My group uses the crit fumble deck. When you roll a Nat 1 you roll again with the same bonuses and if you miss the targets AC you confirm your crit fumble and draw from the deck.
They happen less frequently, but it usually sucks when it does happen. And we all laugh.
We do not use the crit hit deck though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have my own system for crits and fumbles that's been adapting over the years depending on the players needs. After reading this thread I've gotten a few ideas that I'd like to implement.
I don't think of fumbling as a way of punishing, more like a way for balancing. 20 is always a hit while 1 is always a miss. Following that a confirmed 20 is always a crit while a confirmed 1 is always a fumble of some kind.
Aldaara: I like this idea for a spellcaster fumble/crit system, but what happens for aoe effects?
Stome: I see where your coming from and I can respect your opinion, but please stop with the poorly veiled insults. They only serve to distract from any constructive discussion.
Everyone: A more respectful tone goes a long way. (sorry for being so preachy, I don't know whats come over me)
If roll a 1, roll a d20 and factor in your bab. May lead to disarming, going prone, provoke an AOO, breaking a bow string or mechanism, hitting or critting yourself. After level 10 the really bad stuff is very unlikely, if you get okay on the second roll, it is just a bad and unbalanced miss.
If you nat 1 a ranged weapon and an ally is close, re-roll an attack on them. Could get a 20! Seen it. lol.
I will say that I have no problem with fumble rules as long as each player can "opt out" of being subjected to them. That way the people who think they're lulz-tastic have their fun w/o making those who feel....differently... suffer.
But that's never how it works out, is it? It's always a forced-upon you sort of deal. Or "it's not fair to the group if someone isn't subject to fumbles."
I have never seen "optional" fumble rules. It's always in the end the other players or the DM forcing the player(s) who don't like fumbles to be miserable.
I like the way the Weapons of the Gods RPG did it: If you whiff a roll by a lot AND get the 'right' roll, you can CHOOSE to have it be a fumble in exchange for a luck point, spendable later (probably to get you out of the mess you just got into).
In general, fumbles are what made me formulate my maxim for d20 games: "If my strategy requires me to roll dice for anything besides damage, I have ALREADY FAILED". :-P
Aside from Inspector Clouseau, is there any fictional hero who screws up as often as your average RPG character?
One I heard about. Low magic game, magic weapons didn't matter much. IF you got a natural 1, it could go nasty and all that, or you could choose to break your weapon over your opponent, scoring one hit but breaking the weapon. Players chose to injure and break.
My group and I used to use fumbles but after some discussion we stopped. We felt that as characters got multiple attacks that upped the chance of a fumble despite how much more experienced or trained the character was. So we decided that fumbles were a no no and just made a nat 1 a simple swing and a miss.
A fighter with iterative attacks has a 5% chance of threatening a fumble (rolling a 1) every time he attacks. All but his last iterative attack are guaranteed to have a higher attack modifier, resulting in a (much) lower chance of confirming a critical. His last iterative may be as poor as a commoner, but not likely due to magic weapons and feats and higher strength modifiers.This is only true if he is not fighting CR appropriate foes. In reality his second attack is generally going to be about as accurate as he was at first level. Any after that are fumbles waiting to happen.
I suppose yes, AC starts to flatten the confirmation curve. But let's look at this.
A commoner will have BAB 0, a non-magical weapon and no special feats/abilities, so they're purely at + STR to their attacks. Let's call it +2. Anything with AC 22 or higher requires a 20 to hit, so after rolling a fumble threat they're hosed with a 95% chance of confirming it.
A fighter type at say 11th level loses 10 from his BAB on his last attack. So he's functionally BAB +1. He's going to have a +2 magic weapon and he might have a feat or two like Weapon Focus. His STR will be buffed both by leveling up increases and magic gear. Let's say STR is up to about 20. Where're we at? A third attack at +9. As long as the bad guy doesn't have AC 29+ the fighter type is better off than the commoner. On his second attack, he fighter is better off as long as he's not up against AC 34+. On his primary attack he's better off against anything up to AC 39.
Against AC 38 the fighter is less likely overall to confirm fumbles than the commoner. At 39 and above the odds are equivalent. Y'know... I'm okay with a model that at some point an opponent is good enough that your training isn't as effective as you'd hoped. But a fighter won't ever be worse off.
|
A fighter with iterative attacks has a 5% chance of threatening a fumble (rolling a 1) every time he attacks. All but his last iterative attack are guaranteed to have a higher attack modifier, resulting in a (much) lower chance of confirming a critical. His last iterative may be as poor as a commoner, but not likely due to magic weapons and feats and higher strength modifiers.This is only true if he is not fighting CR appropriate foes. In reality his second attack is generally going to be about as accurate as he was at first level. Any after that are fumbles waiting to happen.I suppose yes, AC starts to flatten the confirmation curve. But let's look at this.
