Currently right now our group wants to implement a critical miss or failure chart. We're thinking whenever someone rolls a 1 and then confirms with a miss there should be a chart for what happens. List some ideas for critical misses!
Weapon gets stuck in nearby wall, floor, etc. Require STR check to remove.
Attacker trips. Put into random adjacent square.
So the magic users don't feel left out:
Mage's spell fails, get Magic Whistle instead of Magic Missile.
Mage mixes up spell, instead of Fireball sets fire to his balls.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently right now our group wants to implement a critical miss or failure chart. We're thinking whenever someone rolls a 1 and then confirms with a miss there should be a chart for what happens. List some ideas for critical misses!
The obligatory question is why do you want to penalize fighters, especially archers?
More attack rolls made = more chances to roll a 1
Therefore, the higher your BAB the more often you fumble.
Even "confirming" the miss doesn't help that much, because those third and fourth iteratives are likely going to be pretty bad no matter what.
Can a wizard critically fumble a spell if the target rolls a 20 on their save? Fumble rules take power away from non-casters, usually without giving anything back to compensate them.
Rant having been said, I've heard decent things about the Gamemastery Critical Fumble Deck.
Sorry about the rant, been burned way too many times by things like "your monk just punched himself hur hur hur"
Obviously if everyone in your group is having fun and is cool with it, knock yourslef out. (pun intended)
Let's see:
- Forfeit any additional attacks for that action
- Forfeit any other action that turn
- Drop (or throw) the weapon used to attack
- Drop (or throw) something you're holding (random)
- Attack an adjacent square
- Thrown off balance (lose Dex bonus until next turn)
- Become disoriented (all attacks treated as flanking until next turn)
- Stagger into an adjacent space (what about AoOs and hazards?)
- Immediately provoke an attack of opportunity from the target
- Immediately provoke an attack of opportunity from all threats
- Immediately provoke a trip, disarm, or grapple attempt from the target (this maneuver does not itself provoke an AoO)
- Fall prone
- Target receives a +2 morale bonus until your next turn
- You receive a -2 morale penalty until your next turn
- Any number of effects depending on the kind of attack (sword, flail, disintegrate, alchemist's bomb, that weapon that's basically a beehive with live bees)
There's a critical fumble deck for sale on Paizo there that matches the kind of attack to various random effects. It's not bad for weapon attacks, but the magic effects are . . . well, some of them don't make a lot of sense outside of a wild/primal/whatever magic zone. Though IIRC it comes with a spell that can induce critical fumble effects, and that can be interesting.
Edit: That said, leave the critical fumbles for the goofier campaigns and/or one shots. "We Be Goblins!" is a good candidate. The spell could still be useful, or perhaps a bestow curse could make the critical fumble rules apply only to them for the duration of the curse.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
http://paizo.com/products/btpy89mn?GameMastery-Critical-Fumble-Deck
I used to like critical misses until my combats looked more like a 3 stooges show than a fight.
Only way I would consider them again is on a 1 and 1 confirm.
Yeah, they hurt PC's more than the bad guys, and they hurt warriors more than wizards. All around, not a good idea.
If the GM is applying critical fumbles to his monsters as well, it ends up being pretty balanced. That's what I do in my games and it's saved the party a few times, such as when the big baddie accidentally provokes AoO's from anyone adjacent.
No it doesn;t, as the result from the fumbles never carry on to the next "adventure" for the bad guys... generally as there is no "next adventure" for them. A broken weapon is no big deal for the bad guys.
Thanks everyone for providing answers. Now I have some actual reasons to go against his ruling when it comes to 1's.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yar.
I personally like the Critical Fumble Deck that paizo has (and has already been linked to above).
They key to them is describing the action in a cool way (to avoid the 3 stooges fights).
Also, one of the cards/results is that you actually DID hit, but you do minimum damage. One of my bad guys actually died from that fumble card (as in, the player fumbled, but managed to kill the bad guy anyways instead of simply "missing"). It was an awesome moment.
~P
Yar.
I personally like the Critical Fumble Deck that paizo has (and has already been linked to above).
They key to them is describing the action in a cool way (to avoid the 3 stooges fights).
On none of those cards does a wizard fumble his fireball.
They also make it more likely for Conan to fumble than Rolf the 1st level commoner. Really?
Yar.
On none of those cards does a wizard fumble his fireball.
But the wizard CAN fumble with his scorching ray (because that spell requires an attack roll. Fireball does not). Some of the spell fumbles are awesome too (you made him stronger! Targets STR score goes up) same with spell criticals: your scorching ray turns into a fire elemental that continues to beat on your opponent, for example. Well, I think they're awesome.
~P
Yar.
They also make it more likely for Conan to fumble than Rolf the 1st level commoner. Really?
Any system that has auto-misses on a 1 makes someone with multiple attacks more likely to miss once than someone with only a single attack.
Most of the cards are not so much "OMG YOU CRIT YOUR SELF/ALLY!", but something different to describe other than "you miss", often with a mechanical side effect. Yeah, the bad effects exist, but they are not ALL life-threateningly terrible. As I've already mentioned, some of them are actually beneficial.
Still, to each his own.
~P
Yar.
They also make it more likely for Conan to fumble than Rolf the 1st level commoner. Really?
Any system that has auto-misses on a 1 makes someone with multiple attacks more likely to miss once than someone with only a single attack.
Most of the cards are not so much "OMG YOU CRIT YOUR SELF/ALLY!", but something different to describe other than "you miss", often with a mechanical side effect. Yeah, the bad effects exist, but they are not ALL life-threateningly terrible. As I've already mentioned, some of them are actually beneficial.
Still, to each his own.
~P
If any of them are life threateningly terrible, then it's bad. Very bad. Being able to miss more often during the same round than the 1st level guy shows you're superior. However, having additional 5% chances to put out your eye is stupid. Seriously, fumble rules only make warriors look like fools. "Oops, I dropped my weapon again." "Damnit, my adamantine sword broke." "Curses, I accidentally chopped off my arm."
