Of course, I'm also someone who believe thats automatic sucess (or failure) shouldn't exist.
Pretty much why I use the +10/-10 on natural 20/1 rules instead of auto success and auto failure.
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.
As a former competitive swimmer who's dabbled in stickfighting and other martial arts on the side I have no idea what to make of your system. It bears little resemblance to what a semi-athletic person like myself can accomplish, let alone a hero out of fantasy.
There are already "critical failures" built in to the skill check system. For example, the DCs for swimming go up for bad conditions. If you don't make them, you eventually drown. Sounds like a critical failure to me.
Fumble rules are obnoxious. If there's a confirmation roll in place they're slightly easier to tolerate, but still aren't conducive to playing heroes. If people want to play, "Life Sucks" they can probably just go about their daily business and not bother with games of make-believe and dice rolling!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fumble rules are obnoxious. If there's a confirmation roll in place they're slightly easier to tolerate, but still aren't conducive to playing heroes. If people want to play, "Life Sucks" they can probably just go about their daily business and not bother with games of make-believe and dice rolling!
If people want to play a game of Life Sucks we can just go play Call of Cthulhu. I think I've only seen one game of CoC where the players actually won. Every other time somebody goes mad and starts killing their team mates.
If people want to play, "Life Sucks" they can probably just go about their daily business and not bother with games of make-believe and dice rolling!
Exactly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bare minimum you need to avoid the nonsensical result of multiple attacks:
Only the first attack of the round may fumble ( or threaten a fumble if you confirm).
If you don't do at least this, you are an ignorant or cruel GM.
This simple fix sets everything right again; characters with great martial prowess will fumble comparatively less than amateurs.
Fumble rules are obnoxious. If there's a confirmation roll in place they're slightly easier to tolerate, but still aren't conducive to playing heroes. If people want to play, "Life Sucks" they can probably just go about their daily business and not bother with games of make-believe and dice rolling!If people want to play a game of Life Sucks we can just go play Call of Cthulhu. I think I've only seen one game of CoC where the players actually won. Every other time somebody goes mad and starts killing their team mates.
I thought that was winning for CoC?
Seriously, though, just point out that critical failures happen on average once every two minutes *at least*, more often as you gain additional attacks. In real life, I think most of us would reconsider letting somebody like that near the sharp objects.
How often does the Wizard fumble his Fireball?
Look the Wizard is a far more powerful class later in the game. Why nerf the fighter?
Next, since monsters rarely concern themselves with the next encounter, fumble hurt OC more than their foes.
Nor is it realistic. I am a SCA heavy weapons fighter. “Fumbles” do occur, but are very rare. Most fighters might fumble once in an entire day of fighting, that’s several hours of swinging their weapon. To put it into D&D perspective, maybe once every thousand rounds. So, yeah, your DM is right= “even the best fighter will lose a grip on his sword once in a while” but that once would be “roll a natural 1, then confirm with a natural 1, then a third 1”. With Evil Lincoln's well written house rule, we can drop one of those.
It’s just bad game balance.
How often does the Wizard fumble his Fireball?
I agree with the rest in principle, but recall that the fireball spell can involve a ranged touch attach if cast through a small opening. A vindictive GM could purloin that into quite a few fumbles.
Thanks for the support. I use fumble cards on a natural 1, but crit cards on a natural 20 as well. We like it swingy!
I know man it is so fun when you roll a 1 and your character cuts his own head off due to a critical fumble
I just laugh and laugh and laugh at the good times being had by all
Play a spellcaster with no spells that require attack rolls. Pick spells that replace skill checks. Never roll another die again.
I've been in games with and without. I can take or leave them. None of those games have had a rule of "a 1 fumbles automatically". They always roll for confirmation of the fumble (which usually results in not fumbling) or only consider it a fumble if you roll a 1 and fail the check by more than a certain amount.
Then play a witch with the misfortune and cackle hexes. Forcefeed his NPCs 'FUN!' and 'REALISM!' until he chokes. :D
Oh, man. The only thing that could make this better is singing Rebecca Black's "Friday" to sub for the cackle. "FUN FUN FUN FUN!"
Like Evil Abe said, you have to setup some parameters for when a Nat 1 actually means anything other than a miss. Otherwise, the higher you level, the more comical you get.
Here are the Fumble rules used in my games...
If you roll a natural 1 on your first attack roll of a round, you must succeed at a DC 15 Reflex save or fumble.Limitations: 'Named' creatures cannot fumble more than once during a given encounter, and further 1s are simply misses.