A commoner will have BAB 0, a non-magical weapon and no special feats/abilities, so they're purely at + STR to their attacks. Let's call it +2. Anything with AC 22 or higher requires a 20 to hit, so after rolling a fumble threat they're hosed with a 95% chance of confirming it.
A fighter type at say 11th level loses 10 from his BAB on his last attack. So he's functionally BAB +1. He's going to have a +2 magic weapon and he might have a feat or two like Weapon Focus. His STR will be buffed both by leveling up increases and magic gear. Let's say STR is up to about 20. Where're we at? A third attack at +9. As long as the bad guy doesn't have AC 29+ the fighter type is better off than the commoner. On his second attack, he fighter is better off as long as he's not up against AC 34+. On his primary attack he's better off against anything up to AC 39.
Against AC 38 the fighter is less likely overall to confirm fumbles than the commoner. At 39 and above the odds are equivalent. Y'know... I'm okay with a model that at some point an opponent is good enough that your training isn't as effective as you'd hoped. But a fighter won't ever be worse off.
On the previous page I posted proof that a fighter with 8 attacks (from haste, BAB+16, Greater TWF) Would roll a fumble threat 160 times over 400 full attacks, and confirm 53 of those fumbles. The farmer with a single attack would threaten a fumble 20 times over the same period, and confirm a fumble 19 times.
And this is assuming that the fighter only needs to roll a 2+ to hit with his primary attacks, and that the farmer needs a nat 20.
As I said, 53 is greater than 19, showing that 'a fighter won't ever be worse off' as very far from true.
I use the Fumble and Crit cards thusly.
If a player rolls a 1 on an attack (or enemy rolls a 20 on a save) the player may CHOOSE to accept a fumble in doing so they draw from the Fumble Deck and play out the consequences. They then get to draw from the Critical Hit deck and they may use that card to EITHER confirm a critical hit OR use the ability on a card on a confirmed critical.
This makes fumbles and such a gameplay choice with both consequences AND rewards.
This idea sounds kind of neat, although it seems like it could turn out to be a straight power-up for the PCs. E.g. the PCs can always accept fumbles against wimpy opponents and use the resulting critical results on tough opponents, whereas NPCs usually have such a short lifetime that the odds of getting a fumble and a critical (in that order) is basically zero.
Or do you allow the GM to transfer a fumble from one NPC to a critical from a different NPC?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Against AC 38 the fighter is less likely overall to confirm fumbles than the commoner. At 39 and above the odds are equivalent. Y'know... I'm okay with a model that at some point an opponent is good enough that your training isn't as effective as you'd hoped. But a fighter won't ever be worse off.
But it's exactly the point that the fighter is worse (more likely to fumble) than the commoner against Mr. AC 39 - the fighter has 3 chances to roll a 1 each round to the commoner's 1 chance. The odds are not equivalent - the commoner has a .05*.95 = 4.75% chance to fumble and the fighter has a 1-(.9525^3) = 13.6% chance to fumble (at least once, the fighter could possibly fumble multiple times which the commoner can't do at all). Out battle-hardened superhuman warrior drops his weapon or stabs a friend about once every 40 seconds of fighting (possibly accompanied by a slide whistle noise).
Fumbles - even with confirmation rolls - punish the character for having multiple attacks.
Fumbles that only apply when the user is nonproficient is one of the better ideas in this thread. If you must have fumbles, I'd suggest they can only occur on one attack each round - either your first or last iterative. That still unfairly punishes noncaster types, as casters rarely make attack rolls.
On the previous page I posted proof that a fighter with 8 attacks (from haste, BAB+16, Greater TWF) Would roll a fumble threat 160 times over 400 full attacks, and confirm 53 of those fumbles. The farmer with a single attack would threaten a fumble 20 times over the same period, and confirm a fumble 19 times.And this is assuming that the fighter only needs to roll a 2+ to hit with his primary attacks, and that the farmer needs a nat 20.
As I said, 53 is greater than 19, showing that 'a fighter won't ever be worse off' as very far from true.
Did you also post proof of how many of those 400 attacks would be critical threats? We'll even be nice and assume he's using a weapon with only a Nat 20 crit range.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have my own system for crits and fumbles that's been adapting over the years depending on the players needs. After reading this thread I've gotten a few ideas that I'd like to implement.
I don't think of fumbling as a way of punishing, more like a way for balancing. 20 is always a hit while 1 is always a miss. Following that a confirmed 20 is always a crit while a confirmed 1 is always a fumble of some kind.
Aldaara: I like this idea for a spellcaster fumble/crit system, but what happens for aoe effects?
Stome: I see where your coming from and I can respect your opinion, but please stop with the poorly veiled insults. They only serve to distract from any constructive discussion.
