The critical fumbles deck doesn't seem balanced.
Why not?
It just seems as if a single critical fumble can make a party lose the encounter. That just doesn't seem fair to me. On top of that the deck favors monsters instead of players. This is because of the number of generated attacks and the access to spells. I don't want to the game to be harder just because I pulled a tendon. I want the game to be challenging because of the environment and the creatures I'm facing.
There are so few fumbles (in the deck) that would cause that any more than simply missing the target in the first place. Most of the effects are rather minor and easily dealt with.
I should mention that my games already see a lot of in combat healing and other spells that many people on the boards seem to dislike. So a bleed effect isn't that hindering because odds are the character was probably going to see a cure spell in the next round anyway. My players also use Aid Another often enough so that a -2 to hit isn't that big of a deal. Ability damage and conditions are also things that my party are already prepared to deal with so these effects make the combat last a whole round or two more.
I had a chart up that went something like:
Roll 1
Roll 1d20 again for:
1-2 - drop weapon
3-4 - throw weapon 1d4 squares away, using 1d8 to pick the direction (1 is forward, 2 is diagonal forward right, 3 is right, etc...)
5-6 - stumble 5 ft. in d8 direction, provoking an AoO
7-8 - stumble and drop weapon
9-10 - stumble and throw weapon
11-12 - fall prone
13-14 - attack random (d8) square, hitting a character or object in that space
15-20 - nothing special happens, you just miss
I had a chart up that went something like:
Roll 1
Roll 1d20 again for:
1-2 - drop weapon
3-4 - throw weapon 1d4 squares away, using 1d8 to pick the direction (1 is forward, 2 is diagonal forward right, 3 is right, etc...)
5-6 - stumble 5 ft. in d8 direction, provoking an AoO
7-8 - stumble and drop weapon
9-10 - stumble and throw weapon
11-12 - fall prone
13-14 - attack random (d8) square, hitting a character or object in that space
15-20 - nothing special happens, you just miss
With attack random, the attacker must re-roll to hit, possible hitting an ally. If you suspect players of using loaded dice or poisoning their weapons, only then is this necessary.
There are so few fumbles (in the deck) that would cause that any more than simply missing the target in the first place. Most of the effects are rather minor and easily dealt with.
Is it wrong that my brain reads this as: "I swear that you can just remove the stuff that isn't just missing your target, but keep the extra work of figuring out fumbles, or even which fumbles you will allow"?
I should mention that my games already see a lot of in combat healing and other spells that many people on the boards seem to dislike. So a bleed effect isn't that hindering because odds are the character was probably going to see a cure spell in the next round anyway. My players also use Aid Another often enough so that a -2 to hit isn't that big of a deal. Ability damage and conditions are also things that my party are already prepared to deal with so these effects make the combat last a whole round or two more.
Sometimes I really wonder what I do differently than other people. I'm no stranger to the online standard of saying combats rarely last more than 1-3 rounds on average; but my combats are typically around a 10 round average, with some of the major battles lasting 20+. O.o
There are so few fumbles (in the deck) that would cause that any more than simply missing the target in the first place. Most of the effects are rather minor and easily dealt with.Is it wrong that my brain reads this as: "I swear that you can just remove the stuff that isn't just missing your target, but keep the extra work of figuring out fumbles, or even which fumbles you will allow"?
It's only wrong because that's not what I said. It's definitely an option but it's not the one I was advocating. I'm advocating that the players learn to deal with the way the world functions. My players, as much as they grip when they suffer ability damage, would not have as much fun without the fumbles and crits. I know this because we talked about it before hand.
I should mention that my games already see a lot of in combat healing and other spells that many people on the boards seem to dislike. So a bleed effect isn't that hindering because odds are the character was probably going to see a cure spell in the next round anyway. My players also use Aid Another often enough so that a -2 to hit isn't that big of a deal. Ability damage and conditions are also things that my party are already prepared to deal with so these effects make the combat last a whole round or two more.Sometimes I really wonder what I do differently than other people. I'm no stranger to the online standard of saying combats rarely last more than 1-3 rounds on average; but my combats are typically around a 10 round average, with some of the major battles lasting 20+. O.o
It's hard to say what you and I and others do differently. Most of the combats in my games last 5 to 7 rounds. I don't pull punches with the enemy. In fact, when I stat them out I make sure that things like Power Attack are active so I can see how much damage I will be dealing. My players would rather spend a round using a cure serious wounds (or several if necessary) instead of 5000k to raise someone from the dead. I remember one time when the barbarian/rogue took a hit that nearly killed him and every party member with a cure wand hit him. It looked like a drum solo in my mind.
hey do you noticed the peg legs and patched eyes in the skuls guide?
we try with that rules as well and feels so good on the table and mechanics:
a critical confirmed, makes you take out a card... then with 20/20 youll get this effect to
Every deck needs a rules pamphlet. Important characters do not die, they end up in a long coma.
