I find it kinda dumb that there are mentions of fumbles in the GameMastery Guide, but that there's no official rule for fumbles. Is there a rule for fumbles that I didn't see?
I find it kinda dumb that there are mentions of fumbles in the GameMastery Guide, but that there's no official rule for fumbles. Is there a rule for fumbles that I didn't see?
There is no universal fumble rule. Off the top of my head the 1 on a UMD check is the only one that has an extra affect aside from just failing.
|
LOTS of people use the Critical Hits and the Fumbles decks from Paizo for just this thing.
I would really really like to use them but the font is like size 1 or something and ridiculously hard to read with my old eyes.
I guess they didn't want to clutter up all the great empty space with useless text! lol
I use both the Critical Hit and Fumble Decks.
Without them the mechanic I had used for throwing a '1' on an attack roll was for the PC to make a REF save to avoid doing something... unfortunate.
There are a few skills that have rules for "if you fail by 'x' or more..." but none that have an effect based on a roll of '1'. Not that I know of in any event :)
GNOME
|
|
Way back in the day, Dragon Magazine had a cool chart for rolling fumbles and crits. I have seen charts off and on since then all over the place. I'll see if I can find that issue number.
[EDIT: FIrst one I found was in Dragon Magazine Issue 39, Good Hits and Bad Misses, pgs 34-35.]
[EDIT: In a quick scan of the net I found Crits and Fumbes a PDF that borrows from the Dragon Magazine Issue 39 article, modified slightly to better suit 3.x rules.]
Personally I don't like the idea of fumble charts and the like -- they punish those that *should* be better at things (A higher level fighter rolls more often and therefore will fumble more often) and critical hit charts tend to cause the PCs more harm than good.
All in all they are a nice idea -- that is often poorly executed.
|
|
BTW in the most hilarious use of those charts was a game playing the original Dragonlance modules. We were facing a bunch of skeletons and the Paladin rolled for a crit...
The paladin hit the skeleton in the head...
The skeleton rolled and fumbled... for a critical hit to a friend in the head...
that skeleton rolled and fumbled... for a critical hit to a friend in the head...
All of the PCs AND the rest of the skeletons just stopped and stared at the Paladin...
|
|
Personally I don't like the idea of fumble charts and the like -- they punish those that *should* be better at things (A higher level fighter rolls more often and therefore will fumble more often) and critical hit charts tend to cause the PCs more harm than good.
All in all they are a nice idea -- that is often poorly executed.
VERY VERY true. As a rule they hurt the PCs more than help.
I think I would try to counter that with a REF save to negate the bad effect of a fumble.
If I used the decks or charts now, I think I would also apply them to casters using any kind of attack roll, and heck, I think it could be fun to apply to a Spell Resistance roll as well. Throw in a save somehow to mitigate the frequency, and it becomes something more colorful than anything.
However, do keep in mind that IF the NPCs are using crit charts as well (I would only have PCs use them I think) then the NPC could crit and chop off a fighter's leg or inflict an abdominal wound that kills the wizard in 2-12 rounds. That could be some serious NOT FUN!
Though using fumbles for NPCs can be quite entertaining at times...
[EDIT: Later in the Dragon Mags they said they are against any kind of crit and fumble chart for two reasons. The first being that they are often times too explicit and gruesome for entertaining play. The second being that they allow PCs too easily kill opponents and allows NPCs to too easily kill PCs.]
Casters already lose a lot whenever they cast a spell -- I would hate to see yet another way for them to waste an action for no effect other than weaking themselves (through lose of the spell slot).
Also giving a roll to negate just gives the enemies another chance to negate as well -- over all no matter what you do any sort of fumble/critical rule will always hurt the PCs more than it will ever help them.
My group started to use a fumble rule for attacks, where whenever you roll a 1 you must "confirm" the fumble, rolling again, and missing the attack for something bad happen. Like a inverted critical. This doesn't hurt the PCs too much, as they generaly have better to hit than NPCs.
I like the Cirt/Fumble decks for one real reason: it adds narrative for the cost of drawing a card :)
For those that don't know the Fumble deck requires a roll of '1' to be 'confirmed' by rolling to hit again. If the confrimation roll *misses* the target it is a fumble.
The Crit deck is nice because *just doing math* is kinda lame to me. For exmaple, in RotRL we met with the...
The flip side to that is the Rogue dropped a fumble in the same fight and was unable to fire her bow at the baddie for three rounds!
So, again, I like the narrative push the decks give the game. :)
GNOME
I find it kinda dumb that there are mentions of fumbles in the GameMastery Guide, but that there's no official rule for fumbles. Is there a rule for fumbles that I didn't see?
I have some old Critical Hit tables that I have been using for about 20 years.
