Hi All,
Quick straw poll fellow pathfinders.
My friendly DM and I are chatting about the Crits & Fumbles cards. He gives us the option of using or not using them when we confirm a critical but we have to suffer the effects in a fumble situation.
We have just agreed that when you roll a 1 you then make another attack at your highest BaB and if you miss again then reach for the cards.
I had an issue that previously the confirmation roll was made using the bonus of the attack you were using when you fumbled. I felt that given the number of rolls I was making (as a 16th level oft-hasted paladin) in the fights that my chances of a horrific accident were worsened by this method.
So Yea to the proposition: Highest BaB to avoid Fumbles?
Or Nay: Use the bonus you were attacking with and suffer the consequences!
On the other hand you can only pity the Ice devil that met my Paladin wielding a Holy Outsider Bane Elven Curve Blade. Three critical rolls and every attack landed, swiftly cut down to size in one surprise round.
Don't use fumble rules.
If the DM insists, play a wizard or sorc and never use spells that require attack rolls.
Fumbles are an archaic construct from when fighters had 3 attacks at max at the highest levels. They are pretty ridiculous to use in today's version of the game. Thus we avoid the issue by not using them
Quick straw poll fellow pathfinders.
Fumble rules are bad.
Commoner attacking a Cat (AC 14), chance of a fumble 3.25% per round. (1 in 20 x 13 in 20)
Level 20 fighter (+5 STR, +5 weapon) attacking an Ancient Black Dragon (AC 38) (1 in 20 x 7 in 20 + 1 in 20 x 12 in 20 + 1 in 20 x 17 in 20 + 1 in 20 x 19 in 20) has a 13.75% chance per round to fumble.
Even using highest BAB, Level 20 fighter (+5 STR, +5 weapon) attacking an Ancient Black Dragon (AC 38) (1 in 20 x 7 in 20 + 1 in 20 x 7 in 20 + 1 in 20 x 7 in 20 + 1 in 20 x 7 in 20) has a 7% chance per round to fumble--more than twice as often as a commoner.
We play with the rule of same bonus as on that attack...
We have succeeded against many "boss" monsters by virtue of them or their lackys fumbling and causing themselves some form of ability bleed. PC fumbles are fairly rare.
Fumbles are lame; avoid them if possible. If you are set on using them, use whichever rule allows them to happen least often.
In our 3.5 game if we roll a 1 on an attack we again roll a d20 but only rolling another 1 "confirms" the fumble, otherwise it's just an auto-miss.
20's are confirmed as criticals if the 2nd roll hits (with same bonuses as initial roll).
Fumble tables are disproportionately bad for PCs compared to NPCs. They can be fun, but they can also be deadly. PF is lethal enough without fumble tables.
If I used them I would use the most generous to the PC version of them. But I don't use them.
Allow only 1 potential fumble per round, or else you penalise characters who make multiple attacks.
For the confirmation, I use a more detailed roll based on BAB + Dex bonus + various circumstances vs a fixed DC 20. High level fighters don't fumble unless fighting on an icy ledge in a high wind. Clumsy low level characters can fumble quite a lot. Under extreme circumstances, you can even fumble on a natural 2.
Allow only 1 potential fumble per round, or else you penalise characters who make multiple attacks.
That still leaves them more penalized (more opportunities to come up with a nat 1), just not as ridiculously so.
I believe the 3.5 DMG had a sidebar on the optional rule of fumble where if you rolled a natural 1 on an attack roll you threatened a fumble, and you needed to make a DC 10 Dexterity check (I believe; it has been so long since I looked at that rule) or fumble. Combining TOZ's suggestion of only the first attack can threaten a fumble to prevent martials, especially two-weapon and/or haste-affected warriors, from fumbling more an more often the higher the level they obtain with either the 3.5 Dexterity check, possibly modified by BAB like Mudfoot suggest at the same or a higher DC would probably achieve the desired result of fumbling potentially, but rarely, with the chance decreasing (to the point of disappearing) as warriors increase in levels (BAB makes hitting the DC easier) and less likely for those with precise weapon handling (Dexterity-based characters)...if you have your heart set on fumble rules, that is.
I look at it this way. If you allow the presence and possibility of critical strikes, then the counter, fumbles, should be included.
Critical hits are part of the core rule system. Fumbles are not. Even in D&D they are presented as an optional rule. Fumbles increase randomness, and randomness rarely favors the PCs. NPCs that fumble, especially using Critical Fumble Deck, have to merely suffer the effects for several turns until they are defeated, but the PCs have to endure any lingering effects of a fumble, such as ability damage or broken weapons until those conditions can be allieviated.
|
We use the Crit and Fumble decks.
On a roll of 20 it is an auto Crit, no roll needed to back it up, just reach for the Crit Deck.
A roll of 1 is an auto Fumble, no roll needed to back it up, just reach for the Fumble Deck.
On a die roll that is within your weapons threat range you must back up the threat with another roll. If it hits then you Crit and reach for the Crit Deck.
More than anything else it makes the story more flavorful. AS GM I won't kill off a PC due to a Fumble (don't tell the PCs that though!).
True that fumbles make things more random, and that's usually bad for the PCs (and the BBEGs, incidentally). Provided you take that into account and compensate slightly with the encounter difficulty it's probably not an issue.
Fumbles are capable of making an otherwise dull encounter rather more memorable. And sh*t does happen, so it ought to be possible in the game.
