RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'm just wondering how other people run 'critical fumbles' in their games. I deviate from the RAW, personally. In my games, a natural '1' is not an automatic failure. We do the reverse of critical hit confirmations. When you roll a natural '1' in our games, you roll again, applying a -20 modifier to your roll. If the end result is a positive number, then we treat it as a normal roll with that result as the total. I'll give an example:
Rundali is an amazing archer. His attack bonus with his bow is +18. He makes an attack roll against a target with an AC of 14. He rolls a natural '1' on the roll. Thus, he rolls again, getting a natural 17 this time. 17 + 18 = 35. However, we put a -20 modifier on the roll for the original '1' that was rolled for an end result of 15. Thus, Rundali still hits his target and deals normal damage, despite rolling a natural '1' initially.
If the end result is NEGATIVE, however, it is a 'critical fumble' and you drop your weapon, strike an ally, provoke an AoO, etc. A modified roll of 0 is treated as a simple miss.
If your 'follow-up' roll is ANOTHER natural 1, we apply an ADDITIONAL -20 modifier to the roll and you roll again (meaning a total of -40). If your follow-up roll is a natural 20, you get to remove the initial -20 modifier and roll again, effectively negating your original roll.
The reason we did this was so that adventurers did not constantly have a static 5% chance to fail any given task. This is especially absurd at higher levels when the level 20 fighter who has trained for years in the use of his weapons still suffers a 5% chance to blunder absurdly and strike his allies on any given attack roll.
The reverse of this is also true. When a natural 20 is rolled in our games, another identical roll is made but in this case it receives a +20 modifier, allowing even low-level characters to achieve the nigh-impossible on occassion. This rule does not apply to attack rolls, however. Natural 20s simply result in critical threats UNLESS a roll of natural 20 does not result in a total high enough to hit the opponent's AC (what are you fighting, anyway?!?). In these cases, a natural 20 results in the follow-up roll with the +20 modifier to see if a character strikes his opponent. A roll of natural 20 in our games does NOT automatically succeed in a given task (but in the vast majority of situations, a natural 20 should be sufficient to succeed in a given task).
Anyone else have any strange house rules regarding critical fumbles or successes? Anyone like my system and feel like applying it to their own campaigns? Feedback is appreciated.
I hate, HATE, HATE "fumble" rules. I'll play in a game that uses them if there's no other choice except not to game at all, but I avoid playing martial characters and try instead to use things like targeted spells that don't involve attack rolls.
In my games I houserule the following:
If you roll a natural 1 on your 'to hit' then it is a 'fumble threat' much like a critical threat. The player rolls again. If they would miss their target with the second roll then it is a fumble and we use the printed from somewhere online (DM tools?) fumble chart to see what happens. If they would 'hit' with the second roll then the attack is simply a miss instead of a critical miss. I find this creates a closer to real chance than simply assuming a 1 is a critical miss.
I, for one, would love to see a critical fumble deck to pair with the critical hit deck, which is a fantastic product imo.
Director of Narrative
|
Our group uses either no real fumble rules or the one posted by Shamgar.
I would also like to see the counter to the critical hit deck. I just bought it recently and last game session (where I was a player) we were going to use it, but the major foes were a wraith, a flesh golem and a mummy, so, no dice.
I want you guys! In our house, you prove a crit, but a fumble is a fumble...period. It makes the DM grin. I don't like it when he grins.
I have my own set of critical fumble rules. If you roll a natural one on an attack roll then you make a dexterity check. If you succeed your attack fails but nothing else bad happens to you. If you fail you drop your weapon. If you fail the check by 5 or more than you hit either yourself or one of your allies with your weapon, making an attack against that person at the attack bonus of the attack that failed. It may seem a little complicated but it works.
A couple players in my high school group loved rolling on random tables, and thus downloaded several critical hit and miss charts. I've found that I don't like them and they are largely unnecessary. A natural 20 is an automatic hit, and a natural 1 is an automatic miss. Period.
That said, I have been half-heartedly considering instituting a simple (I'm talking 1 roll) way to see if you drop your weapon, perhaps a Reflex save, but I've no clue what the DC would be.
I don't use critical fumble rules; I use the auto failure rule, as per the RAW. I don't mind playing in another DM's game with fumble rules, so long as I'm not the one that has to do the extra dice rolling and chart-searching.
My group uses the same as Fatespinner, except instead of +20 on a nat 20, its +1d20. Just a mathematical variant off of the -10, +10 one from Unearthed Arcana.
|
As fun as fumbles may seem, they increase randomness which makes it harder for the players in fights where the monsters are the underdogs (which they are most of the time). Criticals add enough chaos in the fights that I don't want more randomness; it is just too deadly for the PC's. Thus, I do not support fumble rules at all, but will give the Critical Hit Deck a try as soon as my FLGS gets them back in next week.