There are different options for how to implement critical fumbles in the game. One of the cards in the critical fumble deck lists them. The option I use is Roll a 1, then roll again to confirm. If you miss that attack, it's a fumble. That means that Conan's chance to fumble his attack is negligible. And critical fumbles and critical hits have only affected warrior types anyways.
Also, Pirate, I have a critical fumble awesome moment as well. My group was fighting in a gladiatorial match to the blood. They had to get a bleed effect or knock their opponent out (or kill them, but that is frowned upon.) Well one of the opponents critically fumbled his bow attack and ended up shooting himself in the foot and bleeding, thus knocking himself out of the match! Pretty embarrassing.
There are different options for how to implement critical fumbles in the game. One of the cards in the critical fumble deck lists them. The option I use is Roll a 1, then roll again to confirm. If you miss that attack, it's a fumble. That means that Conan's chance to fumble his attack is negligible.
Except that in general, the foes AC goes up as the warriors Attack does. Thereby even tho Conan has a +30 or so to attack, his foes likely have pretty good AC. So, the chance to fumble is the same.
And any system where Conan will fumble 10 times more than Bob the peasant is just plain silly.
There are different options for how to implement critical fumbles in the game. One of the cards in the critical fumble deck lists them. The option I use is Roll a 1, then roll again to confirm. If you miss that attack, it's a fumble. That means that Conan's chance to fumble his attack is negligible.
Except that in general, the foes AC goes up as the warriors Attack does. Thereby even tho Conan has a +30 or so to attack, his foes likely have pretty good AC. So, the chance to fumble is the same.
And any system where Conan will fumble 10 times more than Bob the peasant is just plain silly.
Perhaps then you could make a level-dependent qualifier roll, say 1d20+lvl with a DC of 15, rather than another simple to-hit roll. That would make every potential fumble far less likely for Conan, and far more likely for Bob.
Comments?
There are different options for how to implement critical fumbles in the game. One of the cards in the critical fumble deck lists them. The option I use is Roll a 1, then roll again to confirm. If you miss that attack, it's a fumble. That means that Conan's chance to fumble his attack is negligible.
Except that in general, the foes AC goes up as the warriors Attack does. Thereby even tho Conan has a +30 or so to attack, his foes likely have pretty good AC. So, the chance to fumble is the same.
And any system where Conan will fumble 10 times more than Bob the peasant is just plain silly.
Perhaps then you could make a level-dependent qualifier roll, say 1d20+lvl with a DC of 15, rather than another simple to-hit roll. That would make every potential fumble far less likely for Conan, and far more likely for Bob.
Comments?
I disagree on the bonus to hit option. The possibility of a foe having an AC so high that someone can't hit on less than, say a 15, on the highest bonus is unlikely. There are other options. One of those is a roll a 1 twice in a row. Those are the only two I remember off the top of my head. I like using critical fumble and critical hit variants because they give warrior types some flavor beyond just damaging.
There are different options for how to implement critical fumbles in the game. One of the cards in the critical fumble deck lists them. The option I use is Roll a 1, then roll again to confirm. If you miss that attack, it's a fumble. That means that Conan's chance to fumble his attack is negligible.
Except that in general, the foes AC goes up as the warriors Attack does. Thereby even tho Conan has a +30 or so to attack, his foes likely have pretty good AC. So, the chance to fumble is the same.
And any system where Conan will fumble 10 times more than Bob the peasant is just plain silly.
Perhaps then you could make a level-dependent qualifier roll, say 1d20+lvl with a DC of 15, rather than another simple to-hit roll. That would make every potential fumble far less likely for Conan, and far more likely for Bob.
Comments?
Given that Conan is no more than 6th level, that still places him pretty much in the "I chopped my balls off three times getting here" territory. I've seen battles made or broken by the 5% as it is. If you want some sort of uber-crits or uber-failures, then you'd be better off with a system more like Deadlands or Shadowrun; where you roll tons of dice and have the somewhat unlikely chance to go bust. Those systems greatly decrease your chance of going bust as your skill level rises.
Also, any penalty based on random occurrence of attack rolls favors NPCs over PCs. The chance of something bad having a meaningful effect on the game is higher for the PCs. Likewise, super-criticals always favor NPCs, because nobody cares of kobold #300 was killed by a critical, but when kobold #300 permanently blinds or turns you mentally handicapped 'cause he rolled a 20 and a 19, that tends to linger.
EDIT: As to the armor class thing. Exactly why is it that my opponent having tougher skin/armor/etc leads to an increased frequency of stabbing myself in the face? Is his armor made out of tire-rubber, and bounces attacks back in my face? O.o
Why is it that everyone is against the idea of having critical fumbles? If you can have critical hits, why not critical fumbles? D20 is a vanilla system to me. Any system with hit point totals is going to be boring because there is no difference, mechanically, between a person with 1HP and a person with full HP. That's why I like running a game where the stakes are made higher by things like Sanity rules, Critical Hits, and Critical Fumbles. It's made for some memorable games for me because my players don't just end up with the abstract hit point damage after the fight. I've had players be blinded by strikes across the eyes and drop weapons because their hands get broken. All of that stuff is cured by some type of restoration spell so it's not permanent. But it makes the battles pretty scary.
I've used the Critical Fumble deck with the rule of "Roll a 1 then confirm" and during the two years I ran Age of Worms (which has finally come to a close), we never saw the 3 Stooges problem. In addition, we never felt that the PCs fumbled more than the enemies. Sure, an individual PC would fumble more than an individual enemy, but the number of enemies used ensured that the enemy actually saw more fumbles.
The fumbles in the Fumble deck aren't nearly as bad as lopping off your own limbs either. If a result doesn't make sense, then we simply discard it and it was a regular miss.
Here are the first 4 results from the iFumble app:
1) Melee: Bent - You take a -4 penalty on all attacks with this weapon until it is repaired (DC 20 Craft check).
