I use Critical Fumbles in the group I DM, I would love to see a critical fumble deck to go with the critical hit deck I am about to buy.
How funny, my hubby and I had just made the decision to purchase the critical hit deck, we'd go for a fumble deck too!
I'll definitely buy one!
|
The problem is that 1 on 20 occurs fairly often. Too often. If this deck went along with a new mechanic as to how fumbles work, yeah, sure, that'd be really exciting !
At our table, Fumbles have to be 'confirmed' in a similar fashion as to how a Critcal is.
As for it happening too often, well, statisitcally rolling a 1 should happen JUST as often as rolling 20.
But since criticals are possible with dice rolls as low as 15 (a keen rapier, for instance) [obviously the standard range is likely more around 19-20)] and Fumble ONLY can happen on a 'confirmed' 1, criticals are FAR, FAR more likely to happen then fumbles.
If anything, we need another, new deck of CRIT cards by next week...as we've all proabably been through the deck once already. ;)
The problem is that 1 on 20 occurs fairly often. Too often. If this deck went along with a new mechanic as to how fumbles work, yeah, sure, that'd be really exciting !At our table, Fumbles have to be 'confirmed' in a similar fashion as to how a Critcal is.
As for it happening too often, well, statisitcally rolling a 1 should happen JUST as often as rolling 20.
But since criticals are possible with dice rolls as low as 15 (a keen rapier, for instance) [obviously the standard range is likely more around 19-20)] and Fumble ONLY can happen on a 'confirmed' 1, criticals are FAR, FAR more likely to happen then fumbles.
If anything, we need another, new deck of CRIT cards by next week...as we've all proabably been through the deck once already. ;)
We do it a bit differently. On a 1 you threaten a fumble. To confirm the fumble with a second roll, you need only miss the target AC. This seems to balance it out a bit more.
Exactly, just as there is a confirmation for critical hits, there should be a confirmation for critical fumbles. I don't recall how the new Star Wars Saga Edition RPG handles fumbles if at all, but I know they are treating natural 20s as automatic critical hits. Additionally, I think removing confirmation rolls eliminates the possibility of instant death by rolling a critical on the critical confirmation roll followed by an instant death confirmation roll.
Fumbles are okay if everyone has only one attack per round. As soon as characters gain iterative attacks though, fumbles are kind of unfair. Why should an experienced lvl 16 fighter, who has four attacks a round, fumble far more often than a level one fighter with much less experience?
This is why I'm against the usual confirmation roll for fumbles (confirmation roll against AC, if you don't hit you fumble). Instead you should somehow take the character's base attack bonus into account. A confirmation roll could be against a fixed difficulty of 15, but you are allowed to add your base attack bonus to this roll (but not strength or any other bonuses).
Some DMs/groups use the fumble system and some don't...
If Paizo put out a nice Fumble Deck- it would SELL.... and sell BIG (just like the Crit Deck is selling).
I'd buy at least two decks and know of at least another 4-5 DMs that would also.
Paizo.... if you make, they will come.
JM.
You'll have it out by GenCon, right? ;)
p.s. If you're short-staffed for new products like this, I would be more than happy to help develop it.
|
You know what would make an awesome fumble effect? Let's say the fighter wades into battle and gets tripped up on a mighty swing. Everyone on both sides must take (a free) action to get out of the way. The net result is an initive reroll right in the middle of an encounter! No one gets hurt. Nothing "bad" happens to the fumbling fighter. But every player on the table groans...
Fumbles that force the character to take a 5 foot step or interfere with initiative are a great way to screw with combat without penalizing the player. Loosing a turn would be devastating. But moving from third to fourth in initiative order is just funny!
...also encourages the use of initiative tracking paraphernalia like this
|
Contributor
|
I would like to see a fumble deck, and I have a few ideas about it.
I've seen a number of different fumble systems, and I think a deck would allow for a fairly detailed and variable effect without slowing the game the way a chart can.
I also agree that fumbles should be confirmed through a secondary check. I think that check should vary with the fumble effect, and thus be printed right on the card. Like: Lose balance: Make a DC 20 balance check or fall prone. or: Wide Open: Make a DC 16 Reflex save or provoke attacks of opportunity from all creatures that threaten you.
I'd rather have this than have a general rule for confirming criticals that might not apply evenly to all situations and that you have to remember.