I have had no fun at all with the crit fumble. I had to ban fumbles from the table. 3.5 had some major problems.
Every deck needs a rules pamphlet. Important characters do not die, they end up in a long coma.
I have had no fun at all with the crit fumble. I had to ban fumbles from the table. 3.5 had some major problems.
What do you mean? 3.5 didn't have critical fumbles.
There are so few fumbles (in the deck) that would cause that any more than simply missing the target in the first place. Most of the effects are rather minor and easily dealt with.
Then why bother? See, if the argument is that "Fumbles are fun and realistic" then you can't also argue that "they don;t do anything much besides a auto miss anyway". If the argument is "well, you can just take out the cards you don;t like" then that's like saying "well, the DM can fix that with a few houserules". And, then if fumbles are so rare- then why even bother with them? The other argument is that "well, if you use optional rule A" they are not so bad- but then option rules B&C exist and are just as legit.
If fumbles only occur in time in 400 in your games and hardly ever do anything more than a miss, then why slow the game down with rolling them?
In any case, wizards don;t fumble with the best spells, leaving a even larger gap in power between warriors and wizards, which is bad for game balance.
To sum up:
Fumbles hurt game balance.
Fumbles hurt PC's far more than monsters.
If they occur often, they become ridiculous and slow the game.
If they hardly ever occur, they just bog down the game.
What is unusual here is that you and I are agueing Bob. Usually we are both on the side of reason and mature game playing.
I should mention that my games already see a lot of in combat healing and other spells that many people on the boards seem to dislike.
That's because you seem to run a game with mature roleplayers that don't see their PC's as disposible as Kleenex, and 'teamwork" as a dirty word as so many of the immature munchkins do. I mean- why bother healing during combat to save a PC's life when they can just roll up one even more powerful? And, since you're only out for Numero Uno, why bother helping out your party? I am rolling my eyes so hard sometimes here it makes them hurt.
Note how few Party boosting builds we see here on these boards, and how every build is for extreme damage causing.
http://paizo.com/products/btpy89mn?GameMastery-Critical-Fumble-Deck
If buying the deck doesn't work for you, you can also get the Critical Hit and Critical Miss "decks" as an application for your iPhone or Android, if you have one.
What do you mean? 3.5 didn't have critical fumbles.Every deck needs a rules pamphlet. Important characters do not die, they end up in a long coma.
I have had no fun at all with the crit fumble. I had to ban fumbles from the table. 3.5 had some major problems.
There was one in the Dragon Compendium. It was ok but I think the cards are better. It was based off the old "Good Hits and Bad Misses" from 1st Edition. We tried to use it but it never felt quite right to us.
There are so few fumbles (in the deck) that would cause that any more than simply missing the target in the first place. Most of the effects are rather minor and easily dealt with.
Then why bother? See, if the argument is that "Fumbles are fun and realistic" then you can't also argue that "they don;t do anything much besides a auto miss anyway". If the argument is "well, you can just take out the cards you don;t like" then that's like saying "well, the DM can fix that with a few houserules". And, then if fumbles are so rare- then why even bother with them? The other argument is that "well, if you use optional rule A" they are not so bad- but then option rules B&C exist and are just as legit.
If fumbles only occur in time in 400 in your games and hardly ever do anything more than a miss, then why slow the game down with rolling them?
In any case, wizards don;t fumble with the best spells, leaving a even larger gap in power between warriors and wizards, which is bad for game balance.
To sum up:
Fumbles hurt game balance.
Fumbles hurt PC's far more than monsters.
If they occur often, they become ridiculous and slow the game.
If they hardly ever occur, they just bog down the game.What is unusual here is that you and I are agueing Bob. Usually we are both on the side of reason and mature game playing.
No one has argued about realism. It was a misunderstanding from Ashiel's and my argument.
The fun factor is something that really can't be argued. Fun is subjective and obviously some people enjoy one style of game over another. I dislike god-wizards and actually prefer blasters. I find them more fun even if they aren't as optimal. Others don't feel the same way. I'm cool with that.