It's divided into Slashing, Bashing, and Piercing and each type has a list of different crit effects such as multiple damage, Leg hit, knee crushed, chest hit-dead, eye pierced, arm removed (at wrist, elbow, shoulder), Decapitated, Skull crushed-dead, Abdominal injury.Lists effects like bleeding damage and how long they bleed for if they don't get healing. Paralyzation, unconciousness, stunned.
EDIT: It also has a Fumble Results table. It has results such as "Weapon Tangled", "Slip and Fall", "Hit Ally"
It's old so it needs tweaking to use but the tweaks are easy.
I think I have it as a document. If not, then I can always scan it.
If you want a copy I can e-mail it to you. It's two pages.
|
Yes I play RM too. So did design a comprehensive set of fumble tables for; one handed, two handed, bows, thrown, mounted arms and natural weapons (for D&D but could easily be used in PF).
Usual thing natural 1 then a confirm roll that if lower than your TH roll then you fumble. Very funny but have gone back to just a fumble being you miss that and your next attack; because the tables had a tendency to screw the players over quite badly.
My group treats critical fails the same way as confirming criticals - roll again and see if your attack would hit. If it's enough to theoretically hit, you don't fumble. Otherwise, the GM decides what the fumble is - typically, dropping a weapon, falling prone, or the chance to hit a buddy if you are firing into melee without Precise Shot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
7 years? Was it really needed to enter a discussion from 7 years ago?
Yes! Heavens, yes!
Yes I play RM too. So did design a comprehensive set of fumble tables for; one handed, two handed, bows, thrown, mounted arms and natural weapons (for D&D but could easily be used in PF).
Usual thing natural 1 then a confirm roll that if lower than your TH roll then you fumble. Very funny but have gone back to just a fumble being you miss that and your next attack; because the tables had a tendency to screw the players over quite badly.
I used to play a lot of RM. The crit tables were cool and all.. but there was too high of a chance for a totally maiming crit to end a character. I remember getting my nose bit off by some fleas. I also ended up inflicting that same crit on 3 of 4 people I was GM'ing for. The RM world really needed a plastic surgeon :).
I also had to fudge a lot of rolls as a GM otherwise it would have been TPK after TPK.
I would be ok with Crit affects for players, but not for enemies, fumble rules just are no fun and punish the martial's more than any other class.
|
|
Yes a nice add-on you think you're adding a bit of flavour, but things can can horribly wrong!
D&D (but could occur in exactly the same way in PF) - I had a player roll a 1 (d20 vs a Kobold) followed by a miss confirm then (on d100) 00, on the fumble table (crit self) then 00 on the following Crit table (Foe (ie himself) dies instantly you are +3Th/Dm for 10 rounds)....The chances of rolling the two 00's alone in a row is 1in10000! We laughed a plenty though.
Your opponents will attempt more rolls than you, so fumbles hurt them more. The 'but I attempt more rolls than any individual opponent I face' is irrelevant - all that really matters is if you or your opponents in total attempt more rolls. By the same mode critical help them more. So really, if you were going to do anything you should keep fumbles and get rid of crits.
It depends.
If the outcome of a fumble has long-lasting effects (self-mutilation, losing your weapon...), then it doesn't help the PCs at all, even if they fumble less than their opponents.Edit - PS: the fact that criticals, on average, tend to hurt the PCs is well-known.
Your opponents will attempt more rolls than you, so fumbles hurt them more. The 'but I attempt more rolls than any individual opponent I face' is irrelevant - all that really matters is if you or your opponents in total attempt more rolls. By the same mode critical help them more. So really, if you were going to do anything you should keep fumbles and get rid of crits.
And not play a TWF or natural attacks build. Play a spell caster, then you don't need to worry about fumbles/crits.
I guess they just mention it as a "popular house rule." To the best of my knowledge, the only effect of rolling a natural 1 on a save or an attack roll is an automatic failure. Everything else is home...brew....
Huh. You know what? A quick Google did turn up something in the SRD. Check this out:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/active-spellcasting-varia nt-rules/#Spell_Fumbles
I'm actually having trouble finding fumbles in the rule book. You could consider a fumble to be just the fact that you miss on a roll of a 1 even if you would have had enough bonus to hit anyway. So, missing when you should have hit would be a fumble.
|
Don't forget that Nat1's on saves vs magical attacks can affect your items too! Only official fumble rule I know of, other just fumbling for failure...
Automatic Failures and Successes: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure, and the spell may cause damage to exposed items (see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw, below). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.
Your opponents will attempt more rolls than you, so fumbles hurt them more.
Perhaps on a long-term basis, but individually, no. Anything that makes combat more random/swingy always helps the bad guys because they generally aren't expected to be around longer than a few rounds; for all intents and purposes, they only exist that long. A player character is supposed to be around for the long haul.
