''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.''
So, in other words, I'm more likely to fumble against a clumsy dwarf with a full plate and a shield than against a nimble elf in chain shirt? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
In D&D 3.0, if a player rolls a one on an attack roll he gets to roll a Reflex Save DC 15. At least, back then, agile builts, like monks, rogues and two-weapon fighters, were less likely to fumble than the strength builts, which make some kind of sense. Also, with that rule, high-level characters are less likely to fumble than low-level characters.
In D&D 3.5, if a player rolls a one on an attack roll he gets to roll a dexterity check DC 10. It's awful, because if you're playing a warrior that doesn't invest in dexterity enhancing gears, then you're more likely to fumble in a single round every time you get an extra attack (from your BAB or Haste). So, a 20th-level fighter is more likely to fumble than a first-level fighter. This is the worst fumble rule ever IMO.
So I believe that PF should have stick with the 3.0 rule on the matter of fumbling. Or maybe they could have included CMB and/or CMD in the confirmation check, or an attack roll vs the CMD of the opponent. What do you think?
|
I am not sure what your question is. First of all, you are talking about the rules from the Optional Fumble Deck, not the standard Fumble rule. As far as I know the standard fumble is just if you roll a natural 1, you fumble. There's really nothing else to it other than "you miss".
If you are using the Fumble deck, then it as you describe. And yes, you are more likely to Fumble on a dwarf with full plate and shield then a nimble elf in a chain shirt, assuming the dwarf's AC is higher. Maybe you twisted your weapon wrong off of the armor, or it bounced back and hit you in the face. Who knows? That's what the Fumble deck helps to decide.
|
''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.''
Where are you quoting this fumble rule from?
As far as I am aware there is no official ‘critical fumble’ rule in Pathfinder. A ‘1’ on an attack roll is always an automatic miss, but you don’t need to re-roll to confirm the fumble. The fumble deck is not an official part of the rules, it is an optional thing that you can choose to use, ignore, or modify the guidelines for as you see fit.
''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.''
Where are you quoting this fumble rule from?
As far as I am aware there is no official ‘critical fumble’ rule in Pathfinder. A ‘1’ on an attack roll is always an automatic miss, but you don’t need to re-roll to confirm the fumble. The fumble deck is not an official part of the rules, it is an optional thing that you can choose to use, ignore, or modify the guidelines for as you see fit.
It's from the fumble deck description.
I think there are no fumble rules in Pathfinder, nor were there any in 3.5. I wouldn't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure there were none in 3.0 either, but I never played it, stuck with 2nd Edition for a while.
You're right about PF, there's no fumble rule in the CRB, my quote come from the fumbles deck. Also, there IS optional fumble rules in both the 3.0 and 3.5 player's handbook.
Considering many of the Fumble Decks results are events that would be difficult at best for a person to do to themselves, by themselves, it is advisable to interpret a fumble as less of "I fumbled and did this to myself" and more of "I fumbled and this event occured".
Maybe you managed to somehow slip badly, and now your backpack straps have slid down and you are entangled by your equipment. Then again, maybe the enemy exploited a lucky break in your attack and pulled the strap down. The moment was too small for an attack of opp, but just big enough for what happened.
Remember, D&D combat, regardless of edition, is an abstraction. It is a set of mathematical rules to resolve a conflict. Absolutely nothing more nor less. The descriptions of what occur are what take it from a series of mathematical formulas and turn it into a vivid, dynamic event.
And yes, technically, a hasted two-weapon 20th level fighter is going to risk more fumbles than a level 1 fighter with a longsword.
But what are they fighting? Are they fighting the same thing? If the opponent is a goblin warrior, the lvl1 fighter may "confirm" a fumble if one is threatened. But the level 20 fighter is so unlikely to confirm a fumble (double nat 1), that the odds are practically nonexistant. Doesn't mean it wont happen, but then again, the trope of a highly skilled person underestimating a weaker opponent exists for a reason. Regardless, the goblin is likely to be killed by the first or second hit, so the "extra possibilities" are moot.
