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.
Mmmm. Philosophical differences apply here.
I don't view it as punishment. The point of the game is to have fun. One of the ways to have fun is for interesting things to happen, even if those things are mathematically suboptimal. Nobody likes rolling a miss. But strangely when there's a rider gamble associated, where something additional might happen, even if that something is probably worse than a miss, it gets interesting.
Paizo's fumble deck is pretty entertaining. Most of the cards aren't you lose. Dropping your weapon might mean that, but most of the cards aren't that. Most of the time there are interesting related self-damage events. Things that don't break the encounter and kill you, but which make for a little more challenge.
Of course, it rocks when the bad guys fumble too. Win-win.
Note: I DM for two groups and both groups were given the choice to use Paizo's deck or not and both groups chose to use them. I haven't played in a few months but next time I do, I'll opt to use the deck as well.
But I'm a little worried, as they reach higher levels, the chance of losing their weapons increases (due to making more attacks per turn) and the consequences become more dire (being disarmed against a dragon is a lot mroe dangerous than being disarmed against goblins.)
Our group does not use critical failures, precisely for this reason. Due to the numbers involved, it penalizes the PCs far, far more than the NPCs.
But hey, if your group enjoys them, so be it. I'd basically leave it as is. If, at higher levels there are a couple deaths due to critical fumbles, you may want to re-visit the issue with your group.
"Hey guys, are we still enjoying fumble rules? We can remove them if you guys would prefer."
If they are still cool with it, cool beans. As you said, it's all about having fun. If they've realized it's more deadly for them than their enemies and would prefer to remove them, you can always ditch them then.
The group I play with uses critical fumbles (though only on a double 1). We've rarely had anything as cruel as dropping a weapon though. It's usually something more like, "Your claw (druid in wild shape) gets caught in a nearby chain. You take some damage and a -1 to damage rolls from that claw until you get healing."
Though we also play with half-successes... Natural 1 confirmed with a natural 20 has the intended effect of hitting your opponent, but something bad happens, too. Maybe you accidentally cleave your ally, or partially damage the scroll with information you're trying to obtain, or something.
That's all balanced by super criticals, though... When a natural 20 is confirmed by a natural 20, we get a second confirmation roll. If that one is *also* a natural 20, we double the crit modifier and keep rolling confirmations. Any further natural 20s double the crit multipier again, and any other confirming roll increases the multiplier by 1. This has led to some pretty crazy awesome stuff, like our druid's animal companion one shotting a triceratops, which included the awesome comment by the dinosaur's trainer, "Holy s@~!, she's better than I am." Or one of our Dwarven cohorts getting pissed off that a Fire Giant sundered our other Dwarven cohort's armor, and cleaving the ground in half.
Yeah, the fumbles make things more dangerous. But whether we're getting the good luck or the bad luck, those tend to be combats we remember, even if they weren't terribly important to the story. And that's awesome.
I think fumble rules are horrible. the thematic of a guy fumbling his sword over a pit of lava is fine. but in actual game play it just slow the game down and punishes players for getting multiple attacks
If I suggested 'hey for every 2d6 of fireball damage a wizard should roll a d20 to see if he has a 5% chance of dropping it on his ally" im sure people would think its a horrible idea; and it is.
So i dont get why they think the fighter doing it is somehow fun.
Perhaps a short summary of the issue for the OP:
Fumble proponents mostly feel the randomness of the critical fumble (or hit) tables bring an added entertainment element of unpredictability and additional challenge to combat.
Fumble opponents mostly feel that fumbling inherently punishes exactly those classes that already suffer the most from game imbalance issues and that the risk of disaster due to capricious dice is not worth the cinematics.
I fall in the second group. In my experience the main difference between these two groups is in how they view the "entertainment" value of combat. If your group likes combat to be interspersed with slapstick effects and unpredictable disasters, then go for it. If your group prefers combat to be as controlled and predictable as possible, then you should probably not use fumbles.
I use fumbles in all the games I run, although it does not always result in a botched attack. When a player rolls a natural 1 or snake eyes or whatever serves as a critical failure in the rules we're using, something bad happens. Maybe the floor collapses under their feet or the ceiling begins to collapse on top of them or they get their foot stuck in a bucket. :D
What amazes me is that so many people on these messageboards have a black and white opinion on what constitutes a "good" or "bad" GM! Really, a GM that uses fumbles is automatically a bad one?!? Jeez, GMs need to get more of a break (and yes, I am a GM). They spend a whole bunch of their free time preparing to run games for their players! There is no leveling up or rewards for them.
