My DM loves critical failures. He considers it a way to humble and challenge the player, but I feel like the way we're currently doing it, its more annoying than humbling.
Any attack roll that appears as a natural 1 is considered a critical failure, and then you roll on a critical fail chart and get debilitated in some way.
I have no problem with failing critically, I can understand what he means when he says even the best fighter will lose a grip on his sword once in a while. The problem I have is the frequency, and he claims I want to play on "casual mode".
I suggested the possibility of confirming critical failures, much like critical hits are confirmed, but he insists that gives the players too big an advantage because they'll be critting more than they're failing.
So then I suggested a percentage die roll when a natural one occurs, with a 50% chance of it being a critical fail, but he won't buy that either.
I just feel like having a group of adventurers fighting a group of enemies and failing miserably several times in an encounter but still managing to win doesn't add a sense of challenge. It just makes the game a little bit too silly.
Anyway, I'd like suggestions as to what to do in this situation if anyone has experience with something like this. Is there some middle ground I haven't thought of that could resolve this issue?
Let him know exactly what you said here: It's annoying, frustrating, and quite silly. Have the other players back you up on it.
If they agree with you, propose your compromise again (confirming crit fails. This is how I do it, though you only confirm on a 1 again).
If the other players actually like it and it annoys you that much, just leave because he doesn't seem like he's gonna budge.
Also, slap him upside the head next time he uses the words "casual mode". Only 8 year olds playing CoD on Xbox Live and similar ilk are suited to use that idiotic phrase.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When my players critically fail on an attack roll, I have them make a reflex save, if they fail the DC 15 reflex save, they drop there weapon 1d8 feet away (1 or 2 squares) in a random direction (1d8 equating to the direction on a compass).
If they critically fail on a skill check, I give them a save closest to the appropriate skill. If they fail a Kn: Nature roll, then fail the DC 15 Will save, then they truly believe that sunlight will turn a troll to stone.
If they critically fail a swim check, then fail a DC 15 fort save, they drop 10 feet further under water.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The middle ground is what you suggested - rolling to confirm critical misses. That doesn't give the players an advantage - it just gives attackers who are capable of hitting an advantage.
Under the rules you're using, a level 20 fighter attacking five times in a round is likely to fumble every 24 seconds or so, far more often than an incompetent attacker.
Another option is to play as an arcane caster so you don't have to roll to hit all the time.
You've got a difference of opinion. Assuming you've given your arguments and made your case already there is nothing further you can do. You've said your piece, your DM disagrees. It's his game, his call. If you don't like it you can run your own game. If it's that big of a deal you could quit the game.
but the adult thing to do would be just to agree to disagree, and deal with it.
I gm for a bunch of old school players who like the critical fumble rule. I don't much care for it because it always seems to hurt the players disproportionately (because the PC has to play the rest of the game with the outcome of battle while mooks come and go all the time.) So the rule I created was on the result of a natural 1 on an attack roll the character (or creature, or whatever...) loses all additional actions in that round and provokes an AOO from all enemies in range. Seems to work well, not too damning but something that forces a small change up in tactics. Also the AOO seemed to fit well because the failure caused guard to drop and was distracting.
I am playing a sorcerer in this campaign, so I don't have a 5% chance to explode my hand when I cast fireball or something silly like that. So from a purely combat perspective, I'd be more likely to enjoy having enemies have a chance to screw up if they attack me. It should be obvious to him that I'm not trying to give myself an advantage.
I suggested bringing it up with the group but he said something along the lines of "Of course they'd agree to not critical fail as much because it'd help them out."
He's rather stubborn when it comes to house rules he's used for a long time. I'll see if anyone prefers a more reasonable chance of failure when our group next meets. Hopefully he'll understand that my goal isn't to "win" Pathfinder, just to limit something that kinda disrupts roleplaying in general. IE, "My name is Jeffrey the Brave, fighter extraordinaire! I have slain countless foes, have lost grip on my weapon 43 times, fallen unconscious during battle 12 times, and ran away screaming only once."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Critical fumbles are not RAW. They're not in it. They're not in it because they don't work well with the other mechanics, such as increasing number of attacks for experienced martial characters. It's also not fair compared to for example casters, that throw lots of saving throw effects; the casters never roll d20s themselves so they're avoiding all this critical fumble stuff.
"Casual mode" is also ridiculous. What else is this game supposed to be? Work? A test of manliness? Professional sport? In professional sport you're supposed to play by the rules (AKA RAW).
