IMO:
Okay, if you've read any of my other threads you may know I hate playing under a DM who wants to make everything REAL. Conversely, I hate DMs that make my PC seem like a bumbling, mentally disabled dumbass (I know, that's a lot of redundant descriptors, that's how I feel).
1 as automatic failure is stupid. It is stupid. It makes the PCs afraid to do anything. ANYTHING! Not just fight the dragon, go ahead and be scared of that. Really, be my guest, sh*t your pants. You have good reason. But afraid to throw a vial of acid at a door? Or afraid to climb a ROPE?!??!?
This friggin brings me back to Cyberpunk 2020 (terrible rules system) where my character tried to climb a ladder and kept falling off. A LADDER!!!!!! I wasn't injured, I wasn't in combat. I was JUST. CLIMBING. A LADDER.
Same with the current D&D campaign. I've fallen more times than I can count. Want to dismount off your horse. Oops, you're a retard. Want to grab a weapon off of someone's belt while they fight? Oops, you punched them in the face. Want to swing your magic sword? Oops, rock buried in the dirt, magic sword broken, and the resulting magic explosion basically makes you its b*tch.
I'm never letting this guy DM again.
|
I feel your pain but I think it is more of a problem with over reliance on rolling as opposed to 1 = failure.
A couple years ago (maybe 2?) I decided I was going to give 3e another shot, but not as a DM. I joined a local group as a player.
At the first session we killed some goblins and my thief (err...rogue) went to grab the coin purses off the corpses.
DM: Make a Search roll.
Me: huh?
DM: Search roll.
Me: I'm not patting the buggers down, I'm just snatching coin purses.
DM: Yeah, make a search roll.
Me: I'm not checking their damn boots for hollow heels or anything. You said they had coin purses, I'm grabbing them quickly before the rest of the party pays me any mind.
DM: Search. Roll.
Me: You have to be kidding. I'm staring at the damn purses.
DM: Nope. Roll.
Me: *snarling as the die clatters*
DM: You don't find anything.
Me: Dude. You are some kinda special.
Yeah, that's just bad DMing. God, man, is there like classes for this or something, because...AAGH!
I'm going to start a thread for players to talk about their DMs and what their tired...
"I'm never letting this guy DM again."
Everything more is idle chatter.
:o
Nice mastering. Maybe I should make a few balance checks for walking and a couple of good ol' concentration checks to sleep a little.
:o
Nice mastering. Maybe I should make a few balance checks for walking and a couple of good ol' concentration checks to sleep a little.
Dude, do not give him ideas. ;)
Yeah... as a DM I don't require search checks to find loot on bodies unless the PCs are actually cutting the body open to find stuff... which actually paid off one time.
But an important thing to remember is that, with skill checks, a 1 is not an auto-fail.
I feel your pain but I think it is more of a problem with over reliance on rolling as opposed to 1 = failure.
A couple years ago (maybe 2?) I decided I was going to give 3e another shot, but not as a DM. I joined a local group as a player.
At the first session we killed some goblins and my thief (err...rogue) went to grab the coin purses off the corpses.
DM: Make a Search roll.
Me: huh?
DM: Search roll.
Me: I'm not patting the buggers down, I'm just snatching coin purses.
DM: Yeah, make a search roll.
Me: I'm not checking their damn boots for hollow heels or anything. You said they had coin purses, I'm grabbing them quickly before the rest of the party pays me any mind.
DM: Search. Roll.
Me: You have to be kidding. I'm staring at the damn purses.
DM: Nope. Roll.
Me: *snarling as the die clatters*
DM: You don't find anything.
Me: Dude. You are some kinda special.
Yeah, this is bad form. I'm a Huge fan of "say yes, or roll the dice" when you are DMing...and I usually say yes for anything that is decidedly undramatic with a failed outcome.
|
It also sounds like you are using Critical fumbles or something. Also bad stuff don't happen unless you fail a check by 5 or more. DC5 to climb a ladder. Roll a 1 and you fail to climb but you failed by 4 so you don't fall off, you just can't seem to get your feet on the rungs that round. I have had a foot or hand slip off of a ladder a few times in life and I wasn't even wearing full-plate, trekking through a slimy cavern, or had my hands coated in entrails from some battle! Most of those "ability score" tests put in the 15-16 range for dexterity, just to let you know that I ain't no Oof.
Just some perspective, but yeah, DMs sometimes suck too much. Find a new game or start your own up. Chances are you can cannibalize the group for a couple more disgruntled players.
