Counting
We saw her fighting Witch just a few comics ago. Now she’s facing off against a dream naga in some psychedelic dreamscape. She’s got a bifurcated polearm and the kind of scarf that would make Whovian blush, but who exactly is our blue-haired mystery girl? After putting that question to all the Quest Givers over on Patreon, I’m happy to report that we have a definitive answer. Join me now in welcoming Handbook-World’s first sylph (and second occult class), Occultist to the comic! (Better luck next time to all the changelings and warpriests hoping to make the cut!)
Now I’ll be the first to admit that this is a somewhat esoteric class. In the interest of getting everybody on board conceptually, allow me to draw your attention to this bit of the occultist class description:
To make use of his powers, an occultist channels psychic energy into a varied collection of antiques and mementos with storied pasts. Every type of implement allows him to use a different school of magic.
In other words, Occultist’s magic comes from the psychic resonance of powerful items. That polearm of hers is full of transmutation juju. Her scarf-cloak? No doubt it’s bursting with abjuration. And let’s not forget her hard-to-read d20. That mess is absolutely loaded with cheatin’ magic.
That’s right, folks! In keeping with the Handbook’s every-character-is-a-different-kind-of-That-Guy tradition, Occultist is a gamesman. A con artist. A low down, no good, dirty rotten swindler. And while it’s possible to squeeze a character sheet, recalculate, and find the missing bonus you happen to need, I think it’s safe to say that’s not what’s afoot today. One can only hope that Occultist has a strong enough Bluff to lie whilst standing inside her own esoteric plane.
Question of the day then! When the roll is important, the result is close, and the bonuses are complicated, how much calculating and recalculating are you willing to accept? As a GM, how do you tell the difference between honest arithmophobia and suspected cheating? And even when it is an honest mistake, how do you parse the metagame issues involved with the old, “No, 22 doesn’t hit. Neither does 23. OK, I guess you know its AC is 24 now?” Tell us all about your own experiences with wait-let-me-do-the-math-again down in the comments!
ADD SOME NSFW TO YOUR FANTASY! If you’ve ever been curious about that Handbook of Erotic Fantasy banner down at the bottom of the page, then you should check out the “Quest Giver” reward level over on The Handbook of Heroes Patreon. Twice a month you’ll get to see what the Handbook cast get up to when the lights go out. Adults only, 18+ years of age, etc. etc.
Welcome, Occultist. ^_^ I like the cut of her jib so far.
I’m not sure why that scarf cloak is historically significant, but it’s at least conceivable that it comes from the jib of some famous ship.
😀 Nice one.
…
You made me remember a “paladin”/sorcerer player who thought he could start spamming true strike and attack in the same round.
I stopped that one. In fact I stomped on it. Predictably, he acted like I was the one being unreasonable.
Other than that, I tend to go by rule of cool, to be honest. Everyone should be able to have fun, and dying ignominiously isn’t fun. Heck, I’ve tweaked the rules myself when GM’ing, and pulled a few dei ex machina out of my top hat to save my players.
Will never forget the dude who object to spell durations continuing after a caster had gone unconscious.
“You can call it like you want I guess. I’m just used to GMs who play correctly.”
Salty little prick was not invited to more sessions.
In my case, the same guy’s attitude to playing the evil alignment (a paladin of tyranny, iirc – no theme there, I’m sure) made me throw up my hands and say: “That is it!” After which I asked the other subgroup if they had room for one more.
Cue Mr. Paladin looked dumbstruck and saying: “Wait, were you really mad?”
If the recalculation comes before the next action, it’s usually k…not that I’ve had anyone try and cheat in that way before. They were mostly mistakes on my end from forgetting to include extremely situational bonuses. “+1 to confirming criticals against demons on the night of a full moon, outdoors, if you’re wearing a blue hat,” sort of deals.
Also, humanoid-head-on-a-snake nagas will never not look ridiculous…
I don’t mind that kind of retcon.