That being said, I do use both the critical and fumble decks in my games. When they came out, I picked them up and thought they looked fun. I allowed my players to check them out and vote on using them. They unanimously approved the use and have been loving them ever since. They as well as I feel they add a ton of flavor to the combats and have never caused (directly or indirectly) the death of a PC. Maybe inconvenience, but never death. I do use Hero Points and allow players to use them to alter or negate fumbles.
Strange Doc
The simple solution is to only allow fumbles on the first attack per turn.
Anyone with more attacks—from attack bonus or combat reflexes or whatever—effectively decreases their frequency of fumbling relative to attacks each time they add a new attack.
So as they increase their skill and work on confirming more critical hits, they also lessen the frequency of fumbles.
This is what we did in my group to allow the use of the Gamemastery Fumble Deck. At my table, if you fumble that first attack, you are allowed to "abort" to a move action (or any other action) since you wasted your standard action on the fumble.
Any spell that requires an attack roll can also fumble, and the "magic" fumbles are often considerably more dire. In practice, this has been enough to "even out" the spellcasting classes. I will say this, if you're having Martial-Caster disparity issues as a GM, fumble mechanics aren't especially relevant compared to bigger changes you can make.
I haven't seen many posts that call GMs "bad" for using or not using fumble rules. Maybe one or two posters, but people call GMs bad for all sorts of reasons. It's just noise in the system. We all know (or most of us do) that a good GM can use or not use fumble rules. There's no one thing that defines a good or bad GM.
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.Mmmm. Philosophical differences apply here.
I don't view it as punishment. The point of the game is to have fun. One of the ways to have fun is for interesting things to happen, even if those things are mathematically suboptimal. Nobody likes rolling a miss. But strangely when there's a rider gamble associated, where something additional might happen, even if that something is probably worse than a miss, it gets interesting.
I believe the point he and others are making is a pretty sound one and it's based on math.
If you have one attack, your odds of rolling a natural 1 is 5%. (after 3 rounds of combat, there's a 14% chance that there will have been a natural 1)
If you have 8 attacks, your odds of rolling a natural 1 is 33%. (after 3 rounds of combat, there's a 72% chance that there will have been a natural 1)
Therefore, critical fumble rules are a disincentive for character builds that rely on a greater number of attacks. Disincentive's are commonly also termed as punishments. I know it worked for me in a campaign once. I tried a two-weapon build, constantly fumbled all the time. I stuck with single-weapon builds after that until the fumble rules went away, because I had learned my lesson.
Eragar, let's forget all the math for a moment.
Can you agree that a fighter who is in combat and using all his feats and iterative attacks is performing duties that he has been trained to perform and for which it is presumed he is a highly competent individual?
Can you also agree that a farmer who is in combat is attempting something they are not trained to do, and which they are presumed to be less than competent?
If so, then can you explain why over the course of a minute of fighting, the fighter is going to drop his sword five or six times more frequently than the farmer drops his pitchfork?
I believe the point he and others are making is a pretty sound one and it's based on math.
I'm not doing this again. Feel free to read my wall-of-text above for the long version but I disagree with the definition of the problem. The math you express is accurate for the definition you use... which I do not.
Math - excluding the element of time - supports that a trained character with multiple attacks has a lower chance per attack of fumbling. I'm happy with this.
More frequent attacks leading to more frequent fumbles models reality just fine in my view. I'm happy with this.
My groups view the goal of the game to be: have fun. Not: hit every time. Not even: win ever battle. Interesting fumbles are interesting and as long as they don't overwhelm, can be fun. Everyone's mileage will vary, obviously. I don't like garlic.
Finally, I find it illuminating that nobody seems to complain about natural 1s missing, despite it having the exact, precise problem that you don't like. It's okay for your attack to be wasted. It's okay for the sum total of the experience to be "you missed". It's only when some interesting additional side-effect happens that it's not okay. I get it... where folks are drawing the line in the sand is... tradition.
I believe the point he and others are making is a pretty sound one and it's based on math.I'm not doing this again. Feel free to read my wall-of-text above for the long version but I disagree with the definition of the problem. The math you express is accurate for the definition you use... which I do not.
