You can't cut off your limbs on a Fumble. Stop exagerating.
You can jump to the moon if the GM says so. What's your point? The Fumble deck doesn't have an 'off with his head' option.
I don't like Crit fumbles in the least, but if you are using crit fumbles then I hope that you're fair about it and cause something equally bad to happen to spell casters when an enemy rolls a Nat 20 on a save against one of their spells, and apply the crit fumbles of summoned creature to its master as well.
"I cast Dominate Person on the Goblin Warrior."
DM: "Oh, Nat 20, roll on the enchantment spell fumble chart."
"33"
DM: Rolls dice "What's your charisma score?"
"8"
DM: "Your head explodes as the Goblin laughs maniacally ."
"Wha?"
Does the houserule allow for arm chopping?
I hate to tell you this, slade867, but you certainly can cut off your own limbs (and those of party members) with the Gamemastery fumble deck. Some of the fumbles include stuff like your attack hitting yourself or a nearby ally and being a critical threat, roll to confirm. That means that there's a small chance anything from the crit deck can show up as a fumble. One of the classic fumbles in my basement was when a Denizen of Leng managed to decapitate himself while attacking a PC.
Anyhow, I was mostly bringing up the cards as an option players might pitch to their DMs in lieu of a half-baked homebrew fumble system. On the other hand, maybe the DM's fumble chart is great and he just needs to add a confirmation roll.
I didn't read everything, but I doubt anyone brought up Rolemaster. In that game, if someone fumbled, they got XP. It was thought that you learned from your own mistakes. So, one of the first suggestions was the character who fumbled was to lose the rest of the round (assuming he has more attacks, but to make it easy on the player, he gets a few xp to show that he is learning. So, keep rolling those 1s, you just may go up a level! :D
|
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.
Critically hitting more often than critically failing gives the players too big an advantage? Bizarre.
I'm not a fan of Critical Failure as a house rule. It usually works out as a way to nerf martial characters, since they're making the most attack rolls. I don't think the game requires additional nerfing of martial characters.
In a typical one minute combat, the 20th level fighter drops his sword, hits himself, or accidentally decapitates an ally twice, or more if he's hasted, using a weapon with the Speed enchantment, or usingTwo-Weapon Fighting!
And gods-forbid the high level Monk should crit an enemy more often than he accidentally hits himself in the face.
Meanwhile the Wizard unerringly casts Time Stop...
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.
Yes. Why would a character who can battle a dragon with his sword fighting skills do well more often than he did poorly?
There is an excellent article here demonstrating that 5th level is about as high a level as anyone in real life has ever been. The amazing epic heroes from your favorite books, if they aren't D&D books, don't even get to 10th level. So someone who is better at fighting than anyone ever in real life and better than most FICTIONAL characters will screw up so horribly that they will injure or handicap themselves in some way? It's just terrible and stupid.
Or to put it another way, for every 20 bullets fired, a modern soldier would be overwhelming likely to shoot himself/a bystander/break his gun at least once.
I liked the idea of critical hit/fumbles as a DM, until I sat on the other side of the screen and did the math. I realized that on a very bad run run of luck, my entire party could be killed by one kobold who wouldn't even have to raise his weapon as we all could (theoreticaly) kill ourselves with our own weapons. Extreme? Yes, but possible with what I was using in my own game at the time.
I have since modified my views on critical hit/miss charts. Do I still use them? Yes. But it involves much more of my players interaction and consent to use them now.
You know, I understand those who use reasonable fumbles. But I ask you t re-evaluate them in the light of class balance.
We are know that spellcasters are vastly more powerful than warriors at higher levels. Linear warriors, Quadratic wizards and all that.
Fumbles increase this disparity.
Why would you want that?
The Crit and Fumble decks are just a hack-job add-on to the d20 system,
and they run into issues of frequency because they are hijacking the Nat 20/1 system.
Many other game systems could certainly handle these types of effects better because they were designed to do so from the outset.
I'm not really sure why so many people feel like they must do these things using the d20 system,
when it just isn't a good system for doing so with...
But I think it's also why I see so many complaints about the d20/PRPG system,
because for whatever reason the system has so much 'gravity' that even people who hate it somehow stick with it,
or modify it towards how they want (like the OP GM) ignoring the major problems resulting from changes,
rather than just using a system that is starting from a point much closer to their preferences.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I'll be honest. That's a fumble chart I'd love to see.
We play with fumble in our games too. We use the Fumble cards though. It's usually very fun to see results of fumbles, because what goes for the PC goes for the NPCs too.
I'd say the times fumbles hurt us and the time fumbles hurt our enemies is even (maybe slightly in our favor because there are simply much more enemies than heroes).
Our house rules:
If you roll a 1, roll again to confirm (like a critical hit). If you roll a 1 again continue till you roll no 1. Every 1 in a row increases the "criticalness".
Then you draw a fumble card and see what happens. For super critical fumbles the GM then up-scales the effect, adapting it to the exact situation.