…
OK, I do a little bit. But that’s just me being a pissy GM. It’s usually reasonable and an honest mistake and the best thing to do is to just apply some retroactive damage. But for me, rather than waiting until the next action, it’s usually a matter of “has it been relevant yet?” For example, if two other people just spent turns attacking a monster that was “supposed” to be dead, it’s pretty rough to walk that back.
At that point you just accept that you’re a bad cheater of a GM and move on with the campaign in silent shame.
…or do a quick fix. An image of the Flex Tape leak plugging meme comes to mind, except it’s the Diehard feat in this case.
As GM, I double-check rolls before telling the results if I think a player got the modifier wrong (e.g. “Did you include the flanking bonus?” or “Don’t forget that the paladin’s aura gives you +3”). I generally play with people I trust, so I can assume that a missed modifier is an honest mistake and not cheating. I do prefer to correct for mistakes when possible, but if they’re not caught until much later or the original results would be more interesting, I leave them as they are.
I gather that today’s scrollover text is relevant for you.
Usually, roll20 macros I set up prevent needing to check for important stuff. I do however frequently check my own (and other) turns for any conditional effects or remind of any effects (good or bad).
Despite this I still have situations where one forgets a bonus from a conditional item, consumable, buff or such. Or where I forget to update the macro. Or mess up the math of it.
Of course, when thing get dicey (heh) and say a very important save or a life is on the line, one tends to check every bonus they might have.
A good rule of thumb: if you use macros, always assume you AND your DM have the memory of a goldfish and will forget any info provided within 1-5 minutes, so add reminders or auto-calculate that stuff.
For example macro that asks (query command) if point blank shot applies on a ranged character and applies its bonus if yes. Or that notes on the attack that your scorching ray ignores fire immunity or that you have +2 attack for AOOs.
This is a frequent complaint with my Hero Lab players. I sympathize because, if you’re the type of player who wants software to do the heavy lifting for you, remembering to turn on your conditional modifiers each and every time kind of defeats the purpose. Macros are a smart way to combat that additional mental burden. If only I knew how to use them. (Or wasn’t too lazy to watch a 5 minute tutorial.)
I learned my macros out of necessity – namely playing a Steel Hound (investigator archetype) in Rise of the Runelords. They used a revolver (advanced firearm) and would generally study a target with their class feature and then get pseudo-sneak attacks that also sickened the target.
This meant I had to macro an attack that asks if a target is studied and rolls precision damage, asks if the target is within 30ft. (Point Blank Shot), notes the sickening effect, touch attack range and misfire range, and applies multiple attacks if haste or other buffs/benefits apply. Updating it each level was a chore, but it was better than losing out on damage/effectiveness and stalling my turns to math it out.
My previous group’s GM set that up for my character with 3 questions – Is it evil? Is Bane on? Does Sneak Attack apply? Every answer of yes would add some more damage. Of course, then I would have to ask the GM if what we were fighting was evil or not if it wasn’t obvious.
Ah yes, the blackjack AC check – when you pinpoint a creatures AC by figuring out what number you miss on and adding forgotten/conditional bonuses to see if you hit the magic number.
How does one counter this tactic other than by making AC have random variance, or rolling for your own players?
Or is it good to let the PCs metagame like this to make the fight easier on them?
If you’re going to have PCs juggle conditional bonuses/penalties for various costs/rewards, they should have some idea of how risky or rewarding those choices will be.
I often tell my players what the AC is assuming they pass a relevant roll.
This could actually be a nice way to give martial characters some pseudo knowledge skills. After all, who is gonna know an enemy’s dueling tricks better? The career soldier or the nebbish mage?
So if one supports the pinpointing of the meta mechanics, should you actually tell your players stuff like ‘you missed by one’, ‘that hits exactly!’, ‘bad luck, he still has 1 hp left’ or should you let them figure it out on their own?
I sympathize with MrCharisma’s perspective down in the comments. Players will naturally zero in on AC anyway over the course of several rounds. Although it can be a form of gamesmanship “blackjacking” this info early, not sweating it is probably the only real answer.
