|
They distract from the game and can turn your characters from heroes group of stooges. Also why should a fighter who goes a up a level get even worst at fighting. A level 16 fighter would fumble nearly 4 times as much as a level 1 fighter who is the novice.
Some people claim they add it for realism but when a line infantry men fought ages ago they weren't dropping their swords or accidentally attacking their comrades that they clearly recognize.
They distract from the game and can turn your characters from heroes group of stooges. Also why should a fighter who goes a up a level get even worst at fighting. A level 16 fighter would fumble nearly 4 times as much as a level 1 fighter who is the novice.
Some people claim they add it for realism but when a line infantry men fought ages ago they weren't dropping their swords or accidentally attacking their comrades that they clearly recognize.
Well, balance for one thing. If a 20 does more than just automatically hit, it feels "balanced" if a 1 does more than just automatically miss. Also on the balance end of things, its not just fun if the PCs can fumble, but the monster as well.
Using the Critical Fumble deck that Paizo puts out this kind of alleviates part of what you are worried about. Not every fumble is dropping your sword or something like that. You can only fumble once per encounter, and you have to "confirm" your fumble, which a higher level fighter is much less likely to do.
Well, it adds a little suspense. And this is coming from someone who once rolled a triple critical fumble. Yep, that's right. I rolled a 1 on my confirmation roll and then another 1. My character accidentally eviscerated herself with her own scythe. It was freakin' hilarious. Don't get me wrong, I don't like to lose characters any more than the next person, but that was just funny. And sometimes you are your own worst enemy. And freak accidents happened on battlefields all the time. That's why they call it the confusion of battle.
Well, it adds a little suspense.... And freak accidents happened on battlefields all the time. That's why they call it the confusion of battle.
I think this sums up pretty concisely why most people who like fumbles, do so. I, for one, do not like fumbles, or excessive critical hits (such as what one gets in virtually every critical hit list or supplement ever created). While mishaps and the like are certainly possible, and make for interesting literary and story elements, the actual percentages are far lower than the default mechanic simulates (i.e., a 5% chance per swing). As the OP points out in his reference to real battle situations, the odds are actually so low there is no simple, easy, convenient way to model them within the game (which, in my opinion, is a pretty good reason to leave them out). It's fine for story elements with NPCs and the like, and there may be some situations where the chance seems so much greater that the DM calls for special roles and adjudications; but as a general house rule or feature of the game, I don't like critical fumbles.
My group, admittedly, is a stooges group. We love to come up with really bad things to happen when you fumble. When Lynora's character injured herself with the scythe--well we would've talked about that for weeks.
But there are some fun things you can do with bad rolls that don't end up killing the PC. Take "Howl of the Carrion King" for example. There is a mechanic in there that forces characters to take really low skill checks. If this is role-played right, it is delightful. And if the DM is fair, it can be also very memorable. I once played a theif who consistantly failed skill checks. (Of course, this theif thought she was invincible.) I ended up with an Indiana Jones character, who also had spectacularly awesome successes.
I guess my point is, fumbles, if played well in partnership with your DM, can be a lot of fun and a great plot device.
As the OP points out in his reference to real battle situations, the odds are actually so low there is no simple, easy, convenient way to model them within the game (which, in my opinion, is a pretty good reason to leave them out)
The odds of a Wall of Force impeding troop movement is actually very low (since they don't really exist); perhaps that's a pretty good reason to leave them out also.
The old realism versus fantasy debate. Haven't had that in a while. On a side note, I used to be in sado-necro-bestiality . . . then I realized I was just beating a dead horse.
Seriously, the reason I like fumbles (which we confirm like criticals at our table) is the same reason I don't ignore the corner between Marvins Gardens and Pacific Avenue (Go to Jail) in Monopoly. I mean, really, most crimes committed by realtors are white collar and involve fines, not jail time, that's a pretty good reason to leave them out (besides a police officer can't just send me to prison, where's the trial, judge, lawyers, jury, all that stuff?!?)
But the suspense and excitement of the risk as I roll the dice is more than enough for me to suspend my disbelief of the legal system in Monopoly (they don't even read me my Miranda Rights!) and my disbelief in the unrealistic combat system (fumbles, criticals, hit points, and all that jazz) in D&D.
I don't want to speak for him, but Saern's been pretty firmly against trying to be too "realistic" in the past, and I think his argument is more against the complexity it throws into the game, as well as the fact that it damages his suspension of disbelief moreso than "its not how it would really work."
The odds of a Wall of Force impeding troop movement is actually very low (since they don't really exist); perhaps that's a pretty good reason to leave them out also.
