about right. Good thing I didn't go past red, or I would've been a goner.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
Reloading doesn't use a check in 3.5. Hitting the wrong target is still hitting. Tripping is preposterous to even include in the situation. So no, I'm not simplifying anything - critical failure beyond the standard "you automatically miss" is punishing mundanes for absolutely no reason.
I consider hitting a different target (which is always either a hazardous terrain item like a nearly felled tree or an ally) or being tripped a valid use of a double crit. fail under my houserule system, I don't see why they wouldn't be. And reload was a specific instance in regards to old timey rifles, which aren't exactly the easiest things in the world to reload, so have no bearing besides in your example.
As I've said (this being the third time) 'absolutely no reason' is also known as interesting storytelling and increasing dramatic elements to a story, which is important enough in my games to include the double crit. fail houserule.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
I've played in some LARPs before, and I can say critical misses are not one in twenty, but critical fumbles might be one in four hundred. Not that I count.
Does it count as a critical fumble if I charge somebody, trip over a root, go into a roll, kill somebody else in the process of my roll, and come out unscathed? Or do I just have Prone Attack or Back on Your Feet?