I seem to be with the majority here in that a 1 is auto miss and that's it. Early on in the campaign we tried a number of fumble rules but none of them really seemed to work. All of them just added to the clutter without actually making the combats more exciting. All the rules meant to make combat more exciting (by having people drop their weapon etc.) seemed to fall down for one reason or another. Essentially they never seemed to be fair. Either mid level characters never actually fumbled (because they had to make some kind of a DC check which they would always make) or they fumbled to much (because they had lots of attacks and therefore lots of 1s).
So far I've not come upon a critical fumble system that has exciting enough effects fairly implemented to make the extra clutter worth it.
|
In my game, we initially had a rule where if you roll a 1, you may fumble and drop your weapon. You then have to roll under your BAB (originally your level) on a d20 to avoid dropping it, but you still miss and lose attacks for that round.
We changed it because we had a fighter running with the Two Weapon Fighting tree - he had so many attacks a round he was quite likely to get a 1 and fumble, which seemed counter-intuitive as his increased puissance seemed to be working against him.
I came up with the (somewhat complicated) rules that you only have a fumble "threat" if your first iterative attack is a natural 1 - if any other attack in a turn is a 1, it is a normal miss and you just carry on to the next attack.
The threat is then resolved as follows: roll a d20 and if you get under your BAB, you hang on to your weapon but lose your attacks for that round; get over it and you drop your weapon; but in either case you still retain a move action for your turn. However, just for a laugh, I also added that if you get a natural 20 (actually bad in this case, as you want to roll low to get under your BAB) on the threat confirmation roll then you are so out of if that you lose all actions for the round and are flat-footed until your next turn.
While this is a bit complicated, it makes fumbles potentially (and amusingly) disastrous (yes, I used to play Rolemaster). It also makes fumbles much less likely for high level characters (who should, arguably, be less prone to them than high level characters - under this rule, they are as prone, at any rate, but no more so due to their iterative attacks).
On the first occasion we have used this rule, the player rolled a 20 on his threat confirmation roll - honestly, how I laughed!
|
|
the way our group always critical failures was. If someone rolled a 1, they then had to make a reflex save (usually DC 15) or loose their weapon. if they made the save they just lost their turn regaining thier balance. if the person doesnt weild a weapon they would usually fall prone or hurt their allies if they failed their save.
we would also make a natural 1 an automaic miss and a natural 20 as an automatic hit, but only for attack rolls not skill checks and saves.
the way our group always critical failures was. If someone rolled a 1, they then had to make a reflex save (usually DC 15) or loose their weapon. if they made the save they just lost their turn regaining thier balance. if the person doesnt weild a weapon they would usually fall prone or hurt their allies if they failed their save.
we would also make a natural 1 an automaic miss and a natural 20 as an automatic hit, but only for attack rolls not skill checks and saves.
Almost the same thing here... On a roll of a natural 1, the attacker rolls a dexterity check (DC10); If he succeeds, it's just a failed attack and resumes his action (other attacks, movement, etc...). If he fails, he drops his weapon and his turn ends right there. Next turn, the attacker must either pick up his weapon or draw another one.
Ultradan
I've only ever used fumble rolls when it added to the humor of the situation, usually when the player is talkin smack :) My games are usually dangerous enough that missing the attack has its own consequences.
We use the critical hit and fumble rules from Torn Asunder.
The crit hit ruels are a bit rough and I am going to change to the critical hit deck. Less math.
The fumble rules have you make a dex check of 15 if you role a 1. If you fail the check you roll 1d3 and add your dex modifier. You look up the result on a table and it the results can be Strike yourself, strike an ally, drop/throw your weapon, get stunned for a round or elicit and AoO from all adjacent enemies.
It works pretty good for melee weapon weilding people, but fails for natural attacks adn ranged attacks. SOmeday I will improve it.
We ususally have 1-2 critical fumbles in a session and 1 crit hit. More often than not it is a NPC or monster who gets the crit fumble. My players love it when a goblin strikes down his companion.
All in all I like using Crits (both types) it give a bit more flair to the game and one of my players usually handles the results.
Generally the fumbles are not game enders, but they usually shift the balance of power in the battle a little bit.
The crits have turned a climactic battle into a 1 round ko though.
Jason, where do you find those rules? It sounds like what I'm looking for.
|
So, question for everyone using weapon droppage rules: what happens when a caster uses a spell with an attack roll and rolls a natural 1 then fails his Reflex check? He has no weapon to drop.
Here's another one: what happens if a player is engaged in melee combat against an opponent with no other allies within his threat range, rolls a fumble, then rolls "damage ally" on the crit table? Does his weapon fly out of his hand and strike the nearest ally? (Thinking about it, this would punish the player in a number of "critically fumbled" ways: damage an ally and drop a weapon, not to mention the weapon would be dropped "way over there").