A one is never a critical failure for skill check. Problem fixed. That and you can argue that most tasks(while not under stress) can be preformed quite easily(take 10-20).
Want to climb a ladder? Sure. Want to climb a ladder in hurricane force winds? Skill check. Want to loot dead bodies completely? Sure. Want to snatch a few coin purses from dead hobgoblins before the party sees you? Your slight of hand versus their spot check.
D&D requires a lot of common sense, if you stick to the exact letter of the rules it won't make a lot of sense.
/2 copper.
Actually, I believe a 1 is only an automatic failure on attack rolls and saves (as is a 20 an automatic success). On skill and ability checks its just bad luck.
I do however agree that a DM can get to caught up in the please make roll concept. Because the dice can give wild and unpredictable results (D&D is a game of chance after all), it is best to not ask for rolls in any straight forward situation.
And here we see the real flaw in 3.x (not that I'm throwing my support to 4e 'cuz I'm not):
Even with DMG II and tons of articles in Dragon and various splatbooks, they've done a terrible job of teaching the DM's art. I'm not trying to jack the thread here, but the whole reason there's going to be a 4e - and the reason folks are ticked about it on both sides - is because of this one issue.
DMing is an art, folks, not a science. It's not about number-crunching, it's about creating an entertaining and enjoyable experience for living, breathing people.
Learn the rules, but learn what the game's really about while you're at it.
And here we see the real flaw in 3.x (not that I'm throwing my support to 4e 'cuz I'm not):
Even with DMG II and tons of articles in Dragon and various splatbooks, they've done a terrible job of teaching the DM's art. I'm not trying to jack the thread here, but the whole reason there's going to be a 4e - and the reason folks are ticked about it on both sides - is because of this one issue.
DMing is an art, folks, not a science. It's not about number-crunching, it's about creating an entertaining and enjoyable experience for living, breathing people.
Learn the rules, but learn what the game's really about while you're at it.
Very well said Bubba!
And here we see the real flaw in 3.x (not that I'm throwing my support to 4e 'cuz I'm not):
Even with DMG II and tons of articles in Dragon and various splatbooks, they've done a terrible job of teaching the DM's art. I'm not trying to jack the thread here, but the whole reason there's going to be a 4e - and the reason folks are ticked about it on both sides - is because of this one issue.
DMing is an art, folks, not a science. It's not about number-crunching, it's about creating an entertaining and enjoyable experience for living, breathing people.
Learn the rules, but learn what the game's really about while you're at it.
Here here! *stands and claps*
For skill checks I consulted with my players and added an alternate system.
1 = -10 to skill check
20 = roll+10 to skill check
spot skill 15. Roll a 1? Result of 5. Roll a 20? result of 45 (20+10+15)
They seem to like it.
And here we see the real flaw in 3.x (not that I'm throwing my support to 4e 'cuz I'm not):
Even with DMG II and tons of articles in Dragon and various splatbooks, they've done a terrible job of teaching the DM's art. I'm not trying to jack the thread here, but the whole reason there's going to be a 4e - and the reason folks are ticked about it on both sides - is because of this one issue.
DMing is an art, folks, not a science. It's not about number-crunching, it's about creating an entertaining and enjoyable experience for living, breathing people.
Learn the rules, but learn what the game's really about while you're at it.
I also appluad your post.
DMing (or GMing) is about being fair, consistent and balanced. Fun all around the table should be the goal.
1 as automatic failure is stupid. It is stupid. It makes the PCs afraid to do anything. ANYTHING! Not just fight the dragon, go ahead and be scared of that. Really, be my guest, sh*t your pants. You have good reason. But afraid to throw a vial of acid at a door? Or afraid to climb a ROPE?!??!?
I feel your pain. I once was playing with a DM using critical failures (I don't bother in my game). Well this DM thought the "most interesting" result for a critical failure was for you to attack the party member adjacent to you. Me and my girlfriend (at the time, now wife) were the melee folk, me a half-orc ranger, her a half-elf paladin. Well she was having some bad luck and ended up rolling a 1 at least every combat. Needless to say, I stopped wanting to get into melee range with her because the DM kept having her hit my guy repeatedly. Once in a while would have been fine, but several times a session just gets stupid. Besides it was punishing my character for her bad rolling, WTF?
Yeah... as a DM I don't require search checks to find loot on bodies unless the PCs are actually cutting the body open to find stuff... which actually paid off one time.
But an important thing to remember is that, with skill checks, a 1 is not an auto-fail.