No, it isn't, and that's not a good comparison. A wall of force is something which, as you point out, does not and never has existed in the real world. Thus, we can have no experience of it, and must accept it as the game defines the effect. Swords and their wielders, however, are a historical element of the real world which, even without having ever truly wielded a sword in combat or seen a mass medieval battle, I feel I have enough knowledge of swords to know there's not a 5% chance of even a basic infantryman, let alone a skilled fighter of any level, going around lopping himself to pieces. If we want to totally suspend our familiarity of such things, that's fine; but it produces a game in which there is no bearing on or connection to the real world, in which the players have no way to tell if even simple actions like opening doors are going to produce the effects said players expect (namely, in this case, that the door opens without, I don't know, exploding in their face for no reason).
On a side note, I used to be in sado-necro-bestiality . . . then I realized I was just beating a dead horse.
Despite our differing views, this made me laugh. Thanks!
Seriously, the reason I like fumbles (which we confirm like criticals at our table) is the same reason I don't ignore the corner between Marvins Gardens and Pacific Avenue (Go to Jail) in Monopoly. I mean, really, most crimes committed by realtors are white collar and involve fines, not jail time, that's a pretty good reason to leave them out (besides a police officer can't just send me to prison, where's the trial, judge, lawyers, jury, all that stuff?!?)
But the suspense and excitement of the risk as I roll the dice is more than enough for me to suspend my disbelief of the legal system in Monopoly (they don't even read me my Miranda Rights!) and my disbelief in the unrealistic combat system (fumbles, criticals, hit points, and all that jazz) in D&D.
Yes, but Monopoly is not Dungeons and Dragons. I'm not sure what version of Monopoly you play, but usually it isn't aimed at providing an immersive roleplaying experience in a fantasy world. Therefore, one is coming to the Monopoly game with different expectations and goals than one comes to the D&D table with. It doesn't matter that Monopoly provides no believable narrative, because it's not supposed to. While it isn't essential that D&D provide a believable narrative, either, most people I've encountered in real life and online seem to like at least more of such narrative than one gets out of a Monopoly game. They even go so far as to make this one of the features of roleplaying games which other table-top games don't offer.
Now, all that being said, it comes down to a matter of taste. I apologise if I came off too dogmatically in my earlier post and seemed to be saying my way was the right way which everyone should adopt; it wasn't my intent. I do not find so much pleasure from the added suspense and randomness provided by critical fumbles, and I do not enjoy the possible comedy they provide so much, that I am willing to suspend my disbelief for them. The reasons I play D&D don't include the satisfactions provided by critical fumbles. YMMV.
I don't want to speak for him, but Saern's been pretty firmly against trying to be too "realistic" in the past, and I think his argument is more against the complexity it throws into the game, as well as the fact that it damages his suspension of disbelief moreso than "its not how it would really work."
Thank you, I appreciate this. The complexity is another, though technically separate, issue that bothers me. The more one tries to model a system to include all the possible outcomes which real life might produce, the more unwieldy and slow it is to run at the table. So, complicated rules for critical anythings are right out for me. Most critical hit decks or charts or poodles "solve" this problem by producing an aribtrarily selected result. However, the severity of the result, relative to the frequency of its occurance (or the occurance of other, comparatively severe outcomes) fractures my suspension of disbelief more than it entertains me. Thus, I exclude them.
If I were to be presented with a critical hit/fumble deck which was simple enough, produced results "mild" enough (no disembowling yourself, etc.), with chances and probabilities low enough; then I would happily adopt it for the added suspense and possibilities it added to my game. I just have yet to find such a system.
I don't want to speak for him, but Saern's been pretty firmly against trying to be too "realistic" in the past, and I think his argument is more against the complexity it throws into the game, as well as the fact that it damages his suspension of disbelief moreso than "its not how it would really work."
I used to have a 1 count as a fumble, but dropped it after some compelling arguments by players that such a rule only really hurt melee classes, as dropping a weapon isn't as big a deal from range or with a spell.
Paizo's fumble deck brought the rule back. The fumble deck makes it incredibly easy to incorporate some good flavor into the game (our paladin threw out her back in the last fight!) I extended it to cover "Casting on the Defensive," so that spell-casters aren't immune to it (NPC spellcasters have since had trouble with this), and with the Critical Hit deck it has done wonders for variety and flavor to combat.
And as for the realism argument: Combat of any sort is a chaotic, hectic, and terrifying experience. World-class fencers and well-trained soldiers have, in game terms, a much higher attack bonus than most and so fumbles are rarely confirmed.
It all boils down to: "Do you like more randomness in your rules, or less?"