But what if the opponent is a CR 20 threat, like a balor or such? Yes, the level 1 fighter is not only unlikely to hit it, but nearly guaranteed to confirm a fumble if he threatens one. Meanwhile, the level 20 fighter may risk multiple fumbles, but attack bonus generally increases faster than enemy AC, especially for "competent combatants" with full base attack like fighters, barbarians, etc. His relative odds of confirming a fumble in a given round are definitively lower than his first level counterpart, even with his extra attacks.
I've been using the fumble deck since its inception, prior to Pathfinder, and through all levels (2 full Dungeon APs, lvl 1-20). The deck and its probabilities plays out almost exactly as it should, when the relative level of PC and enemy is taken into account.
|
|
I skipped 3.0, and I never noticed that optional rule in the 3.5 players handbook. I’m not a fan of critical fumble rules.
To answer your question I think PF went the right direction, that is no official critical fumble rule. If you are using the optional fumble deck, and if the 3.0 version of the fumble rule works for you, go for it.
The card decks are awesome, and I love using them, but...
The mechanics are not as... robust as other products, I have noticed.
My house rule has long been "Crit card* on a 20, Fumble Card on a 1" which is a little harsh, but it affects all characters equally and avoids a bit of the problem you mention in the OP.
* note that is crit card and crit damage works as raw so you can crit and draw no card, or draw a card and not do crit damage. You have to ignore the damage mult on the cards for this to work.
The other problem I've encountered is that the Crit cards are NOT created equally. Slashing and Piercing weapons vastly outpace Bludgeoning (and I know because I put them all on a spreadsheet to compare), which is really unfair because under ALL the presented rule options, bludgeoning draws the fewest cards.
The cards themselves: workable, and really damn fun addition to the game. The rules-card that they are packaged with leaves much to be desired.
(just my opinion, and I would buy them again)
But what are they fighting? Are they fighting the same thing? If the opponent is a goblin warrior, the lvl1 fighter may "confirm" a fumble if one is threatened. But the level 20 fighter is so unlikely to confirm a fumble (double nat 1), that the odds are practically nonexistant. Doesn't mean it wont happen, but then again, the trope of a highly skilled person underestimating a weaker opponent exists for a reason. Regardless, the goblin is likely to be killed by the first or second hit, so the "extra possibilities" are moot.
But what if the opponent is a CR 20 threat, like a balor or such? Yes, the level 1 fighter is not only unlikely to hit it, but nearly guaranteed to confirm a fumble if he threatens one. Meanwhile, the level 20 fighter may risk multiple fumbles, but attack bonus generally increases faster than enemy AC, especially for "competent combatants" with full base attack like fighters, barbarians, etc. His relative odds of confirming a fumble in a given round are definitively lower than his first level...
You made a good point here, but I believe that the CMD would have been a better choice than the AC for the confirmation roll's DC. I don't see why or how a heavy armored opponent could make me more ''unlucky'' than an unarmored one. However, a stronger and more agile opponent could easily turn a bad move (a natural 1) against me. CMD keeps track of strength, dexterity and BAB while ignoring AC, making it a better DC for a confirmation roll IMO.
My house rule has long been "Crit card* on a 20, Fumble Card on a 1" which is a little harsh, but it affects all characters equally and avoids a bit of the problem you mention in the OP.
Actually, no. All attack rolls may be treated equally but not all characters. Characters making more attacks are going to be victim to more fumbles even if they're a more capable combatant in general. That's the point of the confirmation roll. As a character gets better at combat, they're less likely to be affected by fumbles. The threat number remains constant, but the likelihood of confirmation generally goes down.
The card decks are awesome, and I love using them, but...
The mechanics are not as... robust as other products, I have noticed.