Math - excluding the element of time - supports that a trained character with multiple attacks has a lower chance per attack of fumbling. I'm happy with this.
More frequent attacks leading to more frequent fumbles models reality just fine in my view. I'm happy with this.
My groups view the goal of the game to be: have fun. Not: hit every time. Not even: win ever battle. Interesting fumbles are interesting and as long as they don't overwhelm, can be fun. Everyone's mileage will vary, obviously. I don't like garlic.
Finally, I find it illuminating that nobody seems to complain about natural 1s missing, despite it having the exact, precise problem that you don't like. It's okay for your attack to be wasted. It's okay for the sum total of the experience to be "you missed". It's only when some interesting additional side-effect happens that it's not okay. I get it... where folks are drawing the line in the sand is... tradition.
An automatic miss and a fumble are entirely different things.
I don't disagree with some of your concepts, but you are in fact stating that a trained Fighter who spends his whole life practicing TWF is more likely to trigger a fumble or fumble check, than a level 1 commoner.
To me, an analogy that would be easy to make would be with basketball. Who is more likely to trip while dribbling down court:
- Lebron James dribbling two basketballs
- My mother with one basketball (she's never played before)
Your saying it's fine that James has a higher chance of tripping than my mother. To me, that sounds a little ridiculous.
Except Lebron probably DOES have a higher chance of tripping over his balls than your mom does.
Your mom focuses her whole attention on one ball. Once she gets the hang of it (after about 30 seconds) she could probably dribble that one ball (kind of slowly, but still) up and down the court all day without tripping very often.
Meanwhile, Lebron, while being a professional, is now focusing on two balls at once (which, if he's not careful, will bounce off of each other and trip him up separately) and likely trying to go at a faster speed. He's doing something much more complicated, so yes, he is more likely to trip up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another example of adding houserules to impede martial classes.
Why is it that the higher level a fighter gets, the more he drops his weapon and yet the higher level a caster gets, the same does not happen?
What happens when a wizard rolls a 1 on his scorching ray? Other than missing, does he suffer an equivalent mishap?
What happens when a cleric rolls a 1 on his concentration check to cast defensively? Other than failing the spell, does he suffer an extra mishap?
I'd like to see some spells rebound or explode on the caster if "fumble" rules are in place for martials.
My 2 cp.
I'd probably use similar rules to a Spellslinger, if you roll a 1 on the attack roll or the target rolls a 20 on the saving throw, the spell explodes in your face and deals 1d6 points of damage per spell level (no save) of the energy type the spell used, if any.
What happens when a wizard rolls a 1 on his scorching ray? Other than missing, does he suffer an equivalent mishap?
Yes.
Paizo's critical fumble deck includes four options on each card. One for melee, one for ranged, one for spells, and one for natural attacks.
Anything that has an attack roll (which I admit relatively few spells do) can threaten a fumble.
Also, how do these fumble rules apply to combat maneuvers? Roll a 1 on an overrun maneuver and you trip? It just seems silly to apply an arbitrary rule to one subsection of options available to a player.
Rynjin, the only issue with that is then the caster will simply cast spells that don't deal damage (which is generally considered a better option anyways).
I sort of like the idea of adding randomness, but I don't think fumble rules really accomplish this in a way that I'm happy with.
I'd much prefer a DM simply roll a hidden percentile once per each players turn and some kind of "mishap" happens. You'd then be able to adjust the percentile threshold as desired. This is a neat and orderly solution that can make use of every option a character employs. The drawback is that it likely requires a quick thinking DM to use imaginative methods of mishaps.
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.
This is what our group does as well.
I don't disagree with some of your concepts, but you are in fact stating that a trained Fighter who spends his whole life practicing TWF is more likely to trigger a fumble or fumble check, than a level 1 commoner.
You keep saying that. It's not true.
If a fighter swings his sword 20 times, on average he will threaten a fumble once.
If a commoner swings his sword 20 times, on average he will threaten a fumble once.
Those two numbers are identical. They're still identical. Right now, they're identical. If you read one more sentence of this post, they will still be identical.
Want an analogy? Let's take oh... cooking. I'm not very good at it. I tend to eat out of boxes, cans, and bags. Once in a while I do "cook" something though, using various ingredients to put together something edible. Let's say I'm a commoner and let's say that I do this oh... once a month.
