My system -
Roll a 1 - go to Confirm Critical Failure
Roll a 1-5 - Critical failure confirmed.
5 - Provoke attacks of oppertunity
4 - -2 AC until begining of your next turn.
3 - Become Flat-Footed
2 - Deal Weapon damage to yourself.
1 - Disarmed.
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."
Your's are, and several others, but there are some who are stuck in the "my way is the only right way" and they want to prove that point. When people talk about walking out of a group because they use fumble rules (before learning anything about how those rules work), it reads as "my way or no way."
I can tell who has used the Fumble deck and who hasn't by the way they've done their math. If they use the rules for the deck, the math comes out differently.
The first option, which is the one they recommend, is that the confirmation roll is done with the character's full base attack (with accompanying modifiers). That's different than the way things were presented before and changed the odds of the fighter (or other martial character) fumbling.
The second option is the one that people have been arguing with, that you use your current attack bonus. (This is the one I used and we didn't find any problems for our group.)
The third option doesn't even require a confirmation roll.
Then there are more optional ways to implement the deck:
1) If you have Weapon Focus you can draw two cards and take the result you prefer. If you have Greater Weapon Focus, draw three cards.
2) If you are using the Critical Hit deck, you can hold on to a critical hit card instead of using the effect and use it to negate a fumble.
3) Players can't fumble more than once per combat.
4) If a character isn't proficient with a weapons, he potentially fumbles on a 1 or 2.
5) There is a new spell added to the game: Fumble (and it's Mass version so technically two new spells).
6) There is a new weapon ability added: Sure Grip (you only fumble if the confirmation roll is also a natural 1).
The deck isn't as bad as people make it out to be and it is obvious who as looked at it and who hasn't. While I understand that this thread is about fumbles in general, the deck does provide some balancing options that people can look at and see if they would make other fumble tables less severe or more enjoyable or not.
I see too many people who just want to discount things without taking anything other than their own opinion into account. When they bring in their math and don't acknowledge different ways that things can be implemented, it shows a confirmation bias. They have already made up their minds and are now looking to find things to support their position instead of the other way around. In the end though, it still won't matter what their math says, Lemmy's group wants fumbles.
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.
I didn't forget any of that. I didn't acknowledge it because I can't acknowledge every little thing that may or may not happen in various group dynamics. If people weren't so timid about their opinions (they don't have to be rude, but they can speak up) and if people were willing to acknowledge those opinions, those problems go away. Like I said in my post, if my players didn't want the fumbles, the deck would have collected dust regardless of what I want. I run the game so that we can all have fun. If, as GM, my fun is predicated on fumbles, then I need to reevaluate how I run the game and how I treat my friends. If, as GM, I can't figure out how to write an adventure that I will enjoy running and that my players will enjoy playing in, then maybe I shouldn't be behind the screen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see too many people who just want to discount things without taking anything other than their own opinion into account. When they bring in their math and don't acknowledge different ways that things can be implemented, it shows a confirmation bias. They have already made up their minds and are now looking to find things to support their position instead of the other way around. In the end though, it still won't matter what their math says, Lemmy's group wants fumbles.
Yeah, true, true...
I've played with and without fumbles. My opinion on fumbles isn't about the math so much as it is about the concept. I suppose I'm one of those players who prefers combat t be as predictable and manageable as possible, and therefore find fumble rules generally as being detriments to my character's ability to manage combat. There's enough going on to make that difficult anyway without things like the party tank suddenly losing AC or the archer suddenly dealing with a disabled bow.
Maybe that's why I tend to be the tactical leader in our groups, because I'm sort of a control freak at root and fumble rules go against my grain for that reason.
I have played with them and enjoyed them, but overall they have been more frustrating and arbitrary and so I prefer not to deal with them.
But if the group likes them, that's fine too.
I should add that I think that the group should be 100% in with fumbles or critical hit effects or any other optional rule. If even one player doesn't want it, then it shouldn't be used at all. Simply because fumbles don't just affect those who use them. If the ranger fumbles with his arrow and the shot hits another character (entirely possible with many fumble rules and certainly with the deck) it doesn't just affect the ranger. It affects another character. If critical hit effects are being used and someone gets a result of "Normal Damage plus 8 bleed, a successful Heal check halves the bleed instead of stopping it" it can lessen the fun for someone who is just getting double damage. Or worse, if the critical hit is with a ray spell against the party's wizard (who wants the critical hit effects) and ends up with "Normal Damage and target sent to a random plane (Will negates)" the party is in a very different position than it was before especially if they aren't of a high enough level for the wizard to just come back next round (or at all).
