If a player rolls a one on an attack roll he gets to roll again. If he rolls low enough that he would have missed on the confirmation roll he gets a fumble card. If he rolls high enough to hit the attack is still a miss, but he avoid the fumble deck.
Reason: A high level trained warrior should not be botching attacks 5% of the time, even an untrained commoner could avoid stabbing himself with his own dagger 5% of the time.
I slightly disagree, but that's up to the DM to decide (house rules and all).
In our game a critical hit has to be confirmed (because of really overpowered but cool crit hit cards). A critical fumble is instant (because face it - it's too funny!).
OK if you put it that way. I'd allow the attacks made until the fumble to hit. And only 1 possible fumble per attack.
If the fumble is at the start of the attacks, player loses all following attacks.
But I will keep the natural 1 instant fumble rule. Requiring 2 natural 1s to fumble: that way you'll never use the great fumble deck! :-)
Okay, I'm curious. What does a critical fumble rule add to the game?
Does it speed up combat? Do your players find it a fair or fun system? How extreme does the fumble have to be before it stops being fun/amusing/funny ("Well, you rolled a natural one with your Vorpal blade, I guess you can kiss your sword arm goodbye")?
I've played with so many fumble rules, so many inane, stupid little tweaks that really just screw with the players. I've had my own weapon damage dealt to me, I've had my weapons break, hell, I fumbled a Concentration check and had my Fireball go off at my feet.
It sucks. There is nothing more confidence eroding than to have the 18th level swordmaster huck his +5 flaming keen falchion 1d6 (x5) feet away just because the dice came up low. The funny thing is, I've never seen the printed rules for these either, outside of Hackmaster that is.
You roll a one on an attack roll you miss. That's it. Move on, don't take 15 minutes consulting your deck of horrible ways to dick over the PCs. You roll a natural one on a skill check (or something similar) and guess what? Well, you rolled as low as you possibly could, and that's it. That's the penalty. The only exception, by the rules as written, is rolling a natural one on a saving throw, and even then chances are you're only going to scuff up your shield a bit. Hell, most GMs I've played under toss that out, too. Slows things down too much. I'd rather not spend half an hour on one guys turn in a fight.
So, yeah, I'm curious. What do these rules add to the game? I guess I could see them being a little fun if they're applied to all combatants, but even then isn't it a little anticlimactic for the lead villain of the story to trip on his own sword, cut his ghoulies off and die before he even finishes his monologue?
(And even though this is a fumble thread, no, I've never used the 'two natural twenties is a super crit, three natural twenties is an insta-kill' rule either.)
Depends. My players find it amusing to get this "edge" in the game.
Mind you, this not only leads to slapstick (occasionally yes) but also tragedy. During one fight the ranger shot a critical in the halfling's back, after which the big bad guy (Kullen from AoW) had no trouble splitting the poor fellow in two with his axe. Traumatized the entire party, which the players loved.
Of course, if your players are irritated by this or it slows down the pace you might as well remove it, depends on personal taste. But that's what houserules are for. If you don't like it, change it. I only gave my humble 2 cents here.
I might even add the 'confirm' rule (hit or fumble) once they paas a certain level (10?)...
And the big bad can also fumble, yes, but not during evil monologues, mind you. :-)
I'm running it exactly as Concerro does.
As am I. In my theory, the critical hit deck is more powerful than standard criticals, so I offset that with the critical fumble deck. PCs can reserve a critical hit card to negate a critical fumble if they like, and I give them one free card at the beginning of an adventure. Last time there was a fumble, the player actually took the fumble just to see what would happen.
Zo
|
As am I. In my theory, the critical hit deck is more powerful than standard criticals, so I offset that with the critical fumble deck. PCs can reserve a critical hit card to negate a critical fumble if they like, and I give them one free card at the beginning of an adventure. Last time there was a fumble, the player actually took the fumble just to see what would happen.
Zo
I kind of like that idea. I may have to start using the crit decks again with that one.
I'm running it exactly as Concerro does.I do the same, it's a fun addition to the game for me and the players.
Ditto.
As to why, it's a balance thing for me. Things are already seriously tilted in the rules toward the PCs, making them perfect and never able to critically fail (while they are able to critically succeed) seems to be tilting it too far in the opposite direction.