Local Games: On a fumble, you must draw a card from the Critical Fumble deck. Otherwise, you are subject to an attack of opportunity from your target.
PbP Games: On a fumble, you will typically provoke an attack of opportunity from your intended target unless the action causing the fumble might be better represented by falling prone or some other similar mishap.
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?
We play with Critical Hits and Failures and both have to be confirmed. The thing you need to do is keep open communication with your GM.
If he plays that way and you don't like it then it's up to you and the group to decide on how to handle it. I'd approach him simply and not accuse him of anything or he'll get defensive. Just tell him how it makes the game less fun for you and ask about changing it to a rule everyone can live with, compromise is key. If he doesn't like it or gets hostile then it may be time to change tables and find another GM or GM a game yourself.
|
Just to reiterate what others have said, your options appear to be (and note these are mid-to-fairly manipulative, so use your discretion):
1) Discuss removing it with your GM, but come at it from a different angle. Go with the 'not fun' and illustrate how iterative attacks wind up making you worse at combat. Point out how you'd rather play with an 'awesome heros' theme, even though it 'is not as realistic' that they never fumble. Cop to the 'casual mode' and deflect that back to 'just not quite as hardcore as we are now - just this one change, and I am golden'.
2) If that fails, ask for a way to 'buy' your way out of it. Can you, for example, buy a Feat that cancels out the risk of fumbling? Sometimes this negotiation/level of detail will cause a GM to lose his resolve on his custom rules. YMMV, but it's worth a shot.
3) Offer to GM instead. Go with the 'hey, it really is your table, but we should probably take turns'. Again, many a GM won't be so resolute in the face of competition. Do make sure you're ready to run at least a one-shot, in case of called-bluff.
4) Stop coming to games. This can work in two ways - on the one hand, your 'protest' might gain you some favor. (Equally, it may not. It depends.) And on the other hand, your time away will help clarify your feelings on the matter. Maybe you'll not mind the rule as much as you mind missing the game. Or maybe you'll wonder why you wasted so much time playing under the rule. Again, it depends.
Best of luck to you, whatever happens.
Play a sorcerer.
ask for a way to 'buy' your way out of it. Can you, for example, buy a Feat that cancels out the risk of fumbling?
Offering to give up critical hits in return for not getting critical failures might do the trick.
We have started using both the Criticle hit and fumble cards, and are loving them.
Criticle failure does require a confirmation roll, just like a criticle hit does.
... I feel like nobody listens.
(beers himself)
The best suggestions I can offer for critical fumble rules that do not have perverse effects would be the following:
1) Fumbling 5% of the time is ridiculous. Make 1 an automatic miss (per the standard rules) with a chance of an actual fumble occurring on a second roll. Our group uses 1-5 on a 2nd d20 roll.
2) Vary the consequences of a fumble in some sort of systematic way. Most fumbles should be embarrassing, not lethal.
3) Only the last attack roll of a turn should run the risk of a fumble. If an attack prior to the last one would otherwise be a fumble, the attacker simply loses his remaining attacks with no other consequences. I wish my group used this one.
Well, I can only offer my perspective from my gaming group, but we use the Critical Fumble deck Paizo put out a while back, along with those rules. The fact that you have to confirm your critical fumble, using your highest attack bonus, means that we have very few fumbles overall and that fighters confirm their fumbles a lot less than bards or other 3/4 BAB characters. Additionally, the rules suggest only one fumble per encounter, making it a risk, but not a huge, game-changing one. On average, I think we pull the Fumble Deck out maybe once per session, and to us that seems a reasonable, fun way to play it.
As far as the OP's problem with his GM, maybe bring up the Crit Fumble Deck and the rules they suggest using? Obviously, it's not standard RAW, but it might influence him to change his style a bit.
Thanks for all the suggestions so far!
Sorry if I wasn't clear in the first post, but yes, NPC's are subject to the same critical failure rules. Makes bosses a lot less threatening when they slip and fall unconscious.
I really think a confirmation roll would make a whole lot of sense. He claims it'd give people with full BAB an unfair advantage (even though it should be obvious the Fighter will critically fumble less than the Wizard in melee combat), but hopefully he'll be somewhat reasonable this Wednesday.
He claims it'd give people with full BAB an unfair advantage (even though it should be obvious the Fighter will critically fumble less than the Wizard in melee combat), but hopefully he'll be somewhat reasonable this Wednesday.