I really feel that the group should be all in or not at all.
I do the fumble on a 1, with a confirmation. But I always allow them to use their highest attack bonus with that given weapon to confirm the fumble. So say you do have a level 6 Fighter. For sake of easiness, lets just say his attack bonus is just his BAB. So +6/+1. He's swinging around a greatsword for both attacks. He hits rolls a 15 and then 1. The 15 hits, the 1 is a fumble. Instead of making him roll with only a +1 to confirm that fumble, I allow the full bonus of +6. It makes it more forgiving as martial classes increase in level and attacks.
My personal fumble chart is also fairly forgiving. Generally it just involves dropping a weapon, or falling prone. But if they attempt crazy stuff, they run the risk of crazy failure. If someone leaps off the roof of a 30 foot building and tries to bury his sword through an enemy, if he's rolling a 1 on those acrobatics or attack rolls, something BAD is going to happen. He may miss completely and possibly break his weapon, or his leg.
I don't go in for overly catastrophic crits or fumbles though. I had a DM at one point who had people take permanent ability damage when being crit. This was overly punishing to the PCs who, realistically, were the only ones that actually suffered from it.
You are right to be concerned Lemmy. But here’s the real reason- we all know we have a large power gap between martial and spellcasting classes at higher levels.
Many of the best spells don’t require a “to hit” roll, thus can’t fumble. And your fumble rolls make it worse in that even a wizard who does cast a ranger touch attack spell is unaffected, as I don’t think you make him drop his fingers. <g> And of course at higher level, a warrior gets more chances to fumble.
Your fumble rules- which are fairly common- make it so that Conan is many times more likely to fumble than a peasant who is trying out a new exotic weapon he has never even seen before. Is that realistic?
Even with the fixes suggested here, the problem of spellcasters vs warriors remain, and the game does NOT need anything that increases that gap.
|
My system -
Roll a 1 - go to Confirm Critical Failure
Roll a 1-5 - Critical failure confirmed.
5 - Provoke attacks of oppertunity
4 - -2 AC until begining of your next turn.
3 - Become Flat-Footed
2 - Deal Weapon damage to yourself.
1 - Disarmed.
Interesting....
So, being better at fighting doesn't make you less likely to mess up catastrophically....
And the better fighter you are, which is reflected in game by (among other things) more attacks, then my high level fighter messes up catastrophically eight times more often than a farmer trying to attack with an exotic weapon he's never seen before....
If your game was the only one in town, I'd be playing a spellcasting buffer!
As usual, Bob's posts are full of great ideas.
BTW, I haven't seen you in a while Bob, nice to know you're still around.
(Admitedly, I don't participate here as much as I used to, so maybe that's the real reason. heh)
I've seen some great posts in this thread (and others not so much); I'll talk to my players again this sunday and check if they still want to keep the fumble rules. If they say yes, I'll share the suggestions you guys gave me.
Hopefully, this will make us have more fun instead of creating a increasingly frustrating game mechanic.
|
|
There are those on this thread that just enjoy games where random badness can happen.
If you are one of these people, what objection would you have to the idea of divorcing the random part of the badness from the attack roll mechanic?
What objection would you have to a system which, in it's most basic form, means that each player rolls an unmodified d20 on each of his turns: if the result is a 1, then random badness happens; if the result is a 20, then random goodness happens?
Obviously this idea needs fine-tuning, and it won't mean that people will automatically prefer it to a no-fumble table. However, the objections to the fumble rule punishing martials (and punishing more skilful martials even more) will go away.
It will also expand the possible types of badness beyond weapon attacks to include stuff like collapsing floors etc.
Well! Are any of the group that likes fumbles likely to feel strongly about keeping the fumble mechanic tied to attack rolls? If so, why?
As usual, Bob's posts are full of great ideas.
BTW, I haven't seen you in a while Bob, nice to know you're still around.
(Admitedly, I don't participate here as much as I used to, so maybe that's the real reason. heh)I've seen some great posts in this thread (and others not so much); I'll talk to my players again this sunday and check if they still want to keep the fumble rules. If they say yes, I'll share the suggestions you guys gave me.
Hopefully, this will make us have more fun instead of creating a increasingly frustrating game mechanic.
I don't post as often as I did. I've been really busy with life and my group hasn't gamed in months so I haven't spent much time posting. I've been mostly lurking.