Everyone: A more respectful tone goes a long way. (sorry for being so preachy, I don't know whats come over me)
That's a good question. It would be kind of silly to see a burning hands that crits on one and fumbles on another. One guy holds up a shield that reflects the fire while the other gets his eyes burned out of their sockets. The rules I posted need some work, but I think it's a start.
EDIT:
Did you also post proof of how many of those 400 attacks would be critical threats? We'll even be nice and assume he's using a weapon with only a Nat 20 crit range.
On the previous page I posted proof that a fighter with 8 attacks (from haste, BAB+16, Greater TWF) Would roll a fumble threat 160 times over 400 full attacks, and confirm 53 of those fumbles. The farmer with a single attack would threaten a fumble 20 times over the same period, and confirm a fumble 19 times.And this is assuming that the fighter only needs to roll a 2+ to hit with his primary attacks, and that the farmer needs a nat 20.
As I said, 53 is greater than 19, showing that 'a fighter won't ever be worse off' as very far from true.
Funny thing is, those characters only have a 5% chance to not confirm the crit.
My group and I used to use fumbles but after some discussion we stopped. We felt that as characters got multiple attacks that upped the chance of a fumble despite how much more experienced or trained the character was. So we decided that fumbles were a no no and just made a nat 1 a simple swing and a miss.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSMBhsyz1Bg
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fumbles are a nice distraction and something many feel should happen. A comedy interlude, a hint of realism...
I agree with most on this discussion however that in practice they don't really work well. I have fired a bow at a target many times and never impaled someone, had my bow string snap or anything more disastrous than a massive miss or a nasty sting of the wrist.
The 1 mechanic simply doesn't work in my opinion due to the number of attacks players make. Even if you need a confirm, sometimes if you are fighting a creature of equivalent CR your chance of hitting is pretty slim.
Super punishing crits are the same. It will happen to your character eventually. Having played systems with fumbles and deadly crits I can testify, you don't last to mid-levels as a melee character...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you also post proof of how many of those 400 attacks would be critical threats? We'll even be nice and assume he's using a weapon with only a Nat 20 crit range.
Why on Earth would I want to discuss the subject of critical hits on a thread exploring fumbles? I don't think any of us disagree about crits, and the greater number of crits rolled by higher levels than farmers (which makes sense) does nothing to alleviate the greater number of fumbles than a farmer a higher level fighter confirms (which definately does not make sense!).
No my argument is based on fact. Its a fact that fumble rules punish some players more then others. Its a fact that even with your fixes it still punishes melee more as they still attack more then a a caster cast spells. Its simple math. at say lvl 12, 3 attacks vs 2 spells (if they quicken one.)= melee get the short end. its simple math. This in fact makes for a bad DM as DM's should be fair and impartial towards their players and not treat some better then others.
Really the only thing that is opinion is that the stacking of more house rules is bad. Here let me add to that. In my opinion another red flag of bad DM's is how long their houserule list is. Disagree? well that is your right and that's nice.
Actually, you're ignoring facts. You're ignoring the fact that two GM's have posted in this thread saying they aren't actually in favor of fumble rules, but their players requested them.
Your litmus test of impartiality is generating false positives, meaning it's a bad test.
Critical Failures, or fumbles, are in my opinion, an occurance of bad luck, rather than any show of incompetence on the character's part. When a player rolls a Nat 20, they get a Critical threat and roll for confirmation. Rolling a 1 on the confirmation roll means a Critical Failure.
What the bad luck 'is', is up to you. It could be as simple as a gun jamming, more enemies, or even a sneeze. It could be slightly more debilitating, like spraining an ankle or something like, "as you step forward to make your attack, the section of roof underneath you gives under your weight". It could even be something bordeline miraculous, "by extremely unlikely chance, rain starts pouring from the clear sky, a sun shower, making the surrounding terrain slick and difficult to maneuver on".
Whatever happens though, it should be considered unlucky (or extremely unlucky) that it did.
|
The point about an 8 attack a round fighter is a good one, however it loses some impact when you add a bit of context. A farmer will fumble less than an 8-hit--a-round fighter, but he also kills less pit fiends, dragons, and liches in the process. In other words, fumbles and crits tend to be all part of the combat mechanic and the price of being an adventurer. That same farmer probably rolls two attack rolls all year. Apples and elephants, not apples and apples.
It is true that at higher levels most house fumble rules favor the THF barbarian over the TWF rogue. Then again crit rules tend to favor the rogue, which can be really good if you use effects like the crit decks do. A good crit from the crit deck can completely destroy a BBEG, while it tends to be less devastating to one member of a 6 man group.
If there is a confirm mechanic and/or a mitigating system like hero points or the like, I think fumbles make the game more interesting, perhaps a bit more challenging, and in the case of enemy fumbles, a lot more entertaining.