Although I wouldn't phrase it this way, he does realize that's ridiculous, right? The way it stands, it's already unfair to classes with full BAB compared to casters. Why? Because a wizard won't be in melee 90% of the time anyway.
A valid comparison is primary attack method versus primary attack method. And as it stands, the fighter, with his five attack rolls a round, is going to have roughly five times the chances to fumble than the wizard, who is normally going to get one spell cast per round (which may or may not include an attack roll anyway).
One of the guys in our groups loves crits and fumbles and wants them on all rolls for anything: skills, saves, attacks - everything. He thinks it adds excitement to the game.
If I had my way, there would be no criticals allowed unless certain circumstances existed. For example you'd only become subject to fumble rules if you had some negative status effect like staggered, nauseated, fatigued, etc. Also you'd only be allowed to critical if you were blessed or enhanced in some way OR if you are facing a bid bad guy.
We settled on rolling to confirm the critical and the botch. I still think botching is stupid. In D20, a free throw shooter would fall and hurt himself or his teammates on 1 out of twenty free throws.
One of the guys in our groups loves crits and fumbles and wants them on all rolls for anything: skills, saves, attacks - everything. He thinks it adds excitement to the game.
If I had my way, there would be no criticals allowed unless certain circumstances existed. For example you'd only become subject to fumble rules if you had some negative status effect like staggered, nauseated, fatigued, etc. Also you'd only be allowed to critical if you were blessed or enhanced in some way OR if you are facing a bid bad guy.
We settled on rolling to confirm the critical and the botch. I still think botching is stupid. In D20, a free throw shooter would fall and hurt himself or his teammates on 1 out of twenty free throws.
Critical hits I can work with, but critical fumbles are an absolute dealbreaker for me. Will not play in a game with 'em. When I run games, I don't even use the '1 autofail, 20 autosucceed' on saves and attack rolls.
Wow!!
theres a critical/fumble deck from paizo, are very awesome!!
i use some critical charts too, but they have to confirm aniway. as the critical hit indeed...
But i can understand your gm at the moment he says that you crit more than you fail, the game is made the way that a character always win, and isnt pfrpg, is the system itself... the monsters have almost the same statistics (or lower) from AD&D2E (check the orc in that monster manual).
so, let your gm have some fun too, watching you fail a crit. enjoy the rule, and when you actualy get critical hit for his monsters, then jump at the table, dance, show your joy and mok at him!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been running a Curse of the Crimson Throne game with my players off and on for about 3 years now.
We use the Paizo Critical Hit and Critical Fumble Deck.
They have been the recipients of critical hits and they have been the recipients of critical fumbles. I dont have confirm rolls for either. In three years there have been about 4 character deaths one of which was a player making a conscious decision to put her PC in an almost certainly fatal situation to save the life of another PC.
None of those deaths have been the direct result of a critical hit or fumble.
On the other hand one of my players critted and one shot killed an enemy with a critical hit card.
And despite the time where I as the GM rolled something like 8 criticals in ONE during the duration of one session and me rolling something like 10 critical failures during another? It didnt ruin the game nor were my players ready to revolt.
Has a result from a critical fumble card made things difficult for the PC's during a combat? Absolutely. Has it done the same for my NPC's or monsters? You betcha.
There's also the fact that any spell cast that requires a to hit roll can be a critical hit or fumble as well.
My players like the randomness of the cards and look forward to what happens next.
I'm so thankful for my players. I REALLY am.
If you're going to play with Critical Fumbles, Confirming them seems pretty obvious and fair turnaround.
(conversely, if critical hits don't need to be confirmed then the same would make sense for critical fumbles, but that's not the case here)
That the GM said the reason why he wouldn't require Confirms is because the PCs would not Confirm a Fail (i.e. 2x miss) as often as Confirming a Crit seems disingenuous... The only reason why that would be true is that game dynamics in general are favoring PC success, which is merely being reflected here, not anything special about Crit/Fumble Confirms. Trying to address that broader dynamic in this small area is absurd, if he thinks it should be changed he should address it head-on (adding Elite Array to more NPCs helps). Of course, for PCs and Monsters/NPCs, Crit Threat is 20 OR MORE, while Fumble Threat is usually just 1 (although things like Firearms change that!), which shows the intended game design dynamic for prevalence of those things (for everybody).