I really do think that if even a single person, including the GM, doesn't want to use fumble rules, then they shouldn't be used. Every additional rule slows down combat and can take a well written adventure and turn it on its head quickly. If the GM doesn't want to deal with that then they shouldn't have to. The same goes for the players. The rules impact everyone, not just the players.
There are those on this thread that just enjoy games where random badness can happen.
If you are one of these people, what objection would you have to the idea of divorcing the random part of the badness from the attack roll mechanic?
What objection would you have to a system which, in it's most basic form, means that each player rolls an unmodified d20 on each of his turns: if the result is a 1, then random badness happens; if the result is a 20, then random goodness happens?
Obviously this idea needs fine-tuning, and it won't mean that people will automatically prefer it to a no-fumble table. However, the objections to the fumble rule punishing martials (and punishing more skilful martials even more) will go away.
It will also expand the possible types of badness beyond weapon attacks to include stuff like collapsing floors etc.
Well! Are any of the group that likes fumbles likely to feel strongly about keeping the fumble mechanic tied to attack rolls? If so, why?
Like I said before, I don't actually like Fumble mechanics. I don't enjoy depending on luck/random chance. Obiviously, some things have to be random chance (we are rolling dice, after all), but I'd rather reduce randomness as much as possible.
But when I asked my players, they said they like Fumble mechanics because they make combat funnier and more unpredictable, so I kept them. As much as I don't like Fumble rules, I also don't particullary care if they apply. I'd probably be more vocal about it if I were a player instead of the GM, though... Heh.
I don't post as often as I did. I've been really busy with life and my group hasn't gamed in months so I haven't spent much time posting. I've been mostly lurking.
I really do think that if even a single person, including the GM, doesn't want to use fumble rules, then they shouldn't be used. Every additional rule slows down combat and can take a well written adventure and turn it on its head quickly. If the GM doesn't want to deal with that then they shouldn't have to. The same goes for the players. The rules impact everyone, not just the players.
Oh, that makes sense. Between you posting less often and I not visiting the forums as much as I did, it was to be expected that I woldn't see many of your posts around. Still good to know you're around, though. Hope your group finds the time to play again.
If you're going to have fumbles, especially for ranged attacks where your opponent can't interfere, you need to use an index AC. You don't break your bowstring or drop your bow or hit a friend more often firing at a fighter in plate armor with a tower shield than you do firing at a raging barbarian in fur skivvies. To avoid punishing melee even more than it already is punished by the existence of monsters with reach and/or grab and/or poison or disease touch attacks the same standard should apply to melee.
That's a fair point, even if I don't totally agree with it. The whole point of fumbling is the fact that it's all about luck. Same with crits. I enjoy random factors in my game. So do my players. If I were to use a "stock" AC, it'd probably scale up with what my players were fighting. Because as a trained fighter, you may not drop your weapon or snap your bow string more as you get stronger. But when you're fighting something like say, a dragon or a giant, scrambling around to get out of the way of giant clubs or claws swinging at you, there's a good chance (trained or not) that you may just trip over some rocks, slip on some loose gravel, or some other circumstance that may lead to fumbling.
There are those on this thread that just enjoy games where random badness can happen.
If you are one of these people, what objection would you have to the idea of divorcing the random part of the badness from the attack roll mechanic?
What objection would you have to a system which, in it's most basic form, means that each player rolls an unmodified d20 on each of his turns: if the result is a 1, then random badness happens; if the result is a 20, then random goodness happens?
Obviously this idea needs fine-tuning, and it won't mean that people will automatically prefer it to a no-fumble table. However, the objections to the fumble rule punishing martials (and punishing more skilful martials even more) will go away.
It will also expand the possible types of badness beyond weapon attacks to include stuff like collapsing floors etc.
Well! Are any of the group that likes fumbles likely to feel strongly about keeping the fumble mechanic tied to attack rolls? If so, why?
Hmm, your idea has merit. But instead, make it once per combat at the start. You roll, and if you roll a 20 something Good- if a one, something Bad. The DM has a little chart, he decides what round when appropriate.
|
|
Hmm, your idea has merit. But instead, make it once per combat at the start. You roll, and if you roll a 20 something Good- if a one, something Bad. The DM has a little chart, he decides what round when appropriate.There are those on this thread that just enjoy games where random badness can happen.
If you are one of these people, what objection would you have to the idea of divorcing the random part of the badness from the attack roll mechanic?