Critical fumble rules seem somewhat harsh to me. I feel like they untowardly punish the player for rolling poorly, especially any of the martial classes since they generally have many more attack rolls than casters. For fumbles that damage allies, these rules punish players that had nothing to do with the rolls. I could accept it better if they added something "cinematic" to the combat, but there's nothing cinematic about the hero tripping over a crack in the floor, falling down, and dropping his weapon (unless we're talking comedy).
When I DM'd, I ran crits and fumble per RAW (it keeps things simple and it's fair to everyone). Currently, another group member is DM'ing and running WLD. He uses crit/fumble tables where you only roll off the table if your confirmation roll is a 1 or 20. It doesn't happen often, but everyone cringes when there's a natural 1 (or 20, for that matter). By the way, this is also the same DM that uses a 600 item Rod of Wonder random effect list from somewhere on the web. *Shudders*
-Skeld
|
|
In our version, you lose your action and the critical fumble could have results beyond just missing. It is really about how you like your game. Fumbles are now quite rare in our game so they add a dimension of fun and interest. If they happened all the time, then yes, it would probably be more of an annoyance.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
We have a fumble rule on attacks that was installed when 3.0 first arrived. If I had it to do over, I'd probably take it out. On a natural 1 you make a second attack against the opponent's AC. A failure on that roll means you lose the remainder of your attacks and are flat-footed. As everyone has mentioned, it hits multiple attack guys way too often.
That being said, I don't use the 20 is always a success rule either. 20's count as 30's and 1's count as -10's for most rolls. thus, if you've got a very very good bonus, there are some things that you cannot fail to do, even if you roll a 1.
Actually, Ultradan's DC 10 Dex check is probably just what I'm looking for- roll a natural 1, then a DC 10 Dex check or loose your weapon. It drops right in your square.
Two-weapon fighters, who would be hurt the most from loosing a weapon, are thus very likely to make the check. It would have no effect on natural weapon wielders, or wizards using spells (it just obviously doesn't apply).
However, loosing actions for the rest of the round, or striking an ally, are way too harsh for me. That's too much randomness, and too much of a burden on PCs that are presumably already in a dangerous situation.
However, loosing actions for the rest of the round, or striking an ally, are way too harsh for me. That's too much randomness, and too much of a burden on PCs that are presumably already in a dangerous situation.
It actually favors the PCs, as the PCs usually have only one or two attacks anyway. The monsters, however, often have multiple attacks (claw-claw-bite-and even tail). You should see the players jump for joy when I roll a natural one for a huge dragon.
Ultradan
Jason, where do you find those rules? It sounds like what I'm looking for.
Torn Asunder: Critical Hits is a 3rd party sourcebook that is all about critifcal hits and fumbles.
I think you can order it via PDF from enworld or possibly find a hard copy. I can't go browsing at work since most gaming sites are blocked.
There is alot more detail in there than most people want, but on the other hand if someone scores a critical hit against a six legegd creature, there are actully tables that tell you the location and extra effects based on the location and the severity of the roll.
So, question for everyone using weapon droppage rules: what happens when a caster uses a spell with an attack roll and rolls a natural 1 then fails his Reflex check? He has no weapon to drop.
Here's another one: what happens if a player is engaged in melee combat against an opponent with no other allies within his threat range, rolls a fumble, then rolls "damage ally" on the crit table? Does his weapon fly out of his hand and strike the nearest ally? (Thinking about it, this would punish the player in a number of "critically fumbled" ways: damage an ally and drop a weapon, not to mention the weapon would be dropped "way over there").
We had a critical failure with a touch spell a few weeks ago.
OUr wiz/cleric decided to take soem decisive action and cast a maximized shocking grasp on the lizardfolk druid at the beginning of Encounter of Blackwall Keep.
Keep in mind that the character has a fairly low maximum hp, and was slightly wounded. The character had like 19 hp and maximized damage was going to be 30 points.
For the touch attack, he rolled a 1. SO based on our rules he had to make a dex check of 15 or fumble. He rolls a 1 on the dex check. No saving him. Rolling on the table it was falls on weapon (hits self) and ZAP. alive to beyond dead.
Mind you the druid had like 6 HP left and had been pretty ineffective on the battlefield.
However, loosing actions for the rest of the round, or striking an ally, are way too harsh for me. That's too much randomness, and too much of a burden on PCs that are presumably already in a dangerous situation.It actually favors the PCs, as the PCs usually have only one or two attacks anyway. The monsters, however, often have multiple attacks (claw-claw-bite-and even tail). You should see the players jump for joy when I roll a natural one for a huge dragon.
Ultradan
See, on this point I agree with another poster that this just isn't cinematic at all. It can be a gripping, tense moment when the fighter accidently drops his weapon and has to scramble for it (you can describe it as simply having bounced off the opponents armor so hard it escaped his grip, got stuck in a tree, or the foe even knocked it away with a strong parry). It can even be comic relief sometimes (though I'd usually prefer to describe it as tense).