2) Ranged: Wrong Weapon - If you made a thrown attack, you throw a random object from your gear.
3) Natural: Winds of Change - You threaten no squares for 1d6 rounds.
4) Magic: Why Me? - You provoke attacks of opportunity from all threatening foes.
That's pretty standard for the deck. So it can affect casters and non-casters. In the situations mentioned above, the Ranged and Magic options may be discarded if circumstances warrant. Melee is dealt with by simply drawing your backup weapon. Natural just means you get no AoO for a bit. Nothing game breaking.
Why is it that everyone is against the idea of having critical fumbles? If you can have critical hits, why not critical fumbles? D20 is a vanilla system to me. Any system with hit point totals is going to be boring because there is no difference, mechanically, between a person with 1HP and a person with full HP. That's why I like running a game where the stakes are made higher by things like Sanity rules, Critical Hits, and Critical Fumbles. It's made for some memorable games for me because my players don't just end up with the abstract hit point damage after the fight. I've had players be blinded by strikes across the eyes and drop weapons because their hands get broken. All of that stuff is cured by some type of restoration spell so it's not permanent. But it makes the battles pretty scary.
Generally because it's not suitable for the type of game that's being played. Maybe in some sort of overly gritty "the universe hates you, so you stab yourself in the face 1/20 swings or so" that might be well and good, but in a world where you're basically expected to eat dragon fire and walk away from it, it seems really stupid to break your own hand swinging your sword.
Also, most people don't feel like re-rolling a fully fleshed out character because random mook blinded or lopped off their arm or something. Spells like regeneration are very high levels. Then there's also the fact that the game is already designed in a way that the PCs are fighting a grueling uphill battle where at any moment they may end up dead fighting a CR-2 encounter because they got a little unlucky or were outsmarted by their enemies.
I mean, if you add spells like cure stupid wounds, with stuff like "This spell puts your eyeballs back in their sockets, re-attaches your fingers, scrotum, nose, hands, eyes, feet, ears, and dignity to your character, or regrows them. You would heal damage but damage is too abstract a method of killing you, so this just heals the extra dead stuff that occurs to you 1/20 times a goblin decides to throw rocks at you. This spell does nothing to cure poison, disease, nausea, indigestion, upset stomach, or increasing likelihood of castrating yourself as your swordskills improve"; then it might be okay. :P
In a melee fight, whenever a natural 1 is rolled, the opponent get an ATOP. This means that the attacker just made a terrible mistake when trying to attack and left themself open. It's a fast and exciting method.
But I also hear the critical miss deck is fun, too.
There are different options for how to implement critical fumbles in the game. One of the cards in the critical fumble deck lists them. The option I use is Roll a 1, then roll again to confirm. If you miss that attack, it's a fumble. That means that Conan's chance to fumble his attack is negligible.
Except that in general, the foes AC goes up as the warriors Attack does. Thereby even tho Conan has a +30 or so to attack, his foes likely have pretty good AC. So, the chance to fumble is the same.
And any system where Conan will fumble 10 times more than Bob the peasant is just plain silly.
Perhaps then you could make a level-dependent qualifier roll, say 1d20+lvl with a DC of 15, rather than another simple to-hit roll. That would make every potential fumble far less likely for Conan, and far more likely for Bob.
Comments?Given that Conan is no more than 6th level, that still places him pretty much in the "I chopped my balls off three times getting here" territory. I've seen battles made or broken by the 5% as it is. If you want some sort of uber-crits or uber-failures, then you'd be better off with a system more like Deadlands or Shadowrun; where you roll tons of dice and have the somewhat unlikely chance to go bust. Those systems greatly decrease your chance of going bust as your skill level rises.
Also, any penalty based on random occurrence of attack rolls favors NPCs over PCs. The chance of something bad having a meaningful effect on the game is higher for the PCs. Likewise, super-criticals always favor NPCs, because nobody cares of kobold #300 was killed by a critical, but when kobold #300 permanently blinds or turns you mentally handicapped 'cause he rolled a 20 and a 19, that tends to linger.
EDIT: As to the armor class thing. Exactly why is it that my opponent having tougher skin/armor/etc leads to an increased frequency of stabbing myself in the face? Is his armor made out of tire-rubber,...
Conan's only 6th level? Which Conan? Robert E. Howard's Conan? Dr Deth's Conan with +30 attack? I meant Dr Deth's example Conan, and if he has +30 to attack he ain't level 6. Not in my campaign...
All I was suggesting was that with a little tweaking, you can make it so that crit fumbles are still rare for higher level characters. Conan with +30 must be at least around level 15. That leaves another natural 1, which means he crit fumbles .25% of the time. He's going to crit hit far more times than that. Maybe even say that at level 15, you never crit fumble... It's a mutable system, because different people like different styles of games. I think that I've got it close to right for my players and myself.
I find that players rarely fear for their characters. Numbers go down, numbers come back up. Damage isn't damage, and it doesn't affect anything. Crits can add a bit of flavour, and my players love critical hits at epic moments. But they also know that they can fail, and maybe they get -4 to attack rolls for 1 round because of it. I have iFumble and iCrit, and I find they are very balanced, more about flavour than punishment.
EDIT: I agree with you in regards to the AC thing too, by the way Ashiel.
Also, I once had a very funny situation when playing the old Skalmad the Troll King adventure (4e, I know, but we were trying it out). One of my PCs was an ogre, and we were using the old MERP crit tables for fun (twas a bit of an alternate universe one-shot for these characters), when lo and behold, the ogre lost an eye to Skalmad. Thus began a very entertaining wrestling match as the ogre barbarian attempted wrest Skalmad's magical, evil eye out of his head so he could stick it in his own, still-bleeding socket. Good times :)
Stuff
All I got out of this is bad things happening to PCs is bad. Basically in your world, the PCs are either 100% functional or dead. That sounds incredibly boring to me. There is nothing in the game mechanics that allows for physical blindness, cutting off limbs, breaking bones, etc. There are bleed effects, but those are removed by a cure spell. All the things that actually make combat deadly are removed from D20 in favor of a hit point total. Rather than migrate to a completely different system, I use the critical hit and fumble decks to make those type of attacks special. Yes regenerate is a high level spell, but so is raise dead. Welcome to being an adventurer.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I got out of this is bad things happening to PCs is bad.