Personally, I'm a risk-averse person so I like less randomness.
Saern, I accept your apology. I had just gotten gently molested by a chainsaw at our monthly poker night, it was late, and re-reading my post, I see that I was a snarky. I regret that and am sorry for it.
This was my overall point:
But the suspense and excitement of the risk as I roll the dice is more than enough for me to suspend my disbelief of the legal system in Monopoly . . . and my disbelief in the unrealistic combat system (fumbles, criticals, hit points, and all that jazz) in D&D.
What I mean is that, whether a 1 is an auto fumble, or even if it has to be confirmed, I acknowledge the lack of realism to my character, but as the player I enjoy the risk that comes with the potential for a fumble, just as I enjoy the thrill of a potential critical.
That is why I like them.
It is really simple... If you are the GM... just say you are not using the House Rule of Fumble...because it is a House rule... No such thing as fumbles in D&D rules as written... just auto failures on a 1.
Even more specifically only auto failures on a natural 1 on attack rolls and save throws...
You can "Assume" 1 and succeed on skill checks if you have enough of a bonus.
|
I never liked the auto-succeed/auto-failure on anything other than attacks, but my DM loves it. If you roll a natural 20 on initiative, you automatically go first no matter how low your initiative or how high anyone else's initiative. On a 1, you go last, even if someone actually rolled lower than you due to modifiers..........
Same for skills. If you have a -10 to a skill but roll a natural 20, no one can beat you no matter if they have +30 unless they also roll a 20.
As for fumbles... I've never liked them on an attack. All it does is make your character have a 5% chance to look like a mentally retarded adventurer
|
|
People keep saying 5% chance of fumbling....Does anyone actually use that a natural 1 is a fumble?
I would expect the mechanic to work like a Crit, so a natural 1 is an auto-miss, and then a second roll is made, and if that fails to hit the AC, it is a fumble.....
Or am I just Dense DM today?
Nope, what you said is how the rules work when using the Critical Fumble Deck. You have avoided being the Dense DM for another day. Still, there's always tomorrow.
|
People keep saying 5% chance of fumbling....Does anyone actually use that a natural 1 is a fumble?
I would expect the mechanic to work like a Crit, so a natural 1 is an auto-miss, and then a second roll is made, and if that fails to hit the AC, it is a fumble.....
Or am I just Dense DM today?
We used to use the rule about having to make a DC 10 Reflex save. But at high levels this means no fumbles ever.
I much prefer the method of rolling to confirm the fumble - making it the anti-critical. Ever since reading this in the rules for the fumble deck its what I use and I'm just astonished it never struck me earlier to do this.
So a 1 threatens a fumble but there is a less than 5% chance of getting a fumble on any 1 attack roll.
And since its the topic of the thread. I like fumbles and criticals both. I like a bit of chance spicing up the game.
I have used the fumble mechanic by using the chart in the back of the Dragon Compendium. It covers both the Critical Hit and Critical Fumble. I would not be surprised to discover that the charts were used in creating the Hit and Fumble decks. Before I used the idea of verifying a Critical Fumble by rolling a second confirmation roll and if you missed the AC again then you fumbled. In my present Second Darkness game I have house ruled that a 20 is an automatic crit with a choice of max first die and roll additional dice or choosing from Critical Hit deck. For Critical Fumbles if you roll a 1 you draw from the Critical Fumble deck.
Just my 2 cp.
I rather like them as they provide an incentive for characters to have backup weapons.
|
|
I guess it all really depends on how the GM uses fumbles that make them either fun or angering. Like when our druid decided he wanted to bash someone with his shield, rolled a 1, failed his DC10 dex check, then threw his shield out the window instead. But I don't think that is should ever (under normal circumstances) be appropriate for someone to eviscerate/disembowel/decapitate themselves.
And it also sucks when you accidentally throw the bulk of your fortune off a cliff in the form of a +5 sword that you splurged on.
I think it's important to keep in mind that not all fumble house-rules or additions involve characters hacking themselves to bits or even hitting themselves just because they roll natural 1. Sometimes a fumble is a dropped weapon, or a damaged weapon (broken bow string). Sometimes it's a loss of balance that temporarily leaves the character more vulnerable. Sometimes it's a minor injury that isn't because of the weapon at all but perhaps knuckles scraped along a hard surface or maybe a twisted ankle.
In those cases, I'm not at all convinced that a 5% threshold to start looking into "fumbles" is unrealistically high.
People keep saying 5% chance of fumbling....Does anyone actually use that a natural 1 is a fumble?
I would expect the mechanic to work like a Crit, so a natural 1 is an auto-miss, and then a second roll is made, and if that fails to hit the AC, it is a fumble.....