Dropped weapons should not be devastating, carry more than one. Hopefully your character is not so reliant on a single magic weapon that he is so greatly diminished by not having it for a few rounds. Most fights let the dropped weapon be picked up within a few rounds, at least in my experience. If you are really that worried, put a weapon cord on it or add the returning property.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fumble is a greater ill than a crit is a good. A typical fumble is something like dropping your weapon. That's no more attacks this round, no full attack next round, and you face an attack of opportunity picking your weapon up. That's losing about a rounds worth of attacks. A critical will do at most x4, or about a rounds worth of attacks at level 11 with haste. Or at level 6 without haste if you're an archer or TWFer. Poor TWFers. Archers also only crit x3 or the equivalent 19-20.
Meanwhile, a crit is much easier to achieve (having the capability of occurring anywhere between 15 and 20), and is just as likely to end a combat. Yes, it's not as good as dropping your weapon is bad, but it's much more likely and still very devastating.
It is true that at higher levels most house fumble rules favor the THF barbarian over the TWF rogue. Then again crit rules tend to favor the rogue, which can be really good if you use effects like the crit decks do. A good crit from the crit deck can completely destroy a BBEG, while it tends to be less devastating to one member of a 6 man group.
If there is a confirm mechanic and/or a mitigating system like hero points or the like, I think fumbles make the game more interesting, perhaps a bit more challenging, and in the case of enemy fumbles, a lot more entertaining.
Heh, yeah, well I don't like critical hit decks either, especially stuff like "double 20 == insta-kill".
"Your halfling rogue stabs the red dragon in the toe. Somehow, through some cosmic miracle, the toe-stab strikes so devastatingly, the dragon is killed instantly. I now dub thee toe-slayer!"
|
|
I will say that I have no problem with fumble rules as long as each player can "opt out" of being subjected to them. That way the people who think they're lulz-tastic have their fun w/o making those who feel....differently... suffer.
But that's never how it works out, is it? It's always a forced-upon you sort of deal. Or "it's not fair to the group if someone isn't subject to fumbles."
I have never seen "optional" fumble rules. It's always in the end the other players or the DM forcing the player(s) who don't like fumbles to be miserable.
... I've never forced Fumbles on players, by its very nature my rule is opt-in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the previous page I posted...
ALL of the following is simulationist as opposed to gameist in nature.
This is a problem of definition. TL;DR, stop here.
"In 400 rounds, the result of a natural 1 (indicating a fumble threat) will occur 160 times, 20 times for each of the 8 attacks."
You are including frequency in your definition of probability, which is your right to do but is hugely misleading.
Assuming dice that are not biased, every roll has precisely a 5% chance of threatening a fumble. Let's ignore confirmation for the time being.
In 400 rounds with 8 attacks, the fighter makes 3,200 attacks. Of those, yes, 160 will threaten a fumble. In the same 400 rounds, your commoner makes 400 attacks, of which 20 threaten.
The fighter has a 5% chance of threatening a fumble.
The commoner has a 5% chance of threatening a fumble.
These - you may note - are identical.
Now, you (and others) have chosen to inject an element of time into all of this, by asking yourself "how many times does X threaten in a given fixed period of time?" I can understand that urge but it leads (IMHO) to a false conclusion.
Yes, in 40 minutes of constant uninterrupted swinging, the fighter will likely drop his sword more times than a commoner will. He will hit himself more times. He will burst into flames more times. Yes, granted.
But let's inject some realism into the situation, if we're going to measure probability over unit time. Let's talk slot machines. You've got a fixed probability of payout per pull of the arm. You and I walk into the casino and we each pull a lever once. We both have the exact same chance of winning. I leave. You stay. You pull the lever 19 more times.
Q: Do you have a better probability of walking out with more money than when you went in than I did?
A: No. You still have the same probability relative to me and my single pull.
Q2: Do you have a better probability of the machine having paid out to you than I did?
A2: Absolutely. You pulled 20 times... more frequently than I did, so odds are increased that you'll have a payout. Unfortunately (for you), odds are also increased that you'll have more losses.
You don't pull the arm more times to increase your odds of winning.
Similarly you don't view it that the chance of a fighter fumbling has increased because he makes more swings. It's the exact same scenario.
Again, yes, you can rightly point out that you will experience more fumbles at the gaming table in a night if you're playing a fighter than if you're playing a commoner. (Having introduced a unit of time.) You can also rightly say that you don't like that because it's a bummer and you don't want a once, let alone more than once.
The original complaint was regarding the realism of a fighter being more likely to fumble than a commoner. An airline pilot is also more likely to die in a plane crash than a submarine captain is.
Dice are used in this game to generate random events. Your bonuses are what expresses the bias of your abilities. Your confirmation roll is what allows things like The Flying Walendas. They're damned good at crossing tightropes. The might slip more often - over time - than Joe Average because they cross more tightropes - and longer ones in more difficulty circumstances - but they recover from it more often. Still, cross enough tightrope and everyone's going to go splat sooner or later.
I find the math here actually very elegant and representing the gaming model.