"Casual mode" is about having fun without random needless harshness. Saying that casual mode is a bad thing suggests that you're doing this for some other reason. Is he paying you to play?
Talk about it with the other players. If they agree, confront the GM and ask him to stick by the rules on this subject, because it's more fun.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Critical success? Do double damage!
Critical failure? Accidentally cut your own spleen open! Bleed to death in 1d4 rounds!
...in case you couldn't guess, I think critical fail charts are the dumbest thing you could ever add to this game. You can tell your DM I said so. :)
Any attack roll that appears as a natural 1 is considered a critical failure, and then you roll on a critical fail chart and get debilitated in some way.
As others have pointed out, the major flaw with this system is that the more proficient you are with a weapon, and the more attacks you get, the more likely you are to fumble. Why penalise characters for being good at combat?
My group uses a nat 1 as a critical threat. You then roll to hit using your bonuses for your first iterative attack. If you miss out come the Pathfinder Critical Fumble cards. Critical fumble threats occur frequently but do not eventuate all that frequently.
If the DM thinks having draconian crit fumbles rules is a means to humble and challenge the players then he has a pretty weird idea of what a DM's role is. You challenge players through placing challenges they need to cooperate to overcome, not through the randomness of 1 in 20 attacks going awry. As for humbling players...why? Has he got ego issues?
You've got a difference of opinion. Assuming you've given your arguments and made your case already there is nothing further you can do. You've said your piece, your DM disagrees. It's his game, his call. If you don't like it you can run your own game. If it's that big of a deal you could quit the game.
but the adult thing to do would be just to agree to disagree, and deal with it.
Unless the DM is paying the players to play it is not "his" game. It is a cooperative game which is "everyone's" and in which all participants are there to enjoy themselves. If the DM has a rule the players think is stupid then they should discuss it amongst themselves and then politely tell the DM they are not willing to have that rule used. Perhaps if he is not happy he can find another group he can try and lord over.
He's rather stubborn
You don't happen to be from Texas, and this guy doesn't happen to be named Russell? J/k
I thought that rolling to confirm fumbles was part of the rules. Then I remembered that it is just part of the rules for the crit and fumble cards we've been using for years. I highly suggest both the crit and fumble cards. Drawing a card can be fun, and since the cards come with their own rules maybe the DM would be inclined to follow them.
This isn't just a case of "even the best fighter will lose a grip on his sword once in a while". In fact, the best fighters will lose a grip on their weapon about 4 times as frequently as a 1st level Commoner without martial weapon proficiency. A flurrying high level Monk will probably look like he's doing the 3 Stooges as a one man show. Perhaps the DM should "humble and challenge" the PCs with their foes.
I do have one more question though, which the original post didn't make clear. Do the monsters play by the same rules? I mean if a bad guy rolls a 1 he draws from the fumble deck too? I assume so.
I guess if that's the case I just see no right to complain. If you're playing a sorcerer and the rule barely effects you, then why do you care in the first place? Especially if the other players have no issue with it. You needn't get yourself involved in other people's business. If the others at the table *do* have a problem with it, they've got the same choices I mentioned earlier. Make their case, then assuming he doesn't change his mind; either accept it as the way the GM wants to run the game, or walk away. Simple.
If however, the monsters do not play by the same rules, than that is grossly unfair and I would probably have a serious issue with it myself. I would probably find a different game.
Unless the DM is paying the players to play it is not "his" game. It is a cooperative game which is "everyone's" and in which all participants are there to enjoy themselves. If the DM has a rule the players think is stupid then they should discuss it amongst themselves and then politely tell the DM they are not willing to have that rule used.
It's absolutely his game! The GM puts in *vastly* more effort into a game than the players do! He has a right to run it however he wants. (unless PFS, but it's not)
I agree that if the players have a problem with their GM they ought to politely make their case, but if he GM says no, the GM says no. If the players don't like it, they can walk. They can find other games or start their own games.
If enough players do this, maybe the GM will reconsider his rules when he runs games. Or maybe he'll find a group of people who enjoy playing the way he does.
There was a time that I enjoyed the crit fumble rules. But then I started doing some higher level test battles after a bad night for my players where the crit fumbles really screwed them. I've since come to learn how much crit fumbles really punish players, and hardly have any effect on most enemies that are only around for a single battle anyways.