My house rule has long been "Crit card* on a 20, Fumble Card on a 1" which is a little harsh, but it affects all characters equally and avoids a bit of the problem you mention in the OP.
* note that is crit card and crit damage works as raw so you can crit and draw no card, or draw a card and not do crit damage. You have to ignore the damage mult on the cards for this to work.
The other problem I've encountered is that the Crit cards are NOT created equally. Slashing and Piercing weapons vastly outpace Bludgeoning (and I know because I put them all on a spreadsheet to compare), which is really unfair because under ALL the presented rule options, bludgeoning draws the fewest cards.
The cards themselves: workable, and really damn fun addition to the game. The rules-card that they are packaged with leaves much to be desired.
(just my opinion, and I would buy them again)
I noticed the slashing weapons are pretty strong with the crit conditions they impose. In other words, +1.
Stuff
Also, a 20th-level fighter is more likely to fumble agaisnt a balor than a 1st-level fighter fighting agaisnt a goblin, because the last attack at -15 is very likely to miss the balor.
StuffAlso, a 20th-level fighter is more likely to fumble agaisnt a balor than a 1st-level fighter fighting agaisnt a goblin, because the last attack at -15 is very likely to miss the balor.
A good point, and one I hadn't struck on in my first post due to being rushed to feed the baby.
My group discovered that very fact early on, and so when fighting a "relatively threatening" foe with an AC high enough that later stage iteritave attacks were not only unlikely to hit, but likely to cause a fumble, the natural adaptation was to either A not make the last attack at all or B make an attack against touch AC or such, if feasible.
It ultimately became a non-issue because of how rarely those attacks would ever land regardless of fumble rules, and it actually started bringing some degree of tactics and out of the box thinking back to high level full attacks. Trips, disarms, or even just pressing the frost burst sword against the dragon as a touch attack for 1d6 cold damage.
In short, I agree with your post, but I also beleive a "reactive" world, IE one that reacts and adjusts to the mechanics that dictate it, would adjust in a manner that doesn't upset balance.
If you want to use fumble rules but are upset that iterative attackers are disadvantaged, why not rule that only the first attack each round risks a fumble?
Also: where the hell are you finding a fumble rule in a 3.x PHB? Citation needed.
First, I want to apologize. The variant rule for critical misses (fumbles) is not in the PHB, it's in the DMG (my mistake). More precisely, it's in the sidebar at the bottom of page 28 of the DMG 3.5.
I don't have access to the DMG 3.0 so I cannot give you the page of the variant rule, sorry.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to say that I hate fumble rules as both a DM and as a player. I'll never incorporate fumbles into the games that I run and there's a good chance that if I would avoid playing in a game that used them.
==
AKA 8one6
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fumbles took the fun out of my traditional dual wielding characters, because you're taking more than twice the risks (twice the attacks, at a lower AB, so greater percentage of fumbling on each attack)on attacks that do half the damage of the 2-handed builds. Strategy does not make up for that.
|
Yeah, critical fumbles haven't ever been more then a little side bar optional rule. They're over all a bad idea, but a lot of groups back in the day house rule them in to make combat "more interesting" without considering that the people who you'd think would be less likely to fumble are the ones more prone to doing it. It's not even in the old TSR books if I remember correctly.
Every extra attack a melee character gets is just another chance for them to accidentally lose/break/stabselfwith their weapon because of a bad dice roll. A 20th level dual wielding ranger is one of the most fumble prone character in the game, just because more attacks means more chances for a 1 to crop up. Hardly seems like that system works right.
Fumbles don't make sense in any edition of the game, but to every group their own. If it's what they want to do, it's their prerogative no matter how foolish I find it.
Just wanted to say that I hate fumble rules as both a DM and as a player. I'll never incorporate fumbles into the games that I run and there's a good chance that if I would avoid playing in a game that used them.