Or am I just Dense DM today?
Nope. That's the way we roll it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
People keep saying 5% chance of fumbling....Does anyone actually use that a natural 1 is a fumble?
I would expect the mechanic to work like a Crit, so a natural 1 is an auto-miss, and then a second roll is made, and if that fails to hit the AC, it is a fumble.....
Or am I just Dense DM today?
We rolled it 1, then confirm the miss, then fumble.
The only variation is if you confirm on a 1, you make a to hit roll against the closest logical ally. If you roll a 3rd 1, then you crit that ally.
Our Bard (Torvald the mighty) succeeded in doing that. And for once, rolled max damage. The ranger wasn't happy. (She also wasn't happy as she'd just rode her horse into the dragon's breath weapon, but that's another story)
I'm definitely with the "because it's fun" group. We don't always use them, but at times they provide some levity, which is nice in moderation.
Plus, one of my favorite PC moments was from a fumble.
The moment - A vampire led group of zombies had chased us into a temple and we were trying to sneak out a secret tunnel in the back. They were working on breaking down the doors, and we had several alchemical explosives. The gnome decides to "slow them down" a bit, by gathering all of the explosives up, and then throwing the whole bundle at the bunch breaking down the doors. He runs out, swings his arm back... and rolls a 1.
The DM had the gnome drop the explosives behind him. After the dust settled, the gnome got up and saw a huge crater behind him separating him from his companions as well as the zombies and vampire almost through. So he drew his weapons, told the rest of the party to go, and then gritted his teeth and said "None of you are getting past me this time."
What followed was an exciting battle all the more thrilling from the circumstances of the set up.
Without using fumbles, it would have been "You missed. It's a thrown weapon, so roll for where it wound up. Ok, there's a hole in the corner now where no one is." Not even remotely as dramatic.
Even if that was the most exciting fumble we ever had, the majority of them still have been fun in all the groups I've been in. I can understand fumbles not being for everyone, and playing fast and loose with them has been much better for us than having any sort of strict rules. Whenever we did try strict rules, it usually flops.
I'm definitely with the "because it's fun" group. We don't always use them, but at times they provide some levity, which is nice in moderation.
Plus, one of my favorite PC moments was from a fumble.
** spoiler omitted **
Even if that was the most exciting fumble we ever had, the majority of them still have been fun in all the groups I've been in. I can understand fumbles not being for everyone, and playing fast and loose with them has been much better for us than having any sort of strict rules. Whenever we did try strict rules, it usually flops.
See, that kind of fumble I can get behind -- creative interpretation of what goes wrong (or right, in the case of a critical success) if a PC tries something risky. The "roll on the fumble table, whoops, dropped my sword" kind of fumbles I find less fun.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
We have a very simple way of dealing with it. You have to confirm critical hits. You also have to confirm fumbles.
Whenever you roll a natural '1,' you must re-roll the attack with a -20 penalty. If your result is >0, you simply miss. If the result is <0, it is a critical fumble. This means that, with a +20 or better attack bonus, it is impossible to fumble (well, actually, if you roll another natural 1 on the confirmation, you roll again at -40 by our rules). However, even high-level characters can fumble if they invest too heavily in Power Attack or the like because those voluntary reductions in attack bonus translate into the fumble confirmation as well. And why not? You put a whole lot of 'umph' into a swing that goes wild and, well, you're probably going to be put significantly off-balance.
This is our quick and simple way of addressing the "veterans shouldn't fumble as often as novices" complaint. YMMV
I do not like fumbles because I feel they are another disadvantage against the PCs and because I have seen them used too often to make the PCs out to be bafoons.
|
You wouldn't think that a trained soldier could slice himself (or the allied soldier right next to him) to pieces, but then, after this (see below), does it REALLY seem all that impossible?
Look Here...
For me, this reaffirms, that even the best trained people can get extremely clumsy or miss time a swing...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
You wouldn't think that a trained soldier could slice himself (or the allied soldier right next to him) to pieces, but then, after this (see below), does it REALLY seem all that impossible?
Look Here...
For me, this reaffirms, that even the best trained people can get extremely clumsy or miss time a swing...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Ask yourself this, how often does this occur? If it was a 5% chance of happening every 6 seconds you think people would post youtube video of this happening? Let's forget about trained fighters for a second, when was the last time you or seen someone punch themselves in the face in a fight.
I enjoy fumbles as a DM, but have discovered a nice compromise.