Let's break it down to imagine what this looks like at the extremes:
Scenario #1 - commoner versus a wall. The commoner can't help but hit the wall most of the time. Every once in a while (5%) he kind of loses his grip a bit but about half of those he recovers in the confirmation roll.
Scenario #2 - fighter versus a wall. The fighter hits the wall a lot more often and his grip slackens more often but he almost always recovers in the confirmation roll (due to his bonuses).
Scenario #3 - commoner versus a a dragon with a bunch of defensive spells and gears up. The commoner can't hit the dragon unless he's stupid-lucky and rolls a 20. He'll still lose his grip 5% of the time but every single* time that happens, he drops his sword.
Scenario #4- fighter versus the same dragon. The fighter also never hits because this dragon is talented. Swing, swing, swing, swing. The fighter also loses his grip 5% of the time, but against this foe he's outclassed so he also drops his sword every single* time that happens.
So. At the extremes... at extremely low AC the fighter loses his grip as often as the commoner but fumbles rarely. << Lower odds of fumbling. At extremely high AC, the two suffer the same problem. << Same odds of fumbling.
But that models reality nicely. Yeah, the fighter drops his sword FASTER against the dragon than the commoner does. But he also swung it a whole lot more. He was a machine, swing, swing, swing. He valiantly tried every trick he knows but the dragon was just so good that within seconds... MUNCH. The fighter dropped his sword accidentally and was eaten. Meanwhile the commoner is lining up his second attempt.
Shrug. Models reality just fine for me.
But again, it's okay to just not like fumbles. My groups are afraid of them (we use Paizo's deck) but they all still get really excited when there's a threat, and always make a production out of revealing what the card says on confirms. The suffering of others is always entertaining, right? << Maybe I'm training future DMs.
*Ignoring natural 20s on confirmations for brevity. Why brevity is suddenly a goal after the last billion words I don't know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use the Fumble and Crit cards thusly.
If a player rolls a 1 on an attack (or enemy rolls a 20 on a save) the player may CHOOSE to accept a fumble in doing so they draw from the Fumble Deck and play out the consequences. They then get to draw from the Critical Hit deck and they may use that card to EITHER confirm a critical hit OR use the ability on a card on a confirmed critical.
This makes fumbles and such a gameplay choice with both consequences AND rewards.
I like it.
Sometimes, I think, our GM ignores certain fumbles. For example, in the middle of a specific combat our Myrmedarch/Scout fumbled. She uses a bow and normally it should have broken the bow string because that is the norm in most of D&D. The GM decided that a certain NPC would get hit instead.
We roll to confirm crits, but a natural 20 means that a player or a Named enemy gets to draw from the Crit Deck.
I have gotten the GM to use my Role Master Arms Law Fumble tables for enemies when they fumble.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Anguish: you say my calculations added the 'time' parameter; I say it's already there! Players cannot ignore it!
A combat encounter lasts a certain amount of time. Whatever the specific time for any particular may be, it is an equal amount of time for each combatant who is giving his all.
In that encounter, the better fighter (with more attacks) will threaten a fumble, and actually fumble, more times in that encounter than the worse fighter (with fewer attacks).
And that will be true for every single encounter.
This is why the fumble rule (threatening on a 1 and confirming on a miss) is bad.
Attempts to make it less bad vary. The least bad is only a 1 on the very first attack in any round may threaten.
The best solution I have seen on this thread (apart from not having a fumble rule at all), is the one where the player may choose to accept a fumble in return for something, like a hero point or whatever, but can also choose not to fumble and give up the reward (hero point or whatever).
BTW; we are not really talking about combatants fumbling more than non-combatants, we are talking about skilled fighters fumbling more often than less skilled fighters!
Fumbles are a nice distraction and something many feel should happen. A comedy interlude, a hint of realism...
I agree with most on this discussion however that in practice they don't really work well. I have fired a bow at a target many times and never impaled someone, had my bow string snap or anything more disastrous than a massive miss or a nasty sting of the wrist.
The 1 mechanic simply doesn't work in my opinion due to the number of attacks players make. Even if you need a confirm, sometimes if you are fighting a creature of equivalent CR your chance of hitting is pretty slim.
Super punishing crits are the same. It will happen to your character eventually. Having played systems with fumbles and deadly crits I can testify, you don't last to mid-levels as a melee character...
With vicious crit rules, you can last as a mid level melee, you've got to make sure that you are using ambush a lot and hitting the enemies with those crazy crits rather than being hit back in turn. I actually like dnd being more dangerous and violent, used the crit rules for years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use both the fumble and critical decks, and love them. So do my players, in a 'Oh not again. *Bangs head on table*' sort of way. It does make things more dangerous for the PCs, but that's okay, for me at least.
I use both the fumble and critical decks, and love them. So do my players, in a 'Oh not again. *Bangs head on table*' sort of way. It does make things more dangerous for the PCs, but that's okay, for me at least.