==
AKA 8one6
We are discussing here about the confirmation roll of a fumble, not if we should or shouldn't incorporate fumbles in our games. It's a variant rule after all, and nobody will force you tu use it.
The biggest problem with critical misses is the result, or consequence, of the fumble. There's no official rule about it, and because of that, a lot of GMs will house-rule stupid consequences to fumbles: shooting yourself in the foot with your crossbow, auto-hit an ally with an AC of 32, dropping your weapon 20 feet away, falling prone when surronded by many creatures (thus provoking many attacks of opportunity when get up) and so on... Those things are not very heroic and they make the PCs look like clumsy jesters instead of seasoned adventurers. Considering this, I totally understand your hate toward critical misses/fumbles.
For me, as long as the confirmation roll AND the consequence of the fumble make sense, I don't mind using them. I think it can even make the game more interesting.
For example, in my game, I use the 3.0 confirmation roll and if you fail the confirmation roll, you provoke an AoO from your target. That's all: you don't lose your turn, you don't lose all your extra attacks, you don't drop your weapon or fall prone (unless your opponent uses his AoO to disarm or trip you, but he need the right feats, or he will provoke an AoO from you). It's fast, it's well integrated into the game mechanics and it gives more utility to the Combat Reflexes feat. :D
Fumbles took the fun out of my traditional dual wielding characters, because you're taking more than twice the risks (twice the attacks, at a lower AB, so greater percentage of fumbling on each attack)on attacks that do half the damage of the 2-handed builds. Strategy does not make up for that.
That's why I prefer the 3.0 confirmation roll for fumbles. It makes rogues, monks, archers, fencers and dual-wielding fighters less likely to fumble than 2-handed builds. If you use the opponent's AC in the confirmation roll, then yes, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you make a character that uses extra attacks with a penalty to hit (like TWF or Flurry of Blows). That's why I think the critical misses rule in the fumble deck doesn't make any sense.
Think about it : if R.A. Salvatore used the fumble deck as a writter, then Drizzt would always drop his scimitars in his books. :P
They're over all a bad idea.
I, for myself, think that they're a good idea that is very poorly integrated into the game, for all the reasons you, me and everyone else mentionned in this thread.
|
|
I kind of like fumbles, because they often create amusing memories (remember the time the barbarian smacked the wizard in the head with his hammer?) I liked the fumble deck too, initially. Then my 3.5 Scout broke his magical bow on a fumble. Apparently he missed the opponent so hard it snapped the bow in half. Breaking a string, I could understand. Breaking the bow when he was using it in melee (which the bow was capable of, and he sometimes did when presented with no other option,) but while shooting at something? No. And that's my problem with a lot of the fumble cards. They frequently don't apply to the situation.
But really, the fumble mechanics do punish the players, as they are far more susceptible to them than any particular monster or NPC. For my games, I've just been making up what happens on a fumble, unless the player really wants to draw a card (funnily enough, they don't.) I am thinking about maybe making two 1s in a row a fumble, and anything else a miss. It still allows some chance for the players to screw up, but is not as punishing.
(Incidentally, the bow incident happened in a session I wasn't actually present for, so that contributed to my feelings towards the deck somewhat. But that's really an issue with the GM at the time. I'm happy to report that he isn't one anymore. Now he's annoying me as a player!) ;)
StuffAlso, a 20th-level fighter is more likely to fumble agaisnt a balor than a 1st-level fighter fighting agaisnt a goblin, because the last attack at -15 is very likely to miss the balor.
Except that is not the case for the first (and recommended) rules in the Fumble deck that I can see in front of me. You don't take the -15 to confirm the fumble if you roll a natural 1 on the last attack. You use your full base attack bonus.
The second method does what you suggest. If that is what you are saying is poorly integrated into the game, then I don't know what to do since you decided not to use the rules that did not have the problems you are repeatedly mentioning.
After using the rules in my campaign with the first method up till about 15th level, I believe that there were no more than three times total that the PCs drew from the fumble deck. The party even had a two weapon fighter and I don't think he fumbled more than once with these rules.