It makes no sense to me that as a physical combat oriented character gains level and actually becomes better at what he does, he ends up with a HIGHER chance to fumble. Iterative attacks should be a bonus for leveling up, not another possibility to throw your sword away, and hit your buddy with a poorly aimed swing.
Talk to your DM. Have all of the players who don't agree with the rule talk to him. If it's not something he's willing to change, maybe it's time to start someone on the DM path.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's absolutely his game! The GM puts in *vastly* more effort into a game than the players do! He has a right to run it however he wants.
Actually, the "GM putting vastly more efforts into the game" argument means nothing.
Some players put a LOT of time and efforts in building their PCs.
Others players do not. Should they have less rights to expect an entertaining game ?
Some GMs put less effort into a game than some of their players (even worse if you count all of the player's efforts together). Are they not allowed to still run the game as they want ?
And, most important, no one forced the GM to put so much effort in his game.
Concerning the OP, I believe that his GM suffers from a "GM vs players" syndrome, which is hard to break out of.
|
While I don't use fumble deck, I would use both fumble and crit deck to maximize the players potential if any.
Perhaps even granting players the chance to ignore a single fumble on higher levels multiple times as they receive more experience? For example, every two levels. A lv8 fighter would be able to ignore fumble 4/day. Just a thought.
As others have pointed out: this is not in the rules -
in the group I DM we use fumbles, but this a house rule.
How we do: when PC or NPC roles a natural 1, it has to be confirmed. If confirmed the player(or npc) in question drops her weapon.
we have fun with this, but it IS unfair, as casters are not affected - A house rule like this should only be used when everyone around the table is okay with it.
good gaming to you,
GRU
A nat one happens 5% of the time statistically. That is not realistic for really bad results. If people were that clumsy in battle there would be more self-inflicted injuries.
Let's say the average person works 22 days a month.
22x12=264
264 X .05=13
Being late to work 13 times in one year would probably mean your employer will be giving you a chance to look for a new job.
Let's say I am in the military, and I am not late to work, but I keep having other issues that much. I could probably be discharged for "failure to adapt". That means I would not even be able to complete the training, so now if you apply this to your adventures whoever was supposed to had trained them, would have given up before they even finished training.
I guess there are two ways:
Your group talks to the GM and you try to find a common ground together.
(we also use the fumbling, but just as criticals, you have to confirm them; we use the Gamemastery Decks, I like them)
Or you help your friends to build characters that are less affected by fumbles (more magic-users with save-or-loose spells, unarmed fighting styles and summoned creature).
If his games do away with attacks and fumbles, maybe the DM will realize that most adventurers consider it too risky to to the old-fashioned sword-and-board style: if you hurt youself more with sword-and-board and are better off summoning your own expendable mooks or be a fighting monk, that's a logical choice for an adventurer, and those who don't, will become victims of natural selection...
The non-problem with monsters and fumbles is not only because mooks are expendable, but also because unarmed/unarmored monsters don't risk loosing their weapon or damaging their armor or whatnot.
Are your campaigns mostly against humanoids or monstrous creatures?
But then that's why even my mages systematically wear spiked gloves or cesti (plural of cestus?), you are *always* armed and "threatening" that way. :-)
Step 1) All melee characters take Improved Unarmed Strike, forget about weapons, they're too dangerous. (Alternatively, all melee characters should take Quick Draw, and carry at least 2 backup weapons for each weapon they carry. Or invest in locked gauntlets.)
Step 2) All spellcasters load up with touch attack spells.
Step 3) Argue that to make these fumble rules "fair", spellcasters should have to roll a number of fumbles as if their caster level were a full BAB with appropriate iterative attacks for every spell they cast and any one fumble result fumbles the whole spell.
It is a truism of the system that anything that increases random negative effects penalises players more than NPCs, because any single PC rolls a heck of a lot more dice than any single NPC.
Now, I have nothing against fumble rules, they can certainly make life fun and interesting, but a flat 5% per attack rolled is WAY too high. 0.25% for a confirmed fumble is a lot more reasonable. With 5%, a 1st level commoner can average 20 rounds with one mishap. At the same time, a 20th level fighter has dropped his sword or hit himself or an ally 4 times. Hey, I think we just figured out why conscripted armies are so popular.