If someone rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll, that character/NPC provokes attacks of opportunity. This highlights the dangers of combat, without that "Three Stooges" feel of a dungeon full of blunderers. As an addition, it encourages the use of the Combat Reflexes feat, which while one of the 5 best feats in 3.5 OGL (IMO), is rarely taken in my players' circle of gamers, usually because it isn't often that "crunchy".
People keep saying 5% chance of fumbling....Does anyone actually use that a natural 1 is a fumble?
I would expect the mechanic to work like a Crit, so a natural 1 is an auto-miss, and then a second roll is made, and if that fails to hit the AC, it is a fumble.....
Or am I just Dense DM today?
In our group, we confirm Crits and Fumbles. And we only pull out the Decks for the major combats, usually with the BBEG, but sometimes the nearly BBEG.
For normal Crits/Fumbles, if confirmed, you double the damage for a crit, and return to flat-footed until your next turn for a Fumble. Pretty easy, and only adds one roll to the situation.
For the BBEG fights, after confirming, you draw from the appropriate deck, and take your joy or grief :)
And this holds for both the players and the DM, so keeps it even and fun for us.
I'm going to toss this out here:
(1) Buffoonery: I only hear this from player perspective as though the DM's you play with either never roll 1's or have nothing inane happen to mooks, BBEG, etcetera, etcetera. Not in my experience. I've known DM's (and been one) for 25 years and when our precious screws the pooch, we let them have it. But then again, as a DM, I'm not for the players. Nor am I against them. I just happen to be everyone they're not and everything they don't own.
(2) 5%, 5%, FIVE PERCENT: *sigh* Read. A lot of us are posting about confirming fumbles like critical hits. We haven't bothered to calculate what the percentage actually is, but it is a darn sight lower than the 5% you keep harping on. "5% wouldn't really be a buffoon. 5% wouldn't really be a Stooge. 5% 5% 5%!" Give it a rest, would'ya? We've already dealt with that.
(3) I HATE 'EM 'CUZ: *longer sigh* Read. The topic is why we like them, not why you hate them. If you're going to continue, at least throw out a [threadjack] would'ya?
(4) Why I Like 'Em: Because sometimes you are the windscreen, and sometimes you are the bug (tm Dire Straits, The Bug). Things don't always go as planned. Scotty knocked himself out on the beam of his ship that he just got finished bragging about (balance). Han stepped on a twig (move silently). Conan gets caught at Thulsa Doom's temple (disguise). Bond couldn't hurt Odd Job in hand-to-hand (attack) and missed him at point-blank range with his hat/blade/boomerang. Okay, okay, 007 probably didn't have that exotic weapon proficiency. There are plenty of times our heroes fumble and we don't whine about it, we love them all the more for it.
But it sure sounds like a few of you just can't stand anything going wrong for you characters. Probably the same people who slam their fists down on the table and bellow EXPLETIVE DELETED when they do roll a one.
|
|
It's like Bill Dunn said upthread, critical fumbles do not always mean you slice your fellow party members into small cutlets...
Sometimes bowstrings DO break (they were only made of sinew or hide, not kevlar), sometimes you DO miss with your axe or sword AND get it stuck into that post or wall you or your opponent is standing next to, and have to spend an action to dislodge it, etc...
In real life, carpenters bash their thumbs with their hammers all the time, and mechanics bash and scrape their knuckles all the time as well (and both suffer the effects of tools breaking on them)...
It really isn't all that different (except the tools used by the characters are more deadly and are not made using the better, stronger material that we use in today's modern world)...
*SIGH*
Anyway...
I like critical fumbles, and I too like most of the GMs on this thread have stated, have the players (and my NPCs too for that matter) confirm them (just like that critical hit which nobody seems to mind)...
Which begs the question: why is it conceivable to be able to do greater damage 5% of the time (just to use the number that's already been thrown out there), but totally unconceivable to miss drastically with some kind of ill or bothersome effect that same 5% of the time?
I really think Mykull hit the proverbial nail on the head; people just do not like anything to hinder their characters...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
the actual percentages are far lower than the default mechanic simulates (i.e., a 5% chance per swing)
Umm, you don't roll to confirm the fumble? I think that denotes a much lower than 5% chance.
Also,I love using fumbles because they give you a chance for some random effect to happen in combat that is completely determined, at that moment. This sort of thing is what seperates table-top gaming from video games, and can make for memorable and fun events talked about long after the fact.
If you want "balance", and remove fumbles, you'd better remove crits too.