My argument about how they don't do much other than what a standard miss would do, at least not for long, is to demonstrate that they aren't game breaking. Some of us like a bit more randomness without it being crippling. Some of you don't. That's ok. It's an optional rule. Something that did get lost in the discussion is that my whole group agreed to this. They all want it. If they didn't, we wouldn't use it. If you and Ashiel were in the group, we wouldn't use it. I might ask you to give it a try and if you still feel it's unbalanced or unfun, then we would stop using it.
I don't see a large gap between casters and non-casters in my games. I'm pretty strict on casters, making sure that they are following the rules. In order to avoid derailing this thread with what I mean, I can answer that in another thread.
To sum up my experience (a two-year experiment):
1) Fumbles do not hurt game balance. Our best combatants were melee. The archer, with 6 attacks per round, rarely saw fumbles.
2) The monsters roll attacks more than the players so the monsters actually see more fumbles (the same reason why they see more critical hits).
3) They don't occur often enough to slow the game down.
4) If they hardly ever occur, they can't bog the game down since they are hardly ever occurring.
Our group has found them to be a fun addition to the game. We saw no significant effect on balance or speed of play. That was a full campaign from level 1 to 22 in the Age of Worms AP. The party consisted of a barbarian/rogue, archer (several classes), paladin, two fighters, inquisitor, and a wizard (blaster). If any group was going to be bogged down and see lots of fumbles, it would be this group.
I should mention that my games already see a lot of in combat healing and other spells that many people on the boards seem to dislike.
That's because you seem to run a game with mature roleplayers that don't see their PC's as disposible as Kleenex, and 'teamwork" as a dirty word as so many of the immature munchkins do. I mean- why bother healing during combat to save a PC's life when they can just roll up one even more powerful? And, since you're only out for Numero Uno, why bother helping out your party? I am rolling my eyes so hard sometimes here it makes them hurt.
Note how few Party boosting builds we see here on these boards, and how every build is for extreme damage causing.
My groups have been like this for a long time. I seek out this type of player. I don't enjoy gaming with those who want a solo game. I've done that and it wasn't fun for me as GM and the players didn't enjoy it either.
My argument about how they don't do much other than what a standard miss would do, at least not for long, is to demonstrate that they aren't game breaking.
Having seen a character die when an enemy fumbled, but drew the card that made their attack still hit but do minimum damage when the enemy would've missed if it rolled less than a 16 on its d20, I must disagree.
My groups have been like this for a long time. I seek out this type of player. I don't enjoy gaming with those who want a solo game. I've done that and it wasn't fun for me as GM and the players didn't enjoy it either.
I should mention that my games already see a lot of in combat healing and other spells that many people on the boards seem to dislike.
That's because you seem to run a game with mature roleplayers that don't see their PC's as disposible as Kleenex, and 'teamwork" as a dirty word as so many of the immature munchkins do. I mean- why bother healing during combat to save a PC's life when they can just roll up one even more powerful? And, since you're only out for Numero Uno, why bother helping out your party? I am rolling my eyes so hard sometimes here it makes them hurt.
Note how few Party boosting builds we see here on these boards, and how every build is for extreme damage causing.
Yes, it's fun gaming with adults, isn't it?
I've always found that critical misses make combat way more dynamic and dramatic, as long as they are applied and adjudicated with a light hand.
We've done everything from a chart to free-form critical misses, but over the years most have involved a cruelty meter (low to high with low rolls usually meaning little to no effect) and either reflex saves or some sort of dex roll to avoid anything too problematic. So quite often, the effects are minor and anything too crazy or tragic is rare, but oh so memorable.
My argument about how they don't do much other than what a standard miss would do, at least not for long, is to demonstrate that they aren't game breaking.Having seen a character die when an enemy fumbled, but drew the card that made their attack still hit but do minimum damage when the enemy would've missed if it rolled less than a 16 on its d20, I must disagree.
That broke the game? Hmmm. Someone else pointed out that the exact same card actually helped them win a fight because the PC drew it. This goes back to what I was saying before, the players need to keep in mind that fumbles can have an effect and they should be ready with cure spells and effects that remove conditions. My players wouldn't be phased by that because they do everything they can to not be within a sword swing of death. Of course it's an optional system so the GM can decide which options to use.
Yes, it's fun gaming with adults, isn't it?My groups have been like this for a long time. I seek out this type of player. I don't enjoy gaming with those who want a solo game. I've done that and it wasn't fun for me as GM and the players didn't enjoy it either.
I should mention that my games already see a lot of in combat healing and other spells that many people on the boards seem to dislike.