I am not sure what fumble rules you are looking at from the descriptions in your posts.
Except that is not the case for the first (and recommended) rules in the Fumble deck that I can see in front of me. You don't take the -15 to confirm the fumble if you roll a natural 1 on the last attack. You use your full base attack bonus.
Yep, same here, full attack bonus... ;)
It works pretty well for me... and don't forget that a "fumble" is, now, more a hazard effect, a bad luck effect than something you can avoid with just a high DEX :)
The second method does what you suggest. If that is what you are saying is poorly integrated into the game, then I don't know what to do since you decided not to use the rules that did not have the problems you are repeatedly mentioning.
Can you describe to us what is the second method please? I don't own the fumble deck so I would like to hear about this second method described in it.
Except that is not the case for the first (and recommended) rules in the Fumble deck that I can see in front of me. You don't take the -15 to confirm the fumble if you roll a natural 1 on the last attack. You use your full base attack bonus.
Nice, but it still makes TWF more likely to fumble (because of the penalties to attack rolls).
Nice, but it still makes TWF more likely to fumble (because of the penalties to attack rolls).
By what? A couple of points? Considering the TWF is trying to manage two weapons rather than just one, I'm thinking this is about right.
Except that is not the case for the first (and recommended) rules in the Fumble deck that I can see in front of me. You don't take the -15 to confirm the fumble if you roll a natural 1 on the last attack. You use your full base attack bonus.Yep, same here, full attack bonus... ;)
It works pretty well for me... and don't forget that a "fumble" is, now, more a hazard effect, a bad luck effect than something you can avoid with just a high DEX :)
That's the philosophy at my table too. Battle is a messy, unpredictable affair. My players were actually the ones in favor of a flat fumble rule (actually only one of them, but the others did not oppose).
I see the point about "more attacks = more fumbles", and it makes sense to me that you would want to limit that, but we just happen to like that 10% of the time something random happens. In general, using a Card on 20 and a Card on 1 balances out — it just means that characters who roll more attacks have a more variable experience, which after ten levels of stand and hack makes the game more fun, to me*.
* Definitely YMMV
By what? A couple of points? Considering the TWF is trying to manage two weapons rather than just one, I'm thinking this is about right.
Nice, but it still makes TWF more likely to fumble (because of the penalties to attack rolls).
You're twice more likely to roll a ''1'' in any given round and at least 10% more likely to fail the confirmation roll. If we're talking about ''bad luck'' effects like those described in the fumble deck, it makes no sense. Why the backpack of a two-weapon fighter would break open twice as often? And also, why would you be more unlucky while fighting a creature with a thick hide (+Y natural armor bonus) than while you're fighting a creature with soft hide (+X natural armor bonus), were X<Y?
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I like fumbles, but I just think that a confirmation roll based on the opponent's AC is a bad idea.
You're twice more likely to roll a ''1'' in any given round and at least 10% more likely to fail the confirmation roll. If we're talking about ''bad luck'' effects like those described in the fumble deck, it makes no sense. Why the backpack of a two-weapon fighter would break open twice as often? And also, why would you be more unlucky while fighting a creature with a thick hide (+Y natural armor bonus) than while you're fighting a creature with soft hide (+X natural armor bonus), were X<Y?
It depends on what the fumbles entail. If they can include wear and tear on yourself or your weapons, then you had better believe that making more attacks should subject them to more effects. The more you use something, the more likely it is to suffer wear. I'd say the same with fighting a creature with a tougher hide than a softer one. More defenses to damage your stuff on = greater chance of damaging your stuff.
The second method does what you suggest. If that is what you are saying is poorly integrated into the game, then I don't know what to do since you decided not to use the rules that did not have the problems you are repeatedly mentioning.Can you describe to us what is the second method please? I don't own the fumble deck so I would like to hear about this second method described in it.