QFT
And why are PC's so afraid to say "I take ten"
I asked a DM of mine if I could take ten on initiative once. Ten is your friend. Ten means never having to say "I'm Sorry". But at the very least your DM should suggest it.
"You wanna take ten with that?"
-Syl
What's wrong with adding a little uncertainty to the game? Even the best at their job has a bad day occasionally. You've never seen a professional football player drop a pass that's right in their hands? Or a singer completely forget the words to their own song? It happens. Not often, but it happens.
But it doesn't happen 1 in 20 times. It happens much, much less than that. Say you failed 1 out of every 20 times you got in your car to drive somewhere. Or a doctor failed 1 out of 20 procedures. This seems to be the kind of gross ineptitude that the OP is concerned his DM is injecting into the game.
Like others, I assume success for my players when they want to perform simple tasks. I rarely even tell them to "take 10", I just assume they do, describe the results, and move on.
In-combat or high-stress situations being another matter altogether, of course.
|
O i got a Great "sorry you rolled a 1 now your dead"
to explain i was playing under a freshly new dm. He claimed that he had read the books and practiced the art. In fact we rolled for EVERY THING.
Me and my group was checking out a dungeon when we fell into a snake pit, i was playing a fighter/human my characters name was Remiel. We had taken out the snakes because the dm gave us no other options at the time. so after batting some dumb snakes around:
DM: Remiel feels the effects of the snake bites and starts to fall
ooc player (me): *going for the dice
DM:no your character cant fight off that much poison (8 bites)
OOC:WHAT! whatever fine i fall down yay.
team member: everyone give me room let examine him
DM: as you examine him you find many bites in his right leg 10
Team memeber: hold on remiel ill have you back to new
Team: Preforms heal check.... *rolls a 1
DM: their attempt to extract the poison you cut deep and the bleeding is critical. 3pts damage per round
Team: where gunna try again *rolls=1
DM: your attempt fails again this time you break his leg. 4 points of damage o and there is a snake left no one seen it bites him in the shoulder.
my character at this point had died. the attempts to heal me ended up killlllling me.
Yeah, that bites...... I hate GMs like this. Also, yeah, there are systems that are just bad as well...
...but do guys really think you have it so bad? ;)
(warning, longish thread... the first post is about the system, and then there's some shock and awe posts... and then on the second page you get to see the actual adventure!)
|
|
1 as automatic failure is stupid. It is stupid. It makes the PCs afraid to do anything. ANYTHING! Not just fight the dragon, go ahead and be scared of that. Really, be my guest, sh*t your pants. You have good reason. But afraid to throw a vial of acid at a door? Or afraid to climb a ROPE?!??!?I feel your pain. I once was playing with a DM using critical failures (I don't bother in my game). Well this DM thought the "most interesting" result for a critical failure was for you to attack the party member adjacent to you. Me and my girlfriend (at the time, now wife) were the melee folk, me a half-orc ranger, her a half-elf paladin. Well she was having some bad luck and ended up rolling a 1 at least every combat. Needless to say, I stopped wanting to get into melee range with her because the DM kept having her hit my guy repeatedly. Once in a while would have been fine, but several times a session just gets stupid. Besides it was punishing my character for her bad rolling, WTF?
A dm did that in one of the campaigns i played in and the player that kept getting hit Killed almost everyone in their sleep.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
We use the Kingdoms of Kalamar fumble system. There's a chart on their DM Screen for just this situation. Here's how it works:
1. You roll a 1 on an attack roll.
2. Make a Dex check DC: 15.
3a. If you make the Dex check, you miss. No big deal.
3b. If you miss the Dex check, subtract your result from 15 (the DC) and consult the chart.
The chart is set up so that the worse your Dex roll is, the worse the consequences of your miss.
If you roll 2 1's in a row, you may end up prone, with a penalty to armor class, and a broken weapon. If you only miss your Dex check by 1, you may be -1 to your next attack.
The cool thing here, is that the higher your Dex bonus, the less likely something bad will happen to you.
This works great for us, and lowers the chance for a critical fumble from 5% to something closer to 1%.
Of course, once the Critical Fumble deck is available, we may take another look at our system...
IMO:
Same with the current D&D campaign. I've fallen more times than I can count. Want to dismount off your horse. Oops, you're a retard. Want to grab a weapon off of someone's belt while they fight? Oops, you punched them in the face. Want to swing your magic sword? Oops, rock buried in the dirt, magic sword broken, and the resulting magic explosion basically makes you its b*tch.