I personally don't use fumbles because I'm playing Pathfinder, not Moe Larry Curly : The Stoogening. At worst, a 1 will result in a small, non-mechanical bit like sticking your arrow in your wizard buddy's pointed hat.
And not play a TWF or natural attacks build. Play a spell caster, then you don't need to worry about fumbles/crits.
Precisely what I do whenever someone says they're using fumbles. Kitsune Enchantress ahoy. :)
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to copy my post from the other fumble thread:
Here's my litmus test for critical fumble rules:
20 basic city guards, 1st level warriors, practice against wooden dummies for 10 minutes. In that time they make 2000 attack rolls against an AC of 5. They roll a perfectly average distribution of rolls on the d20 - so there will be 100 natural 1s rolled, and if you have confirmation rolls on 1s, there will be 5 "double 1s."
If at the end of your 10 minutes of practice against inanimate targets, any of your guards are wounded, your fumble rules have a serious problem. If any of the guards are dying, you have a really bad problem.
Next Fred the 20th level TWF fighter who gets 7 attacks a round does the same practice. He makes 700 attack rolls with the same distribution, including 35 natural 1s(and 1.75 double 1s). If Fred ends up wounded, dying , or with a broken or dropped weapon your fumble system has serious problems, as the world's best, most skilled warrior can't even spar against a motionless stick without looking like an idiot.
Rare is the fumble system that can pass these criteria.
I'm going to copy my post from the other fumble thread:
Here's my litmus test for critical fumble rules:
20 basic city guards, 1st level warriors, practice against wooden dummies for 10 minutes. In that time they make 2000 attack rolls against an AC of 5. They roll a perfectly average distribution of rolls on the d20 - so there will be 100 natural 1s rolled, and if you have confirmation rolls on 1s, there will be 5 "double 1s."
If at the end of your 10 minutes of practice against inanimate targets, any of your guards are wounded, your fumble rules have a serious problem. If any of the guards are dying, you have a really bad problem.
Next Fred the 20th level TWF fighter who gets 7 attacks a round does the same practice. He makes 700 attack rolls with the same distribution, including 35 natural 1s(and 1.75 double 1s). If Fred ends up wounded, dying , or with a broken or dropped weapon your fumble system has serious problems, as the world's best, most skilled warrior can't even spar against a motionless stick without looking like an idiot.
Rare is the fumble system that can pass these criteria.
I think you're just not giving enough credit to the motionless stick ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if fumble results are more on the line of: you stepped wrong: take a small penalty to your next attack or ac for one attack, your gaurd dropped: provoke an AoO from your opponent, grip slips: ref save or drop weapon. With results like these the practice dummies will rack up many fewer kills, and highly skilled fighters wouldn't kill themselves, unless they are up other world class enemies where a small error could be enough.
I'm going to copy my post from the other fumble thread:
Here's my litmus test for critical fumble rules:
20 basic city guards, 1st level warriors, practice against wooden dummies for 10 minutes. In that time they make 2000 attack rolls against an AC of 5. They roll a perfectly average distribution of rolls on the d20 - so there will be 100 natural 1s rolled, and if you have confirmation rolls on 1s, there will be 5 "double 1s."
If at the end of your 10 minutes of practice against inanimate targets, any of your guards are wounded, your fumble rules have a serious problem. If any of the guards are dying, you have a really bad problem.
Next Fred the 20th level TWF fighter who gets 7 attacks a round does the same practice. He makes 700 attack rolls with the same distribution, including 35 natural 1s(and 1.75 double 1s). If Fred ends up wounded, dying , or with a broken or dropped weapon your fumble system has serious problems, as the world's best, most skilled warrior can't even spar against a motionless stick without looking like an idiot.
Rare is the fumble system that can pass these criteria.
Except training accidents happen all the time.
Not to mention fighting (or practicing) with live targets is entirely different form practice with inanimate objects, so it makes perfect sense if the rule models don't translate perfectly between the two.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to copy my post from the other fumble thread:
Here's my litmus test for critical fumble rules:
20 basic city guards, 1st level warriors, practice against wooden dummies for 10 minutes. In that time they make 2000 attack rolls against an AC of 5. They roll a perfectly average distribution of rolls on the d20 - so there will be 100 natural 1s rolled, and if you have confirmation rolls on 1s, there will be 5 "double 1s."
If at the end of your 10 minutes of practice against inanimate targets, any of your guards are wounded, your fumble rules have a serious problem. If any of the guards are dying, you have a really bad problem.
Next Fred the 20th level TWF fighter who gets 7 attacks a round does the same practice. He makes 700 attack rolls with the same distribution, including 35 natural 1s(and 1.75 double 1s). If Fred ends up wounded, dying , or with a broken or dropped weapon your fumble system has serious problems, as the world's best, most skilled warrior can't even spar against a motionless stick without looking like an idiot.