+1 internets for you.
Same way I do it: changes things in combat, and makes them react to the situation instead a+b+c+d... okay, it's dead.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to use the following methods for fumbles.
Natural 1 (fumble)
Melee: Attacker provokes an attack of opportunity (following the normal AOO rules)
Ranged: Attacker rolls randomly against all available targets within range (excluding attacker) and makes a single attack roll to see if he hits that random target (surprisingly hits animal companions more often than not lol)
I have never been a fan of the drop weapon fumble since pathfinder has AOO rules. It also limits the number of fumble AOOs to the defender (1 unless they have combat reflexes).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if someone uses a locked gauntlet, which makes disarming them impossible, and the fumble system says he is disarmed, does it mean the gauntlet suddenly acts up? If the gauntlet has a probability of acting up, why doesn't it ever do so otherwise? If you are throwing a rock at someone, is it reasonable to have the same fumble chance with it as you would have with a shield-musket that has taken a swim and a few solid blows to the end of the barrel? What does it mean when you use a touch spell, or an unarmed attack, is the monk really going to punch or kick himself, or do his limbs end up scattered over the room every longer fight?
Critical fumbles are a pissy thing, because as a player you end up in poorly defined rules territory. Roll a fumble, and the GM gets to figure out something "cruel and unusual" to hit your PC with. If your PC has some part of his/her attire or grooming that matters, be quite prepared that every fumble you roll will hit that. Don't ever make your dwarf PC proud of his beard, for example.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm currently GMing a stone-age campaign, which means lots of weapons with the Fragile property (on a '1' the weapon becomes Broken, or if already Broken, Destroyed). While I don't use fumble rules, this comes quite close to it in practice.
There's a difference to that though; it won't be a problem on higher levels, because Masterwork/Magic weapons tend to lose the Fragile property (at least for stone/bone/obsidian).
---
Anyway, I do feel the tension between on the one hand the comedic potential of fumble rules, and on the other hand the extreme aggravation it causes to Whirlwind and 2WF combatants.
In the other campaign (with the other GM) we used to to play with 1->confirm and also with 1 causing fumbles on skill checks, but recently abandoned it. And so far we like it better without the fumbles.
If you have to have fumbles though, how about always using the highest BAB for confirmation? So even iterative attack fumble threats must be confirmed at full to-hit bonus? That would drastically reduce a fighter's fumble chance (if he needs to roll 1-1 to fumble, that's only a 1 in 400 chance). Probably good enough to make Whirlwind safe for fighters again.
I'm also intrigued by the idea of the Luck Point earned through fumbles - maybe something like a temporary Hero Point that vanishes if not spent by the end of the game session?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Anguish, while your argument holds when examining any individual attack, your system still punishes anyone who dares to make multiple attacks over someone who doesn't. A big clumsy giant or earth elemental, or a wizard casting disintegrate is going to fumble far less often than an adroit and agile rogue fighting with twin daggers. Heck, the 20th level wizard is going to fumble less often (if for some reason he engaged in melee) than his fighter friend. TWF is already tough to do; fumbles turn the highly skilled TWFer into a slapstick joke.
Rynjin, I fail to see why fumbles should be as easy to achieve as crits, and why adventurers should get more likely to fumble as they get better at critting. In fact, auto-miss on a 1 already balances critting - missing on a 1 even if your bonus was good enough to hit exactly balances getting an extra hit (worth of damage) on a 20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad I don't have to GM such entitled players. I would have to keep a mop by the table just to sop up the tears! Fumbles represent the element of luck just like crits do. If you have crits you should have at least some fumbles. Why do you ask? Because it's a game junior! If you play monopoly and land on "go the jail" do you just ignore it? No, you go to jail becuase it a game no a treatise on the laws of probability. Don't go crying about how wizards don't have to worry about fumbles. Fighters don't need to worry about spell resistance, nor do fish have to worry about dehydration.
Since third edition we have been using this d100 chart with minor modifications along the way. We also don't confirm anything. A crit is a crit and a fumble is a fumble.
My players have never asked to stop using it.
We have a different d100 table for spell casters.