Half of me agrees with you, half of me wants to eat this ham sandwich (Keyshaun Johnson reference....sorry)
No, but seriously, I agree with you to a point. I am hesitant to blame it on your DM (although the DM may suck), and more likely to blame it on your game system. In D&D, I tried to pull a sword out of a friendly PCs scabbard when his back was turned to me. I had to make a DC 20 sleight of hand check. I was playing a rogue (oops, almost made the cardinal "rouge" mistake!) character and failed.
Another time I thought it would be cool to grapple some mook and throw him overboard with my high-level Fighter. Couldn't do that either.
Thus, I've come to call D&D (any edition) the "You can't do that" game. We play "You can't do that" tomorrow as a matter of fact.
That said, if I ever run any game again, the rules as written will be secondary to common sense. Sorry rules lawyers....
O i got a Great "sorry you rolled a 1 now your dead"
to explain i was playing under a freshly new dm. He claimed that he had read the books and practiced the art. In fact we rolled for EVERY THING.
Me and my group was checking out a dungeon when we fell into a snake pit, i was playing a fighter/human my characters name was Remiel. We had taken out the snakes because the dm gave us no other options at the time. so after batting some dumb snakes around:
DM: Remiel feels the effects of the snake bites and starts to fall
ooc player (me): *going for the dice
DM:no your character cant fight off that much poison (8 bites)
OOC:WHAT! whatever fine i fall down yay.
team member: everyone give me room let examine him
DM: as you examine him you find many bites in his right leg 10
Team memeber: hold on remiel ill have you back to new
Team: Preforms heal check.... *rolls a 1
DM: their attempt to extract the poison you cut deep and the bleeding is critical. 3pts damage per round
Team: where gunna try again *rolls=1
DM: your attempt fails again this time you break his leg. 4 points of damage o and there is a snake left no one seen it bites him in the shoulder.
my character at this point had died. the attempts to heal me ended up killlllling me.
This post and the OP's post aren't really about natural 1's. Natural 1's counting as an auto-fails are fine by me and a great number (perhaps even the majority) of players and DMs (though I do like the +/- 10 variant). If your character is truthfully scared of taking actions because of the 5% chance that he might fail unconditionally, then you need to stop playing D&D. It's a game of chance, the chance being that you fail. It's something every player and DM is assumed to understand, accept, and even enjoy to some degree.
But that's not the case. This is about bad DMs. As has been said before, a natural 1 is an auto-fail only on attack rolls and saves. Further, characters are always allowed to take 10 when they aren't under pressure (i.e., not in battle or some similarly adverse condition). For something as simple as climbing a ladder, there is no roll under normal conditions because there is no chance of failure. The DC is 5. Anyone who takes 10 automatically fails. Even if you had a 1 in the ability score, that's a -5 which nets you a total result of 5, which still makes the check. Furtermore, as others have said, what in the world is the point of forcing such a roll other than being anal retentive and/or a jackass? There's nothing added to the game; only the frustration of players, which is actually taking away from the game.
Worse than that is what Midnight756 describes above. Where exactly in the rules does it state that a natural 1 on a Heal check can result in 3 damage per round from critical bleeding? The players already suffered the negative consequences of failure; why the hell is the DM further penalizing them, and in such an extreme manner? This strikes me as an ego or power trip; the DM abusing his power. In situations like these, where the DM starts using his imagination to enforce outlandish penalties for failures because it's "more realistic" or something; in situations like these, even if the DM arranges things where success is still possible (perhaps even probable), the fun of the challenge is removed for me. This is like what I posted in another thread. Someone told of their PC who had failed a Climb check, fell, and the DM then stated there was a 1 in 8 chance of taking ten times normal damage from hitting his head (as opposed to anywhere else on the body, I suppose).
This pisses me off to no end. The damage is already calibrated to reflect this possibility. That's what a roll near the maximum would represent. But instead, the PC has to now survive the DM's ego entering the game. Even if the check is successful, it's still hollow and empty because it wasn't a legitimate challenge; it was just some dumbass' idea of "Gee, wouldn't that be fun?" (no) or, "I'm the DM, so you have to do what I say!"
|
|
actually i have a campaign to play 2night and we have a debate on a dumb dm moment.
i have an elf ranger/wizard. i read scroll of true strike and i am attempting to shot into a tent at a shadow with a +20 to hit.