Honestly, I feel a bit guilty even bringing it up in the context of “cheating,” since it’s almost always “honest mistake” territory, and the advantages are so marginal.
What are OC’s implements? Staff, scarf? If we know all of them, we can actually approximate her level. 😀
We know about the weapon and the “cloak,” but most everything else can fit inside a belt pouch. Who know how many mirrors, planchettes, and kazoos she’s got squirreled away?
I was once in a party with a kazoo Bard.
She fell in love with a tree, broke the space-time continuum and almost sold us out to the extradimensional psychic fungi.
Never trust a PC with a kazoo.
Man, dreamscape adventures, psychic battles and similar stuff looks fun to do but hell to implement. Not only do you need various new rules applied, it’s almost exclusively a high-level adventurer thing, meaning a good chunk of PCs never get to experience such stuff. Dimensional adventures (ethereal, shadow, elemental, fey planes) also apply, due to inherent level/magic limitations of plane shift (and the horrible high-CR monsters lurking in such esoteric areas), barring the DM pulling an isekai on your PCs .
The fan-made PF 1E adaptation of Wheel of Time has a feat that allows you to take ranks in the Dreamer skill. That allows you to get into the World of Dreams even at lower levels and do some fun stuff.
That’s also an official option with the Lucid Dreaming skill in 3.5, from the Planar Handbook (IIRC).
I’d completely forgotten about that one!
Thanks for the reminder. ^_^
We only did Book 1 of “Strange Aeons,” but I got the impression that weird planar shenanigans worked well even at low level. Not a bad touchpoint for this sort of thing if you’re looking for a low-level reference.
https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/In_Search_of_Sanity
I was just reminded of it since dreamscapes are so relevant in that one.
Having also DM’d just that book, I can confirm that wacky dimensional shenanigans work fine at lower levels. Don’t let the level requirement for Plane Shift hold you back – eternal circumstances, from dimensions overlapping to random portals to the Planar Keystone item can get the lowest of level PCs to the fun! And if you’re having difficulty finding CR-appropriate monsters for that plane, you can reskin anything, ESPECIALLY in the dreamlands.
In addition to Strange Aeons (whose 3rd book is extremely dreamscape-heavy), the Pathfinder 1 module “The House on Hook Street” is a Level 6-9 adventure where dream world stuff is leaking into the regular world. It even has a fun twist where you go through the same dungeon twice, once in the waking world and once in the dream world!
The best us of Instigate Psychic Duel is as a minutes-long stun for the rest of your party to beat on the enemy’s meat-body while you distract their mind.
I’ve never personally had to deal with this issue, mostly because I play with trustworthy folk, but even for the one-offs who I’m not 100% sure if they were legit, I play on Roll20. Can’t hide your die roll and fudge the math when it’s all done by the computer in front of everyone.
I do really like the Occultist’s design, though. Very different from when I played an Occultist, when I really went hard on the “weird” aspect of Occult classes and made him a former noble who essentially wore a trash bag, with all his musty old implements hanging on his rags.
Laurel says I’m no longer allowed to refer to Occultist’s outfit as an “adventurin’ romper.”
My experience with Occultist is that they’re cool and awesome to play, but hell to math out and track their implements and bonuses.
You effectively have several different power bars to track (a pool of points you ‘fill’ your 2-6 implements with, that apply passive bonuses depending on power, which you can also empty to use special powers), your bonuses are extremely variable/flexible, you’re a gish…
Hard to automate/macro, harder to remember. It’s practically a concept that works best if you use videogame automation for it. But otherwise very cool, Harry Dresden shenanigans, flexible for many concepts, and object reading is great for RP.
Huh, I’m not the only one who thinks that.
Oh dude… I feel ya so hard there. I like to calculate my bonuses manually as a way to keep all my abilities “present” in my head. But my Occultist was a VMC magus, and tracking what the crap my weapon could do from round to round was an exercise in plate spinning. Calculating my undead servant’s abilities… applying familiar archetypes to my various soulbound puppets… tracking spell lists and arcane pool points and mental focus….