1 You have offended the gods of battle, Doom spell on you and your
allies for the rest of the day
2 You defy the laws of physics, roll 3 times
3 You defy the laws of physics, roll 2 times
4 Knock yourself out, Hit points to 0 from subdual damage
5 Critically hit yourself
6 Weapon broken condition -2 attack and damage
7 Impale self on opponents weapon, full damage
8 Tear muscle -4 to str until healed with CSW.
9 Broken Ankle, Mv only 5'/ round until healed with CSW
10 Broken Wrist, arm unusable until healed with CSW
11 Lose grip, weapon flies 20' at random ally crit hit
12 Armor broken condition Ac bonus halved
13 Break finger, Crit Fumble on a 1 or 2 until healed with CMW
14 Fall on face, stunned for a round and prone
15 Block with your hand, normal damge and unusable until healed
16 Ha, Ho Ho, Guard, Parry, Spin.. Trade places with an adjacent Opponent
17 A random potion you are carrying explodes, 1d10 dmg in a 10'rad.
18 Lose grip, weapon flies 20' at random ally auto hit
19 Impale self on opponents weapon, normal damage
20 Vertigo, -4 to reflex saves for the rest of the encounter
21 Stunned, no action for 2 rounds and no dex bonus until next attack
22 Blessing of Asmodeus - Avoid the fumble, But Opponent gets +4 to next attack
23 Wild Swing, strike random target within 5'
24 Lose grip, weapon flies 20' at random ally, normal to hit
25 Smack yourself with own weapon, roll damage normally
26 A random potion you are carrying breaks
27 Classic Blunder, AoO
28 Lose grip, weapon flies 20' at random ally -5 to hit
29 Gap in your training: Flat footed for a round
30 Your armor falls off completely
31 Blessing of Desna - Crit avoided
32 Exhausted partial actions only for 5 rounds
33 Muscle Cramp! -6 to Str & Dex 1d4 rounds
34 Fall down, move equivalent to get up, AoO
35 Medium piece of Armor breaks, Ac-2
36 Stunned, no action next round and no dex bonus until next attack
37 Muscle Cramp! -4 to Str & Dex for 2d4 rounds
38 Armor bent, -2 AC, -2 hit
39 Muscle Cramp! -2 to Str & Dex for 1d6 rounds
40 Lose grip, weapon flies 20' at random target. -5 to hit
41 Mild Vertigo, -2 to reflex save for 3 rounds
42 Armor bent, -2 AC
43 Weapon cracked -2 hit & damage
44 Loose grip, weapon flies 30' left
45 Small piece of Armor breaks, Ac-1
46 Fatigued, partial action only for 2 rounds
47 Walk into opponent's swing 1/2 damage hit
48 Trip, Dex -2 for a round, AoO
49 Ringing in ears, Deafened for 3 rounds
50 Muscle Cramp! -2 to Str 2d4 Rounds
51 Bad sprained ankle, Mv 1/2 until healed CMW
52 Spastic manuveur. Closest non opponent distracted (-2 to initiative)
53 Weapon chipped -2 to hit
54 Drop random item
55 Reflex Save Dc-20 to recover, else reroll)
56 Armor Bent, Ac-1 until fixed
57 Sprained wrist, -2 to hit & dmg until healed CMW
58 Blessing of Gorum- Crit avoided
59 Nerve pinched, no move next round
60 Loose grip, weapon flies 20' forward
61 Sprain ankle Mv -5' until healed
62 Armor too tight, -2 to hit until fixed (1round)
63 Winded partial action only next round
64 Winded 1/2 move for 1 round
65 Weapon tangles in opponent, Reflex Dc-20 or loose it.
66 Stumble move 5' in a random direction
67 Dust in your face. 20% miss chance for 2 rounds
68 Arm numbed, Fort Dc-10 to shake off
69 Large piece of Armor falls off Ac-2
70 Weapon Blunted or Head wobbles -2 to damage
71 Blessing of Caden - Fumble avoided
72 Loose grip, weapon flies 20' right
73 Armor loose, -1 to attack from parts interfering
74 Something in your eye blind for a round
75 Small piece of Armor falls off, Ac -1
76 Something in your eye Fort Dc-20 each round or -2 to hit
77 Fustrated +1 to next attack -1 to Ac
78 Confused -4 to initiative next round
79 Reflex Save Dc-15 to recover, else reroll)
80 Charlie Horse, 1/2 move next round
81 You soil your armor, sickened for 1d4 rounds
82 Expose vulnerability, -4 to Ac for 1 round
83 Undergarments twisted -2 to init from distraction
84 Slip, lose next attack
85 Opponent anticipated your move. He back hands you for 2 points
86 Loose grip, weapon flies 20' up, Reflex save Dc-18 to catch but AoO
87 Fumble emboldens opponent, he gets +2 to hit you next round
88 Déjà vu oh wait..i shouldn't have done that. AoO
89 Weapon dulled or head loose -1 to damage
90 Stumble -2 to Ac for a round
91 Distracted -2 to initiative next round
92 Nick self, 1pt damage.
93 Reflex Save Dc-10 to recover, else reroll)
94 Expose vulnerability, -1 to Ac for 1 round
95 Loss of Focus, -1 to next attack
96 You sneeze, free 5' step for opponent.
97 Your shoe falls off.
98 Random clothes torn
99 The gods of battle take pity on you Critical Fumble Avoided
100 Your critical fumble is so amazingly bad your opponent is confused (if int >0.) You gain a free attack of Opportunity. Unfortunately So is anyone within 10' facing you. Granting their opponents a free AoO as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That seems...a ridiculous argument, because the chance of fumble collectively affects every single NPC the DM is running. Given that in most circumstances, the GM is going to be rolling far more times than the PCs (since in many cases the opponents outnumber the PCs), the chance of fumble actually affects the DM more so than the PCs, or at the very least is statistically (roughly) equal.