That's because you seem to run a game with mature roleplayers that don't see their PC's as disposible as Kleenex, and 'teamwork" as a dirty word as so many of the immature munchkins do. I mean- why bother healing during combat to save a PC's life when they can just roll up one even more powerful? And, since you're only out for Numero Uno, why bother helping out your party? I am rolling my eyes so hard sometimes here it makes them hurt.
Note how few Party boosting builds we see here on these boards, and how every build is for extreme damage causing.
I used to run a game at a FLGS and it was beyond challenging. The different types of players made it very unfun. At the time it was the only game in town. I changed that as quickly as I could. It is certainly much more fun gaming with mature players. Strangely enough, one of my best players at the game was a 12-year old. She was probably one of the most mature of anyone at the table.
Forgive me for repeating myself: outside of the Paizo deck, are there any really good tables?
Forgive me for repeating myself: outside of the Paizo deck, are there any really good tables?
You can get by with the one in Dragon Compendium. It's not bad. I just like the deck better.
For our house rules we have critical miss. When you roll a 1 and confirm it with a 1, you get a critical fail (only on attack roles).
Some effects of a crit-fail are hitting the ally next to you, chucking your weapon 5xstr mod feet across the battle field, poking yourself in the back of the head as you attempt to draw your spear, etc...
Yes, it's fun gaming with adults, isn't it?My groups have been like this for a long time. I seek out this type of player. I don't enjoy gaming with those who want a solo game. I've done that and it wasn't fun for me as GM and the players didn't enjoy it either.
I should mention that my games already see a lot of in combat healing and other spells that many people on the boards seem to dislike.
That's because you seem to run a game with mature roleplayers that don't see their PC's as disposible as Kleenex, and 'teamwork" as a dirty word as so many of the immature munchkins do. I mean- why bother healing during combat to save a PC's life when they can just roll up one even more powerful? And, since you're only out for Numero Uno, why bother helping out your party? I am rolling my eyes so hard sometimes here it makes them hurt.
Note how few Party boosting builds we see here on these boards, and how every build is for extreme damage causing.
It is. I personally believe in forging mature gamers, rather than avoiding the immature. I've done a lot of online gaming since the gaming scene in my area isn't that big (I still play/GM for my usual group of friends which varies between myself + 3-6 people plus occasional guests on tabletop), and I get to meet gamers of all kinds. Some of them I've played with had very bad habits. The poster child of problem player in my online associates is also the poster child for our general success story with improving the maturity of a player, and helping to shape their experiences.
This person, who I shall not name for airing their laundry here, I shall call "K". Now K basically was basically the worst possible example of a RPG gamer you could find. He was the epitome of individual player (he played games literally as if the other PCs were not there, and seemed to become irritable of they specifically forced a conversation between their PCs), had excessively low self-esteem, got way to attached to his PCs (who were often little more than pale imitations of characters from existing medias), threw tantrums, and so forth. The list goes on, really. He developed such a bad reputation that nobody else in our online community would play with him. In many ways, if all gamers were like this person, I would send Jack Chick an apology letter on behalf of gamers everywhere.
However, I had patience with him, and talked it over with some of my other players, and asked them to be nice (or as nice as they could be). Didn't respond to his tantrums, didn't let metagaming fly, and I let his PCs die when it happened, and talked to him outside of game fairly regularly, discussing certain social hangups he had (while being as understanding as possible without being permissive).
Nothing changed overnight, but now he is a pretty fine gamer. He still has a habit of extreme powergaming (but I don't really mind most power gamers when I'm GMing, 'cause it's just more amusing when they go splat :P) but he recognizes the difference between theoretical optimization and more practical aspects. He is now way more of a team player, and acts alongside the other players in unison. He's gotten to the point he can take a joke, and will step out of his bubble to interact and lend aid to his friends. He shares the experience not trying to make it all about himself, but a group thing. All in all, he is like a vastly different and greater person and gamer now than when I first met him. Even players who once wanted me to boot him from our games now count him among the good ones, and often counts him in when planning a new game.
I think with some patience and a little love for your fellow gamer, you can find a diamond underneath all that rough. ^_^
What do you mean? 3.5 didn't have critical fumbles.Every deck needs a rules pamphlet. Important characters do not die, they end up in a long coma.
I have had no fun at all with the crit fumble. I had to ban fumbles from the table. 3.5 had some major problems.
3.0 and 3.5 do have critical fumbles as an optional rule.