Besides, the players all get a hoot out of it when the ranger rolls a 1 and critically fails and shoots another character in the posterior.
Yes, that did come up (rolled 1, rolled 2 to confirm crit failure), ranger was shooting at a skeleton on the other side of two allies. Rolled a to-hit against ally 1 and missed his AC, rolled a to-hit against ally 2 (who was floating on a disc) and nailed him with a natural 20. :) I didn't roll for a critical hit though, just ruled it hit him in the butt.
We have been running with a basic fumble rule since 3.0.
If you roll a 1, roll to confirm, if you miss on the confirm roll, you lowered your guard enough to provoke an AoO. If you roll a 1 on the comfirmation roll, you usually drop or break your weapon.
Since I use this evenly for PCs and NPC it actually favors the PC a lot when they are fighting hordes of flunkies who fumble a lot.
For what it's worth, the official card rule for the Fumble Deck is as described, except you get your full attack bonus to the confirmation roll (if it happens to be one of your iterative attacks).
Personally, I use that, as well as any natural "1" ends that character/creature's attacks for the round.
Non-"named" NPCs use the old "DC 10 Dexterity check" to avoid dropping their weapon (or falling to a crouching position). Named ones use the deck.
We have been running with a basic fumble rule since 3.0.
If you roll a 1, roll to confirm, if you miss on the confirm roll, you lowered your guard enough to provoke an AoO. If you roll a 1 on the comfirmation roll, you usually drop or break your weapon.
Since I use this evenly for PCs and NPC it actually favors the PC a lot when they are fighting hordes of flunkies who fumble a lot.
I like that Charender, especially the Failure provoking an AoO. What I don't like is that if the player rolls a one, they actually have a greater chance to fumble if the opponent has a better AC, which doesn't really make sense. I have the characters make a reflex save to recover I have been using DC12. This also means as the players get better they will fail less often but it isn't dependent on the opponents AC
With the AoO what do you do if someone fumbles with a ranged weapon?
We have been running with a basic fumble rule since 3.0.
If you roll a 1, roll to confirm, if you miss on the confirm roll, you lowered your guard enough to provoke an AoO. If you roll a 1 on the comfirmation roll, you usually drop or break your weapon.
Since I use this evenly for PCs and NPC it actually favors the PC a lot when they are fighting hordes of flunkies who fumble a lot.
I like that Charender, especially the Failure provoking an AoO. What I don't like is that if the player rolls a one, they actually have a greater chance to fumble if the opponent has a better AC, which doesn't really make sense. I have the characters make a reflex save to recover I have been using DC12. This also means as the players get better they will fail less often but it isn't dependent on the opponents AC
With the AoO what do you do if someone fumbles with a ranged weapon?
I think is make perfect sense to be more likely to fumble against higher AC opponents. You stab a naked person the blade goes in. You stab a guy in plate and the blade bounces off the armor while you are trying to aim for a smaller "weak spot" in the armor. More armor = more deflection on the attack = more likely to lose control of your weapon.
That rarely comes up since most ranged attackers move out of melee to avoid provoking any AoOs. Usually, when an archer fumbles they break a bow string and have to spend 1 full round restringing their bow(assuming they brought spares)
I too use the "Threaten and confirm a Fumble" rule with the Paizo Crit and Fumble decks.
A recent fumble with alchemist fire poured manually on a pinned hecuva caused the PC to get "all enemies have concealment for 1d4 rounds". So I described it as "The alchemist fire sears into the hecuva's moldy leather armor, releasing a putrid puff of stinging black smoke directly into your eyes. All enemeis have concealment against you for 2 rounds."
Granted, I also allow any hit that hits by more than 20 to "crit" as well. Such strikes are so horribly accurate that something beyond regular damage should be happening (this also helps with fighters clearing through loads of lower AC minions). Conversely, any roll that actually drops below 0 fumbles (such as due to penalties. A recent Ray of Enfeeblement+Tanglefoot bag+Bane put a ranger in this position on a roll of 3). Neither of these stack with themselves, in the event of rerolling an actual critical threaten. So no hitting by 20 on a threat, and then confirming by 20 as well, to get 2 draws plus the regular crit draws. Only 1.