What objection would you have to a system which, in it's most basic form, means that each player rolls an unmodified d20 on each of his turns: if the result is a 1, then random badness happens; if the result is a 20, then random goodness happens?
Obviously this idea needs fine-tuning, and it won't mean that people will automatically prefer it to a no-fumble table. However, the objections to the fumble rule punishing martials (and punishing more skilful martials even more) will go away.
It will also expand the possible types of badness beyond weapon attacks to include stuff like collapsing floors etc.
Well! Are any of the group that likes fumbles likely to feel strongly about keeping the fumble mechanic tied to attack rolls? If so, why?
Good idea! It would cut down on extra mechanics, and avoid situations where the player knows he's rolled a 1 that round so avoid doing anything dangerous.
If the d20 is rolled once at the start of combat, and it comes up 1, it'd be like Star Wars when they say, 'I've got a bad feeling about this...!'
Your's are, and several others, but there are some who are stuck in the "my way is the only right way" and they want to prove that point. When people talk about walking out of a group because they use fumble rules (before learning anything about how those rules work), it reads as "my way or no way."
In my points, I'm not trying to say "my way is the right way". What I am saying is "this is how a rule can affect a game".
If you say "My rule of doubling jump DC's means PC's can jump further" I'm going to chime in that it might not be having the effect you intended. If you say "We didn't like how far you could jump, so we doubled the DC" I might ask why, but there really isn't much to point out.
I hate fumble rules, its been my experience that the GMs that tend to use them like to "play to win" pathfinder and laugh like d-bags when a PC messes up.
It also messes up anyone that wants to take an extra attack, so twf or monk's flurry becomes a far weaker option and discourages someone who wants to play someone who uses those. Meanwhile they favor things like magic missiles and fireballs.
I'm sure someone could think for hours on how to make some critical miss system that works but is it really worth the time?
Your's are, and several others, but there are some who are stuck in the "my way is the only right way" and they want to prove that point. When people talk about walking out of a group because they use fumble rules (before learning anything about how those rules work), it reads as "my way or no way."In my points, I'm not trying to say "my way is the right way". What I am saying is "this is how a rule can affect a game".
If you say "My rule of doubling jump DC's means PC's can jump further" I'm going to chime in that it might not be having the effect you intended. If you say "We didn't like how far you could jump, so we doubled the DC" I might ask why, but there really isn't much to point out.
There are a couple of others who have pretty much said that it is their way or no way without any consideration of how the rules would be implemented.
It is always important to know how an optional rule will impact the game. Sometimes something sounds interesting or fun but in practice it may not have the desired effect. When it is possible to actually evaluate something beforehand, I fully support that. I think that it's important to make sure that the data used in the evaluation matches the data that will be used in practice. That's not always the case.
Take the example uses I gave. So the recommended way to use the Fumble deck is for a confirmation roll using the highest base attack with appropriate modifiers. There is the additional, optional rule, that says that you can only fumble once per combat. With that in place, it is unlikely that a high level character will be fumbling often. Since we don't know how the fumble rules were implemented in Lemmy's campaign, the math doesn't really do anything to address his concerns.
I hate fumble rules, its been my experience that the GMs that tend to use them like to "play to win" pathfinder and laugh like d-bags when a PC messes up.
It also messes up anyone that wants to take an extra attack, so twf or monk's flurry becomes a far weaker option and discourages someone who wants to play someone who uses those. Meanwhile they favor things like magic missiles and fireballs.
I'm sure someone could think for hours on how to make some critical miss system that works but is it really worth the time?
What if you had a GM that wasn't trying to "win the game?" What if the group finds it fun and they managed to find a simple way to address your problem (you can't fumble more than once per combat and you must confirm with your highest base attack plus bonuses)?
I use the Fumble Deck and I'm not trying to win the game. I use it because my players asked me to buy it and we all enjoyed it. We found it made the game more fun for us. Others may not, and I'm cool with that. If you were in my game and were against it, I would ask what your concerns were and then I would try to address them. If you were willing to try out the rules, I would go for it. If not, I wouldn't kick you out of the group, I would not use the rules even if the other 5 players wanted to use them. There are some things that I don't believe should be based on a majority rules basis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Failure to damage an opponent is a fumble enough, no need to make it worse.
That is all.
;D
|
|
So the recommended way to use the Fumble deck is for a confirmation roll using the highest base attack with appropriate modifiers. There is the additional, optional rule, that says that you can only fumble once per combat. With that in place, it is unlikely that a high level character will be fumbling often.