One player argued all night that if he rolled a 20, then a 1 to confirm, he should do crit. damage but lose his grip on the weapon. Later versions of the crit. rule are very clear that a 1 to confirm means normal damage.
As a deck won't waste the rest of the game night, have fun.
We're using fumbles in our games. Roll 1d10 to know which square you strike, reroll against flat-footed AC of the creature.
It allowed for fun friendly fire or epic turnarounds, as when the second attack roll results in a crit.
This shows that even optional rules hate monks and rogues. :P
|
This shows that even optional rules hate monks and rogues. :PWe're using fumbles in our games. Roll 1d10 to know which square you strike, reroll against flat-footed AC of the creature.
It allowed for fun friendly fire or epic turnarounds, as when the second attack roll results in a crit.
Doesn't matter, my monks were played as a wrestler with no attack rolls ; and a trip/disarm maneuver monkey with monkey style. Plus, the DM is awesome enough that a rogue would be allowed immunity to fumble if it fits it's concept, allows him to be efficient and doesn't disrupt the group's fun :p
It still hurts when the ranger hits himself with all his favored enemy bonuses. Mostly by laughing for us though.
This shows that even optional rules hate monks and rogues. :PWe're using fumbles in our games. Roll 1d10 to know which square you strike, reroll against flat-footed AC of the creature.
It allowed for fun friendly fire or epic turnarounds, as when the second attack roll results in a crit.
D&D 3.0 had it right IMO. Failing a Reflex DC 15 was required to confirm a critical fumble. Since characters with multiple attacks per round (two-weapon fighting fighter/ranger/rogue, flurry of blowing monk, rapid-shoting archer, etc) tend to have better Ref saves, because of their high Dex or class, it somehow mitigate the more attacks per round = more critical fumbles phenomenon.
In 3.5 it was a flat DC 10 Dex check, which is dump because a high-level fighter would fumble more often than a low-level one.
In Pathfinder there's no critical fumbles optional rule outside of the Deck.
I wouldn't recommand using friendly fire critical fumbles, because it penalize some fighting formation (like a wall of shields) and characters with teamwork feats. As if AoE spells and cleave were not enough to dissuade such tactics.
ok, heres ona thing:
critical fumble and hit cards, are the paizo´s rules, its were if we are playing at the paizo´s table every session, we have the rules from theyre books and heres where´s the best rules comes up: the DM and theyre players take the rules they want (even house made or not)
i like this cards, boths of them, i want they make a second deck all diferent to has a 104 diferent effects in any kind of attack or fumble from paizo.
but at the end, the Dm has the rule, and if that do not fit to the moment, he has the decission to say what anyway
My group always played DnD and Pathfinder with critical fumbles. It's not like a 1/20 chance that something like that happens. You still haveto confirm it so unless you're going against very high DCs/ACs your chance of crit-failure is less than 1/40. Also you don't have to make critical fumbles super dangerous. We usually go with stuff like, "you trip", "you drop your weapon", "you deal a low amount of damage to yourself", and only double-1s really result in really bad things like dealing full weapon damage to yourself somehow or breaking your weapon.
It never was a problem and most of the time the damage sustained by a critical fumble was little more than a minor inconvenience. And also NPCs and monsters are equally subject to it. It makes for cinematic battles and in my opinion a more complete experience.
So I can't understand the dislike for a critical fumble system either, unless people are completely overestimating the results or have had unpleasant experiences with an overly harsh system.
We use them, we like them. It depends on your group I guess. We all agree that if they lead to something ridiculous like death or a TPK we cut back on our interpretation of them. 99% of the time they add flavor and fun to the game.
You don't have to take them all literally. It's a role-playing game, role-play it out, use imagination...that's why we play this game and not some regimented/railroaded computer game.
My group always played DnD and Pathfinder with critical fumbles. It's not like a 1/20 chance that something like that happens. You still haveto confirm it so unless you're going against very high DCs/ACs your chance of crit-failure is less than 1/40. Also you don't have to make critical fumbles super dangerous. We usually go with stuff like, "you trip", "you drop your weapon", "you deal a low amount of damage to yourself", and only double-1s really result in really bad things like dealing full weapon damage to yourself somehow or breaking your weapon.
It never was a problem and most of the time the damage sustained by a critical fumble was little more than a minor inconvenience. And also NPCs and monsters are equally subject to it. It makes for cinematic battles and in my opinion a more complete experience.
So I can't understand the dislike for a critical fumble system either, unless people are completely overestimating the results or have had unpleasant experiences with an overly harsh system.