I am attempting to shoot into a tent at a shadow of a person with my long bow for 40ft.
my dm is arguing that the rules on true-sight detail that you must have a line of site to the target. my point is the shadow is that target, should i get the +20 or not?
please state your point and explain = )Ty
actually i have a campaign to play 2night and we have a debate on a dumb dm moment.
i have an elf ranger/wizard. i read scroll of true strike and i am attempting to shot into a tent at a shadow with a +20 to hit.
I am attempting to shoot into a tent at a shadow of a person with my long bow for 40ft.
my dm is arguing that the rules on true-sight detail that you must have a line of site to the target. my point is the shadow is that target, should i get the +20 or not?
please state your point and explain = )Ty
Within 40' (no penalty).
Concealment from tent (negated by true strike).True Strike (gives +20 to hit).
Seems clear.
True Strike:
True Strike
Divination
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: See text
You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.
Focus
A small wooden replica of an archery target.
|
actually i have a campaign to play 2night and we have a debate on a dumb dm moment.
i have an elf ranger/wizard. i read scroll of true strike and i am attempting to shot into a tent at a shadow with a +20 to hit.
I am attempting to shoot into a tent at a shadow of a person with my long bow for 40ft.
my dm is arguing that the rules on true-sight detail that you must have a line of site to the target. my point is the shadow is that target, should i get the +20 or not?
please state your point and explain = )Ty
If I am understanding correctly, you are trying to shoot a person/creature who is casting a shadow on the side of the tent. You do not actually see said person -- you just see his shadow.
Assuming that, the shadow would most likely be displaced a little from the person depending on the location of the light source. So, I wouldn't have much of an issue having you target the shadow, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that you would hit the person. I would still most likely give him at least some cover.
I think it's absolutely true, the real problem is Skill Fumbles. These are just unneccessary if you ask me. Failure sucks enough, but to have the lock explode while you are picking it sending shards of metal into your whole party? That is just plain toopid.
And hitting other players with your attack fumbles sucks. DM adjucation can only be tolerated to a certain degree...
PCs UNITE
Ps. If you didn't know already, I am a DM, I don't normally play characters. I am not a rules lawyer, I let the DM make his own decisions on things, just the other day the DM said I couldn't use a Withdrawal move action when the rules said I could, but I said, you're the DM you made the call, I respect that.
But when it comes to his obsession with REALISM (which is funny because critical fumbles aren't that realistic) he can eat my shorts.
Ps 2. This particular DM really did make my magic sword break on a rock in the mud, on a roll of 1 during an attack, which made my sword explode causing 40 points of damage. I was a lvl 3 fighter. 40 points of damage basically tore me a new soul.
I think it's absolutely true, the real problem is Skill Fumbles. These are just unneccessary if you ask me.
I can't say I know what you're talking about. There is no such thing in RAW 3.5 D&D as a "skill fumble." There are certain skills which can have negative consequences if one fails by 5 or more, but there is no term "skill fumble," nor anything of the magnitude you describe with the exploding lock. Or was this actually about the DM? It's important to type your messages clearly on the internet; especially on the internet. The written word has some extreme limitations when used for conversation.
actually i have a campaign to play 2night and we have a debate on a dumb dm moment.
i have an elf ranger/wizard. i read scroll of true strike and i am attempting to shot into a tent at a shadow with a +20 to hit.
I am attempting to shoot into a tent at a shadow of a person with my long bow for 40ft.
my dm is arguing that the rules on true-sight detail that you must have a line of site to the target. my point is the shadow is that target, should i get the +20 or not?
please state your point and explain = )Ty
I'd definitely give you the +20 to hit the shadow. HOWEVER...
Since your "real" target is the creature casting the shadow, I'd also invoke the rule for 100% cover since you can't really see it. In other words, the creature would get a bonus to its AC and you'd have a miss chance.
The reason for this is simple: A shadow is almost never the same size as its caster, which creates a chance that you'll miss. Also, it is not necessarily true that the creature casting the shadow is in your line of fire. The only way this would be possible is if the creature you're trying to shoot is standing directly between you and the light source creating the shadow. It is reasonable to assume the creature might be a little off to the side, so you're not guaranteed to hit it.
Good luck on that shot, though.
What's wrong with adding a little uncertainty to the game?
I'd say there is enough uncertainty in the game. Will I hit the guy before it's his turn again and he transmogrofies me into a fine red mist? Will I make the save and avoid being turned to stone?
We don't need to add uncertainties like: Will I manage to tie my shoes and avoid strangling myself? Will I suffocate on my lunch? Will stones dropped from the skies kill me today?