To keep it even for spellcasters it's the same for spells. If your spell fizzles for any reason (or you roll a 1 on an attack with a spell) you draw a fumble card and check the spell fumble.
The same goes for critical hits. Several 20s in a row will result in a super critical attack with over the top effects. Although you have the option to either do double damage or draw a critical hit card.
|
Simply let Darwinian evolution have its usual effect...!
If the game world was first populated, say, 10,000 years ago, then full BAB classes died out after the first four months (by chopping their own stupid heads off), 3/4 BAB classes died out a month later (give or take a couple of days), and 1/2 BAB classes have never learned spells which require an attack roll since week two.
So, the current game world is a very peaceful place, marred only by the occasional spellcaster requiring you to roll a save....you better hope you don't roll a nat 1....!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repeating myself:
Even if you like fumbles in your game (which I do) there is no excuse for not recognizing the basic math that more attacks = more fumbles. The result is utter nonsense.
Please only allow fumbles on the first attack of the round. I will keep posting this once per thread page until my patience runs out.
Repeating myself:
Even if you like fumbles in your game (which I do) there is no excuse for not recognizing the basic math that more attacks = more fumbles. The result is utter nonsense.
Please only allow fumbles on the first attack of the round. I will keep posting this once per thread page until my patience runs out.
::beers you::
If you don't like critical fumbles and your gm won't budge, play a class that doesn't make attack rolls
That's really about the size of it.
I play a wizard in one campaign for that reason. I do my best to always make the other guy roll dice. I think the GM is getting tired of my always taking 10s on skill rolls, though. Some people seem to have some sort of weird addiction to random rewards and love hearing dice clatter. I'd rather get past most of that and turn it into as much of a game of skill and tactics as possible.
Another alternative is to play one of the various classes or races that allow you to fudge or re-roll dice. The witch was mentioned above, bards have some sweet immediate action spells that can help, the preacher inquisitor can manage it a couple times/day, halflings have some cool racial feats that can help, etc. There are some teamwork feats that can help as well, but, from my experiences with trying to get various party members to do anything in a coordinated manner, I'd completely avoid teamwork feats unless I was playing an inquisitor with solo tactics or a class with an eidolon, animal companion, or valet-archetyped familiar.
Never actually played any Rolemaster, but did manage a bit of MERP (that's Middle Earth Roleplaying to everyone who didn't already know), and spent years playing Spacemaster... and I can wholeheartedly say that the system worked nicely with high-tech weapons. Nothing quite beats when the party tough-guy whips out his disruptor rifle, shoots the big nasty alien beastie, and manages to get a critical result that rips its brain out. The fumble rules could likewise be incredibly harsh, but the probabilities were low enough that it was rarely lethal (most fumble results were "power cell empty", only rarely did you empty the clip into your own foot and die of shock).
And from that experience I agree that fumble rules can make games fun and interesting, as long as the chance of killing yourself or any ally is sufficiently low.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
::beers you::Repeating myself:
Even if you like fumbles in your game (which I do) there is no excuse for not recognizing the basic math that more attacks = more fumbles. The result is utter nonsense.
Please only allow fumbles on the first attack of the round. I will keep posting this once per thread page until my patience runs out.
Also, ::beers you::
|
|
Speaking from a DM who uses fumbles a lot I've got the following to add on how I 'make it work.'
1.) Only on first attack that /you initiate/. IE: No 1s on iterative, or attacks of opportunity apply.
2.) I instituted a 'luck system,' as a house rule, its essentially a percentile role based 'saving throw' with luck ranging based on in-world aspects.
3.) Unless the fumble by its very nature precludes iterative attacks, you can still make all other iterative attacks. IE: I fumble and cut my pants down, halving my movement. I can still get my other two attacks in. If the fumble is 'toss away sword' I can't make further attacks with my sword since I don't have it.
4.) I stopped using the Middle Earth Crit Fumble Chart (Circa the 80s) and now use the Pathfinder crit fumble deck.
5.) Everybody gets the deck applied. PC, NPC and Monsters.
6.) If the fumble result doesn't inconvienance the player, its kept. If it doesn't inconvienance the monster, its redrawn (like say a prone ooze).
MERP with its 'fumble: Crit friend' thing resulted in one PC ending up with the epiteth of 'Friendslayer' tacked onto him for all time.
Scythe+Bard=X_X
Generally MERP's fumbles ranged from useless to abjectly horrible, and resulted in teleporting swords hitting the nearest friendly even if he was 50ft away.
I could never get a group together, but I owned a few Middle-Earth Role Playing supplements at one time. Wonderful flavor, but RoleMaster's combat system was about as un-Tolkeinesque as anything I could imagine. Let's just say that by the time the Fellowship got to Amon Hen and split up, they would have been known as the Fellowship of the Stub.
I played RQ for years, and the high point of any campaign is when one of the party got access to Healing 6, so that he could re-attach limbs. Murphy’s Rules had it mostly correct.
Again, DM’s who use Fumbles- We all know that spellcasters are vastly more powerful than warriors at higher levels. Linear warriors, Quadratic wizards and all that.