Like the critical hit cards, there need to be differnet effects depending on weapon type. In this case, I think it needs to be divided into unarmed/natural, melee, projectile, thrown, ray, touch spell. Some of these might be able to be combined, but I think that there is individual opportunity for each.
One specific thing I would like see is a good system for an accidental strike against an ally; I've never been happy with using the attacker's normal attack as some systems do (so the better you are, the more likely you are to accidentally hit your friend?), but I'm not sure what else to use beyond an arbitrary attack bonus. I'd like to see an effect where a arbitrary Attack Bonus is assigned, (say +5) and the fumbler makes an attack roll using their current AB against AC 10. If they hit, they reduce the arbitrary number by 1, and they reduce it by a further 1 for every 5 points they beat the AC 10 by. Then they use the remaining bonus as their attack roll vs. their ally, and apply damage with all appropriate modifiers. Gets a bit complicated though.
That's all for now
|
What about redesigning the Critical Hit deck so that each card is half critical hit and half critical fumble? Double (or more) the number of cards so you can keep all the existing critical hit descriptions, and face the hits/fumbles opposite directions so you turn the card to see the description type you need. That way, it's just one deck to buy, and if you can use either half (or both) as you see fit.
Fumbles are okay if everyone has only one attack per round. As soon as characters gain iterative attacks though, fumbles are kind of unfair. Why should an experienced lvl 16 fighter, who has four attacks a round, fumble far more often than a level one fighter with much less experience?
I really hope you will consider this if you make the deck happen. Don't punish people that can make more than one attack per round with multiple fumbles. That would be no fun, especially at high levels. How about a rule that you can only fumble with your first attack? May not be very logical, but meh, its d&d.
The group I play in has been using critical hits and fumbles for many years before their current form in 3.5.
(By the way, love the Critical Hit Deck. Haven't had a chance to use it since receiving it... But I hope to convince the group to switch to it over our standard table.)
And I can say that having multiple attacks and "unconfirmed" fumbles on a natural 1 isn't as bad as it sounds. Of course, the enemies have to suffer it as well, and the group often cheers when the baddies get a fumble.
Suggestions for possible fumble effects: (Taken from memory from our charts)
Broken bow string
Send weapon flying - requiring 1D4 rounds to recover
Hit funny bone - lose attack
Sneezing fit - lose 1D4 attacks
Throw yourself on opponents weapon - suffer damage from a normal attack from enemy
Hit nearest ally - this is automatic for us, no attack roll. Ally suffers damage from a normal attack
And if you are a person that doesn't like the sound of Fumbles, just remember: You don't have to use them in your group. Using only Criticals is a valid way to go.
|
Contributor
|
Fumbles are okay if everyone has only one attack per round. As soon as characters gain iterative attacks though, fumbles are kind of unfair. Why should an experienced lvl 16 fighter, who has four attacks a round, fumble far more often than a level one fighter with much less experience?I really hope you will consider this if you make the deck happen. Don't punish people that can make more than one attack per round with multiple fumbles. That would be no fun, especially at high levels. How about a rule that you can only fumble with your first attack? May not be very logical, but meh, its d&d.
I'd say that it's quite reasonable that the more you attack, the more opportunities to fumble you will have. I'd rather see this corrected by having fumble effects have an appropriate skill check or save or attack roll to avoid. And most of them should be attack rolls, because let's face it, the better a fighter you are, the less likely to make a mistake you are.
|
Contributor
|
Suggestions for possible fumble effects: (Taken from memory from our charts)
Broken bow string
Send weapon flying - requiring 1D4 rounds to recover
Hit funny bone - lose attack
Sneezing fit - lose 1D4 attacks
Throw yourself on opponents weapon - suffer damage from a normal attack from enemy
Hit nearest ally - this is automatic for us, no attack roll. Ally suffers damage from a normal attack
I think all of these are reasonable ideas for effects, but again I feel they need a check to confirm:
Broken Bow string: How about, make an automatic break attempt on your weapon as though with a strength of X
Send weapon flying: Make reflex save or weapon ends up in square 1d4x5 feet away in random direction. Or better yet, opponent gets free disarm attempt that doesn't provoke attack of opportunity. If successful, weapon lands...
Hit funny bone: Fort save DC X or lose any remaining actions for this round
Sneezing fit: Fort save DC X or be nauseated for d4 rounds
Throw yourself on opponent's weapon: Defender gets free attack of opportunity against you, even if they have used their AoOs for the round.
Hit nearest Ally: I mentioned this in a previous post.