D&D, for me, is about great heroic deeds, dire straights, grim fates averted, unspeakable horrors - the works. It's not about mundane, everyday little fumbles. The game gains nothing if you roll whether you drop the key in the evening when you go to the room.
It might be presumptuous for me to project my preferences upon the average roleplayer, but I think that we all play this game for the exciting parts. Since it is not a simulation, we can gloss over the boring parts.
Even the best at their job has a bad day occasionally.
And it never makes for a very heroic story.
As a DM, this frustrating situation comes up far too often:Player: I want to tumble into a flanking position.
DM: Okay, give me a roll.
Player: I make it.
DM: But you didn't roll yet.
Player: I don't have to, I automatically make it.
Not nearly as frustrating as it is for players to have to roll for every single thing they do, no matter how mundane.
And making players roll for all sorts of things just because they have 14 ranks in tumble is quite immature, you know. :P
Not nearly as frustrating as it is for players to have to roll for every single thing they do, no matter how mundane.And making players roll for all sorts of things just because they have 14 ranks in tumble is quite immature, you know. :P
But not nearly as immature as complaining on the message boards instead of working out the problem with the people you game with (presumably your friends).
I don't use skill fumbles, but some DMs do. If as a player, you know the rule, but you still play, you have only yourself to blame.
Life's too short for bad gaming. If you don't like his rules, don't play. That's it.
|
|
I just don't get it. A 20 is an auto hit/possible crit but a 1 is an auto miss/auto fumble. I know some of you houserule a confirmation roll but why would it be more than the threat range of the weapon? I rolled a 1 on the dragon then rolled a 12 and missed the dragon so my sword hits me in the neck? That's ridiculous.
If I HAD to use critical fumbles I would use the reverse rules of critical hits. You have a threat range equal to your weapons threat range (think about those keen kukris now!) at the low end and if you threaten to critically fumble you need to reconfirm before anything happens, and the worst that should happen (IMO)should be falling prone, dropping your weapon, or being stunned for a round. No severed limbs attacks on your buddy, broken magic sword, lose an eye, Crit yourself, etc. A child might do those things if you hand them a flail, but a trained warrior who has carried his flail for a while shouldn't have an eyepatch, fingers missing, self inflicted scars, and end his career by caving in his own skull. That is just....again.....ridiculous.
I just don't get it. A 20 is an auto hit/possible crit but a 1 is an auto miss/auto fumble. I know some of you houserule a confirmation roll but why would it be more than the threat range of the weapon? I rolled a 1 on the dragon then rolled a 12 and missed the dragon so my sword hits me in the neck? That's ridiculous.
If I HAD to use critical fumbles I would use the reverse rules of critical hits. You have a threat range equal to your weapons threat range (think about those keen kukris now!) at the low end and if you threaten to critically fumble you need to reconfirm before anything happens, and the worst that should happen (IMO)should be falling prone, dropping your weapon, or being stunned for a round. No severed limbs attacks on your buddy, broken magic sword, lose an eye, Crit yourself, etc. A child might do those things if you hand them a flail, but a trained warrior who has carried his flail for a while shouldn't have an eyepatch, fingers missing, self inflicted scars, and end his career by caving in his own skull. That is just....again.....ridiculous.
I made a similar comment in another thread (forget which one, hard to keep track sometimes). Basically we used to play fumbles this way (confirm vs target AC) but that usually means a heck of a lot more confirmed fumbles than critical hits. Instead, on a 1, the attacker makes opposed Dex rolls with all threatening opponents. If the attacker loses, he knocks himself off balance with the wild swing enough that the opponent was able to capitalize and get a regular AoO. If the attacker wins, then he recovered in time, no AoO.
I do plan on buying the critical fumble deck when it's released, but I'm not sure how I'll apply it yet. (I assume they'll have suggestions in the deck info itself.)
Greg
But not nearly as immature as complaining on the message boards instead of working out the problem with the people you game with (presumably your friends).
And making players roll for all sorts of things just because they have 14 ranks in tumble is quite immature, you know. :P
It's not immature. it's venting steam. This can be very important. It's usually not a good idea to just lay into the DM in that situation - heated discussions will only make things worse.
So it's better to rant about it to someone not directly involved, but it helps if that person knows what you're talking about. If he went and talked to his mother, her eyes would probably gloss over after about "... made me roll a dex check for..."
Plus, I think stories like these always have some entertainment value. The more ridiculous the better. Everyone who has ever read Al Bruno III's rants knows what I'm talking about (his site seems to be down, but the Waybackmachine has some backups here)