I also allow stacking crits (and stacking fumbles). So rolling a 20 (or 1) and following it up with another, then confirming, would get you two draws, and both effects apply. This, combined with the "over 20 hit critical", makes several monsters far scarier, which I feel is helpful to bring back PC fear of single hit monsters. Why power attack when you can crit almost all the time?
Yes, this means a PC with a keen greataxe could get a horrible amount of crit deck draws with a few lucky rolls. First hit is 19, hit by 20, confirm with a 20, reconfirm with another 19, reconfirm with a 16. Greataxe is a x3 normally, so 2 draws, +1 for over 20, +2 for the two reconfirms, total of 5 crit deck cards, with all effects and all multiple damage added together as appropriate for damage multipliers.
Gets crazy, but the PCs remember it and it makes the event stand out, whether done by a PC or a monster. Since my goal is having fun and making memories, it works out just fine.
@Black Bird
I like the idea, mostly, but not the Make it By +20 and crit.
That's way too easy with a 1st level spell (truestrike), which then all but guarantee's a crit every time used.
I can see your point. However, my gaming group generally prefers to avoid arcane casters, and there are few spells that the potential crits (because several of the crit cards don't actually increase damage) are worth the effort of the true strike at the beginning.
That and my group just doesn't see true strike as a very worthwhile spell, especially after the Pathfinder modification of Power Attack. Personal only means that it's only good for the caster, or as a potion which is rarely worthwhile as a middle of combat choice. Certain gish builds/arcane archers might be able to make some use of that, but I would hardly call it an exploit, and more of a perk for having a build that CAN exploit it.
I do want to add, stacking crit draws on rethreatens does revalue wide crit range weapons, and the keen property. I allow rethreatens on anything that would normally threaten, but I could see others only allowing a rethreaten on a natural 20, similar to the eponymous "3 20s instakill" house rule.
Its funny, these paradigm shifts have caused my players to be more cautious around wide threat weapons, and less concerned about high multiplier weapons, especially in the lower levels. "He's got a greataxe? Keep me healed in case he crits me. That guys got a rapier? Holy crap, wizard, web him or something! It took me days to heal all that ability damage last time!"
@Black Bird
I like the idea, mostly, but not the Make it By +20 and crit.
That's way too easy with a 1st level spell (truestrike), which then all but guarantee's a crit every time used.
There was a ranger spell in the spell compendium that caused your next attack to automatically threaten, and that was a swift action to cast so you could cast and shoot in the same turn. I never really had a problem with that spell being too powerful.
Alternativly instead of a mechanic you can simply descibe the situation.
Either amusing or serious depending on the style of your game.
e.g. fighter rolls 13 1 17 8
Amusing the fighter gets in 1 magnificent blow on the Giant before swiping clean air nearly taking the head of your mage off "HEY WATCH IT!" before recovering and slamming home another good hit.
Serisous The Fight strikes true before being parried and having his sword edge slam hard into the stone, recovering quickly lunges again striking another good blow before finally having his final strike deflected.
We have a potentially fumbling character make a DC 15 Dex check to avoid it...otherwise draw a card. Just couldn't see how the AC of the opposing party had anything to do with it.
M
I usually make fumbles comical but not damaging mechanically. The characters end up with facial scarring or missing fingers that don't actually affect gameplay but give the characters some, you know, character.
I once had a ranger shoot his pet dog with a manyshot on a natural 1. He was trying to fire over the dog's head. The dog died :)
My justification for using the enemy's AC for avoiding the fumble was due to my interpretation of combat as a two-way street. While the abstraction of D&D combat makes attack rolls a single offensive roll against a static target number, in reality the enemy is doing his absolute best to prevent you from getting a clean shot in, just as you are trying to land it. I liken it to the Unearthed Arcana optional rule of rolling for your AC rather than effectively "taking 10" on it.
The degree to which an enemy must consider you a valid threat (aka his AC relative to your attack) is a very good benchmark of how much he can afford to give you problems (redicting your swing to hit and stick into a tree, knocking you prone after your weapon bounces off his armor).