...That he immediately followed that up with turning down the idea of a 50% confirm rate (addressing the first issue) just seems to show that he doesn't really care about having any solid justification for this. Outside of this one issue, that suggests an issue of mutual respect or at least open communication. If he continues to blow you off completely, I probably would just leave the game, letting him know your reasons and that is just wasn't that the house-rule wasn't your own personal favorite but that he was two-faced in defending it and didn't honestly try to communicate about it with you.
Using the normal Confirm rules (same attack bonuses) does make Confirming a Fumble much more likely on lower iteratives, but I guess if you are so much more likely to miss than hit on them that it doesn't make sense to risk the Fumble, then perhaps you shouldn't bother to make that roll, which is probably saving everybody's time as well. Changing it to use your full BAB (as somebody here posted) just seems too weird and unjustified from the rules.
The observation that any PC Casters will just be ambivalent since it barely affects them definitely is true.
Question: Do the monsters also roll on the failure chart? If so I'm ok with it. if not, I call BS....Hmm... Let's see what the OP wrote:
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.
Pretty clear it's being applied across the board.
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."
Unless he's imputing ill motives to the other players but not you, your own interaction on the issue (which is largely of benefit to your personal PC) kind of pulls the rug out from his reasoning, doesn't it? I would try to speak with him and see if he can acknowledge that players may have interests in how the game runs apart from what is most beneficial to their PCs' power/etc. I.e. actually just discuss the game equally as people, not as if you are zombies enslaved to the sole task of maximizing PC power, but are people discussing a game and how it can best be fun for everybody involved.
"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."
I don't see the conflict there per se, somebody in lots of combat has lots more opportunities to Flub. But if you're Confirming, then you are much less likely to Flub vs. the same types of enemies at low level. When facing a higher AC/CMD foe, dealing with their increased combat prowess does mean you are more pushed to your own limits and may Flub more, but still less than 100% Flub Confirm rate.
Just tell him you're only keen on playing on casual mode, if that's his definition.
The OP's character isn't substantially affected by the rule, he is only discussing it because of interest in over-all immersion in the setting, etc. As he said, it actually makes things easier for his character if enemy attacks against his caster have Critical Failures more often.
As I said before, critical failure isn't a problem to me, it's the frequency. When we were playing at higher levels, it seemed every round we'd have to stop, roll percentages, and check the chart for something to happen. It's a hindrance at that point, not a good feature.
I had a new GM in our group once bring up the idea of adding in auto dropping your weapon on a Nat 1, I showed him that since a round is only 6 seconds auto-fumbles on a 1 would mean that your average 20th level fighter will drop his sword twice a minute on average.
"Yeah, because he's trying to swing his sword around so fast."
"Just show me an example of a skilled "Fighter" in fiction who drops his sword once a minute, let alone twice."
And that was that.
If you're actually using the fumble deck just use the training dummy example.
A 20th level Fighter will "debilitate" himself after 30 seconds of swinging his sword at a wooden training dummy. Does he really think that makes sense?
Wow, folks seem to feel strongly about fumbles. We've been using the crit and fumble decks for years, and most of the players like them. We do roll to confirm crits and fumbles though. I also have a house rule which most of the other DMs follow (if sometimes begrudgingly) that you can use a hero point to avoid the result of a crit or fumble card. This makes it rare for a PC to bungle too badly, but a run of bad luck can leave you vulnerable.
Once in a while a player will grumble about one of the card results, but overall the cards add excitement to the game. We use the rule that only PCs, major monsters, and traps use the crit cards while everything uses the fumble cards. This helps balance the fumble/crit stuff back towards the PCs a bit. Also, knowing that an important villain might chop your PC's head clean off regardless of hit points makes every round of big combats kind of tense, but you can relax a little while you're fighting mooks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to the more important matter, I wasn't kidding. Once he learns to associate the words "casual mode" with sudden and swift physical pain he'll probably stop saying it.
It's your civic duty to make sure that amazingly idiotic phrase is never uttered by anyone without brain damage. And if he refuses to stop on his own, eventually after getting slapped enough times he'll hopefully be brain damaged enough that he can get away with it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I`d ask to replace your character with 'Sir Lexar the Unlucky', the fighter with no arms, legs, eyes, or tongue, since he had a bad streak of luck when he was training as a recruit.
Demand to be able to play this character, as after he trained for an hour, statistically this is what should have happened, and say that it breaks your sense of immersion if you can't.