Then you misunderstood.
Also, you should have said "Welcome to being an adventurer in my game." Please do not talk down to us about our different playstyles. (And no, being talked down to first is no excuse to do it yourself.)
StuffAll I got out of this is bad things happening to PCs is bad. Basically in your world, the PCs are either 100% functional or dead. That sounds incredibly boring to me. There is nothing in the game mechanics that allows for physical blindness, cutting off limbs, breaking bones, etc. There are bleed effects, but those are removed by a cure spell. All the things that actually make combat deadly are removed from D20 in favor of a hit point total. Rather than migrate to a completely different system, I use the critical hit and fumble decks to make those type of attacks special. Yes regenerate is a high level spell, but so is raise dead. Welcome to being an adventurer.
You are playing a game (Pathfinder) that is not meant to simulate those things. In fact, in my experience, the game breaks down rapidly if those things happen as often as a natural 1 followed by a miss. You might be better off with GURPS or something; it has very good mechanics for critical misses and the like that scale with the skill being attempted. Or, you could do what you're doing now; if it works for you and everybody is having fun, then, de facto, you're doing it right. I think my players have enough to worry about without introducing critical fumbles as a standard mechanic.
Generally because it's not suitable for the type of game that's being played. Maybe in some sort of overly gritty "the universe hates you, so you stab yourself in the face 1/20 swings or so" that might be well and good, but in a world where you're basically expected to eat dragon fire and walk away from it, it seems really stupid to break your own hand swinging your sword.
But that's not what's happening with well thought out fumble charts. First, as has been pointed out, you need to roll a confirmation to fumble so it's not 1/20 swings. Second, it's not hard to see how some fumbles can physically harm the one who fumbles (here are 4 more fumbles):
1) Melee - Better to Give: Your attack damages you instead. Use your target's Str modifier
2) Range - Lost the Target: You take a -4 penalty on all attack rolls for 1 round.
3) Natural - Battered: You take a -2 penalty on skill checks and saves for 1d4 hours.
4) Magic - Nothing to fear: You are shaken for 2d4 rounds
Also, most people don't feel like re-rolling a fully fleshed out character because random mook blinded or lopped off their arm or something. Spells like regeneration are very high levels. Then there's also the fact that the game is already designed in a way that the PCs are fighting a grueling uphill battle where at any moment they may end up dead fighting a CR-2 encounter because they got a little unlucky or were outsmarted by their enemies.
The Critical Hit Deck recommends that you don't use it for mooks. I did for the entire campaign and we had no problems. Not a single mook managed to kill a character in this way. It could be because they had to confirm the critical hit.
I mean, if you add spells like cure stupid wounds, with stuff like "This spell puts your eyeballs back in their sockets, re-attaches your fingers, scrotum, nose, hands, eyes, feet, ears, and dignity to your character, or regrows them. You would heal damage but damage is too abstract a method of killing you, so this just heals the extra dead stuff that occurs to you 1/20 times a goblin decides to throw rocks at you. This spell does nothing to cure poison, disease, nausea, indigestion, upset stomach, or increasing likelihood of castrating yourself as your swordskills improve"; then it might be okay. :P
There is no way a goblin, or any other character, will pull off a critical hit 1/20 times. Not even without the decks. They still need a confirmation. That means that a goblin against a foot soldier (both CR 1/3) needs to roll a 19 to hit and still needs to roll a 15 to confirm. That's a 2% chance of critically hitting an NPC warrior, not 5%. So let's say I do allow the goblin that beat the odds to draw from the deck. I randomly drew: Knockback. This deals double damage (which he already had without the deck) and pushes the target away 1d6 squares. Excellent, now the warrior is out of the threatened area and can quaff a potion of cure light wounds without worry. Many of the effects are actually "Normal Damage + effect" so it's not as big of a deal as you are making it. In fact, I have had players ask that we don't use the deck because they want to deal more damage. Many of the effects say "until healed" which doesn't mean that it must be magical healing it could very well be the DC 15 Heal check.
As I said before, a well thought out table (or deck) isn't game breaking when used properly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, yes, I get the fact people are calling for a confirmation roll. Nobody answered why people seem to be wearing bouncy "rubber-death" armor. I whack you with a mace, but your armor absorbs it, so why exactly is it that I end up axing myself in the face?
It might not be 1/20 proper, but that's as frequent as it is threatened. The higher your foes armor class, the more likely you will critically miss. Likewise, if your foes have a decent chance of hitting you at all, confirming criticals isn't very hard. I have NPCs who confirm criticals all the time.
If the system only is used by non-mooks, then that's a bit too metagamey to me. I used the term mook meaning lots of enemies who are otherwise fairly weak. However, that's all relative. There's not much difference between the CR 1/3 goblin and the CR 1 goblin except a few HD. So what determines a mook? CR relative to the party? HD? GM fiat?
Also, people seem to cite logical problems as being a big one. "Well you get hit with an axe, it should do something" being one. So just using your examples:
1) Melee - Better to Give: Your attack damages you instead. Use your target's Str modifier
Your attack is turned against you in an AC-ignoring self-damage? Fail.
2) Range - Lost the Target: You take a -4 penalty on all attack rolls for 1 round.
You lose the target of someone who can very well be in plain sight, in an open area? Can you choose a different target? No? Well, this doesn't make any sense either. About as much sense as "abstract hit points".
3) Natural - Battered: You take a -2 penalty on skill checks and saves for 1d4 hours.
Wait, wait, you try to tear something off your enemy with your natural attack and you get a battle to multi-battle long penalty to skill checks and saving throws? Damn, I chipped a tooth and was turned to stone. That makes sense, yeah. Actually...no, no it doesn't.
