Oops, I failed a Breathe check

[The Shaman]

I also dislike the magnitude of the fumbles, and the idea that the world's best climber has a 5% chance of falling off a stepstool.

Why aren't you taking 10?

 

[Corathon]

Personally. I find epic failures to be fun - but 1 time in 20 is too often for my tastes. IMC, I require for a 1 on an attack roll to be "confirmed" to be a fumble, and not every fumble is an epic failure. And some things simply don't require a roll. Also, I only require a roll if the conditions are somehow adverse. For example, I would call for a Swimming roll in rough water, but not on every trip to the swimming pool.

I would advise you to talk to the other players and (if they feel as you do) talk to the DM as a group. Don't be rude, don't give him an ultimatum, but be direct. Suggest a compromise. If he's really your friend you and he should be able to work out something.

 

[Janx]

It's not about what the players want....ever.

It's about what the DM/GM has decided to run and how he has decided to run it.

The only choice the players have is whether or not they play.

From the strict standpoint that a GM and his game operate in a supply/demand model then yes.

But the GM is running for his FRIENDS.
As such, there are more options in the paradigm then play or not play. And in fact, not playing may hurt the GM's feelings because they are all FRIENDS.

Once the friend variable enters the mix, it's not a binary choice. Human feelings enter the mix and if one wishes to remain FRIENDS you have to be diplomatic and in fact talk about the concerns.

 

[TerraDave]

There are other issues. The challenge level is too high for the quality of the players (who are good people, but not hardcore), and the undergeared-ness is frustrating, especially in light of the challenge level.

But you're correct: those would be tolerable. The big issue is that every combat or skill check is more defined by the 1-in-20 chance of epic, debilitating failure than of regular, everyday success. When I pick up my dice to roll an attack, I'm not thinking, "Oh boy, I get to hit a monster!" I'm thinking "Oh no, let's hope I don't get a teammate killed." I dread reaching for my dice. We all do. Every single roll.

We haven't had party deaths yet, but there is no doubt in my mind a TPK is coming.

I am still missing something. 3E and PF are deadly, swingy games, by default. At the same time, a DM may still need to throw a lot at a party to keep it interesting. It just depends. Adventure paths, have, for years, had encounters with high CRs. I mean I can think of plenty of well known adventures for those systems were by the book play means charactes die.

Now, maybe the fumble system is just too much, fine. Does he at least use a table or something? Is it arbitrary? Do you get some kind of long lasting conditions or hindrances?

 

[Systole]

Why aren't you taking 10?

Because the interpretation/house rule is that you can't take 10 if failure would be harmful. Since pretty much every failure is harmful, taking 10 is more or less disallowed by default. I dunno, I might sneak it by for, like, Perform, but things like Climb or Disable Device? Nope, not happening.

 

[Stormonu]

If there's a roll being bothered to be made, then there needs to be a chance of failure. The caveat to that is, not everything needs to be rolled for.

(And by the way, rolling a 1 on a breathe check is called choking on yer spit - it happens in real life, but why are you rolling for it in a game?)

 

[The Shaman]

Because the interpretation/house rule is that you can't take 10 if failure would be harmful.

That's for taking 20, not taking 10, per the RAW. The threshold for taking 10 is "not being threatened or distracted," such as combat.

 

[Dausuul]

If there's a roll being bothered to be made, then there needs to be a chance of failure. The caveat to that is, not everything needs to be rolled for.

And "chance of failure" does not have to mean "chance of EPIC MONSTROUS DISASTROUS APOCALYPSE FAIL."

In such a game, I'd make a wizard or sorcerer and load up on spells that don't allow spell resistance or require attack rolls. And play a necropolitan, so I'd be immune to most of the things that force you to make saving throws (God only knows what happens if you get a natural 1 on a save!). Be sure to get plenty of utility spells to substitute for skill checks.

 

[Systole]

I am still missing something. 3E and PF are deadly, swingy games, by default. At the same time, a DM may still need to throw a lot at a party to keep it interesting. It just depends. Adventure paths, have, for years, had encounters with high CRs. I mean I can think of plenty of well known adventures for those systems were by the book play means charactes die.

Now, maybe the fumble system is just too much, fine. Does he at least use a table or something? Is it arbitrary? Do you get some kind of long lasting conditions or hindrances?

There are other issues, but the big one is fumbles. The conditions from an attack fumble usually revolve around falling down, being disarmed, or inflicting mass damage on your teammates. Occasionally, they're worse. Repositioning with an AoO from the bad guys. No table, just whatever springs to mind. A table might help, actually.

I don't mind occasional fumbles, or the risk of death, but combats are pretty much, "Hope I don't roll a 1 and stab myself in the eye with sneak attack damage." Nothing else really matters, except the cleric pumping out massive heal after massive heal.

For a while, I was thinking about buying a loaded d20. No kidding, that's how bad it is. I was honestly considering cheating at D&D. Now I've just abandoned hope.

 

[Rechan]

Y'know. Another option might be to say you'd like to DM for a while, since you mention you ran the game for your current DM.