Rare is the fumble system that can pass these criteria.
Except training accidents happen all the time.
Not to mention fighting (or practicing) with live targets is entirely different form practice with inanimate objects, so it makes perfect sense if the rule models don't translate perfectly between the two.
Training accidents happen multiple times in 10 minutes for a small group, every day? That's a pretty incompetent group.
Since most fumble systems don't specify anything about the target of the attack, except AC if there is a confirmation roll, live targets vs. dummies shouldn't matter. Some do specify; for example "fumble provokes an AoO from opponent" completely passes my test.
I've had a dim view of fumbles ever since my 1e monk punched himself to death because the Dragon magazine fumble table said so.
Except training accidents happen all the time.
Not to mention fighting (or practicing) with live targets is entirely different form practice with inanimate objects, so it makes perfect sense if the rule models don't translate perfectly between the two.
Training accidents happen multiple times in 10 minutes for a small group, every day? That's a pretty incompetent group.
Since most fumble systems don't specify anything about the target of the attack, except AC if there is a confirmation roll, live targets vs. dummies shouldn't matter. Some do specify; for example "fumble provokes an AoO from opponent" completely passes my test.
I've had a dim view of fumbles ever since my 1e monk punched himself to death because the Dragon magazine fumble table said so.
So literally any fumble system can past your test by adding the condition "against creatures"?
when you train you train with safe weapon, like a wooden one, yes accident can happen but never to the point were you are lethally wounded or dying, if you are lethally wounded you have done something very wrong and is very rare, so rare that it is irrelevant, even when you are practicing with another person since you are using safe weapon and armour to not get hurt, and when you practice is to train muscle memories so even in combat you won't fumble like that normally when you fumble you create opening and thing like that never to the point that you are self-hurting
Except training accidents happen all the time.Not to mention fighting (or practicing) with live targets is entirely different form practice with inanimate objects, so it makes perfect sense if the rule models don't translate perfectly between the two.
Training with katas or other repeated movements is not accurately reflected by combat. A combat system shouldn't be used to model it.
at first you train movement then you train with people to know how to react in combat, everything is base on muscle memories even historical book for training are like thatTraining with katas or other repeated movements is not accurately reflected by combat. A combat system shouldn't be used to model it.
when you train you train with safe weapon, like a wooden one, yes accident can happen but never to the point were you are lethally wounded or dying, if you are lethally wounded you have done something very wrong and is very rare, so rare that it is irrelevant, even when you are practicing with another person since you are using safe weapon and armour to not get hurt, and when you practice is to train muscle memories so even in combat you won't fumble like that normally when you fumble you create opening and thing like that never to the point that you are self-hurting
If a set fumble rules differentiate between lethal and non-lethal weapons, then they should work fine between live combatants with non-lethal training weapons. After all, accidents happen.
If the rules assume lethal weapons as the default, as I believe the Fumble Decks do, then those rules aren't appropriate for non-lethal weapons and shouldn't be used.If you use rules for situations other than those they were designed for, you shouldn't be surprised if the rules don't work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You completely missed the point. Your collective foes are what matters not your individual foes ...Yes exactly and there is NO long term for your typical foe, only this battle that the vast majority of the time they are expected to be defeated. Only the player characters face long term exposure to results from dice i.e. randomness. Rare is the NPC that gets repeated exposure.Individually is completely irrelevant, only long term is really relevant.Your opponents will attempt more rolls than you, so fumbles hurt them more.Perhaps on a long-term basis, but individually, no. Anything that makes combat more random/swingy always helps the bad guys because they generally aren't expected to be around longer than a few rounds; for all intents and purposes, they only exist that long. A player character is supposed to be around for the long haul.
I personally don't use fumbles because I'm playing Pathfinder, not Moe Larry Curly : The Stoogening. At worst, a 1 will result in a small, non-mechanical bit like sticking your arrow in your wizard buddy's pointed hat.
I don't care if a certain number of NPCs opponents stab themselves to death because they roll a 1.
When I do, it's game over. And that counts much more.
In terms of Pathfinder rules, there's very little "friendly fire" damage outside of AoE spell effects. They even specifically did away with the ranged attack 50% chance to hit an ally when firing into a grapple.
There's no critical fumble attack rules in the core rulebook, but as evidenced by the Critical Fumble deck published by Paizo, it's a popular houserule. Yes, it makes the game a bit harder for the players, especially melee characters with multiple attacks. On the whole however, having used the deck myself for many years, it's not a recipe for automatic failure. It's a fun bit of challenge that occasionally crops up in play, but shouldn't really affect the outcome of any well balanced encounter.