Fumbles unevenly punish noncasters, who are already weaker than casters.
Fumbles, other than TOZ's version or the like, actually will become MORE frequent as your warrior gains experience.
Fumbles are incredibly unrealistic. And many of their implementations are incredibly crippling. I've had a DM say on a fumble (w/ no confirm roll) my archer's bowstring broke. Seriously. Out of every 20 shots he fires, one of them will render his weapon inoperable. Had another DM say on a fumble (again, no confirm roll, not that confirm rolls do much besides make the stupid happen slightly less often) you drop your weapon. So you lose your entire rest of your attacks and in most cases, have to wait till next round to have a move action available to pick it up (either you had to move up to the enemy first or you were there and thus full attacking), robbing you of the rest of your turns for the round, AoOs between rounds, and a full attack the following round and likely drawing AoOs to pick it up. Nothing drives me to play a caster faster than fumble rules!
Here's the only way I'm ok with fumbles: If the group allows a character at creation to "opt out" of them. Perhaps to "balance" it, make it so eneies attacking such a character also have no risk of fumbling. But whatever. Don't make someone use the fumble rules.
(20th level fighter) has a 7% chance per round to fumble--more than twice as often as a commoner.
But the fighter is also fighting an ancient black dragon instead of a cat, so fumbling more often could make sense.
Now compare the commoner and fighter to attacking the same thing like the cat and you get different results.
Actually it won't in his situation of confirming the critical miss as the fighter would fumble 1 in 400 swings on average vs the 13 in 400 of the commoner.
I was assuming he meant confirming as he mentioned the commoner having a 3.25% chance of fumbling vs 5% chance.
(20th level fighter) has a 7% chance per round to fumble--more than twice as often as a commoner.But the fighter is also fighting an ancient black dragon instead of a cat, so fumbling more often could make sense.
Why? just because an ancient dragon has thicker armor than a cat. That makes no sense. If my commoner fought a Black pudding instead of a cat he would only fumble 0.5%. The ooze is a 'tougher' opponent so why does his chance to fumble go down?
Fumble confirmation should be uncoupled from AC. Either by rolling against a set AC or using a save mechanic (which has its own problems).
Now compare the commoner and fighter to attacking the same thing like the cat and you get different results.
Commoner fights ancient Black Dragon, fumbles 4.75% each round. That is still less than said Level 20 fighter.
By tying a fumble to attack rolls, more attack rolls mean more chances to fumble. You should be less likely to fumble as you get better not more likely.
Fumble chances need to be uncoupled from the number of attacks, so that iterative attacks don't penalize the character.
I have yet to see a fumble system that doesn't penalize a character for making more attacks or that treats martial characters on a equal footing with magic-using characters. I never see anyone suggest that a mage casting magic missile should fumble 5% of the time.
Why? just because an ancient dragon has thicker armor than a cat. That makes no sense. If my commoner fought a Black pudding instead of a cat he would only fumble 0.5%. The ooze is a 'tougher' opponent so why does his chance to fumble go down?
Fumble confirmation should be uncoupled from AC. Either by rolling against a set AC or using a save mechanic (which has its own problems).
I wasn't saying fumbles are good, just that your example is flawed. Here is another example in your type of scenario:
A commoner and a fighter both fight unlimited oozes (AC 4) with a +5 sword. The commoner misses 1 in 20 rounds while the fighter misses 1 in 4 rounds. Why does the fighter's chance to miss per round higher than the commoner?
Commoner fights ancient Black Dragon, fumbles 4.75% each round. That is still less than said Level 20 fighter.
Not if they both only attack once per round.
I have yet to see a fumble system that doesn't penalize a character for making more attacks
Makes sense the more you attack that eventually you would fail in a fumble system
or that treats martial characters on a equal footing with magic-using characters. I never see anyone suggest that a mage casting magic missile should fumble 5% of the time.
Now this I agree with which is my problem with fumbles. Even if the mage cast spells that need to hit, they do so far less frequently
I wasn't saying fumbles are good, just that your example is flawed. Here is another example in your type of scenario:
A commoner and a fighter both fight unlimited oozes (AC 4) with a +5 sword. The commoner misses 1 in 20 rounds while the fighter misses 1 in 4 rounds. Why does the fighter's chance to miss per round higher than the commoner?
I'm assuming we're still talking about a level 20 fighter. And the fighter would be likely to miss 1 in 5 rounds.
In those 5 rounds, the fighter is making 20 attacks, while the commoner is making 5.
They both miss equally as often based on attacks made. The fighter just happens to attack more times on each round.
I wasn't saying fumbles are good, just that your example is flawed. Here is another example in your type of scenario:
A commoner and a fighter both fight unlimited oozes (AC 4) with a +5 sword. The commoner misses 1 in 20 rounds while the fighter misses 1 in 4 rounds. Why does the fighter's chance to miss per round higher than the commoner?
I'm assuming we're still talking about a level 20 fighter. And the fighter would be likely to miss 1 in 5 rounds.
In those 5 rounds, the fighter is making 20 attacks, while the commoner is making 5.
They both miss equally as often based on attacks made. The fighter just happens to attack more times on each round.
Exactly my point. But in his fumble example he equates the 20th level fighter at fumbling more than the commoner because his odds per round of fumble is higher. The only reason is that the fighter swings five times as much.