Several of the fumbles I describe as offensive actions taken by the enemy in a quasi-attack of opportunity manner. I often describe enemy fumbles in the same way, split second capitalizations on an opening. I realize many players might take affront at having "what they do" in combat not be completely under their control, but my players seem to enjoy the narrative and dynamic feel it gives combat, so it works with my group. I also allow the use of the various special attacks from the Book of Iron Might, so combats rarely become "stand still and trade full attacks" unless the goal is to hold a doorway or such.
I use the exact kind of thinking that Black Bard just above me. We enjoy them a lot, it adds a lot of exitment ato ur table.
Though we are very light on playing material (Other than some sheets and dice) and to change from the monotonous over-used d20, when there's a 1 rolled then a miss confirmed, we roll a d4:
1 take a -5 penalty on your next roll
2 Redirect attack at a different random, available target (Most fun when facing the solo BBEG, near irrelevant vs horde of mobs)
3 Provoke an AoO
4 You drop your weapon.
We use similar kind of thinking for skills, for the same reason (great fun!).
Our DM has used a 1 is a potential fumble ever since she has run the game. Our home rule is 1 theatens a fumble. To avoid the fumble you need to make a D20+BAB (JUST BAB no stat adjustments) roll of a total of 21+.
If your fumble avoidance roll is 21+ your fumble is a simple miss. Continue with your melee.
If your total is less than 21 then the our ref has a chart that she rolls % on to see what happens. Could throw your weapon. Could give the opponents an attack of opportunity. Could slip and check to see if you fall down in your square. Or a combo of the above and more.
Basicaly that means by level 20 your true warriors will very, very rarely fumble (need to roll two natural 1's in a row, though I have seen a level 20 warrior do it) and the other classes have a correspondingly larger chance due to their lesser combat training, as would be appropriate.
It works very well for our game.
|
|
An interesting idea Gil, I may have to consider that too.
My main gripe with too many fumbles is that I come to tell stories of heroes. Heroes fumble when dramatically appropriate. Not every encounter. And I include 1st level PCs as heroes. To be a PC, you have to be special, 1st level or 20th. If you weren't, you'd have 10s and 11s in all your stats just like the common NPC.
I'm running it exactly as Concerro does.PCs can reserve a critical hit card to negate a critical fumble if they like,....
Zo
I do this also, but they dont get a free card. Sometimes the status affects, which has been mentioned, are worse than the damage.
Non-"named" NPCs use the old "DC 10 Dexterity check" to avoid dropping their weapon (or falling to a crouching position). Named ones use the deck.
I used to do the dex check thing before the fumble deck came out. I think mine was a 15 though.
PS: ... or maybe it was a 15 reflex. I don't quiet remember.
Unless you're working on a different set of rules than Pathfinder/D20 core all a fumble is nothing but an automatic miss.If a player rolls a one on an attack roll he gets to roll again. If he rolls low enough that he would have missed on the confirmation roll he gets a fumble card. If he rolls high enough to hit the attack is still a miss, but he avoid the fumble deck.
Reason: A high level trained warrior should not be botching attacks 5% of the time, even an untrained commoner could avoid stabbing himself with his own dagger 5% of the time.
An automatic miss is a really bad misjudgement, and a nat 20 is a highly skilled attack from an imaginative point of view. I liken a 1 to the character missing because he somehow almost dropped his sword or tripped over his own feet. The idea of a highly trained warrior's attack being so bad that even if you did not try to move he would still miss, seems unheroic to me.
If a player rolls a one on an attack roll he gets to roll again. If he rolls low enough that he would have missed on the confirmation roll he gets a fumble card. If he rolls high enough to hit the attack is still a miss, but he avoid the fumble deck.
Reason: A high level trained warrior should not be botching attacks 5% of the time, even an untrained commoner could avoid stabbing himself with his own dagger 5% of the time.
These are the same rules I use for the Critical Fumble Deck. But if a person has Weapon Focus in their equipped weapon, I let them draw two cards and pick their result.
This is one of the possible rulesets that came with the deck. (Note I have the 3.5e deck, not sure if anything changed with the PRPG deck as far as the rules go. I think just the way skills were listed and coloring on the labels were changed.)