The things you mention do mitigate the unfairness somewhat, but since the fumble mechanic is still tied to attack rolls, 'random' badness only happens to those that make attack rolls.
As long as a random badness mechanic is tied to attack rolls it will remain unfair.
What do you think about the suggestion above for random badness, the one where everyone rolls a d20 before each combat and the players that roll a 1 have something bad happen to them during the combat, and those that roll 20 have something good happen to them during the combat? Not tied to attacks or anything else, it opens up more possibilities for random stuff, and is completely fair to all the PCs.
So the recommended way to use the Fumble deck is for a confirmation roll using the highest base attack with appropriate modifiers. There is the additional, optional rule, that says that you can only fumble once per combat. With that in place, it is unlikely that a high level character will be fumbling often.The things you mention do mitigate the unfairness somewhat, but since the fumble mechanic is still tied to attack rolls, 'random' badness only happens to those that make attack rolls.
As long as a random badness mechanic is tied to attack rolls it will remain unfair.
What do you think about the suggestion above for random badness, the one where everyone rolls a d20 before each combat and the players that roll a 1 have something bad happen to them during the combat, and those that roll 20 have something good happen to them during the combat? Not tied to attacks or anything else, it opens up more possibilities for random stuff, and is completely fair to all the PCs.
However, keep in mind that those who don't make attack rolls also aren't going to be getting critical hits either. So I don't really see it as a problem. In fact, those who make a lot of attack rolls have more chances to get critical hits the more attacks they make. I don't really think it's an issue.
|
|
Even an x4 critical hit is not as good as a fumble is bad once multiple attacks are happening. A fumble can effectively take a weapon user out of combat.
Yes, but there's only a few cards in the deck that actually do that. Most of them are "Flat footed for one round. - 2 to attack rolls for 1d4 rounds. Target gains concealment for 1 round. You hit, but you deal half damage to your weapon."
Most of you talking about the deck haven't actually seen it, and have used the absolute worse case scenarios on the cards. And the funny thing is, none of you have stated what the actual worst effect you can have is.
Something to the effect of "You fall unconscious for 1d6 rounds."
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In my home campaign, I use the Paizo Critical Fumble deck, with a modification that I think is really important.
An attack roll of a natural "1" threatens a fumble.
The confirmation roll is (amount of damage the attacker currently has accrued, divided by 5, round down). So, if you have taken 23 points of damage, and you roll a "1" on an attack, you fumble on a confirmation roll of 1 - 4.
This means that you can fight forever and not worry about fumbling, as long as you're in good health. But once you start taking damage -- that's when mistakes start to happen, and when you can mess yourself up.
This has a couple of positive repercussions. For one, when the NPC fumbles and loses the fight, the PCs don't feel cheated of victory, because it was the damage they did to the bad guy, that ended up turning the fight.
For another, fighting-while-wounded is no longer "no big deal". Warriors will stop and get healed in combat, to avoid risky fumbles.
Your's are, and several others, but there are some who are stuck in the "my way is the only right way" and they want to prove that point. When people talk about walking out of a group because they use fumble rules (before learning anything about how those rules work), it reads as "my way or no way."In my points, I'm not trying to say "my way is the right way". What I am saying is "this is how a rule can affect a game".
If you say "My rule of doubling jump DC's means PC's can jump further" I'm going to chime in that it might not be having the effect you intended. If you say "We didn't like how far you could jump, so we doubled the DC" I might ask why, but there really isn't much to point out.
There are a couple of others who have pretty much said that it is their way or no way without any consideration of how the rules would be implemented.
It is always important to know how an optional rule will impact the game. Sometimes something sounds interesting or fun but in practice it may not have the desired effect. When it is possible to actually evaluate something beforehand, I fully support that. I think that it's important to make sure that the data used in the evaluation matches the data that will be used in practice. That's not always the case.
Take the example uses I gave. So the recommended way to use the Fumble deck is for a confirmation roll using the highest base attack with appropriate modifiers. There is the additional, optional rule, that says that you can only fumble once per combat. With that in place, it is unlikely that a high level character will be fumbling often. Since we don't know how the fumble rules were implemented in Lemmy's campaign, the math doesn't really do anything to address his concerns.
That's fine, but that wasn't included in earlier responses from other people. They responded with "well it makes sense that higher fighters, with their better training, should fumble more often", so I talked about how that didn't make sense to me. Your method sounds much better.
There's a completely different method, though it's more tied into the entire task resolution of the game, that I also like.
High result - you hit, do normal damage.