Umm, you don't roll to confirm the fumble? I think that denotes a much lower than 5% chance.
the actual percentages are far lower than the default mechanic simulates (i.e., a 5% chance per swing)
For the sake of argument, let's say 2.5%, on average. That doesn't sound so bad, but in a fight with 20 rolls (say), that means that there's a 40% chance of someone fumbling. And I find that if someone fumbles every other fight, it feels a bit like the Three Stooges (as was pointed out above), depending on what kind of fumble table you use (e.g. people dropping weapons, hitting their friends, hitting themselves -- as opposed to being flat-footed or provoking an AoO, say). It also implies that characters who roll more dice are more likely to fumble (all else being equal), so monks and octopuses are clumsier than average.
On the other hand, I like the idea of trying something risky for big reward...or big trouble, if you fail. And I've seen some memorable fumbles in the supers campaign I'm currently playing in, but it's a game that's mostly played for laughs so the occasional (all too frequent!) spectacular flub fits in thematically.
P.S. I'm not a big fan of critical hits, either.
If you're going to continue, at least throw out a [threadjack] would'ya?
Posting a dissenting opinion now requires a [thread-jack] tag? Srsly?
|
|
Ok why do I like them, time for my favorite D&D story, the day I rolled a one:
We were fighting to protect the village silo's from bandits who where trying to destroy it in retaliation to our preventing them stealing from it. It was me a paladin and my companion a knight. Battle had started with the enemy throwing an alchemist fire on the silo. Rather than fight I spent the next three rounds battering down the flames with my shield while the knight rode around on his horse cutting down bandits, there were a lot of them however and a group surrounded me and kept me occupied. Then we saw the town guard captain fighting the BBEG, the knight went to assist but the BBEG killed the captain and ran into a barn.
Worried about his horse (who was down to one HP) the knight dismounted and followed the BBEG into the barn. Well my character couldn't see what happened next (the BBEG set the barn on fire and the knight went to put the fire out like I had put the fire out on the silo) all I know is as I finally free myself from the group that had me surrounded and went to aid the knight, I see the BBEG drop out a window and start running. Now I'm in heavy armor and he's in none as far as I can tell so I know I can't catch him on foot. So I go and grab my allies horse.
At this point the enemy is almost to the cornfields, I know I won't be able to find him if he gets into them and the only way to reach him before hand is to spur the horse (spurring the horse damages it) So I know I'll only get one chance to take him out so I smite evil.
One, roll to confirm, three. Confirmed
Flip my Paizo fumble card, Face full of dirt, prone and blinded for 1d3 rounds.
So I fall off the horse, can't see, and get dirt out of my eyes in time to watch the BBEG riding off on our allies horse (whom he had fed a healing potion to while I was blinded).
That's why I love fumbles, because they lead to high dramatic tension moments and stories that stay with you for a long time. What would have happened without that fumble, I would've missed, the horse would have fallen and probably died while I chased uselessly after the guy in light armor to no effect, a lot less interesting story.
That was the only confirmed fumble I rolled that entire campaign (only six levels).
|
|
the actual percentages are far lower than the default mechanic simulates (i.e., a 5% chance per swing)Umm, you don't roll to confirm the fumble? I think that denotes a much lower than 5% chance.
Also,I love using fumbles because they give you a chance for some random effect to happen in combat that is completely determined, at that moment. This sort of thing is what seperates table-top gaming from video games, and can make for memorable and fun events talked about long after the fact.
If you want "balance", and remove fumbles, you'd better remove crits too.
If by memorable and fun, you mean annoyed and hopeful the rule would be dropped, then yes I agree.
If by memorable and fun, you mean annoyed and hopeful
That doesn't even make sense...
You can always just remove fumbles from your game. You don't need to wait for an official ruling on that.
Buffoonery: I only hear this from player perspective as though the DM's you play with either never roll 1's or have nothing inane happen to mooks, BBEG, etcetera, etcetera.
An interesting observation. Some DMs are one-sided in their application of critical fumbles, which is a quick way to get the players angry. However, even in a game where everyone is subject to critical fumbles, it doesn't always work for the group. Think about the opening of the film version to Lord of the Rings, with the fight against Sauron. Think about Sauron rolling a 1 and throwing out his back, or smacking himself, etc. Would that be comedic? Yes. Would that be a good thing? I don't think so. If one is trying to tell a story, a certain mood must be maintained. Having a poorly handled critical fumble can ruin that. Now, I freely submit that literature and role-playing games are two very different beasts, and typically the latter is left in the position to trying to aspire to the former. However, those principles of mood still hold. Think about a party who has been pursuing a BBEG for months, fighting his minions, and finally corners him in what promises to be a pretty intense scene. Then he smacks himself in the face. All that suspense and excitement is in danger of destruction at that moment.