If you follow this link the first sample image should have the three rules for implementing the deck.
The second method is to, after you roll a natural one, reroll the attack at the exact same bonus to confirm. With this method, on later iterative attacks, you have a much greater chance of fumbling.
After rolling a natural one in the first method you make a confirmation roll using your full base attack bonus along with all the other modifiers to the attack (like weapon focus, weapon enhancement, size modifier, bonus from haste, etc.)
The third method has a person fumble if they just roll a natural one.
Except that is not the case for the first (and recommended) rules in the Fumble deck that I can see in front of me. You don't take the -15 to confirm the fumble if you roll a natural 1 on the last attack. You use your full base attack bonus.Nice, but it still makes TWF more likely to fumble (because of the penalties to attack rolls).
That is the case, but I have not seen it be an issue.
''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.''
So, in other words, I'm more likely to fumble against a clumsy dwarf with a full plate and a shield than against a nimble elf in chain shirt? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
In D&D 3.0, if a player rolls a one on an attack roll he gets to roll a Reflex Save DC 15. At least, back then, agile builts, like monks, rogues and two-weapon fighters, were less likely to fumble than the strength builts, which make some kind of sense. Also, with that rule, high-level characters are less likely to fumble than low-level characters.
In D&D 3.5, if a player rolls a one on an attack roll he gets to roll a dexterity check DC 10. It's awful, because if you're playing a warrior that doesn't invest in dexterity enhancing gears, then you're more likely to fumble in a single round every time you get an extra attack (from your BAB or Haste). So, a 20th-level fighter is more likely to fumble than a first-level fighter. This is the worst fumble rule ever IMO.
So I believe that PF should have stick with the 3.0 rule on the matter of fumbling. Or maybe they could have included CMB and/or CMD in the confirmation check, or an attack roll vs the CMD of the opponent. What do you think?
If you use an alternate armor system then it makes sense.
I use both the armor as DR and the Defense Bonus optional rules from the Unearthed Arcana.
They work well together.
People with armor get the benefit of DR and an AC bonus while people who don't wear armor get a Defense Bonus to their AC but no DR.
This means it's harder to hit a nimble elf with no armor than it is that dwarf in full plate.
It doesn't cover the lighter armor issue though unless they actually have the dexterity to make up for it.
Which makes sense.
I generally dislike fumble rules because it mostly penalizes the melee classes who are already generally in last place when it comes to power level. The affect on the casters is really small.
Perhaps we need fumble rules for spellcasters.
Maybe a spellcraft check to actually cast a spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh good, Even LESS reason to run a Melee character, or gods forbid a two weapon fighter or *gasp* a monk.
The rules already penalize these characters enough. What wizard thought this was a good idea?
The second method is to, after you roll a natural one, reroll the attack at the exact same bonus to confirm. With this method, on later iterative attacks, you have a much greater chance of fumbling.
Then the second method is even more stupid than the first, because it makes high level characters even more likely to fumble.
The second method is to, after you roll a natural one, reroll the attack at the exact same bonus to confirm. With this method, on later iterative attacks, you have a much greater chance of fumbling.Then the second method is even more stupid than the first, because it makes high level characters even more likely to fumble.
Yes. Which I assume is why it wasn't the recommended rules for using the product.
I am sorry you don't really don't like the second method (or any of the other options given for the product), I just brought it up since you erroneously used it to describe the actual recommended rules for the fumble deck.
If you are happy with your fumble rules, I suggest you use them. You could maybe even use them with the fumble deck.
For others, I still recommend the Fumble Deck. My group has had a lot of fun with it and we haven't had the issues that Maerimydra has brought up. If you are interested, rather than going off the descriptions off of this thread, I would suggest checking out the GameMastery Critical Fumble Deck product page because it has a number of sample cards on display.
Stuff.