Middle result - you hit, do normal damage... but the enemy also hits you.
Low result - something bad happens to you, the DM has a list of things he can pick from, including dealing damage to you.
In that system, the enemies don't roll to hit, or even take turns. The DM might describe an impending attack, and if the players don't try to stop it, defend or get out of the way, they take damage.
|
As a GM and as a Player I hate fumble rules.
Not because it's not fun
Not because it's slowing the game
But because the gap it add between spell user and "fighter" when level up.
Spell Users became more and more powerfull with level and use less and less dice to "attack" their opponent so Fumble is not a problem for them.
On the contrary, fighter rolls more and more dice and are far more concern by Fumble than Spell User when becoming less and less effective with level compare to Spell User.
At low level fumble can be kind of fun for everyone. But at High level it's become boring for fighter.
But I have a lot of friends who loves using fumble rules...
That's fine, but that wasn't included in earlier responses from other people. They responded with "well it makes sense that higher fighters, with their better training, should fumble more often", so I talked about how that didn't make sense to me. Your method sounds much better.
That's actually the fault of the people who were discussing fumble rules (and specifically mention the deck) who were actually using them not informing you on how the rules are implemented. I don't know how they implement them in their games. You just weren't given all the information and so you could only work with what you knew.
|
|
However, keep in mind that those who don't make attack rolls also aren't going to be getting critical hits either. So I don't really see it as a problem. In fact, those who make a lot of attack rolls have more chances to get critical hits the more attacks they make. I don't really think it's an issue.So the recommended way to use the Fumble deck is for a confirmation roll using the highest base attack with appropriate modifiers. There is the additional, optional rule, that says that you can only fumble once per combat. With that in place, it is unlikely that a high level character will be fumbling often.The things you mention do mitigate the unfairness somewhat, but since the fumble mechanic is still tied to attack rolls, 'random' badness only happens to those that make attack rolls.
As long as a random badness mechanic is tied to attack rolls it will remain unfair.
What do you think about the suggestion above for random badness, the one where everyone rolls a d20 before each combat and the players that roll a 1 have something bad happen to them during the combat, and those that roll 20 have something good happen to them during the combat? Not tied to attacks or anything else, it opens up more possibilities for random stuff, and is completely fair to all the PCs.
As you get more skilful you get more crits, not because you become 'luckier', but because you get more skilful! The game system models that nicely.
But it doesn't make sense that you get 'unluckier' OR 'less skilful' as you level up!
The subject of 'fumbles' includes more than just experience of the official fumble deck. It includes our collective experience of 'fumble' rules in our gaming histories. Many 'fumble' rules at many tables are simply 'roll a 1=drop your weapon', and that experience colours our perceptions.
I do not think that the greater number of crits generated with greater fighting skill should equate to more random badness affecting weapon users! If you think that high level fighters getting more crits is unfair to spellcasters, I'll point out that high level spellcasters get higher level spells! Higher level fighters don't see their weapon morph into things that do base damage x BAB, or become AoE, or become SoD. Fighters don't need punishing just because they do more crits!
these work pretty well from my groups.
Crit rule: Multiple 20s extend your crit multiplier.
Example:
With a bow(x3 crit multiplier), 20/20/confirm does x6 damage. 20/20/20/confirm does x9 damage, and so on. Gives the players a chance for spectacular hits without instadeath. Also, gives a slight advantage to x3/x4 multiplier weapons over the standard 18-20/x2 weapons that a lot of fighters use.
Fumble rule: 1/confirm -> provoke an attack of opportunity
1/1/confirm -> disarmed
I hate fumbles because of natural weapons. "Roll to see if your teeth fall out har har har." Every. Time.
Doesn't happen with the Fumble Deck. Not possible. However, even with tables like the one in the Dragon Compendium, I would hope that the GM either rerolls, chooses a better result, or makes it a regular miss. There is no reason for stupid or impossible results.
As you get more skilful you get more crits, not because you become 'luckier', but because you get more skilful! The game system models that nicely.
But it doesn't make sense that you get 'unluckier' OR 'less skilful' as you level up!
The subject of 'fumbles' includes more than just experience of the official fumble deck. It includes our collective experience of 'fumble' rules in our gaming histories. Many 'fumble' rules at many tables are simply 'roll a 1=drop your weapon', and that experience colours our perceptions.
