I would agree that in a game that is supposed to be heroic having any action that requires a roll to hit have a 5% of catastrophic failure is not heroic. That is just WAY to high a chance to be fun IMHO.
Of course, critical fumbles are not part of the Pathfinder ruleset. If your GM/gaming group decides to use critical fumble rules they are a house rule/option presented in the critical fumble deck (and in many other places through out D&D's history).
Since only things that require a roll to hit can crit in the rules then only those spells make sense to fumble as well.
Paizo had to come up with spell effects for each of the card while having no idea what spell you were casting. There is obviously no way they could have a random effect of failure (ie multiple cards) for each and every spell. So they came up with generic spell failures of magic gone awry.
Again, I don't like the concept of critical fumbles on rolls, but given what they had to work with as a concept I think the critical fumble deck did as fun a way to adjudicate them as could be done and still have variable random effects.
I would also suggest a house-rule stating that if the effect drawn doesn't make sense with the spell cast as determined by a consensus vote at the table then you redraw.
Sean Mahoney
No, your not alone. I also greatly dislike critical "fumble." Partly because I see them as kinda kicking the players when they are already feeling down (about missing), which doesn't seem "fair" to me as the referee. There is a very good reason why these kinds of rules have been stripped from the game over time, they are not fun.
More recently in looking at the iOS version of the Crit-fumbles I see a flaw in the "balance" with actual critical hits. From a pure mechanics standpoint a critical hit is simply an extra 'auto-hit' (with confirmation roll) attack or 3 (for x4 Crit weapons). This is the equivalent of gaining 1 to 3 extra attack actions.
IF I was forced to use fumble rules I'd start with a base counter balance that makes a player loose a equivalent number of "attacks".
Rolling a 1 indeed means that the caster missed his target, not the spell, but maybe, as he missed, he totally lost his concentration and actived another effect by accident. Of course, it only depends on how "wild" magic is in your game setting.
Critical fumbles don't have a 5% chance of happening either. You need to confirm the fumble after landing that 5% chance and in about 50% of situations in my game, fumbles aren't confirmed. Works fine for me and my players, and it's still funny as heck when a random thug knocks himself out as he tries to attack the party's wizard.
Let me see if I'm following this right (please correct if I have not).
1. You don't like the idea of touch attack spells critting the way a weapon would because it's not something you can "drop" or "break"
and/or
2. You don't like the specific "fluff" that certain fumbles provide to a spell.
As to 1: I understand your objection, but I disagree. You're building up a ball of magical energy in your hand and directing it in a very specific way (as opposed to just releasing it in a general vicinity the way you would with fireball). I CAN actually see a misaimed touch attack spell backfiring on you--you don't release the energy right, and you zap yourself, that kind of thing (maybe I can imagine it because I've watched a lot of Slayers ;) ). There could be other ways to fluff it as well that I think make sense. Just for a different POV on the matter.
As to 2: Sometimes a given Crit Hit or Fumble card does have a specific effect that makes no sense given the method of attack. A simple example would be a ranged attack being described as "broken bow string" when the attack you made was with a dart. In those cases, simply ask the GM if you can draw another card (in the games I've played where we've used them, the GM in fact initiated drawing another card without a player even having to ask because something just didn't make sense). The others' suggestions of picking another entry on the same card also works.
Finally and most importantly---the Critical Fumble deck is a very optional tool for a very optional house rule. If you continue to have objections, you need to have this discussion with your GM.
Hi, I am Gashnal's current GM in one of the games he is playing and I understand his trepidations at using magic when it can backfire to such a terrible degree. As the following situation occurred to a PC in our group: He was Crit by a mage casting Acid Arrow, the critical hit was called planar rift, I gave him a DC 10 will save to negate the effect. He failed. We rolled his random plane. Ethereal.
We use the crit hit/fumble deck simply because we always have, it gives a fun aspect other than double damage, etc.
I don't have a problem no longer using them but some of the effects can be quite funny.
As for using the ranged or melee sections instead of using the Magic ones, that would be fine by me as well it's just something we'll have to discuss as group.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Partly because I see them as kinda kicking the players when they are already feeling down (about missing), which doesn't seem "fair" to me as the referee.
I'd say it's *not* fair if you're only using them for PCs—but it tends to be balanced out when the bad guys can fail too....
I CAN actually see a misaimed touch attack spell backfiring on you--you don't release the energy right, and you zap yourself, that kind of thingThats where i respectfully disagree and the resion why is becouse there are already in place systems where your spells can fail through armor spell failure and concentration checks for dificult tasks ie cast in melee or damage taken while casting, these actions i can see generating a spell misshap infact its aluded to in many ways that these kinds of failures can cause spell backfires and such in 3.0 3.5 but they were removed in pathfinder becouse there not very heroic i can accept that these things will cause the effects the cards generate but aiming a touch spell is infact a seperate effect generated by the spell granting you an attack form for one or more uses, can you realy see Chill Touch on a crit miss sending you to hell? you cast it and it grants up to 5 touch attacks most of which is not takeing place at the same time as the spells even cast. my group wants to use them and while alot of it is very usefull and can be interesting but some of the effects are over the top no one peace of fluff should ever be able to single handedly end a charicter.
Finally and most importantly---the Critical Fumble deck is a very optional tool for a very optional house rule. If you continue to have objections, you need to have this discussion with your GM.I have made it known that i dont agree with some of the effects and how there used, i have also told GM's that some are to much and that i dont like it, i basicly said if something isnt done i will have to withdraw from any game that uses them, the responce i got was " well your just being petty now. " I dont beleave im being petty. if the game always feals like if i cast a spell im going to die from it then its not fun, if its not fun whats the point?
If you are the only one with an issue after stating that to the group, it is possible you are being petty or maybe that group isn't for you. You feel like the spell you are casting is "going to kill you" is rather drastic, you first need to roll a natural 1 and then need to confirm the miss. If you are even remotely optimized you minimize those chances a great deal. You typically have to roll really poorly to screw up a touch attack (which the majority of spells are). You don't find it fun to play with the cards, others do. In this case it is a matter of the greater groups enjoyment, drawing the line in the sand by saying "no cards or I'm out of here" does indeed sound petty, not to mention the only person you are hurting is yourself really. They are going to continue enjoying the game with the cards with or without you, so all you are doing is taking away some possibility of fun from yourself.
As for bad things happening, if you roll poorly it is always possible. I've rolled three 1s in a row, it was during an adventure when attempting to cross a chain suspended by lava. Failed the balance, failed the catch and failed the third pity check the dm gave me. Shortest lived character I've ever played (was introduced to the game maybe 20 min before that). You could roll a one on a save and have a major magic item wrecked as well. Point being part of the game, of the fun, is the randomness. The cards just bring that to the surface and make it more visible. I don't play this game to "win" all the time, the memorable deaths are part of the amusement as well. Not saying having a character die is the best thing ever (that character I lost took a few hours to make), but I don't take it to heart and remember quite a few "endings" fondly.
Basically all I can suggest is to take a step back and think about it, play with the cards and when the time comes where you obliterate some poor npc with a crit card you may realize what everyone else seems to like about the cards. Truth be told using the fumble cards has always been a benefit to the group, the npcs roll more and tend not to be as well optimized as the pcs, so eat penalties/effects more often...