I had a blast with the style, but it could be very draining in a combat-heavy session. Definitely not something I’d recommend for a less mechanically-inclined player.
It’s not as bad as it looks at first glance.
They have passives that change based on how much focus any given implement has, but those are based on the initial investment for the day and don’t change at all unless you manage to hit 0 focus left to spend out of it. (or allocate differently the next day)
Aside from that, it’s basically just a weird variant on spell slots; X points in the pool that lets them cast a +3 accuracy bonus, Y points in the pool that lets them cast a scrying sensor, etc etc.
I honestly don’t care if players know the AC of a monster.
This started as a player, I have a character with Rage and Combat expertise, so my AC goes up or down ~8 points between rounds as a free action, so to speed things up I tell the GM my AC when he attacks me.
It sped things up so much that I adopted it for GMing as well, and I have no regrets. Sure they might decide to skip Power Attack, or that they need to buff occasionally. Or it could go the other way and they realise they can hit on a 2+ even with penalties, so why mot pile on the damage. But in the long run the only thing it changes is that everything speeds up and we get more game in.
Hiding the AC of a creature sounds important, but try just giving that info to your players and see what happens.
PS Occultist is my absolute favourite class. It’s complicated, but so versatile and it’s just dripping with flavour.
I sympathize with this perspective. Players will naturally zero in on AC over the course of several rounds. I like that this simulates “sizing up” an opponent during a prolonged fight, but there’s a very real tradeoff in terms of ease of play. In other words, although it can be a form of gamesmanship “blackjacking” AC info early, not sweating it is probably the only real answer.
Yup, this is how I’d roll it too if I ran D&D. I play GURPS, so… there is no “AC” to miss by. The PCs know if they successfully attacked or not based on their skill, then they get to watch as I roll for defense, if the enemy bothers to defend themselves.
I remember playing an Occultist. It’s a cool class, but it had a lot of number-shuffling, and my character never seemed to be able to do much with its abilities…though in retrospect, part of that was because it was a combat-heavy campaign and my Occultist build wasn’t combat-oriented.
Anyways. When Occultist first showed up, I made a joke that her design reminded me of Aqua from Konosuba. (The color palette, the long cyan hair, the staff, the long flowy things at her shoulders…) The fact tries to sleaze her attacks into hitting and especially how she apparently forgets her own bonuses helps that comparison.
Laurel has been getting into Genshin Impact lately. I suspect that’s where the anime vibe comes from.
My tolerance for +/- 1/2s everywhere is low. It wasn’t much of a thing in 2E, I hated it in 3X, barely tolerated it in 4E, and am glad 5E ditched it.
I’ve gotta admit, the class is a deep-cut.
Shoulda voted, my dude. :3
Your lack of Warlords and Dragonborn in the comic is indeed flagrant.
Our DM has had many a monster and villain fall to the dreaded words of our Diva Bard.
“Plus two…”
And thus history changes, our collective weapons become drenched in blood, and the baddies go down for the count.
Honestly, we all kept forgetting the effect was up, including the DM form time to time.
What about the Sacred Geomancy feat though?! ;D
(We outlawed it)
*Sacred Geometry
Sorry
Link
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry/
I want to do this joke SO BADLY, but every time I sit down to write it a three-panel script comes out. Truly I am a slave to my format.
“For want of a +1, the kingdom was lost…”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail
I usually see players who’re really bad at math.
I tend to be forgiving.
…So what kind of “That Guy” is Oracle? I feel like I’ve got every other major recurring character’s “That Guy” role figured out, but I’m clueless about what kind she might be.
Homegirl is a potion hoarder.
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/hoarders
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/phoenix-downs
No exactly the most offensive of “that guy” traits, but somewhere on the typology.
What’s Druid’s ‘that gal’ trait?