An interesting idea Gil, I may have to consider that too.
My main gripe with too many fumbles is that I come to tell stories of heroes. Heroes fumble when dramatically appropriate. Not every encounter. And I include 1st level PCs as heroes. To be a PC, you have to be special, 1st level or 20th. If you weren't, you'd have 10s and 11s in all your stats just like the common NPC.
Thanks Tri. I too love the heroic aspect of D&D gaming and agree with your thoughts, though I beleive that 'starting heros' are not at their prime yet which is why we go BAB. As you level your fumbles get less and less.
It would be a simple matter to adjust the DC to get the right amount of 'fumble flavor' for your game. We based it as 21 specifically so the pure martial classes would have to roll 2 natural 1's at level 20 to still fumble and everyone else was based off that going down. We did not want pure warriors NEVER fumbling at 20 but their fumbles should be really rare.
Since we put this in I have seen our level 20 fighter fumble once. Everone else has an occasional fumble but at about the right frequency for their appripriate martial training level.
If a player rolls a one on an attack roll he gets to roll again. If he rolls low enough that he would have missed on the confirmation roll he gets a fumble card. If he rolls high enough to hit the attack is still a miss, but he avoid the fumble deck.
Reason: A high level trained warrior should not be botching attacks 5% of the time, even an untrained commoner could avoid stabbing himself with his own dagger 5% of the time.
These are the same rules I use for the Critical Fumble Deck. But if a person has Weapon Focus in their equipped weapon, I let them draw two cards and pick their result.
This is one of the possible rulesets that came with the deck. (Note I have the 3.5e deck, not sure if anything changed with the PRPG deck as far as the rules go. I think just the way skills were listed and coloring on the labels were changed.)
I think the 3.5 deck had natural attacks, weapon attacks, and spells.
The PF one has magic, piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing. Some of them are quiet brutal with the bleed damage.
We do the confirm fumbles deal same as OP. Because occasional dramatic failures add spice to combat and NPCs are subject to the same rules. With stress on the "occasional".
We also confirm the fumble, but to make it easier on fighter types, we make the confirmation roll against a static AC of 12 (the average AC of a 1st level critter).
This way, we keep the "fumble factor" in check and our high level fighter usually only fumbles on his last iterative attack.
Cheers
I gave my players the choice in last weekend's session... They chose NOT to confirm a fumble but to nstantly draw a fumble card on a natural 1.
Critical hits are confirmed when rolled...
Same goes for the monsters of course.
Their choice... :-))
Did you give them a choice to NOT have fumbles?
As a player I've never seen the point - at low levels its a big enough slap in the face to waste a whole round with a miss, you don't need to add assault to insult by making the player lose even more. I also find it unsatisfying when a monster accidentally neuters itself by fumbling, since it takes away the thrill of besting it.
Certainly if you and your group like it then power to you. I've never met a group that enjoys them, but plenty of DMs who think its a great idea to add in house rules to make the game more random (because hey, the dice are everybody's favourite part).
All that said... fumbling on a 1 means you're going to average a fumble every 20 strikes, which will become frequent for fighters at higher levels, and very frequent for flurrying monks. If you make it two 1s and a confirm then it happens so outrageously seldom that you might as well not have any fumble rules at all.
That's just the point... they LOVE the fumble. :-)
And in my group, it's more like one out of 5 rolls that gives a fumble. Happy times!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just like crits, I find fumbles make combat more interesting. I'd probably houserule something to make fumbles less common for the warrior-classes, though. Maybe something like:
Warrior classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Cavalier, Warrior) have to confirm the fumble with a second natural 1.
Marginal warrior classes (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Inquisitor) have to confirm the fumble with a missed attack roll.
Non-warrior classes (Sorcerer, Wizard, Alchemist, Oracle, Summoner, Witch, Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert) automatically fumble on a natural 1.
A free feat they aquire at a certain level? Optional for those that LIKE fumbling... :-/
I had two fumbles in my last adventure... they were NOT funny.
The first one I made an unarmed attack and missed so horribly that I gave my damage to myself.
The second I was attacking with a greatsword and the attack bounced in the enemy and stroke at myself, dealing 11 dmg. At this I droped to -8.