I will admit that this rule makes the Vital Strike feat chain worth it for higher level melee combatants. You would never choose to make iterative attacks, since you can improve your chances of not fumbling and only lose some of your total damage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back when I was in the infantry, they gave me an assault rifle with 20 bullets in each clip. In the time it took me to empty a clip, generally speaking, the gun would jam or explode, or go flying out of my hand due to recoil, or I'd shoot an ally in the back of the head, or shoot myself in the foot, or blind myself somehow. All part of the fun!
You should inform your GM, that even in 3.0 and 3.5 when the critical failure mechanic existed, you still confirmed the critical failure (meaning you had to roll another 1). An automiss on your attack sucks bad enough already, a 5% chance that every attack you make means you hit yourself instead is just ludicrous. And if he's not imposing some similar penalty on spell casters he's just making the caster martial disparity even larger.
|
When my players critically fail on an attack roll, I have them make a reflex save, if they fail the DC 15 reflex save, they drop there weapon 1d8 feet away (1 or 2 squares) in a random direction (1d8 equating to the direction on a compass).
This is a very effecting means of discouraging multiple attack builds (monk/TWF/archers) and encouraging two-handed fighters.
Is this your goal?
I think critical fumbles are awful, especially when applied off a simple 1 roll on a d20. The least he can do (if he applies fumbles at all) is require confirmation (1, 1). As others point out, it actually makes high level fighters more incompetent than low level anythings. Further, as you've noted, it disproportionately affects PCs. Finally, it hurts multi-weapon fighters, ranged attackers, and monks more than anyone else.
Stupid.
Our group uses the critical failure deck and the Crit Damage deck. We like it, if only because the crit damage deck has a card that say "Decapitated!" (which came up in a clutch fight. My Magus nearly peed himself when that card dropped. I was so happy!). We consider it a fair trade.
So if I play a high level fighter and get four attacks per round, then statistically I drop my weapon or stab my friend or something moronic every five rounds? Or once every thirty seconds once I'm in melee range? Yeah, I'm not playing with that DM.
Despite my last post I have used the critical fumble deck, but it was a group decision and criticals did have to be confirmed.
Despite my last post I have used the critical fumble deck, but it was a group decision and criticals did have to be confirmed.
Funny thing about it is, we don't confirm fumbles but we do confirm critical hits. And we have no problem with it.
Aravar, not sure what to tell you, except maybe you can find some dice without a "1" on it?
Despite my last post I have used the critical fumble deck, but it was a group decision and criticals did have to be confirmed.
Funny thing about it is, we don't confirm fumbles but we do confirm critical hits. And we have no problem with it.
Aravar, not sure what to tell you, except maybe you can find some dice without a "1" on it?
I meant to say fumbles have to be confirmed.
I have fumbles be confirmed in my games, to make them occur roughly as often as crits (Without confirming, and assuming the weapon crits on a 20 only, you end up with aproximately 2.5% confirm crit chance at 5% fail chance, at least as accurate as this sort of estimate can be).
When it does happen, it's rarely anything more than dropping your weapon or having it chip on a stone (broken condition), the latter of which is easily fixed by a wizard with Mend. Fumble decks are a bad idea (though I absolutely adore my crit deck).
I meant to say fumbles have to be confirmed.Despite my last post I have used the critical fumble deck, but it was a group decision and criticals did have to be confirmed.
Funny thing about it is, we don't confirm fumbles but we do confirm critical hits. And we have no problem with it.
Aravar, not sure what to tell you, except maybe you can find some dice without a "1" on it?
Yeah I got it :D
To Aravar again, if I sounded snarky, I'm not try to...more like a gesture in futility from my side. Our group doesn't mind the occasional fumble, even if it means the death of my Inq.
Confirming fumbles also better represents the idea that a skill combatant is less likely to fail miserably than inexperienced ones. Higher attack bonus, less likely you are to fumble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depending on the content of this "critical failure"-chart, it could be a viable tactic to force as many rerolls on your enemies as possible, and then just stand there. Don't fight, let the enemy fail themselves to death instead.
If that tactic could conceivably work, it's a clear indication the system is flawed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you roll a critical hit, you roll to confirm it because while a natural 20 automatically hits, it only has a special effect if you then make another roll high enough to have hit the creature in the first place. This can rather greatly reduce the chances of dealing a critical.
The same should be true with a critical fumble. It's somewhat unrealistic for a fighter to miss with his sword 5% of the time (or at least deal no damage with it; that is what makes it somewhat more realistic); it is unrealistic for him to stab himself in the foot, cut off his daughter's head, or accidentally make sexual advances toward the enemy 5% of the time.