My wife cooks more often than I do, in a similar fashion. She makes something from scratch say... once a week. She cooks four times as often as I do. Let's say she's a fighter with four attacks a round.
Now. Everyone once in a while, say... once every two years I manage to bugger something up. I either put in too much salt or overcook the sauce or similar. Whatever the reason, I bugger up about 5% of the time. Every two years (~20 meals), something goes wrong in the kitchen.
My wife? Well, she's better at this than I am but she's also cooking more often. Once every five months or so, something doesn't go quite right. For whatever reason, she too might've mis-read a recipe or forgot she's out of an important ingredient. She's got the same 5% chance that I do only she's got a mishap every 5 months (~20 meals).
It doesn't matter that she has a kitchen problem four times as often as I do... she's cooking four times as much as I am and the increased frequency scales. It's still 5%.
Of course, she's more experienced than I am, so sometimes she rescues those meals, substituting a different ingredient or some other chef-trick that I just don't know about. So while the chances of mistakes being made are identical, in actuality she doesn't ruin as many meals as I do. (She doesn't confirm the fumble.) That's where expertise gets you.
Now, just to seal the deal, let's take a burger joint. Those folks flip through hundreds upon hundreds of burgers a day. It's what they do. Let's face it, aside from The New Guy, they're pretty good at it. They fling so many BigMcWhoppers out the door in a day it'd make your head spin. And by and large most of the orders are right. But because of the scale of the day, they may have to throw out dozens of orders that aren't right. As the owner of the burger joint do you go ballistic because a few dozen burgers hit the floor during rush hour? Not as long as the percentage of success-to-failure (equivalent to our 5% only IRL they expect a lower number) nets you a (huge) profit.
My point is that 5% is your chance of threatening a fumble no matter you're a commoner or a fighter. It is incorrect to say "is more likely to trigger a fumble or fumble check, than a level 1 commoner" unless you add per round at the end of it.
A fighter is not more likely to threaten and a fighter is absolutely LESS likely to confirm a fumble than a commoner.
Unless you're talking PER ROUND. At which point like the burger joint, you reap huge profits by increasing frequency and shouldn't feel out of sorts when you similarly see an increase in your failures.
Have you ever dribbled two balls? For the sake of argument while running. Actually quite difficult. Use a better analogy.
I'm referencing my real world knowledge of basketball drills for ball handling. What are you referencing?
This kind of drill is considered one of the better drills to involve ball handling skills in basketball. Mike Krzyzewski, the head coach of Duke University's basketball team and the US Olympic Basketball team uses these sorts of drills (video reference).
But hey, your uninformed opinion is probably more accurate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't disagree with some of your concepts, but you are in fact stating that a trained Fighter who spends his whole life practicing TWF is more likely to trigger a fumble or fumble check, than a level 1 commoner.You keep saying that. It's not true.
If a fighter swings his sword 20 times, on average he will threaten a fumble once.
If a commoner swings his sword 20 times, on average he will threaten a fumble once.
Those two numbers are identical. They're still identical. Right now, they're identical. If you read one more sentence of this post, they will still be identical.
This is irrelevant. You are talking about fumbles per swing and everyone else is talking about fumbles per second.
Just because it doesn't concern you does not mean it doesn't concern others.
My point is that 5% is your chance of threatening a fumble no matter you're a commoner or a fighter. It is incorrect to say "is more likely to trigger a fumble or fumble check, than a level 1 commoner" unless you add per round at the end of it.
One, your assuming a Fumble confirmation check. I've seen though, I've also seen games without them.
Second, fumbles over time is important. Most combat only lasts 2-5 rounds. Usually combats that go for 10 rounds or more do not have all participants rolling their full compliment of attacks every round. So, in any given combat, the fighter with more attacks is more likely to trigger a fumble rule than a commoner. Over the life span of two such characters, the fighter will still trigger more checks.
Your rule, in effect is to say that someone is more highly trained and participates in the same amount of combat is more likely to fumble.
Rynjin, the only issue with that is then the caster will simply cast spells that don't deal damage (which is generally considered a better option anyways).
Note the "Or if the target rolls a Natural 20 on their save" part. I know of very few non-damaging spells that have no save attached, and many of those are things like Create Water.
Have you ever dribbled two balls? For the sake of argument while running. Actually quite difficult. Use a better analogy.I'm referencing my real world knowledge of basketball drills for ball handling. What are you referencing?