The thing is, there needs to be a way for characters to overcome fumbles. Even broken equipment needs to be able to be resisted; a magic bow string should not break as easilly as a normal bow-string.
And the more I think about it, the more I think that the DC's should be dependant on the opponent rather than an arbitrary number. That way fumbles scale with the PCs just like the challenges.
Also, I see realism there. I do historical sword-combat. When I'm fighting my instructor, my small mistakes are capitalized on and I suffer more fumble-like effects. When I am fighting my students, I can usually get away with being a little careless.
I disarmed my instructor in a free-bout the other night. It was sweet.
But back on topic. In some cases, having the defender determine the DC or do the attack or whatever might seem weird, like to see if your bow string snaps, but the scaling benefit seems like a fair trade.
The only other thing I want to add is that as many of the effects as possible should fit with existing effects; they should cause established conditions like Stunned, Nauseated, Flat-footed, Fatigued, Shaken etc. or provoke specific Attacks like disarms, sunders, trips etc. rather than being an entirely new rules-set. Or creating arbitrary effects like requiring 1D4 rounds to recover a weapon. Just determin a drop location where you have to move to and pick it up.
Of course, there should be some entirely new effects, to make it a cool and exciting new product, and keep people on their toes. and there should be magic attack fumbles that have magic related effects, whech there aren't real rules for to work from.
Craig Shackleton,
The Rambling Scribe
|
|
Thought on fumble confirmation:
Make an "attack" roll vs a fixed AC, if you "hit" no fumble, if you miss... draw a card.
AC as follows:
Simple Weapons: AC10
Martial Weapons: AC15
Exotic Weapons: AC20
If using a weapon 2 handed, gain +2
and the categories could be:
Unarmed
Normal Melee
Two handed melee
Dual wielded melee
ranged
magic
This way, a decent fighter with iterative attacks, and a decent strength will very rarely fumble, nor will wizards be punished for trying to fight.
some fumble effects:
Weapon damaged, -2 damage on each attack until repaired (sharpened, balanced, etc)
Weapon stuck, your attack hits for half damage, but then your weapon is stuck in the target
Off balance, you move 5 feet in a direction of your opponents choosing
Put to Heel, you are flat footed next turn
Locked, your opponent dramatically locks weapons with you. It takes a move action for you to free your weapon
Pulled muscles, -2 to hit and damage on all attacks until...
Poor awareness, on their next turn your target can move away without provoking an attack of opportunity from you
Poor positioning, all opponents count as flanking you until your next turn
|
Contributor
|
Thought on fumble confirmation:
Make an "attack" roll vs a fixed AC, if you "hit" no fumble, if you miss... draw a card.
AC as follows:
Simple Weapons: AC10
Martial Weapons: AC15
Exotic Weapons: AC20If using a weapon 2 handed, gain +2
The only problem with this is that it doesn't scale; whatever AC you set will not work at all levels.
Let's take the AC 15. At first level this will mean a typical fighter needs to roll a 12 or so to avoid. Quite reasonable. By 5th level, they can easilly get to only needing a 5 to avoid. by 10th level the fumble has become meaningless.
But if we up that number by very much, the criticals will become almost automatic at low-levels.
And to be honest, Idon't think there is a middle ground that will make the criticals avoidable at low level and still a possibility at high level, excepting a natural 1/natural 20 rule.
Plus, one of the reasons I like putting fumbles on cards is that you can get away with making them a little more complex and variable, becasue you can print the relevant rule right there on the card.
Craig Shackleton,
The Rambling Scribe
|
|
The only problem with this is that it doesn't scale; whatever AC you set will not work at all levels.
Let's take the AC 15. At first level this will mean a typical fighter needs to roll a 12 or so to avoid. Quite reasonable. By 5th level, they can easilly get to only needing a 5 to avoid. by 10th level the fumble has become meaningless.
Craig Shackleton,
The Rambling Scribe
It scales to a certain degree, but not the way you are expecting. I assumed a 1 on the avoid fumble roll would always fail, and a 20 always pass.
And yeah, a 20th level fighter would be hard pressed to ever fumble... on their first attack... On their fourth? They are still the equivalent of a level 1 fighter in that bracket. This way fast attackers don't get punished for iterating attacks. By the time you get more than 1 attack per round, you will nearly never fumble on your main attack.