“When the roll is important, the result is close, and the bonuses are complicated, how much calculating and recalculating are you willing to accept?”
By working most of the rolls a Player will be making out in advance and giving them a notecard with their attacks figured out (if they have a lot complicated variables). Which in GURPS, is far, far less than you’d imagine for most cases.
However, if a given PC like to get complicated, ie; making Called Shots, Dual-Attacking, making Rapid Strikes, doing other variable stuff, I make a notecard with their possibilities already calculated. Then when they declare an attack, I just tell them any secondary bonuses/penalties that arise from the terrain, the enemy’s defenses, etc.
“As a GM, how do you tell the difference between honest arithmophobia and suspected cheating?”
If the arithmomancy happens frequently I simply pay closer attention to that Player’s rolls and numbers until I can see whether or not they are cheating or just very bad with numbers. If they are cheating I’ll have a few talks with them… but no more than 2.
“And even when it is an honest mistake, how do you parse the metagame issues involved with the old, “No, 22 doesn’t hit. Neither does 23. OK, I guess you know its AC is 24 now?””
I’ve never liked that metagame, I don’t find it interesting, so I don;t bother. Granted there is still sometimes the metagame of “how many HP does the monster have”, but that’s a lesser issue and easily resolved by just applying violence directly to forehead.
I find that the metagame issues are less “do they know the number” and more “do their characters understand how tough the opponent is?” The number is just the vehicle that carries that information. So in that sense, characters become more savvy when they have easy access to enemy stats. I don’t really have a dog in that fight. What bothers me more is the appearance of gamesmanship in acquiring that info. Whether it’s distrust on a GM’s part or dishonesty on the player’s, it’s a problem.
If they’re new to the game, it’s fine for a little while for them to struggle and figure out how things work. More experienced players shouldn’t spend more than a few second figuring out their rolls. If that requires having them make tables/charts with the relative bonuses etc on them, than so be it.
If I suspect someone of cheating, I make them explain the numbers. That’s where the pre-made table/chart comes in handy. I also request that all of my players get me a copy of their character sheets so I’ve got a better idea of what I’m working with and so it’s easier to clarify potential issues. My first time DMing in college was with 4th edition D&D with three players. Two of them were good players and I’d happily have them at my table again. The third was the most obnoxious cheat I’ve ever played with. He never provided me with his character sheet, the explanations for his bullshit rolls never made sense, and I’m now 100% sure that his character was entirely homebrewed to take from a variety of existing classes to have the most broken build possible. Literally one shot killing boss characters. It was my first time DMing, so I didn’t feel confident in pushing the issue, but it took a while to feel comfortable DMing again.
I keep telling myself to adopt this policy, but then I never make the time. :/
If you’ve got any other examples, I happen to have a brand new Handbook of Heroes character who needs more comics… Just sayin’.
It definitely wouldn’t hurt. Whether they send you the updates as they level up, send you a new pdf version of their character, or whatever option ends up working for you, I think it acts as a good way for you to keep informed of what your players decide to do with their characters and to have a reference for their various abilities.
It was mostly ridiculously high rolls on basically everything and absurd damage output that simply shouldn’t have been possible at that level in 4e. For example “That’s 35 to hit and… 73 damage.” at level 7. I also requested him showing me the numbers, but he never actually showed them to me, just rambled off a set of numbers that could have been accurate or complete bullshit. I could have tried shutting him down with a bunch of grappling monsters, but that just doesn’t feel fun to me and I think I at least entertained the other players with my antics at the bullshit.
Cheating tricks? Let me think of a few.
Blatantly reading stats of a monster before identifying it and acting on meta knowledge.
Blatantly reading an AP/module/dungeon maps and acting on that knowledge (sometimes unavoidable if you DM as well).
Adding little hard-to-notice additions to rolls. Usually done with automatic rollers/macros.
Using weighted dice / cheating rollers. Or if you play online, rolling the dice offscreen ‘for real’.