But that may or may not be a problem. Different people and different groups play for different reasons. Some people may find the approach with fumbles and the possibility of anything happening to outweigh their enjoyment of a stodgy campaign where such randomness is impossible, feeling it's too constrained or "railroady." I don't know, it's not my place to make that call for anyone but me. I'm just throwing out there my understanding of the opposing view. Which brings me to my second commment, regarding:
I HATE 'EM 'CUZ: *longer sigh* Read. The topic is why we like them, not why you hate them. If you're going to continue, at least throw out a [threadjack] would'ya?
Unfortunately, there are several things wrong with this statement. Reviewing the OP's words, it's pretty clear he does not like fumbles. While he is asking what makes them so appealing to other people, it hardly sounds like he's calling for uniform praise of the convention. Further, I must wonder what the point of writing anything in a public forum is if not conversation? Particularly here at Paizo, which has a reputation for providing discussions of far greater intellectual content than most other places on the internet. Such an atmosphere not only allows and encourages, but demands the ability to voice and the introduction of alternate viewpoints. Why try to stifle those who don't agree?
5%, 5%, FIVE PERCENT: *sigh* Read. A lot of us are posting about confirming fumbles like critical hits. We haven't bothered to calculate what the percentage actually is, but it is a darn sight lower than the 5% you keep harping on. "5% wouldn't really be a buffoon. 5% wouldn't really be a Stooge. 5% 5% 5%!" Give it a rest, would'ya? We've already dealt with that.
Agreed, to a point. I regret that I posted using the offending statistic, as I knew when I did that the chance for many people would be far less than 5%. However, just as for critical hits, calculating the true odds borders on the impossible considering the fluctuating nature of enemy ACs and player attack bonuses. Not sure what to do for this one; depending on the group and the mechanic used, the odds of actually incurring a critical fumble will vary wildly.
Why I Like 'Em: Because sometimes you are the windscreen, and sometimes you are the bug (tm Dire Straits, The Bug). Things don't always go as planned. Scotty knocked himself out on the beam of his ship that he just got finished bragging about (balance). Han stepped on a twig (move silently). Conan gets caught at Thulsa Doom's temple (disguise). Bond couldn't hurt Odd Job in hand-to-hand (attack) and missed him at point-blank range with his hat/blade/boomerang. Okay, okay, 007 probably didn't have that exotic weapon proficiency. There are plenty of times our heroes fumble and we don't whine about it, we love them all the more for it.
Agreed. However, some feel that the normal rules for rolling dice are sufficient to provide all those possibilities, and the addition of fumble rules is unnecessary and unfairly weighted against the PCs; who are, after all, typically portrayed as "heroes" (which is a loaded term in and of itself of varying meaning to varying people).
But it sure sounds like a few of you just can't stand anything going wrong for you characters.
I really think Mykull hit the proverbial nail on the head; people just do not like anything to hinder their characters...
Wrong.
Probably the same people who slam their fists down on the table and bellow EXPLETIVE DELETED when they do roll a one.
Yes, so? I rarely go so far as slamming my hands on the table, though if the situation is particularly tense I might; and I rarely shout, but I do have a tendency to fall into the usage of four-letter words when I roll a one. I also do this when I stub my toe, or a deer jumps into the path of my headlights at night. There is no correlation between expletive usage and the way one plays D&D, let alone whether that way is right or wrong.
Now, regarding people not liking bad things happening to their characters. That's just common sense; it's why they are called "bad things." I doubt many players come to the table excited to see in what ways their PCs will be mangled, mutilated, and destroyed that day (actually, I have felt this way before when I grew could towards a PC but couldn't bring myself to just write him off, because it would have majorly messed with the campaign's story).
Players invest time and energy into creating and playing their characters. They have an attachment for them. They want to see them succeed, not just out of some drive to create a great story (which many players I've met haven't had), but also because of a psychological investment in the character. They feel that when their character succeeds, they succeed. When the character fails, they fail. It's very basic.
All that being said, the game already presents numerous ways in which characters can fail without that addition of critical fumbles. Some people are perfectly fine with the risks and rewards inherent in the RAW, but really don't want that extra danger introduced by critical fumbles.
Also,I love using fumbles because they give you a chance for some random effect to happen in combat that is completely determined, at that moment. This sort of thing is what seperates table-top gaming from video games, and can make for memorable and fun events talked about long after the fact.
For you. And that's no just fine, it's great! But there are other things which set table-top role-playing games apart from comuter and video games as well; such as the freedom of self-determination, the freedom from the narrative script of a game's designer, and the freedom to meaningfully interact with the game world in a complex series of actions and reactions on both sides. None of those things necessarily involved a die roll.