Oh well, that was how I was thinking anyway
Count me as another wanting a Critical Fumble Deck :) I love the CHD and would love to even see something like a d20 Future version :D
I would love a Fumble deck as well. I have used Fumbles since the advent of 3.0, with the standard "roll to confirm a fumble". However, a year or so ago, I realized that the second and consecutive attacks had a far greater chance of missing. So I came up with a new rule. The fumble mechanics now has three steps.
1. You fumble only on a natural 1.
2. You must then confirm the fumble (opposite of confirming a critical).
3. You must then make a DC20 check, using either a)your base attack + size modifier + any weapon focus feats (when using weapons) or b)your spellcasting-level (when casting spells). Any Focus (ray) feats apply to the latter.
This way, the higher level you are, the less likely you are to fumble, even on your secondary and tertiary attacks. Small creatures doesn't fumble as easily as larger creatures (who have a wider arc and need more place to maneuver), and you are also less likely to fumble if you are using a weapon you know in and out.
I think this works quite well.
You know, with the number of people clamouring for this product on this and other threads, I am beginning to think you guys actually want them. :-)
I assure you all, it is on my radar as something to seriously consider.
Jason Bulmahn
GameMastery Brand Manager
Good, I'm in.
I already have the Hit Deck and last night it was a gas. It had them giggling like teenage boys roasting ants with a magnifying glass.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
While the Critical Hit deck has different effects based on slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning effects, I feel that a Critical Fumble deck should have different results based on 2-handed melee, 1-handed melee, or ranged weapons. The type of damage the weapon deals is somewhat less relevant than the type of weapon being used. A 2-handed weapon fumble, for example, is more likely to be dropped or cause the wielder to overextend themselves (provoking AoOs) while a 1-handed weapon is more likely to slip free of the wielder's grasp or even breaking or bending. Ranged weapon fumbles, of course, should involve things like broken bow strings, striking allies, etc. Perhaps sub-divide the 'ranged' group into thrown weapons and bow-like weapons (crossbows and regular bows).
Just some initial thoughts for the developers.
|
Contributor
|
While the Critical Hit deck has different effects based on slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning effects, I feel that a Critical Fumble deck should have different results based on 2-handed melee, 1-handed melee, or ranged weapons. The type of damage the weapon deals is somewhat less relevant than the type of weapon being used. A 2-handed weapon fumble, for example, is more likely to be dropped or cause the wielder to overextend themselves (provoking AoOs) while a 1-handed weapon is more likely to slip free of the wielder's grasp or even breaking or bending. Ranged weapon fumbles, of course, should involve things like broken bow strings, striking allies, etc. Perhaps sub-divide the 'ranged' group into thrown weapons and bow-like weapons (crossbows and regular bows).
Just some initial thoughts for the developers.
I stand by my categories mentioned before. Unnarmed/natural and spell/spell-like rays need there own categories, and possibly one for touch spells and similar. I agree that two handed weapons shouls be easier to not drop, but i'd rather see that as a bonus to the check than a seperate category. Obviously, though, you can't drop your claws ot fist at all.
I definitely agree that thrown and projectiles need to be seperated.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
However, a year or so ago, I realized that the second and consecutive attacks had a far greater chance of missing. So I came up with a new rule. The fumble mechanics now has three steps.
1. You fumble only on a natural 1.
2. You must then confirm the fumble (opposite of confirming a critical).
3. You must then make a DC20 check, using either a)your base attack + size modifier + any weapon focus feats (when using weapons) or b)your spellcasting-level (when casting spells). Any Focus (ray) feats apply to the latter.This way, the higher level you are, the less likely you are to fumble, even on your secondary and tertiary attacks. Small creatures doesn't fumble as easily as larger creatures (who have a wider arc and need more place to maneuver), and you are also less likely to fumble if you are using a weapon you know in and out.
Yeah, here is a thread I started awhile ago featuring my complicated fumble mechanics.
I would be all for a Fumble Deck. I just bought the Critical Hit deck.
We use critical fumbles similart to the critical hits with confirmation roll. Had a character crit fumble once, rolled a natural 1, confirmed with another natural 1 and beacause the DM was feeling good that day had me roll another time just to be sure and yep got a 3rd natural 1.So a crit fumble with a spiked chain ends up wrapping himself up with the chain then falling off the rooftop he was fighting on and landing on our party's dwarf.
While we're all waiting breathlessly for a GameMastery Critical Fumble Deck, has anyone considered using the Critical Hit deck against the players when they fumble? Maybe not necessarily HP damage, but the secondary effects on the cards.