But a giant dragon? Fumbling around and trying to regain balance? Or even the figher or wizard whirling around and hitting themselves? Not for me.
I wouldn't use a fumble rule in regards to natural attacks, spells, or characters wearing locked gauntlets (which I have the strange feeling I'm going to start seeing a lot more of now).
|
That being said, I don't use the 20 is always a success rule either. 20's count as 30's and 1's count as -10's for most rolls. thus, if you've got a very very good bonus, there are some things that you cannot fail to do, even if you roll a 1.
This is exactly how my old DM ran things, and it usually works out quite well. In regards to fumbles in combat, the DM usually decided what occurred, allowing him to control the situation. It helps that he wasn't particularly malicious, but more interested in good story.
Which resulted in the bard rolling a fumble, tumbling under the potential AoO and sucessfully stabbing the enemy wizard the next round when he tried to cast.
I posted a few fumble tables on the message boards about a month ago. Our players/DMs liked them enough to adopt them in their games.
http://paizo.com/dungeon/messageboards/community/gaming/dnd/archives/fumble Tables
You know, until this thread I was under the impression that critical fumbles/specific hits were uncommon. Wow. I must be missing a piece of my gamer DNA. Can someone help out an old chap here--why are critical fumbles and specific critical hits so fun? I've only known one gamer who really liked them, but I thought it was just because he was a bit off.
Our original fumble rule was the opposite of a crit (similar to as stated earlier in the thread): a 1 is a fumble "threat" and a second roll is made to see if it a real fumble. If the second roll "missed" the intended defender, then the PC loses all subsequent attacks for the round.
The problem with this, is that some ACs are so high, (generally high 20s to mid 30s), that a fumble is almost inevitable when a 1 is rolled because the attacker needs a high roll to hit in the first place. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
So I plan on introducing a new fumble rule. A 1 is still an automatic miss, but if rolled, the attacking character must roll opposed dex checks against all threatening foes. If any of the foes beat the attacker's dex check, they get an attack of opportunity (which counts against the foe's total for the round).
I like this idea, because it basically says to me that if you "fumble" you've potentially opened yourself up to attacks from your opponents due to your awkward attack. If your dex (and dex roll) is good enough, you can still salvage it. If not, then your opponent has a free shot.
Greg
|
|
A 1 is still an automatic miss, but if rolled, the attacking character must roll opposed dex checks against all threatening foes. If any of the foes beat the attacker's dex check, they get an attack of opportunity (which counts against the foe's total for the round).
This is an example (not to pick on you, GregH) of part of what I don't like about critical hits/fumbles. In order to make it realistic or fun, it ends up being complicated. And by complicated, I mean extra rolls with opposed checks or Dex checks, attacks against AC20, or so on and so forth.
Personally, I think crits/fumbles as written add more than enough randomness or cinematic elements purely with the application of a brief, creative decription by the DM. No extra rolls required.
If one is concerned that critical hits require an extra confirmation roll and fumbles don't, simply eliminate the confirmation roll and say that all natural 20's auto-crit. It balances against the automatic miss of a natural 1 and doesn't add any extra rolls. Of course, this would make character survivability at low levels very dicey.
The other thing to keep in mind (this one just came to me), the addition of extra beneficial effects caused by critical hits and penalties cause by critical fumbles only serve to hurt the players' PC's when they are pitted against opponents immune to critical hits (undead, constructs, etc., etc., etc). That is something to consider also.
Just some thoughts.
-Skeld
Thanks Jason.
This is an example (not to pick on you, GregH) of part of what I don't like about critical hits/fumbles. In order to make it realistic or fun, it ends up being complicated. And by complicated, I mean extra rolls with opposed checks or Dex checks, attacks against AC20, or so on and so forth.
I guess it's a case of YMMV. Our party actually likes the confirm roll on a possible critical. In fact, when a "20" is rolled, there is usually a chorus of "Possible crit!" around the table as everyone waits for the confirmation roll.
We've been using the "roll again to miss" for confirming the fumble, but as I said, I don't like that as much, because its usually harder to hit than miss. I haven't actually playtested the opposed dex rolls, so I don't know if it's unwieldy or not, but we'll give it a try. But I do like the idea of it.
And don't worry, I'm not feeling picked on. :-)
Greg
I'm just wondering how other people run 'critical fumbles' in their games.
To answer the question directly:
On a natural roll or "1", the player confirms the miss.
Why:
8 hours of "I/You/It hit" or "I/You/It miss" is mind-numbingly boring. While critical hits and critical misses tend to tilt the playing field toward the enemies (the enemies need all the help they can get anyhow), the extra two or three dice rolls are welcomed for extra combat variation...in my experience of course.