This kind of drill is considered one of the better drills to involve ball handling skills in basketball. Mike Krzyzewski, the head coach of Duke University's basketball team and the US Olympic Basketball team uses these sorts of drills (video reference).
But hey, your uninformed opinion is probably more accurate.
Your real world knowledge of a drill that's meant to improve ball handling skills sure showed her!
I mean, it's not like the reason drills were invented is because they're more difficult than what you would likely to have to do in a game so you improve faster or anything!
No no, her uninformed opinion of "Dribbling two balls is more difficult than dribbling one" is MUCH different and inferior to your informed opinion of "Dribbling two balls is a drill meant to be more difficult than dribbling one so as to improve ball handling skill".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use fumbles in all the games I run, although it does not always result in a botched attack. When a player rolls a natural 1 or snake eyes or whatever serves as a critical failure in the rules we're using, something bad happens. Maybe the floor collapses under their feet or the ceiling begins to collapse on top of them or they get their foot stuck in a bucket. :D
It's not the concept that bad things can happen randomly that causes the problem! The problem is caused by the 'bad things might happen' mechanic being tied to the attack roll, meaning the more attack rolls you make the more chance you have of bad things happening to you!
This has consequences which are both strange, and unfair to weapon-users, and get more unfair the better the fighter (since in this system greater skill=more attacks):-
• using your 'floor collapse' as an example of Random Bad S+#@ (henceforth called RaBaSh for short), common sense would dictate that there would be an equal chance for any character to trigger any particular floor to collapse, possibly modified by weight, Tying this RaBaSh to the attack roll mechanic means that the floor is eight times more likely to collapse under the eight attack/round fighter than the one attack/per round fighter, and spellcasters can stand on that floor with impunity! If you require a fumble threat to be confirmed (although why a person's fighting skill should affect the random event of a floor collapsing I've no idea) , my 16th level TWFer is still around two-and-a-half times more likely (53/19) to trigger the 'random' floor collapse than the farmer! Meanwhile, the spellcaster is safe just by choosing to avoid casting spells that require attack rolls!
If your table thinks that random badness is fun, fine, but be fair about it; don't tie it to the attack roll! Simply require each player to roll a d20 at the start of their turn, and if they roll a 1 then some random badness happens that round. It'd be even fairer if some random goodness happened if that d20 rolled a 20.
Your real world knowledge of a drill that's meant to improve ball handling skills sure showed her!I mean, it's not like the reason drills were invented is because they're more difficult than what you would likely to have to do in a game so you improve faster or anything!
No no, her uninformed opinion of "Dribbling two balls is more difficult than dribbling one" is MUCH different and inferior to your informed opinion of "Dribbling two balls is a drill meant to be more difficult than dribbling one so as to improve ball handling skill".
Yes, my point is that someone who practices to do something is probably going to have less chance of critical error than someone who has never practiced. Two of you jumped on my analogy with the concept that dribbling two basketballs is impossible, so I pointed that not only is it possible, but the person I used in my analogy has probably conducted such drills, so both of your objections were without foundation.
Yes, my point is that someone who practices to do something is probably going to have less chance of critical error than someone who has never practiced. Two of you jumped on my analogy with the concept that dribbling two basketballs is impossible, so I pointed that not only is it possible, but the person I used in my analogy has probably conducted such drills, so both of your objections were without foundation.
Your real world knowledge of a drill that's meant to improve ball handling skills sure showed her!I mean, it's not like the reason drills were invented is because they're more difficult than what you would likely to have to do in a game so you improve faster or anything!
No no, her uninformed opinion of "Dribbling two balls is more difficult than dribbling one" is MUCH different and inferior to your informed opinion of "Dribbling two balls is a drill meant to be more difficult than dribbling one so as to improve ball handling skill".
Here's my post, show me where I even implied it was impossible:
Except Lebron probably DOES have a higher chance of tripping over his balls than your mom does.
Your mom focuses her whole attention on one ball. Once she gets the hang of it (after about 30 seconds) she could probably dribble that one ball (kind of slowly, but still) up and down the court all day without tripping very often.
Meanwhile, Lebron, while being a professional, is now focusing on two balls at once (which, if he's not careful, will bounce off of each other and trip him up separately) and likely trying to go at a faster speed. He's doing something much more complicated, so yes, he is more likely to trip up.
The other person's post said it was "quite difficult" as well, not impossible. Do you deny that dribbling two balls is more complex and involved than just dribbling one?