They affect each person at the table equally, but not each character. The GM controls hundreds of NPCs over the course of a normal RPG. The PCs portray one character each. If the GM rolls more fumbles, it doesn't matter--next guy up. Plus, GMs want their players to succeed and have fun, so enemies failing is ultimately good. However, if the PC rolls a fumble, their only mode of interacting with the world just got boned and that is not good.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad I don't have to GM such entitled players. I would have to keep a mop by the table just to sop up the tears! Fumbles represent the element of luck just like crits do. If you have crits you should have at least some fumbles. Why do you ask? Because it's a game junior! If you play monopoly and land on "go the jail" do you just ignore it? No, you go to jail becuase it a game no a treatise on the laws of probability. Don't go crying about how wizards don't have to worry about fumbles. Fighters don't need to worry about spell resistance, nor do fish have to worry about dehydration.
Fumbles introduce a rule punishing PCs (which could even make the difference between life and death), but not all PCs equally.
It only punishes those who make attack rolls, and the more attacks you make the more fumbles you get. You can't really choose not to take that chance, since making attack rolls is what many characters are for!
With your analogy, would it be fair to introduce a new rule to Monopoly, the Speeding Ticket, where every time the dice roll doubles, you go to jail....but it only applies to the car, ship and old boot since they represent means of travelling?
The fumble rule does not apply to all PCs equally, since not all PCs make an equal number of attack rolls.
Entitled players? The DM sits down and says, 'Okay guys, I'm introducing a new rule that says every time you cast a spell you have a 5% chance of running out of material components and can no longer cast spells requiring them until you aquire some more.' Is this rule fair to all your players? It applies to all players, but some are casters and some aren't.
But it'll be fun! Take some predictability out of combat! Represent the element of luck!
What are 'entitled players' entitled to? They are entitled to a fair DM!
Can I also add that critical hits can't be a function of luck because PCs can literally train (take the Improved Critical feat) to get better at causing them? You can't train to be luckier.
Further, the idea of a confirmation roll prevents them from being luck. In other editions, I can sort of buy the crit=luck argument. But in 3rd/Pathfinder, you still have to hit to confirm a crit, so no amount of luck will allow you to crit something you lack the skill to hit in the first place. Are you suggesting that being stronger and having more base attack bonus makes a PC luckier?
Crits are not luck, and if fumbles are bad luck, then there can't be a confirmation roll for them.
|
|
That seems...a ridiculous argument, because the chance of fumble collectively affects every single NPC the DM is running. Given that in most circumstances, the GM is going to be rolling far more times than the PCs (since in many cases the opponents outnumber the PCs), the chance of fumble actually affects the DM more so than the PCs, or at the very least is statistically (roughly) equal.They affect each person at the table equally, but not each character. The GM controls hundreds of NPCs over the course of a normal RPG. The PCs portray one character each. If the GM rolls more fumbles, it doesn't matter--next guy up. Plus, GMs want their players to succeed and have fun, so enemies failing is ultimately good. However, if the PC rolls a fumble, their only mode of interacting with the world just got boned and that is not good.
Yeah!
Also, high level fighters aren't just making more attacks therefore will fumble more! The game system is representing that, in any six second chunk of combat, higher level fighters will attack effectively more often than less skilled fighters, not that they are throwing their weapons around more often!
It's all fun and games until a critical fumble has someone cut their own head off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's all fun and games until a critical fumble has someone cut their own head off.
I've played in a group that claimed they'd seen this actually happen. The GM laughed and joked about it uproariously, like it was the most hilarious thing ever, because those kinds of great stories are exactly why he loves the crit and fumble deck so much.
Every one else at the table who had been there just shifted uncomfortably in their seats and gave an awkward "get this conversation over with" chuckle.
It's all fun and games until a critical fumble has someone cut their own head off.I've played in a group that claimed they'd seen this actually happen. The GM laughed and joked about it uproariously, like it was the most hilarious thing ever, because those kinds of great stories are exactly why he loves the crit and fumble deck so much.
Every one else at the table who had been there just shifted uncomfortably in their seats and gave an awkward "get this conversation over with" chuckle.
Yeah, I wasn't playing in this particular group yet at the time this happened, but the story was essentially relayed to me in exactly the way you just described. The GM found it hilarious, while the players at the table just seemed resigned to knowing that they could break their own ankles or cut their own hands off at anytime.
It being my second ever pathfinder game at the time, I was pretty much ready to go cry to momma when on my 2nd combat roll I wound up knocking myself out and falling on my face by throwing a spear due to those decks.