My GM is sadistic and I really hated this fumble rule.
If a player rolls a one on an attack roll he gets to roll again. If he rolls low enough that he would have missed on the confirmation roll he gets a fumble card. If he rolls high enough to hit the attack is still a miss, but he avoid the fumble deck.
Reason: A high level trained warrior should not be botching attacks 5% of the time, even an untrained commoner could avoid stabbing himself with his own dagger 5% of the time.
I don't use auto -hits, -fails. Natural 20 grants a +10 to the attack total, i.e. a roll of 20 = 30 before the attack bonus is added in. Natural 1 grants a -10 to the total, i.e. -9 before the attack bonus is added in.
Works fine for my group. Think it's a variant from Unearthed Arcana.
I don't use fumble rules in my games. They affect players far more than they affect NPCs, and they're not fun.
Last game, fumble rules resulted in a PC death. My human pally 6 was fighting a babou demon. Didn't use a smite on it, since it was the very beginning of the dungeon. Kicked divine bond for a holy weapon instead -- I would have used bane if I knew what my next rolls would be.
First attack on the thing was a nat 1. My DM has us make DC 10 Reflex not to fumble, which I missed. Dropped the sword. Spent a swift action to smite to try to pummel it with my fists. Both of those attacks missed (we were hasted).
Next round, I picked up the sword (move action), took a 5-foot step, took 1 swing (standard), nat 1ed again, but luckily made the save.
At the end of the combat, the babou killed our wizard, and then my next attack killed it.
If we didn't have fumble rules, I would have had two more attacks the round I made a standard action swing, which would have killed the demon before it killed the wizard.
My group decided to try this once, and it was fun despite the rare occurence of fumbling in general.
How I do fumbles :
Roll a 1, ends your attack (whether it's the first in an iterative or second of 3 natural attacks, either way, it ends your attacks, you lose the rest).
Next, roll to confirm the fumble. You have to fail to hit the AC again. If you fail to hit the AC a second time, you have a fumble.
Results?
You have a weapon : Either the weapon flies 1d6 feet away in a random direction, or, if you were firing into melee without PBS you hit an ally, or, your weapon get's the broken condition (but only requires a full action to repair, like a snapped bowstring, or the haft came loose on the tongue).
You don't have a weapon (unarmed attack or natural weapon) : Either you hit an adjacent ally, or you overextended yourself, and you have a -2 AC until your next action.
I don't use auto -hits, -fails. Natural 20 grants a +10 to the attack total, i.e. a roll of 20 = 30 before the attack bonus is added in. Natural 1 grants a -10 to the total, i.e. -9 before the attack bonus is added in.
Works fine for my group. Think it's a variant from Unearthed Arcana.
That variant was actually put in the 3.0 (and maybe 3.5?) DM's Guide. I'm a fan of it, although I recently switched the the variant of it in the Epic Level Handbook, exploding (and imploding) d20's.
As per the fumble deck, I love it and use the confirmation rule myself. If a GM thinks the deck is too harsh on martial characters, I'd recommend the previously mentioned alternate confirmation rule; use the character's full base attack bonus instead of reducing it for whatever attack it was that round.
Does anyone else scale their fumble rules by level?
When my PC's were level 1 I let them roll to confirm a miss on a nat 1, and would find something humorous, but seldom tragic, to allow happen...
around level 3 or so I started scaling it back... making them roll a 1 on their confirmation to have them fumble, otherwise it is just a miss...
Around level 6 or so, I count 1's as a miss and move on. Depending on the encounter, I may let them still hit, providing the need for pacing. If they are just working through a low CR mob that is only their to complete the ecology of a dungeon, there is no reason to slow down play w misses that won't really matter... they still get the rest of their attacks.
Reasoning:
a character w 2 attacks who is supposedly a well-trained combatant can make 20 attacks per minute. (2 attacks per 6 seconds) That means that they are (potentially) fumbling once a minute... which is ridiculous.
A trained swordsman should not fumble once a minute. they shouldn't even ALMOST fumble once a minute. It doesn't make sense.
Therefore, my pref is to scale it as you go. Let in a few humorous fumble's early on. Later on, let the PC's be the heroes that they are!