4) Magic - Nothing to fear: You are shaken for 2d4 rounds
You don't critically fumble with magic. Unless you mean magic that functions like a weapon (touch, rays, etc). In which case, why exactly are you frightened by your own magic? I can see it now!
Succubus - "Whaaaagh, master balor, save me!"
Balor - "WTF is wrong with you?"
Succubus - "I...I missed with my vampiric touch! It...it's just so scary! *sobs like a chibi anime girl*
Balor - *facepalms* "I'd execute you for stupidity and cowardice right this moment, if it wasn't for the fact I too have unexpectedly wet my pants against inferior foes before; and I recently broke my +1 vorpal greatsword while fighting those adventurers. Apparently my immense skill as a master overlord of the abyss makes me more likely to screw up royally than a pathetic mortal. So, just go to my chambers, get in your chains, and I'll be up to test your fire resistance proper in five minutes."
Also, concerning the goblin, the fact a critical hit helped the PC is also pretty bad IMHO. Knockback is a terrible "boon" when in a game where your enemy must be adjacent to you to keep attacking them. I've seen a really good, totally working, absolutely fair critical hit chart before. In fact, I've used it in the past. I highly recommend it. Here's a few from it.
1% - You surprise your foe with an extra swing that lands cleanly. Deal critical hit damage.
2% - You smash your opponent in a weak joint. Deal critical hit damage.
3% - You break your opponent's defense with a quick kick followed by a powerful blow. Deal critical hit damage...
And a really great and amazingly awesome critical failure chart!
1% - You underestimate distance and your weapon simply whizzes by. Your attack misses.
2% - Your foe makes a surprise parry. Your attack misses.
3% - You spaced out for a moment. Your attack misses.
:P
Ashiel, you've got a better imagination than that. You're not even trying. Also, as I mentioned before you ignore results that don't make sense.
Let's look at the four results that I randomly pulled up with no context other than "Fumble."
Melee - Better to Give: Your attack damages you instead. Use your target's Str modifier
I used to split wood. There were times when I would not hit the wedge or the log properly. I can tell you that it is very easy to injure yourself just from the jarring experience. Now imagine that you are doing that to something that can hit back, like an earth elemental. Now let's say that you did this to a ghost. A good GM would consider that this fumble may not be appropriate. Maybe it would be. It's all depending on circumstances.
Range - Lost the Target: You take a -4 penalty on all attack rolls for 1 round.
As someone who has had the luxury of using firearms on open terrain, I can tell you that it is still possible to lose sight of your target. A simple glare from the sun can be enough. You can also get tunnel vision very easily. Fighting at night can be very difficult even with night vision. I have witnessed and been a victim to all of those.
That being said, this result can easily be appropriate in the proper terrain or weather conditions. What if you are fighting at night? What about in the rain? What about in an area with lots of concealment or cover? Again, if the result isn't appropriate, you simply toss it and it's a normal miss.
Natural - Battered: You take a -2 penalty on skill checks and saves for 1d4 hours.
Have you ever injured yourself to the point that concentrating on a task is very difficult? I just did this a few weeks ago. I slammed my hand into a metal wall accidentally (I wasn't looking as I was throwing something away). Typing, writing, even doing basic math started to become more difficult as all I could do was focus on the pain. I have had tooth pain so bad that it made thinking about anything other than crying in the fetal position more than difficult.
Magic - Nothing to fear: You are shaken for 2d4 rounds
You can fumble with any spell you can crit with. Again, it should be appropriate. Let's say that you cast scorching ray and you fumble. Nothing says that the fire actually missed. It could have hit and had zero effect because you screwed up on the casting. Of course you don't realize this and all you see is the white dragon ignoring the blast that just struck him in the face. Now is it a bit more frightening? Probably. Again, if it's not appropriate, you toss the result. If the caster happens to be immune to fear, then he isn't shaken.
As for the goblin's crit helping, it could have just as easily been a situation where the warrior was pushed into a crowd of 4 more goblins or a fire or over a cliff or at his cleric's side. I just through out a situation that I thought could make for a more interesting encounter than "the goblin swings hard and hits you for 5 damage!"
Rules, even house rules, shouldn't be used without the GM and players using their heads.
I understand that you don't think that crits and fumbles are good things but I also don't think you've seen them used in a well run game. In bad games, and we've all been in them, they are detrimental. In a well run game, they can make for more interesting story telling.
Ashiel, you've got a better imagination than that. You're not even trying. Also, as I mentioned before you ignore results that don't make sense.
Yeah, you're right. I'm not really trying. :P
I don't see a point in trying very much, because most people that use critical charts or fumble rules ignore stuff like the math problems (it's especially bad on full attacking warriors, who not only have a higher chance of rolling a 1, but also have a lower % chance of hitting with subsequent attacks, thus making it more likely that the epic hero of dragon-slaying will shoot his own eye out Red-Rider BB-Gun style); or the bizarre way they expect your own attacks and such to somehow harm you, when literally the entire world hates you in D&D (we got monsters of all sorts, natural environments, traps, poisons, disease, drain, being outnumbered, being outgunned, so we need to add breaking our weapons, stabbing ourselves, and other stupid things that occur purely by random as a way of shoving "interesting" up the tailpipe of the PC-mobile); or how how doesn't fit in D&D (it's funny that these people typically seem to think chopping your own hand with your sword is somehow super realistic, but ignore the fact that a 5 ton bird that would be incapable of flight exists, or that no one should realistically be able to survive a fireball at all, Reflex saves be damned); or just don't care (like the one GM I played under for 1 session who used a custom critical hit and called shot chart, to which I pointed out a 1st level sorcerer could break to hell with true strike, to be told "melee shouldn't have all the fun").I don't smoke, but I have a lighter that I can use to handle these sorts of things when they come up at my table, and I have feet (God willing) that I can use to continue to walk away from games that aren't good; which has thus thus far, perhaps coincidentally tends to be the category of every game I have experienced that involves things like critical hits and critical fumbles and auto-success/failure skill checks. Maybe one day, I will find a game that uses them, but given the fact I've grown to hate them and have examined the math behind it, the reasoning behind it, and the gameplay benefits and found them sorely lacking; it may be a while.