So if you ignore what I proposed, I can see you being right. However, you completely ignored it. The deck actually found a way to deal with the very problem you see and rather than acknowledge that, you have pushed it aside and claimed that the problem still exists. What if you used the solution of needing a confirmation roll with your highest attack bonus and you can only fumble once per combat?
I do not think that the greater number of crits generated with greater fighting skill should equate to more random badness affecting weapon users! If you think that high level fighters getting more crits is unfair to spellcasters, I'll point out that high level spellcasters get higher level spells! Higher level fighters don't see their weapon morph into things that do base damage x BAB, or become AoE, or become SoD. Fighters don't need punishing just because they do more crits!
The greater number of crits doesn't equate to a greater number of fumbles. In fact, you should crit more often than you fumble unless you're simply unlucky.
I don't really care about what the spellcasters get. If they use attack rolls, they will benefit from crits and potentially have to deal with fumbles. If they don't use the attack rolls then they don't have the advantage of possibly getting a crit but that's balanced by the not being able to fumble either.
I don't see why the fighters would need their weapons to morph into anything. They can deal some awesome crits. Imagine dealing double damage and 3d6 Dexterity damage because of a severed spine. Dragons have what Dex? That could have a huge impact on the fight. Or a punctured lung where the target takes double damage and starts to drown in their own blood. Yeah, these require saves but not all the saves are going to stop the effect. Some only lessen it.
Critical hits and fumbles need to be in the realm of possibility with their results. It's not that hard to do and it's not that big of a deal. If you don't like them, that's fine. I have seen more critical hits than fumbles. I have seen more fights end from crits than from fumbles. The martials liked the effects. The casters never felt like they were cheated out of anything. The martials never felt like they were cheated out of consistency.
|
|
@Bob_Loblaw: what part of....
The things you mention do mitigate the unfairness somewhat.
....ignored your solutions?
Your solutions, as I acknowledged, do help, but the problem does not go away. It won't as long as fumbles are tied to attack rolls, no matter how much 'mitigation' is going on!
I like the way you are trying to address the issue, and I especially like your philosophy that means you don't force people to use those rules.
The game is complete without fumble rules; crits don't need to be 'balanced' by fumbles! The decision to add fumble rules (tied to attack rolls) adds a punishment to those PCs that make attack rolls, while not punishing those who don't.
You didn't say what you thought of the suggestion to make each player roll a d20 before each encounter to get random badness (roll 1) or goodness (roll 20).
Also, the OP wants to know about fumbles generally, not the fumble deck specifically, so it's not a surprise that your mention of the mitigating rules of that deck didn't end the conversation.
@Bob_Loblaw: what part of....
The things you mention do mitigate the unfairness somewhat.....ignored your solutions?
Your solutions, as I acknowledged, do help, but the problem does not go away. It won't as long as fumbles are tied to attack rolls, no matter how much 'mitigation' is going on!
I like the way you are trying to address the issue, and I especially like your philosophy that means you don't force people to use those rules.
Thanks. I really do believe that fun must be had by all or it's time to change something. Options rules are the first to go, being optional and all that.
The game is complete without fumble rules; crits don't need to be 'balanced' by fumbles! The decision to add fumble rules (tied to attack rolls) adds a punishment to those PCs that make attack rolls, while not punishing those who don't.
They are tied to attack rolls because the critical hits and fumbles are based on attacks. The best mechanic to use them is to tie them to attack rolls.
You didn't say what you thought of the suggestion to make each player roll a d20 before each encounter to get random badness (roll 1) or goodness (roll 20).
I don't like it. I don't think it's necessary. Of course I'm not looking to add fumbles for the same reason that others have said. I add fumbles because my players find them fun. They like the difficulty that it adds to those who need to make attack rolls. They also like the fact that they can score crits to get better results. Casters don't see that as often. Their spells are reliable and powerful. They have their own factors that are taken into account. My group doesn't like the idea of just a random goodness/badness roll before an encounter.
Also, the OP wants to know about fumbles generally, not the fumble deck specifically, so it's not a surprise that your mention of the mitigating rules of that deck didn't end the conversation.
That's why I mentioned how the deck works. It addresses many of the concerns that people brought up. It's not perfect but I don't think any system will be. I do think that it certainly takes most of the concerns and eliminates or reduces them. They can be used with many of the other fumble systems as well.
we auto confirm to cut down on dice rolls, so a crit threat IS a crit and we pull from the crit deck, If a PC choose a crit feat he/she can choose a 'better' choice off the card than the one indicated.
so a 1 is an auto fumble and we pull from the fumble deck....