It doesn't matter if you're better than someone else, more complex things will still stay more complex. A 20th level Fighter is better at swinging his sword once than the 1st level Commoner is. Approximately 30x better. But swinging his sword twice, thrice, 4, or more times is more involved and more difficult to do with the same sort of precision. Hence why each iterative attack takes a -5 penalty. Is it really that hard to believe that every now and then, in trying to both coordinate his separate hands (we're assuming a TWF-er still I believe?), attack an enemy, attack an enemy ACCURATELY without sacrificing power and speed, to attack the enemy accurately and without sacrificing power and speed while making sure not to hit himself, nearby teammates, or leave himself open to attacks, that he would mess up and loosen his grip a little bit so it is jarred from his hand upon impact with the enemy's armor/carapace/wall of force?
Suppose you were shooting arrows and you fired 50 arrows in 1 minute hitting a bullseye 45 times while someone else fired 2 arrows in 1 minute hitting a bullseye once.
If they said "I did better than you because I only missed once" would you accept that premise?
Of course not. You would correctly point out that not only did you have a lower miss percentage, but you fired more arrows in the same timeframe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suppose you were shooting arrows and you fired 50 arrows in 1 minute hitting a bullseye 45 times while someone else fired 2 arrows in 1 minute hitting a bullseye once.
If they said "I did better than you because I only missed once" would you accept that premise?
Of course not. You would correctly point out that not only did you have a lower miss percentage, but you fired more arrows in the same timeframe.
What if the faster archer snapped 5 bow strings in the process? Or shot himself in the foot? Or any number of stupid fumble things?
|
|
The high level dude is not doing eight times as many things as the farmer! Both are fighting continually for the entire full attack!
The reason the game system awards more skilful fighters more attacks is not because they do more work but that they are eight times more likely to land a telling blow!
The archer example above, if using the fumble system of confirming fumble threats, would have dropped her bow/broken the string/shot her friends/shot herself in the (random roll) back(!), more times than the unskilled archer, assuming both shoot as fast as they can!
This is contrary to sense!
The high level dude is not doing eight times as many things as the farmer! Both are fighting continually for the entire full attack!
The reason the game system awards more skilful fighters more attacks is not because they do more work but that they are eight times more likely to land a telling blow!
If you say so. Personally i think the fact that you're getting more attacks at a penalty to your likelihood to hit speaks for itself. The peasant is winding up and putting all his strength into a single blow while the trained fighter knows how to do that without taking extra time.
The archer example above, if using the fumble system of confirming fumble threats, would have dropped her bow/broken the string/shot her friends/shot herself in the (random roll) back(!), more times than the unskilled archer, assuming both shoot as fast as they can!This is contrary to sense!
How is it contrary to sense? One person shot 45 times the other person shot twice. OF COURSE THE PERSON WHO FIRES 45 TIMES IS "MORE LIKELY" TO BREAK THE STRING! He's had more chances to put tension on the flawed bowstring and have it snap.
I do really like your idea earlier though, this one:
If your table thinks that random badness is fun, fine, but be fair about it; don't tie it to the attack roll! Simply require each player to roll a d20 at the start of their turn, and if they roll a 1 then some random badness happens that round. It'd be even fairer if some random goodness happened if that d20 rolled a 20.
It sounds neat.
What if the faster archer snapped 5 bow strings in the process? Or shot himself in the foot? Or any number of stupid fumble things?Suppose you were shooting arrows and you fired 50 arrows in 1 minute hitting a bullseye 45 times while someone else fired 2 arrows in 1 minute hitting a bullseye once.
If they said "I did better than you because I only missed once" would you accept that premise?
Of course not. You would correctly point out that not only did you have a lower miss percentage, but you fired more arrows in the same timeframe.
"Fumbling" and "Missing" are the same thing in my example. If the faster archer snapped 5 strings and the slower one snapped 1, everything still stands. The slower archer is still worse in every way unless the ONLY thing you count is raw number of bow strings snapped and ignore everything else. This is not what happens in Pathfinder.
The other person's post said it was "quite difficult" as well, not impossible. Do you deny that dribbling two balls is more complex and involved than just dribbling one?
I don't deny it.