The only argument that I used who concerned only the second rule (instead of both the first and the second rules) was my post about the 20th-level fighter who fumble more often than the 1st level fighter, if each of them is fighting a monster of adequate CR.
All my other arguments are valid concerning the first rule. Two-weapon fighters and monks ARE more likely to fumble than other melee build. Opponents with high AC present a higher fumble threat for PCs (and vice-versa). If you don't mind that, then the first rule is fine for you. However, I don't believe that the monk need that kind of nerf, and the two-weapon fighter invested heavily in his fighting style with feats, so I don't think that he should be punished with the inclusion of the first (or second) rule for critical misses confirmation provided by the fumble deck.
Has for the content of the fumble deck itself, I see nothing wrong with it. All my complains are about a confirmation check based on AC.
I generally dislike fumble rules because it mostly penalizes the melee classes who are already generally in last place when it comes to power level. The affect on the casters is really small.This. An automatic miss is bad enough.
Agreed.
Agreed.I generally dislike fumble rules because it mostly penalizes the melee classes who are already generally in last place when it comes to power level. The affect on the casters is really small.This. An automatic miss is bad enough.
+1
you know I have been playing with fumbles for over ten years, on the natural one rule to with no comfirmation.
No one in our group ever cares actually, but now that I see this really hampers melees I think I might drop it because that is a very valid point.
:( Im kinda sad to see it go though... been with our group for a while but they will probably agree when I bring this up.
I dont suppose there is a way to make spells "fumble"? atleast then I could keep the original and not feel guilty
Agreed.I generally dislike fumble rules because it mostly penalizes the melee classes who are already generally in last place when it comes to power level. The affect on the casters is really small.This. An automatic miss is bad enough.+1
you know I have been playing with fumbles for over ten years, on the natural one rule to with no comfirmation.
No one in our group ever cares actually, but now that I see this really hampers melees I think I might drop it because that is a very valid point.
:( Im kinda sad to see it go though... been with our group for a while but they will probably agree when I bring this up.
I dont suppose there is a way to make spells "fumble"? atleast then I could keep the original and not feel guilty
Yeah, that's easy enough (especially since you've been using fumbles without confirmation.)
Part one: Spells with attack rolls fumble on a 1 just like other attacks.
Part two: Choose either to have the spellcaster fumble when the target rolls a natural twenty on a save, OR, invert saves into 'casting checks' where the target has 10+save bonuses as permanent saves, and the caster rolls 1d20+DC bonuses. If the caster is making the caster rolls, obviously a one is a fumble, and a twenty is an auto-succeed regardless the target's Saving Throw.
hmmm the invertion could work but thats a big change to the game... not sure if that would fly at the table but I can run it by them.
Perhaps make a natural 1 on a spell resistance check a spell fumble? would that balance with the part one statement combined?
If you don't want to make the inversion, the easiest thing is just having the caster fumble when the target saves on a natural twenty.
My new house rule, its only fair to the meleers.
If you don't want to make the inversion, the easiest thing is just having the caster fumble when the target saves on a natural twenty.My new house rule, its only fair to the meleers.
What will you do for spells with an area of effect (AoE)? :P
What will you do for spells with an area of effect (AoE)? :PIf you don't want to make the inversion, the easiest thing is just having the caster fumble when the target saves on a natural twenty.My new house rule, its only fair to the meleers.
DAMN YOU!!!!!!
My new house rule was ravaged in a back alley
'deep moaning sobs'
Just wanted to say that I hate fumble rules as both a DM and as a player. I'll never incorporate fumbles into the games that I run and there's a good chance that if I would avoid playing in a game that used them.
==
AKA 8one6
You really are a great American folk hero, as I agree with this 100%. I've had DMs who insist on using some sort of completely ludicrous (or was it Snoop-Dog) fumble rule, and they're always very silly. I oppose them in general, especially as they more commonly penalize warrior types than spellcaster types, and there certainly doesn't need to be any more of that in the game than there already is.