Wizards don't have to worry about dropping or breaking their weapons. In fact, with their best spell list, they never make a attack roll, thus they can never fumble. So, this makes the already large gap between spellcasters and warriors at high levels even larger. This is a Bad Thing.
Next, even if you have a confirm roll, this makes high level warriors fumble more than commoners. Also a Bad Thing.
Then- things like "break you weapon" don't bother monsters as they don't care about the next encounter. Monster never have to worry about fumbles carry over into the next encounter. So , no NPCs and monsters are NOT equally subject to it.
Finally if the fumbles are nothing more than a minor inconvenience- why bother at all?
My group always played DnD and Pathfinder with critical fumbles. It's not like a 1/20 chance that something like that happens. You still haveto confirm it so unless you're going against very high DCs/ACs your chance of crit-failure is less than 1/40. Also you don't have to make critical fumbles super dangerous. We usually go with stuff like, "you trip", "you drop your weapon", "you deal a low amount of damage to yourself", and only double-1s really result in really bad things like dealing full weapon damage to yourself somehow or breaking your weapon.
It never was a problem and most of the time the damage sustained by a critical fumble was little more than a minor inconvenience. And also NPCs and monsters are equally subject to it. It makes for cinematic battles and in my opinion a more complete experience.
So I can't understand the dislike for a critical fumble system either, unless people are completely overestimating the results or have had unpleasant experiences with an overly harsh system.
Wizards don't have to worry about dropping or breaking their weapons. In fact, with their best spell list, they never make a attack roll, thus they can never fumble. So, this makes the already large gap between spellcasters and warriors at high levels even larger. This is a Bad Thing.
Next, even if you have a confirm roll, this makes high level warriors fumble more than commoners. Also a Bad Thing.
Then- things like "break you weapon" don't bother monsters as they don't care about the next encounter. Monster never have to worry about fumbles carry over into the next encounter. So , no NPCs and monsters are NOT equally subject to it.
Finally if the fumbles are nothing more than a minor inconvenience- why bother at all?
It becomes more balanced if you also include the Critical Hit Deck, because it makes critical hits even better and a Wizard that never rolls dice will never benefit from the Critical Hit Deck in the same way they won't suffer from the Critical Fumble Deck.
That being said, I agree with you on the fact that the way fumbles should be resolved according to the Critical Fumble Deck penalizes characters with multiple attacks per round. I also believe that there is a lot of stupid cards in this deck (you hit yourself, d'uh!).
I've decided to pick up the deck and use it as a custom bestow curse--draw a card, oh, whenever you roll a natural 1 or miss by more than 5 and confirm the miss. It's about on par with the other curses; it's entertaining; and it shows my attitude about critical fumbles in general and the Deck in particular at the same time. : D
I've decided to pick up the deck and use it as a custom bestow curse--draw a card, oh, whenever you roll a natural 1 or miss by more than 5 and confirm the miss. It's about on par with the other curses; it's entertaining; and it shows my attitude about critical fumbles in general and the Deck in particular at the same time. : D
Good idea. If you don't have it already, I also recommend you to add the Critical Hit Deck to your collection. IMO it's even better than the Critical Fumble Deck and the squishy wizard who fancies himself as a god will never look down on the big stupid fighter again, knowing that he could be beheaded by a single stroke of his mighty falchion. ;)
Maybe. I might not use it straight (again, the magic results are just silly), but it'd make for an interesting sub-vorpal weapon property, either for a magic item or a spell-based enhancement.
My group always played DnD and Pathfinder with critical fumbles. It's not like a 1/20 chance that something like that happens. You still haveto confirm it so unless you're going against very high DCs/ACs your chance of crit-failure is less than 1/40. Also you don't have to make critical fumbles super dangerous. We usually go with stuff like, "you trip", "you drop your weapon", "you deal a low amount of damage to yourself", and only double-1s really result in really bad things like dealing full weapon damage to yourself somehow or breaking your weapon.
It never was a problem and most of the time the damage sustained by a critical fumble was little more than a minor inconvenience. And also NPCs and monsters are equally subject to it. It makes for cinematic battles and in my opinion a more complete experience.
So I can't understand the dislike for a critical fumble system either, unless people are completely overestimating the results or have had unpleasant experiences with an overly harsh system.
Wizards don't have to worry about dropping or breaking their weapons. In fact, with their best spell list, they never make a attack roll, thus they can never fumble. So, this makes the already large gap between spellcasters and warriors at high levels even larger. This is a Bad Thing.