Picking up drawbacks and weakness to boost yourself at chargen, knowing your DM will either ignore/forget about them, or that they’re never going to actually hinder you (e.g. fear of undead in a game with no undead).
Builds that are balanced by having a weakness, that they use gimmicks/tricks to wipe from existence. Rage cycling for Barbarians, for example.
Pun-Pun character builds or any ‘infinity damage’ trick that usually get banned on sight.
Having a build that is outright cheating in small ways that you can excuse as mistakes or misinterpreting the rules (e.g. casting restoration in less than three rounds, vaguely worded feats, or ‘miscalculating’ your total HP value).
Asking the DM for little homebrew rule changes to make your build work, presenting it as a something insignificant now so you can break it completely 6 levels later.
Ignoring/not counting ammo or other expendable resources (spell slots, ki, rage/performance rounds, wand charges…) so you effectively never run out of them.
Never restocking on consumables or ‘ignoring’ small expenses (food/lodging, cheap potions, tips to barmaids, alchemical weapons).
Blatantly ignoring encumbrance rules (easiest done with a Bag of Holding, even if you still wear 100 pound of worn equipment).
I honestly don’t mind letting the players know the AC, because it might help them think more tactically, make the fight more dynamic.
For a 5e example, most of my players understand that Advantage ~= +5 on the die. So if they know that doing some unique thing to get advantage is necessary, great, it’s nice to see them try.
And for games like Pathfinder, it’s still pretty helpful. There’s all sorts of situations and ways to get a +1 or +2, and doing so helps you engage with the fight, the environment, and the characters better. If they know the target AC is 25 and they currently have a 35% chance of hitting, but flanking and maybe some other effect will get them to 50%, I’d rather they know the target value.
And I try to make sure they know what bonuses they have before they roll, but it doesn’t really matter too much. Time is the biggest limiting factor I’d say; a person’s turn really shouldn’t have to take more than two minutes to parse unless the GM is unfamiliar with a specific situation and has to make a judgment call on the spot.
Strong argument in favor of transparency. What do you gain by having the number start out secret?
I’m curious to see if the Occultist will return in some form to PF2e. I imagine it could be an archetype which is what they did with the cavalier.
I could have sworn that Bulmahn mentioned Occultist as a favorite during the playtest….
Okay, I’m not very familiar with some of the scene so I have to ask; what are the kinds of ‘That Guys’ for some of these characters?
Like, Core Party is easy, Paladin’s Lawful Stupid. Magus doesn’t pay attention and Summoner is the incarnation of most RPG Horror Stories. I noticed the Oracle comment up above as well, and I can guess at some of the others.
But I got no idea for some of the others like Alchemist, Inquisitor, or Druid.
Alchemist takes the gross-out a bit too far:
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/two-headed-alchemist
Inquisitor is humorless:
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/family-ties-2
Druid is my precious little cinnamon bun and I will not hear a word said against her.
For serious though: Not every character is always and forever “that guy” in every situation. But insofar as this is a how-not-to-hero comic, they all slot into obnoxiousness at some point.
If I had to guess Druid’s occasional vice, it’d be of the “and I will name him George” flavor- the player who’s a little too keen on diplomacy and wild empathy checks to sway antagonists and toothy critters alike, going past the point where initiative is rolled and negotiations have broken down- particularly where animals and magical beasts are concerned. So basically the exact opposite issue of the usual murderhobo problem- someone who’s sometimes too reluctant to use violence to solve problems, rather than too eager.
I’ve rode the line on that a bit myself, resorting to non-lethal KO/capture and pushing a bit for diplomacy where it might’ve been better to actually go murderhobo, but it can make for its own interesting plot lines for a given character to live or be swayed against the odds.
The only pacifist PC I’ve run for was a druid. He did the whole “I won’t kill the living, but I won’t stop you from doing so” shtick. The game in question didn’t do him any favors though. That’s because it’s kind of hard to uphold the value of all life when you’re fighting inter-planar dream aberrations in a haunted asylum:
https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/In_Search_of_Sanity
It can definitely be a “problem player” thing if it goes too far, but my brush with it was fairly positive.