If he's not applying the same rules to the monsters, then to be honest, I'm not sure that you 'owe' him much more, and should start weighing if this is a big enough problem balanced against the fun you get from the game to consider leaving.
I'm not sure what advice to give you, other than this: Ask him to roll up a mid-level character - high enough to have a few swings each turn - and then run a combat for him similar to the ones you encounter. If (bad) luck is on your side, his dice will be against him and he'll see how unrealistic and annoying it can be for a supposedly competent swordsman to be slicing his own codpiece in half every sixth swing.
Responding to an off-topic comment: I put a lot of work into the games I run. But they aren't 'my' games. Without players, I have no game, so it's in my best interest to ensure they're having fun with the game, and to help build the game so that they can build their characters in a fashion they desire. When I was a beginning DM, I viewed them as 'my games' and got really frustrated when the players did something that screwed up 'my' story. I started having much more fun (and became a better DM, in my opinion and the players' opinions) when I realized I wasn't an author writing a book, but more of a lead actor in an improv piece.
You should inform your GM, that even in 3.0 and 3.5 when the critical failure mechanic existed, you still confirmed the critical failure (meaning you had to roll another 1).
There was no such official rule in 3.0/3.5 either, unless it was from one of those "optional rules" sidebars.
We use the crit fumble house rule but that's only because we are all od school and ALL love fumbles.
If you don't like them ask the other players, if they agree then you need to ask the GM collectivley to do away with them. If you are the only one on the table who dosnt like them then you may have problems....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We simply reversed the critical hit rule:
you roll a 1? Roll again, if you hit the enemies AC it's fine, nothing happen, if not... ifumble :D
You should inform your GM, that even in 3.0 and 3.5 when the critical failure mechanic existed, you still confirmed the critical failure (meaning you had to roll another 1).There was no such official rule in 3.0/3.5 either, unless it was from one of those "optional rules" sidebars.
I believe thats where it was. It's been a few years since I've looked at the books for either.
In any event, it's not even listed as an optional rule in Pathfinder as far as I am aware.
Of course, I'm also someone who believe thats automatic sucess (or failure) shouldn't exist. The level one NPC has no business hitting an AC of 50, it just shouldn't happen. The level 20 fighter shouldn't miss the level 1 commoner with an AC of 10 just because he rolled a 1 either. Just my opinion though.
|
D&D/PF characters are supposed to be competent, heroic characters capable of taking on opponents that can walk through walls, breathe fire and tower over even the tallest buildings. They do this with a smile on their lips and resolve in their hearts.
With fumble rules your heroic characters turn into clowns. 16th level fighters with two weapons who are supposed to be able to take on the most powerful of outsiders and dragons will be fumbling like Mr Bean every couple of rounds. It's ridiculous.
When fumble rules are bought up I always say the following: When does Conan fumble? When does Aragorn stab himself in the foot? Point me out the passage where Drizzt hamstrings himself.
I want to play these characters, not Mr Magoo.
Make a Vital Strike build. Roll only one d20/round.
*edit* also ask your GM why wizards don't have a fumble chance every time they cast a spell. *edit*
- Torger
P.S. Personaly I like fumbles to be possible but they should be super rare not 5% of all d20 rolls.
I think that there's a place for potential failures. The fantasy genre does have its share of heroes who make mistakes - but those tend to be memorable because they're incredibly rare, far more rare than even the general critical fumble rules.
|
|
*edit* also ask your GM why wizards don't have a fumble chance every time they cast a spell. *edit*
You never played in my old games. I had this wonderful spell failure chart I adapted from the Dragon Tree Spellbook.
*I implemented many rules from Rolemaster into my 2nd edition games plus quite a few house rules and 3rd party rules. Criticals, spell points, spell failure and many other systems.
If they critically fail a swim check, then fail a DC 15 fort save, they drop 10 feet further under water.
What if I was diving? Do I accidentally float?
Of course, I'm also someone who believe thats automatic sucess (or failure) shouldn't exist. The level one NPC has no business hitting an AC of 50, it just shouldn't happen. The level 20 fighter shouldn't miss the level 1 commoner with an AC of 10 just because he rolled a 1 either. Just my opinion though.
I've done that in a game. A roll of 1 equaled -10 and a roll of 20 equaled 30.
So, wait, he wants heroes to fail more than they succeed? I don't think it's unreasonable to have a confirmation roll.