Of course, but that's why you also add a critical hit mechanic. That casters benefit from as ittle as they are affected by critical fumbles.
Next, even if you have a confirm roll, this makes high level warriors fumble more than commoners. Also a Bad Thing.
How is that?
Then- things like "break you weapon" don't bother monsters as they don't care about the next encounter. Monster never have to worry about fumbles carry over into the next encounter. So , no NPCs and monsters are NOT equally subject to it.
Then again PCs have things like repair or mending spells.
Finally if the fumbles are nothing more than a minor inconvenience- why bother at all?
If combat sequences at your table sound anything like this:
P1: I charge the orc with my greatsword. *roll* 18.GM: You hit.
P1: *roll* 11 damage.
GM: The orc is dying. The orc chieftain attacks you, P2. *roll* what's your AC?
P2: 15.
GM: *roll* He deals 9 damage to you. Your turn.
P2: I attack him with my rapier. *roll* 1.
GM: Confirm.
P2: *roll* 6.
GM: *checks fumble result* you drop your weapon.
I can understand why you wouldn't bother.
However if you play more like this:
P1: I charge the orc with my greatsword. *roll* 18.
GM: You hit.
P1: *roll* 11 damage.
GM: With your blade lifted above your head you run towards the orc warrior, a single mighty swing tears a deep wound across its torso, sending it to the ground forcefully. Losing large amounts of blood the orc lies dying at your feet. P2, with a furious howl the chieftain swings his crude scimitar at you. *roll* what's your AC?
P2: 15.
GM: *roll* The axe cuts through your leather armor and digs deep into your shoulder, but you barely manage to keep on your feet. You recieve 9 damage.
P2: I attack him with my rapier. *roll* 1.
GM: Confirm.
P2: *roll* 6.
GM: *checks fumble result* Unwilling to give up the fight you thrust your rapier towards the chieftain's neck but the chieftain swings his shield around and pushes your blade aside, the sudden movement shoots pain through your wounded shoulder. You lose grip of your rapier and it falls cluttering to the ground.
Such results make the whole experience a bit deeper and more immersive.
Wizards don't have to worry about dropping or breaking their weapons. In fact, with their best spell list, they never make a attack roll, thus they can never fumble. So, this makes the already large gap between spellcasters and warriors at high levels even larger. This is a Bad Thing.
Those same wizards can never crit with those spells, they can't apply crit effects, they can't generally cast more than 1 or 2 spells in a round, they don't have a lot of extras they can do with those spells. They can often do one or two things, assuming they are using a metamagic feat. Spell casting comes with it's own perks and benefits and shouldn't be compared to melee or ranged combat unless you are only comparing weapon-like spells.
Next, even if you have a confirm roll, this makes high level warriors fumble more than commoners. Also a Bad Thing.
I already addressed this earlier but it is not necessarily true. In fact it is entirely possible that the warriors will fumble less, as it should be. Remember that there are several ways to implement the critical fumble deck. If you only allow one fumble per encounter and the confirmation roll is done with the highest attack bonus, then the warriors will never fumble more than commoners unless they are just unlucky.
Then- things like "break you weapon" don't bother monsters as they don't care about the next encounter. Monster never have to worry about fumbles carry over into the next encounter. So , no NPCs and monsters are NOT equally subject to it.
You hand selected one fumble that would not carry over (assuming that the weapon isn't simply fixed before the next encounter). Many fumbles don't carry over no matter what:
1) AC penalties
2) Attack penalties
3) bleed (this is easily dealt with before the next encounter)
4) damage
5) falling prone
6) speed slowed
7) deal non-lethal damage
8) confused
9) blinded for 1 round
10) provoke attack of opportunity
11) fatigued
12) sickened
Those are the first 4 cards I randomly drew from the deck. I did not look at the magical effects. Even some things that I know are in there, like ability damage, aren't very extreme and are easily dealt with.
I have seen more fumbles for the enemies than for the PCs for the same reason why I see more critical hits for the enemies than for the PCs, the GM rolls more often.
Finally if the fumbles are nothing more than a minor inconvenience- why bother at all?
We bother because we like it. We don't want the game ruined because of them but we do want a little more than "you missed." We want some misses to be worse, just like we want some hits to be better. It's the style of combat we like. Neither way is wrong. Our way is just better (for us). :) (That last sentence is a joke for those who don't know me very well).
Maybe. I might not use it straight (again, the magic results are just silly), but it'd make for an interesting sub-vorpal weapon property, either for a magic item or a spell-based enhancement.