I don't know why everyone keeps bringing up fighters. It's monks, masters of discipline who suddenly become masters of fumble. They have a high number of attacks and not enough ability to hit.
The best way around that is only going by the first attack roll per turn.
I would fill it up with unexpected situations that aren't exactly bad such as attacking the person next to them be it friend or foe, having the fumbler to accidentally turn their attack turn into a bull rush or trip (with all the downsides such AoO and the other character able to avoid it via CMD), moving back a space from jagged movements or from being pushed back by the parrying, or that sort of thing.
Yeah, you're right. I'm not really trying. :P
Awesome without trying... Neat. ^^
I'm with Ashiel and ToZ on this one
Math shows critical fumble decks make no sense.
Having mundane characters cripple themselves every 20th-100th swing (depending on confirmation method), while casters can place spells (most don't have attack rolls) exactly where they want, without any chance of error or misfire makes no sense.
Most of the effects make no sense (example: magical weapons suddenly breaking on a mundane goblin head).
Apart from that, they're also having heavier consequences than getting hit by most Save-or-Suck spells.
And please don't open the can of worms that is labled "the GM decides wether a critical fumble is appropriate in a given situation".
That said... Your game, your rules, feel free to cripple yourselves as much as you like.
It's like people aren't even reading and just going off on their own tangents. There are good tables and bad tables. Good tables are not like the ones from "Good Hits and Bad Misses" from Dragon Magazine. There is an updated version in the Dragon Compendium, which is better but still lacking. The Critical Hit and Fumble decks go a long way to fixing many of the problems. They aren't perfect but they can't be. It's up to the GM to make them work.
Here's a breakdown of the Critical Hits Deck
Bludgeoning
Cards with normal damage + effect: 31
Cards with double damage + effect: 20
Cards with triple damage + effect: 1
These tend to have more status effects and injure stats in some way
Piercing
Cards with normal damage + effect: 20
Cards with double damage + effect: 29
Cards with triple damage + effect: 3
These tend to have more bleed and stat injuring effects
Slashing
Cards with normal damage + effect: 21
Cards with double damage + effect: 29
Cards with triple damage + effect: 2
These tend to have more bleed effects
Magic
Cards with normal damage + effect: 19
Cards with double damage + effect: 32
Cards with triple damage + effect: 1
These tend to bring in additional magic effects
So the players can benefit more from these critical hits. It isn't recommended that you use these for all enemies. It is clearly written that you should use these for important NPCs/opponents and not for mooks (although I did and we didn't see any problems that people have predicted).
The fumbles are similar. I have to leave for work soon so I won't be able to go through the deck right now. It's not full of crippling effects and many of the effects are easily dealt with.
As for the GM not applying inappropriate results, that's the job of the GM in all cases, not just with optional rules.
I understand that some people don't like these, but they are only looking at it from their point of view with bad experiences and refusing to see that there are other ways to implement crits and fumbles that don't make the party look like Keystone Cops. Many groups enjoy these and find them balanced fine for their games. They have figures out what makes them fun for their groups.
I don't see a point in trying very much, because most people that use critical charts or fumble rules ignore stuff like the math problems (it's especially bad on full attacking warriors, who not only have a higher chance of rolling a 1, but also have a lower % chance of hitting with subsequent attacks, thus making it more likely that the epic hero of dragon-slaying will shoot his own eye out Red-Rider BB-Gun style);
A well built fighter shouldn't be having that as a significant problem. Heck, the 3/4 BAB characters didn't have that as a problem in the Age of Worms which was a very challenging AP. Most of the casters' spells require ranged touch attacks so they tended to fail less than the fighters.
or the bizarre way they expect your own attacks and such to somehow harm you,
You've never been in actual combat then. I have been in too many fights and I can tell you that punching someone can hurt. You can shoot friendlies. You can break your weapon in combat. All of these are very real possibilities.
when literally the entire world hates you in D&D (we got monsters of all sorts, natural environments, traps, poisons, disease, drain, being outnumbered, being outgunned, so we need to add breaking our weapons, stabbing ourselves, and other stupid things that occur purely by random as a way of shoving "interesting" up the tailpipe of the PC-mobile); or how how doesn't fit in D&D (it's funny that these people typically seem to think chopping your own hand with your sword is somehow super realistic, but ignore the fact that a 5 ton bird that would be incapable of flight exists, or that no one should realistically be able to survive a fireball at all, Reflex saves be damned); or just don't care (like the one GM I played under for 1 session who used a custom critical hit and called shot chart, to which I pointed out a 1st level sorcerer could break to hell with true strike, to be told "melee shouldn't have all the fun").
Some people enjoy the grittiness that the crits and fumbles add. They don't see it as silly and in fact see it as enhancing their games. I don't have to ignore anything to enjoy the decks. I just have to be looking for something you aren't. Just like you allow some things with magic item creation that I wouldn't. We're two different GMs with two different groups. Our groups want different things.
I don't smoke, but I have a lighter that I can use to handle these sorts of things when they come up at my table, and I have feet (God willing) that I can use to continue to walk away from games that aren't good; which has thus thus far, perhaps coincidentally tends to be the category of every game I have experienced that involves things like critical hits and critical...
I honestly think that you would enjoy my games. Even though we tend to disagree on many things, I think you would actually have a lot of fun. I think you would see these decks in action and see that they don't distract from the game. I have had several people use the same arguments you've used and when they saw the decks used by me, they rethought their position.
You've never been in actual combat then. I have been in too many fights and I can tell you that punching someone can hurt. You can shoot friendlies. You can break your weapon in combat. All of these are very real possibilities.