You're denying that Lebron James has less of a chance to trip over his feet than my non-athletic mother while doing basketball related activities, even when doing something more complex than her, but something he probably practices doing.
|
|
"Fumbling" and "Missing" are the same thing in my example. If the faster archer snapped 5 strings and the slower one snapped 1, everything still stands. The slower archer is still worse in every way unless the ONLY thing you count is raw number of bow strings snapped and ignore everything else. This is not what happens in Pathfinder.What if the faster archer snapped 5 bow strings in the process? Or shot himself in the foot? Or any number of stupid fumble things?Suppose you were shooting arrows and you fired 50 arrows in 1 minute hitting a bullseye 45 times while someone else fired 2 arrows in 1 minute hitting a bullseye once.
If they said "I did better than you because I only missed once" would you accept that premise?
Of course not. You would correctly point out that not only did you have a lower miss percentage, but you fired more arrows in the same timeframe.
Broken bow strings are only one possible fumble result. Shooting yourself or your friends are other, common results.
In 40 minutes of sustained shooting, the better archer will have shot 53 of his allies while the novice, who isn't even proficient in a bow, will have only shot 19 allies.
The principle that more skilful people mess up more often than less skilled people, when both are doing their utmost, is what makes the fumble mechanic (tied to the attack roll) wrong.
@Rynjin; cheers! I'm glad you like this idea.
Personally I'd choose not to use a fumble mechanic, but if I had to have one, at least the one I describe is equally unfair to all the PCs. : )
What I'm saying is that Lebron has a higher chance of failing at a more complex activity than someone else does at a simple one. It doesn't matter how good you are at something, eventually you will fail at it. The more complex the activity the more likely you are to fail at something.
But that example doesn't really fit this scenario very well beyond the "Professional vs Amateur" comparison.
The scenario here is being called out as ridiculous because it is supposedly silly that a professional fighter will fail more often than an amateur.
OF COURSE THEY WILL. Who's more likely to fall, say, mountain climbing? The guy who goes once a year or the guy who does it almost religiously (once a week)? Obviously, the guy who does it less frequently is less skilled at it, making him more likely to fall at any one particular time, but overall the person who does it more frequently will have done the activity more often, thus increasing the amount of times he's courted that danger. Even if the difference is something like a 5% chance versus a 1% chance to fall, the guy who does it 52 times a year is, overall, more likely to fall more than the guy who does it once a year.
That's what this is like. Lebron can dribble a basketball all day long, yes. He could even probably dribble two balls for hours on end, but he is more likely to fail more times than your mother who only does it once because it consumes such a large portion of his time. Eventually, even the most skilled gymnast falls, the best cross country runner trips, and the best basketball player flubs his dribble. In the grand scheme, these failures are drowned out by their successes (just as they are in the game), they fail very seldom overall. But the failures do happen, and when they happen they can be catastrophic.
The fighter failing one of his 8 attacks and accidentally disarming himself or having the flat of the blade hit him in the face is the equivalent of this. Having that cost him his life is the equivalent of Lebron flubbing his dribble in overtime and costing them the game. I don't see what's so ridiculous about that.
That's what this is like. Lebron can dribble a basketball all day long, yes. He could even probably dribble two balls for hours on end, but he is more likely to fail more times than your mother who only does it once because it consumes such a large portion of his time. Eventually, even the most skilled gymnast falls, the best cross country runner trips, and the best basketball player flubs his dribble. In the grand scheme, these failures are drowned out by their successes (just as they are in the game), they fail very seldom overall. But the failures do happen, and when they happen they can be catastrophic.
Most of those examples are people who are trying to push the limits of what they're capable of, which isn't best modeled by critical fumbles, but higher DC's. Annapurna has killed roughly 40% of the people who attempted it, I doubt that's indicative of a fumble rate, but rather serious consequences of normal failure.
Sure, I can also agree that professional tennis players, who are the most skilled and experienced tennis players in the world, also get more unforced errors over the course of their lives than someone that only plays once a month. Same with professional baseball players, for that matter. It's not a function of "DC" either, given that the "base difficulty" to say, hit a tennis ball over a net is the same for both tennis players. Or to throw a ball from second to first base, etc...
You read his point wrong.
His point was that over a single tennis match, a critical fumble rule would be the equivalent of a professional tennis player have a greater number of unforced errors than an amateur tennis player over a same length match.
In a single round, a 11th level fighter with TWF has a greater chance of a fumble than a 1st level fighter using a single weapon.