I really like them but I was also a fan of wild magic in 2nd edition and would love to see it in Pathfinder in some way.
Such results make the whole experience a bit deeper and more immersive.
In all fairness, the more "lyrical" description makes immersion deeper but doesn't change the end result. The same level of immersion could be given to every blow, be it a hit or a miss.
I think the question still stands: if the result isn't significant enough, why bother? (I do beleive that dropping your weapon is very significant however)
On a separate note, Cubicle 7's The One Ring RPG has an interesting take on fumbles: An "Eye of Sauron" result (TOR's equivalent of a roll of "1") doesn't make you any worst; it triggers the enemy's called shot (read special ability) against you.
This could translate in Pathfinder RPG in something like "the enemy attempts to grapple you on its turn", or "The enemy attempt to sunder/disarm your weapon" etc.
Basically, it could removes "dick moves" from the DM and place them on the player's hand (or fate) instead.
The fundamental issue with fumbles and Pathfinder/d20 is that more attacks will trigger a higher % of fumbles. You can rationalize it and make logical sense out of it but it remains a mechanical issue.
'findel
Maybe. I might not use it straight (again, the magic results are just silly), but it'd make for an interesting sub-vorpal weapon property, either for a magic item or a spell-based enhancement.I really like them but I was also a fan of wild magic in 2nd edition and would love to see it in Pathfinder in some way.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I loved wild magic. I'm not as impressed by primal magic or subbing in a rod of wonder effect; I want the old "might blow myself to smithereens or apply a permanent buff" chaos that the AD&D version had. But it's a thematic choice. For regular, run of the mill wizardry, I have trouble maintaining suspension of disbelief if a 1st level wizard's ray of frost hits so well that it rips a hole to the kobold into the astral plane. That's the kind of awesomely weird result I'd love to see with a wild mage, but not a regular mage in a normal magic environment.
I think the question still stands: if the result isn't significant enough, why bother? (I do beleive that dropping your weapon is very significant however)
Because it is significant enough for us. We don't want it to be crippling. We'll leave that for the critical hits.
The fundamental issue with fumbles and Pathfinder/d20 is that more attacks will trigger a higher % of fumbles. You can rationalize it and make logical sense out of it but it remains a mechanical issue.
I know that I've mentioned this at least 3 times before, maybe more, but this is not a true statement. It all depends on how you implement the critical fumbles. One of the optional rules for the deck is that you can only fumble once per combat. It doesn't matter if you get 1 attack per round or 100, you can only fumble once per combat. I don't use that rule and my players are fine with it but if they wanted, I would implement it without any hesitation.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I loved wild magic. I'm not as impressed by primal magic or subbing in a rod of wonder effect; I want the old "might blow myself to smithereens or apply a permanent buff" chaos that the AD&D version had. But it's a thematic choice. For regular, run of the mill wizardry, I have trouble maintaining suspension of disbelief if a 1st level wizard's ray of frost hits so well that it rips a hole to the kobold into the astral plane. That's the kind of awesomely weird result I'd love to see with a wild mage, but not a regular mage in a normal magic environment.Maybe. I might not use it straight (again, the magic results are just silly), but it'd make for an interesting sub-vorpal weapon property, either for a magic item or a spell-based enhancement.I really like them but I was also a fan of wild magic in 2nd edition and would love to see it in Pathfinder in some way.
This is the closest I can currently get, but I now have some interesting ideas running through my head. Thanks for getting my mind going on something for my campaigns.
Of course, but that's why you also add a critical hit mechanic. That casters benefit from as ittle as they are affected by critical fumbles.
Next, even if you have a confirm roll, this makes high level warriors fumble more than commoners. Also a Bad Thing.
How is that?
Higher level warriors have many more attacks per round. Sure you may add a confirm roll, but I assume that the Monsters ac keep pace with the increase in attack bonus. Thus a high level fighter should have about the same chance of hitting as a low level fighter on a equiv foe. Thereby with many many more rolls to hit, many many more fumbles. I have seen this, over and over. In fact, in one game the warrior-type asked for and got a rebuild, as this2 wpn style was fumbling so often it was like the 3 stooges.
Next, even if you have a confirm roll, this makes high level warriors fumble more than commoners. Also a Bad Thing.
How is that?
High level warriors do more damage.
Also, I'm in the bad experience group.
Use logic to avoid loss of disbelief.
My strawmen can attack each other for milenia and never accidently stab themselves in what would be a heart.