Yeah, I've never been in military grade combat. I've also never been swallowed whole before. Or crunched in the jaws of a dragon that could crush a semi-truck and exposed with no saving throw to the ravages of fire so inhumanly hot that it can slag a suit of full plate armor in 3 seconds flat, while pinned in said jaws, and survive. Hopefully, I will avoid any of the above; because I'm fine just sparring with my friends.
Do you add additional rules to make archers shoot their teammates and such, by chance? I mean, the game imposes penalties and such to ranged attacks against guys behind soft cover or in melee, so do you have the arrows randomly kill your fighter by shooting him in the head when you meant the orc he was fighting?
Deadlands is a good RPG for gritty gameplay. I know the version I've always played includes body wounds (Head, arms, guts, gizzards (important guts), legs, feet, etc). Every 6 full points of damage you take to a location creates a "wound" which inflicts a cumulative -1 penalty to virtually everything you do (fortunately the penalties from different locations do not stack, just take highest). Getting 5 wounds in the same location results in a maimed wound. Your appendage is gone or permanently rendered useless. If that happens to your head or guts, you're dead.
You also have something called "wind" which represents general stamina. Sure, that gunshot might not kill you, but damn it hurts, and it might put you on the ground crying like a little baby. Every point of damage suffered also counts against your wind. When you reach 0 wind, you're too battered to carry on.
Since your average revolver deals 3d6 damage, you can become a dead man really fast. Especially if you get shot in the head (+2 dice) or gizzards (+1 die), and your wind is almost assuredly baked and battered if your opponent doesn't roll quite low. Wonderful system, since things like normal people can be dangerous.
Such a system could probably be adapted to D&D (I might write up something later this evening), treating HP similar to wind, and using Con as your wound threshold. So if you've got a 12 Con and 34 HP, and you suffer 12 damage from a single strike and you're wounded somewhere (-1 to all checks). Maybe AoEs apply to all body parts equally. That would make blasting spells scarier, since getting fireballed would mean suffering an average of 17.5 damage to your whole body, which would wound everything at least one step).
I wouldn't track cumulative damage though. Just rounded down to your Con from individual attacks. So if you had a 15 Con and suffered 3 attacks at 16, 17, and 12, you'd suffer 2 wounds (the 12 damage wasn't enough to cause an actual wound). This would also make martials stupid scary at high levels, since a 20th level Fighter has something like a +45 damage with his favorite weapon, so at Con 10 + 6 enhancement + 5 inherent, he'd inflict a minimum of 2 wounds per strike. If an individual limb can only take 5 wounds, you may be missing critical pieces of your anatomy. A 20th level 2-handed Fighter would assuredly chop a limb off of someone with every attack.
So how did Deadlands determine which area of your body you were hit? Rolled a d20. 20 = Head, 19-15 = right arm, 11-14 = left arm, 10 = guts, 5-9 = right leg, 1-4 = left leg; or something similar. If you got a particularly awesome attack (deadlands is a success-based game), you could +/- the die roll a bit; melee weapons added +1 or +2 (I forget) to the d20 roll, attacking from higher ground (like horseback or higher point on a staircase) added a +1 as well.
If I wanted a grittier game, that's probably what I'd do. Screw random critical hit and fumble charts. I'd just up the ante to "you lost your arm like so much Anakin Skywalker; make a save at -5 to stabilize, you're going into shock" and be done with it. Then I could grin and say "Boom, headshot". I'd let stuff like Improved Critical let you bump the targeting die up or down a point as well, methinks. Maybe weapons with high threat ranges would instead add +X to your hit-location rolls (so a scimitar might get +2 on the d20, making a roll of 17+ a head shot, bonus damage).
That is, if I wanted my fantasy games to try and force the limitations and flesh and blood characteristics of so many 1st-3rd level NPC classed mooks onto fantasy heroes who are supposed to be off killing hydras, dancing cheek to cheek with medusas, and joking about "sweating it" in the dragon's blast-furnace like mouth over a mug of ale later that evening; and it sure as hell wouldn't be anything so random as being just whatever you rolled on the d20.
I honestly think that you would enjoy my games. Even though we tend to disagree on many things, I think you would actually have a lot of fun. I think you would see these decks in action and see that they don't distract from the game. I have had several people use the same arguments you've used and when they saw the decks used by me, they rethought their position.
Possibly would. You seem like a good guy, and even though we've had our disagreements and such, I consider you a great peer and debater, and wouldn't mind giving it a shot at your table if I was ever out and about; nor would I mind the reverse. I have have little to no love for critical hit tables, and outright hatred for random fumbles. If I wanted to add gritty elements to the game or add more realism, there's probably a 101 better ways I could go about doing it.
Maybe coming up with some nice shooting into crowds rules, so my players can abuse them against hordes of enemies. Yeaaah, that'd be good. I remember Deadlands had rules for firing into a crowd. Using those rules against your enemies was always a hoot. GM - "Twelve guys with shotguns approach...", Players - "We fan our guns into them! Bwhahahaahha!"
Good times...
I don't know why everyone keeps bringing up fighters. It's monks, masters of discipline who suddenly become masters of fumble. They have a high number of attacks and not enough ability to hit.
The best way around that is only going by the first attack roll per turn.
I would fill it up with unexpected situations that aren't exactly bad such as attacking the person next to them be it friend or foe, having the fumbler to accidentally turn their attack turn into a bull rush or trip (with all the downsides such AoO and the other character able to avoid it via CMD), moving back a space from jagged movements or from being pushed back by the parrying, or that sort of thing.
That's why I'm bringing this up because I'm playing a monk right now.
Yeah, I've never been in military grade combat. I've also never been swallowed whole before. Or crunched in the jaws of a dragon that could crush a semi-truck and exposed with no saving throw to the ravages of fire so inhumanly hot that it can slag a suit of full plate armor in 3 seconds flat, while pinned in said jaws, and survive. Hopefully, I will avoid any of the above; because I'm fine just sparring with my friends.