So, what's my point? It's not to flame or offend anyone. I'm just hearing a lot of statements being flung around, some of which are fallacious, some derogatory, and some both. I'm hearing a lot of assertions that someone's way to play is the way to play. No, it's not. It is a way to play, which may or may not also be my way or anybody else's way; none of which being more right or wrong than the other.
In this instance, the comments are regarding critical fumbles. So, my statements regarding those boil down to: I don't like critical fumbles, because the elements which they add to or enhance in a game are not the elements which motivate me to play Dungeons and Dragons. YMMV, TTFN.
|
|
Let's forget about trained fighters for a second, when was the last time you or seen someone punch themselves in the face in a fight.
Well people have already talked about how the 5% is wrong, and the fact that saying it == hitting yourself with your weapon. I actually agree that hitting yourself with your own weapon should be incredibly rare. Luckily unless you have a bad DM fumbles shouldn't be hitting yourself with your weapon.
Real life examples of fumbles:
In the last fight I got into I pretty much owned the fight the entire time, guy kept trying to tackle me like a football player (i had a good 70lbs on the guy so he would just stop dead wrapped around my waist)and then I'd just toss him into things. No one watching that fight said that guy even got in a good lick, however, when I threw him into the mailboxes I managed to hit my head on the adjacent light post and so I was the one with blood running down my face at the end of the fight. Sounds like a fumble to me.
My brother in the last fight he got into, fractured a bone in his hand when he punched the guy in the face. Sounds like a fumble to me.
Real life examples of criticals:
When we were kids (very rural uprbringing) we were all walking around with sticks to fight each other with. well we saw a rattlesnake across a ditch and one of my friends takes his stick (improvised weapon) and threw it like a spear at the snake, he struck it in the base of its head severing 90% of it, only a little bit of skin held the rest of its head on.
Note that I actually have more stories of fumbles than crits.
Let's forget about trained fighters for a second, when was the last time you or seen someone punch themselves in the face in a fight.Well people have already talked about how the 5% is wrong, and the fact that saying it == hitting yourself with your weapon. I actually agree that hitting yourself with your own weapon should be incredibly rare. Luckily unless you have a bad DM fumbles shouldn't be hitting yourself with your weapon.
Real life examples of fumbles:
In the last fight I got into I pretty much owned the fight the entire time, guy kept trying to tackle me like a football player (i had a good 70lbs on the guy so he would just stop dead wrapped around my waist)and then I'd just toss him into things. No one watching that fight said that guy even got in a good lick, however, when I threw him into the mailboxes I managed to hit my head on the adjacent light post and so I was the one with blood running down my face at the end of the fight. Sounds like a fumble to me.
My brother in the last fight he got into, fractured a bone in his hand when he punched the guy in the face. Sounds like a fumble to me.
Real life examples of criticals:
When we were kids (very rural uprbringing) we were all walking around with sticks to fight each other with. well we saw a rattlesnake across a ditch and one of my friends takes his stick (improvised weapon) and threw it like a spear at the snake, he struck it in the base of its head severing 90% of it, only a little bit of skin held the rest of its head on.
Note that I actually have more stories of fumbles than crits.
Wow, you sure are serious about your LARPing. :)
I think people are waaaay over thinking fumbles. Sounds like some players had some horrible experiences with what should've been no more dangerous than an AoO or loss of an action.
Fumbling doesn't have to be comedic, it doesn't have to be the BBEG hitting himself in the face. Several people ranting about them are using this example an awful lot for something that should constitute at least three 1's in a row.
A fumble can be something as simple as your weapon getting stuck in a piece of the background, just for 1 second, possibly forcing you to lose a swift action the next turn or something. It could be that .89 of a second where the enemy simply bats your weapon away (still in your hand, just swinging away from you) and you try to recover. It's that one chance that the gun possibly jams. Seriously guys, it's not that big of a deal.
As in the LoTR example of Sauron above, the DM has control over what happens in the case of a fumble. If it's meant to be a serious, scary thing, the DM won't have Sauron smack himself in the face. Maybe Isildor's (sp) sword gets stepped on and broke when he goes to swing on Sauron. Oh wait, that happened.... It is the DM who determines what happens, whether it's comedic or simply disadvantageous. If you have issues with something comedic detracting from your serious game, talk to your DM.
*Edited for civility.
|
|
If by memorable and fun, you mean annoyed and hopefulThat doesn't even make sense...
You can always just remove fumbles from your game. You don't need to wait for an official ruling on that.
Umm if you're a player you can't remove a fumble from your game w/o cheating (if you don't convince the dm to drop it from the game that is).