Players are excited when either deck is accessed..."what'd he get? what'd he get?"
We have had monsters fumble and TOTALLY save the day... Ive never seen a PC fumble cause a TPK.
I don't really like it, personally. I just don't like the fact that you have a flat 1/20 chance to mess up from level 1 to level 20. You'd think it would be less likely as you got more awesome, but the chance goes up as you get more attacks. I don't know...
Then why aren't they all at full attack bonus?Oh wait, that's right, because attacking 4+ times in 6 seconds is harder than attacking 1 time in 6 seconds.
You know what's even harder? Trying to do it with a weapon in each hand.
You know what happens when things are harder? You make more mistakes, even if you're trained for it.
What you're talking about is already modeled in the chance of FAILURE, not FUMBLE. TWF with feats and appropriate weapons is already a -2 to attacks. Not "you also fumble on 2's". Iterative attacks are at -5 for each consecutive one. Don't confuse harder difficulty with chance of fumbling. No matter how difficult an AC or conditions make an attack, the base fumble chance is the same.
If what you were arguing were true, than the fumble chance of each individual attack should be higher, but that's not true.
had a high ac char die at low lvls due to like 3 chain crits. we didn't use crit confirm and it wasn't too fun so we changed right after.you need to have crit confirms or you will have characters die to random stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow... This is some high-level thread necromancy.
If anyone is interested, since I last posted on this thread, I've completely removed all Fumble mechanics from all games where I am the GM. They are far too punishing for martial characters.
Well, there is an optional rule, I allow my players to get the extra benefit of using a Crit Hit card (in addition to the multiplied damage) if they want, but in this case, they also have to pick a card from the Fumble deck anytime they roll a natural one.
Each player decides if he (and only he) wants to use this rule. If no one says anything, the default assumption is that there are no fumble rules. I saw a 10th level TWF Paladin roll 3 natural 1s in a single round. Imagine what would have happened if I used fumble rules (I even let him pull the fumble deck cards just out of curiosity. He would have lost an weapon, broken the another one and somehow, using only his broken weapon, dealt severe bleed damage to himself. A 10th level Paladin would suddenly act as if he belonged in an episode of the 3 Stooges.)
Fumble really sucks.
PS: Everyone knows who the 3 Stooges are, right? I mean... That show is 45 years older than me and I know who they are, so hopefully, it's not too obscure a reference.
Fumble rules are one of the few things that would consider walking from a game they are not fun and slow the game down. For some reason people think unfairly punishing martials is thematic.
Hey i know lets introduce a mechanic where wizards have to roll a d20 for every 2d6 of fireball and if they roll a 1 they accidently target themselves. Its.... reallly
Just say no to fumble
Fumble rules are one of the few things that would consider walking from a game they are not fun and slow the game down. For some reason people think unfairly punishing martials is thematic.
Hey i know lets introduce a mechanic where wizards have to roll a d20 for every 2d6 of fireball and if they roll a 1 they accidently target themselves. Its.... reallly
Just say no to fumble
Depends on the fumble rules.
If they are simple, then they wont bog down the game.
If they are applied evenly to NPC, then the martial player character may actually benefit from these rules.
My rules are if a 1 is rolled, roll to confirm, if confirmed, you provoke an AoO. Most of the time, the AoOs from NPC are pretty weak, and the NPCs are generally more likely to fumble than the PCs. The net result is that the martial player characters actually receive a net gain in power from these rules. It also makes melee combat a little more interesting that just trading full attacks.
If they are applied evenly to NPC, then the martial player character may actually benefit from these rules.
Short-term, maybe. Long-term, no. There's a big difference between PCs and NPCs/opponents ... the opposition is intended to die during the encounter, the PCs are expected to hang around as the main protagonists. This is why it's funny when Gobby the Goblin damages himself, but not when Lance the Knight does it.
Short-term, maybe. Long-term, no. There's a big difference between PCs and NPCs/opponents ... the opposition is intended to die during the encounter, the PCs are expected to hang around as the main protagonists. This is why it's funny when Gobby the Goblin damages himself, but not when Lance the Knight does it.If they are applied evenly to NPC, then the martial player character may actually benefit from these rules.
Read the actual rules I posted. All you do is provoke an AoO. So when Gobby the Goblin fumbles, Lance whacks the hell out of him. When Lance fumbles, Gobby gets a chance to poke him for 1d6-1 damage.
As I said, it depends on the details of the fumble rules. It is possible to craft fumble rules that are actually a net benefit for martial player characters.