I’ve never been in battle with a dragon but I have been mauled by animals before. I’ve also seen the after effects of vehicles or other large objects hitting people. I’ve seen someone’s foot get caught in a turret as it turned quickly. I have had a quarter stick of dynamite explode in my face. Probably not a lot of difference in overall effects between fantasy and reality. I have seen the effects of flames (over 3000 F) so hot that it literally melts the flesh off the bones. Being a combat life saver when I was in the infantry introduced me to many things I wish I had never seen. Hopefully you (or anyone else) never have to experience anything like that. It's easy for bad things to happen in combat. I've seen a guy get grazed in the head by a 30mm round. When I say grazed, I mean that it nicked him and nearly killed him. He went through 2 years of physical therapy to be able to speak again. He never fully recovered his memories. This was friendly fire from an A-10.
Do you add additional rules to make archers shoot their teammates and such, by chance? I mean, the game imposes penalties and such to ranged attacks against guys behind soft cover or in melee, so do you have the arrows randomly kill your fighter by shooting him in the head when you meant the orc he was fighting?
The critical fumble deck actually allows for that. In 3.0 there were rules for striking cover, but they were removed. There aren’t many fumbles that do that but there are a few (a quick scan found 2 but I suspect there are probably 4). The better the archer, the less chance he has of striking an ally.
Deadlands is a good RPG for gritty gameplay.
I tried to play it once but the GM was one of those who fiddled with the rules so much that I never had the chance to actually play and enjoy the system. He did the same with every system he ran. Not a very good GM as far as I’m concerned. I don’t mind house rules but when there are so many that the rule books aren’t helpful anymore, there is a problem. I’m not exaggerating either.
That is, if I wanted my fantasy games to try and force the limitations and flesh and blood characteristics of so many 1st-3rd level NPC classed mooks onto fantasy heroes who are supposed to be off killing hydras, dancing cheek to cheek with medusas, and joking about "sweating it" in the dragon's blast-furnace like mouth over a mug of ale later that evening; and it sure as hell wouldn't be anything so random as being just whatever you rolled on the d20.
The critical hit and fumble decks don’t work that way so it’s not that bad. And you would simply discard results that don’t make sense. For example, one of the fumbles is Vibration and it only goes into effect if you are using a bludgeoning melee weapon. If you are wielding a dagger, there is no chance that this will trigger. As the GM, I wouldn’t force another card to be drawn.
Possibly would. You seem like a good guy, and even though we've had our disagreements and such, I consider you a great peer and debater, and wouldn't mind giving it a shot at your table if I was ever out and about; nor would I mind the reverse. [/qoute]
If you’re ever in the Seattle area, let me know.
In my games i use both a critical hit chart and a critical miss chart. Some of the people i play with consider it somewhat extreme but they still like playing with it. Just last session when some premditated PvP happened our female barbarian insta killed the inquisitor
With a confirmed critical you get to roll on a D100 table depending on the weapons type Bludgeoning, Piercing, slashing (rays will normally fall under Piercing) this can result in anything between a normal damage crit to removing limbs and instand deaths (Skull crushed, pierced heart ect)
I have done my critical fumbles somewhat differently to the norm so it doesnt penalise those people who get more attacks or use a 3/4 BAB combat class as other systems would. When you fumble you can negate it by rolling under your level on a D20. Fumbles range from losing actions to breaking weapons and hitting/critting allys/yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The group I'm in uses and loves both the Critical Hits and Fumble decks. For whatever that's worth. I find it makes the game more fun (and I attack roll based characters), but YMMV. It's certainly nowhere near as bad as people are making it out to be. I suggest trying the decks out and deciding after you've actually seen them in play for a while.
I found a great ruleset for determining fumble confirmations, but the fumble table sucked. I'm interested in finding a new and better table of fumble possibilities and accordingly critical hit possibilities. Any suggestions outside of the deck (I really don't want to spend even more money, right now)?
I’ve never been in battle with a dragon but I have been mauled by animals before. I’ve also seen the after effects of vehicles or other large objects hitting people. I’ve seen someone’s foot get caught in a turret as it turned quickly. I have had a quarter stick of dynamite explode in my face. Probably not a lot of difference in overall effects between fantasy and reality. I have seen the effects of flames (over 3000 F) so hot that it literally melts the flesh off the bones. Being a combat life saver when I was in the infantry introduced me to many things I wish I had never seen. Hopefully you (or anyone else) never have to experience anything like that. It's easy for bad things to happen in combat. I've seen a guy get grazed in the head by a 30mm round. When I say grazed, I mean that it nicked him and nearly killed him. He went through 2 years of physical therapy to be able to speak again. He never fully recovered his memories. This was friendly fire from an A-10.
The problem with that is none of that stuff is beyond a few d6s worth of damage in D&D terms. A dragon makes a grizzly bear look like a kitten. I mean, a dire bear is around CR 7. A great wyrm red dragon is around the size of my house. Nothing compared to a dragon. A bear cannot snatch you up into its mouth, pin you there, and then breath hotter than magma fire all over you. Most of the things you describe are in the "realism" area of D&D. That is, levels 1-5 or so (arguably 1-3). At a point where 1d12+6 is almost assured death.
Even 3000o heat is mild compared to a breath of a great wyrm red dragon. Iron melts at around 2800o Fahrenheit, but a dragon's breath can slag a whole suit of plate mail to nothing (outright destroyed, not damaged, destroyed) in 3 seconds flat. Its jaws open, breath comes out, jaws close, and the 50 lbs. of iron armor is no more. That instantaneous. One standard action. And a warrior can be pinned in his jaws and eat all that damage, crawl away going "ow, ow, ow, that's really hot!" and drink about it merrily that evening after the cleric drops a nice fat mass heal on the party.
I'm not interested in random fumbles, foibles, or freak hits as a source of gritty realism. I can get gritty realism by adding rules that implement gritty realism more often than 5% of the time. Why? Because I like consistency. If I wanted archers to be able to hit nearby folks, I'd add some rules for it that made sense (like basing it off the cover bonus, or determining which space he actually shot into with a d8, etc).