So she is an Occultist? And Warpriest was other of the options? >_>
Wonder who would have suggest such options? 😀
And i am not even on Patreon 😛
Even when i would take necromancer for any game, seer is the class for me IRL 😀
There were a couple of choices in the poll.
RACES: Sylph (39), Water Genasi (8), Changeling (15), Half-Celestial (14)
CLASSES: Dragoon (17), Battle Herald (2), Favored Soul (16), Arcanist (8), Shaman (3), Warpriest (24), Occultist (27)
From the votes, I gather that “Sylph” was a slam dunk. It was neck and neck between Warpriest and Occultist for a while though.
Yes, and even without knowing the options or reading the other comments i got the options just by looking at her 😀
Nice options fitting her 🙂
Now we got another pc to add to the grupal illustrations with all the Handbook characters that Laurel is totally gonna do someday 😀
Laurel: “Oh shit no. What?”
…
Also Laurel: ” You can’t give them my genuine response to that.”
…
Also also Laurel: “You motherfucker!”
XD
Don’t worry Laurel, you art is great and a the entire cast will look gorgeous amid you blood, sweat and tears 😀
Personally, I’m willing to wait until an explicit declaration of end of turn, but once that’s done, it’s done, you had your chance. Some people are bad at math, so they can take all the time they need, but if they forget something and the action has moved on, then it has moved on.
Is it because of ease-of-play and pacing, or more of a concern for “the fiction has already been established, we aren’t undoing it?”
Both. Going back and trying to sort it out, especially turns later, is just a pain.
I guess it always depends on the group, but I would say within your same turn, and depending on how many times you “adjust” your result, maybe a peek at the dice (and stats) in question might be in order.
I think trust is also always going to be at play, and how well everyone knows each other.
Mechanically speaking, I think once your turn is done, that is it. You made the last call and no matter what else, it is time to move on.
There have been plenty of times in the game I am a part of now, where someone forgot to do a thing, make a roll, add a die, or just completely messed up what they intended to do, but to keep the flow, once we are onto the next person’s turn, everyone just accepts the foul up and we try to remember whatever we forgot next turn. Of course that doesn’t always work, and forgetfulness is a constant in our games, but it is a good rule of thumb.
The old “hand off the chess piece rule” is a thing for a reason.
I feel the general consensus so far is a good one; once you call your turn done, it’s too late to take it back, and you should only have so many mulligans you can call on a given roll before the bonus goes to waste.
There’s always this or that exception to a rule, of course; every session in our 2e games have been a case of the die roller deciding it hates us (rarely does the party roll above 7 in combat, rarely do enemies in combat roll below 17), and one case of almost failing due to a missed bonus was reverted by a GM who was if anything more frustrated by the continued attempted TPKs by the roller than the party was (plus the combat had been dragging long enough she considered it understandable that people were starting to lose track of stuff- extenuating circumstances basically).
GM confession: Sometimes my players will pipe up ten minutes too late to tell me how much damage they were actually supposed to do on their turn. I’ll pretend to write it down.
I do the math faster than they do it. The only reason my number might be wrong is if they have more modifiers involved, and they have to call out where those modifiers are coming from.
After that, the numbers do the work. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that an adventurer should have SOME sort of idea if the blows they land are pure luck, or if they have it on the ropes.
I’ll tend to allow counting for about a round or so, any longer than that and you have to start retroactively changing who acted and how.
Oh but if Zeki’s greatsword had hit the Basilisk he’d have killed it so I’d have used shatter rather then fireball” for an example, it just starts slowing play and ruining fun so if you misscount your bonuses too many times, well that’s on you mate
That’s all I have to say about what’s on the other side of the window. On the other side of the window, there were horses in fenced-in gardens with guards. There were also wolves and shark tanks.
I vaguely remember the comment you’re referencing. But what the what?