Iterative attacks are supposed to represent a greater degree of power, not risk, as far as I knew.
I feel like this thread is getting stuck in the weeds.
Depending on how you look at things, or run the math, the fighter may or may not be fumbling more in a given round as he progresses. This all depends on the criteria set forth and what you are comparing.
The net effect in a given session, is that the more attack rolls you make, the more chances you have to fumble, player character or monster.
Regardless, What is the benefit of the fumble rules for a given table?
I could just describe a character who rolled a 1 as having clashed blades with his foe, causing him to nearly lose his grip as he felt the strength in his opponents sword arm.
While I wouldn't want to describe every attack roll made, it seems more fun to simply use storytelling to add that sort of flavor.
If you want a player character to be disarmed, use the combat maneuver against them. A fighter that has gloves of dueling won't drop his weapon when stunned or panicked, but god help him if he rolls a 1, then he somehow drops it.
Sure, I can also agree that professional tennis players, who are the most skilled and experienced tennis players in the world, also get more unforced errors over the course of their lives than someone that only plays once a month. Same with professional baseball players, for that matter. It's not a function of "DC" either, given that the "base difficulty" to say, hit a tennis ball over a net is the same for both tennis players. Or to throw a ball from second to first base, etc...You read his point wrong.
His point was that over a single tennis match, a critical fumble rule would be the equivalent of a professional tennis player have a greater number of unforced errors than an amateur tennis player over a same length match.
In a single round, a 11th level fighter with TWF has a greater chance of a fumble than a 1st level fighter using a single weapon.
Iterative attacks are supposed to represent a greater degree of power, not risk, as far as I knew.
And more to the point, it's not about unforced errors if you use the Tennis match analogy. An unforced error would be best represented by rolling a "1". A FUMBLE for a tennis player would be dropping their racket.
I used to play tennis quite a lot back in my college days. I've seen a lot of people drop tennis racquets. I've seen tennis players drop racquets in Grand Slam matches.
But I can assure you, the better you get at tennis, the less often you drop your tennis racquet even if you play several more hours per day.
No matter what arguments anyone uses, regardless of the math, the only thing that matters is that the group is enjoying themselves. If the group wants to use fumbles and they find it fun, then that's great. If the group does not want to use fumbles for whatever reason, then that's great too. Neither way is wrong.
I use the Fumble deck and used it for an Age of Wyrms campaign that was martial-heavy. They didn't fumble all that often. When they did, it wasn't all that bad. My players had a great time and that's what was important. If they had asked that I don't use the deck, it would have sat on my shelf collecting dust (as it is now because I'm not in a game currently).
No matter what arguments anyone uses, regardless of the math, the only thing that matters is that the group is enjoying themselves. If the group wants to use fumbles and they find it fun, then that's great. If the group does not want to use fumbles for whatever reason, then that's great too. Neither way is wrong.
I use the Fumble deck and used it for an Age of Wyrms campaign that was martial-heavy. They didn't fumble all that often. When they did, it wasn't all that bad. My players had a great time and that's what was important. If they had asked that I don't use the deck, it would have sat on my shelf collecting dust (as it is now because I'm not in a game currently).
Hear, hear!
Bob, the question of this particular thread is "to fumble or not to fumble", which I took to mean that the OP was asking for opinions about fumble so he could choose whether to use fumble rules or not.
So while it's nice to say "Hey, play how you like" it is also fine to respond to that sort of request with "I like/dislike them and here's why." That can be done without saying "your way is wrong". And I think the vast majority of posts here have taken the approach of saying "here is my opinion, but however you want to do it is OK too."
No matter what arguments anyone uses, regardless of the math, the only thing that matters is that the group is enjoying themselves. If the group wants to use fumbles and they find it fun, then that's great. If the group does not want to use fumbles for whatever reason, then that's great too. Neither way is wrong.
You're forgetting the very real and very likely circumstance of:
GM loves the fumbles and watching PCs suffer random mishaps, while the other PCs don't want to GM so accept whatever they can tolerate to keep this guy around, even pretending to enjoy the fumbles.
Alternatively substitute "need the GM's house as a game location" or "are good friends with the GM so don't want to upset him because of the social rules of geekdom," or any number of social pressures.
I've seen all of these with various rules. Since I like to GM, I've saved a couple groups from the first one in the past, but really, if the choice is randomly getting screwed over during the game or not playing at all, I pick getting boned over.