Fumbles increase this disparity.
Why would you want that?
High Five to Evil Lincoln, anyway.
You can't cut off your limbs on a Fumble. Stop exagerating.
The Fumble Deck in PF may not, but clearly the OP’s DM is using a houserule, and cutting off limbs or even killing yourself or a companion are not uncommon. Sad but true.
I may use critical fumbles, depending on the group. If a 1 is rolled then 1d6 is rolled to confirm the fumble. I don't have the table to hand and vary it sometimes but the effects are relatively minor, such as:
1- The attack is treated as a disarm attempt by the opponent
2- The attack is treated as a sunder attempt by the opponent
3- The attack is treated as a trip attempt by the opponent
4- The attack leaves you off balance, treat as flat footed until next turn
5- The attack leaves you poorly positioned, -2 on all rolls until next turn
6- The attack has left you open to a counter attack, opponent gets a free AoO.
The effect is varied to suit - e.g. bow fire disarms are dropped bowsor slipped bow strings, sunders are bows breaking, trips are slips.
For some groups the 2nd roll is on a bigger dice with scores above 6 meaning no effect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't cut off your limbs on a Fumble. Stop exagerating.The Fumble Deck in PF may not, but clearly the OP’s DM is using a houserule, and cutting off limbs or even killing yourself or a companion are not uncommon. Sad but true.
Heh.
Jack up everybody's AC and saves as high as you can, then immediately turtle every fight; full defense, etc etc. Wait for the enemies to kill themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I may use critical fumbles, depending on the group. If a 1 is rolled then 1d6 is rolled to confirm the fumble. I don't have the table to hand and vary it sometimes but the effects are relatively minor, such as:
1- The attack is treated as a disarm attempt by the opponent
2- The attack is treated as a sunder attempt by the opponent
3- The attack is treated as a trip attempt by the opponent
4- The attack leaves you off balance, treat as flat footed until next turn
5- The attack leaves you poorly positioned, -2 on all rolls until next turn
6- The attack has left you open to a counter attack, opponent gets a free AoO.The effect is varied to suit - e.g. bow fire disarms are dropped bowsor slipped bow strings, sunders are bows breaking, trips are slips.
For some groups the 2nd roll is on a bigger dice with scores above 6 meaning no effect.
Nothing says minor like falling prone, dropping your weapon, or eating an AoO once every 20 times you swing your sword.
Oh well, Casty McSaveOrSuck gets another reason to laugh at the Big Dumb Fighter, meanwhile he suffers no risk from tossing around his spells.
|
I'll throw my two domars on this issue to offer something up to the OP (who may pass it on to his DM).
Coming from a different game entirely I use and like crit fumbles - that are tied to the proficiency of the the attacker. Let me explain:
The Gamma World 3rd ed (1986) edition uses a d100 that is color coded cross indexed on dire roll vs score or attack rank. There are seven color ranges - Black (crit failure), White (fail/miss), Blue (basic hit, x1 base damage), green (moderate hit, x2 base damage), yellow (x3 base damage), Orange (x4 damage), and Red (x5 damage, target must make a save on a some kind of crit chart depending on type of attack).
So this is a scaling chart - at low levels (or low numbers if you take severe modifiers to your attack) the chances of rolling a black are higher and rolling a Red is very difficult. As the column the attacker uses shifts to the right (higher number, better score, etc) the chances to roll a black go down, and the chances of rolling a Red go up.
1st Takeaway point:
So - as you get better the chance of critical success goes up and your chance of critical failure goes down (1-2% at very high levels) with a greater chance to manage them based on proficiency.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some more clarifications/suggestions: When a character rolls a black in GW 3 it isn't the end of the world - his gun can jam (and maybe be quickly cleared if make a roll). It may also mean that your artifact weapon breaks, you drop it, you lose your attack and next attack is at a negative, etc. Most can be mitigated by the users level, in my version of the game skill level/character level determines the type of fail. So a mid rank character who has heavily invested in a Auto-rifle skill gets a jam, I let him get a clear check and recovery to still shoot in that round, or just treat it as a miss as the weapon is cleared for the next attack round. Because even though he's mid level, he banked his xp into a skill and he's good with auto-rifles (shooting, repair, maintenance).
2nd Takeaway point:
The better you are at something the less a mistake, malfunction or bad luck affects your character.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crits - when rolling high and getting a crit or being on the receiving end of the crit you get to make a roll. This save depends on the type of attack being used. Say you hit a target with a x-bow bolt on a 00 (roll a 100) the the target gets a constitution check. Warning, the following may offend D&D/PFRPG sensibilities!
If you roll a black you are dead, white - coma, etc. If you roll a red on your Con check you take half damage. So a high save from a near fatal enemy attack can turn into a lucky break for the receiving character.
3rd Takeaway point:
Crit successes and fails should get some kind of save or recovery mechanic. High scores, skills, level and proficiency should play into managing giving and taking crits and making critical failures.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gamma World is a Post-Apocalyptic game with pure humans, powered armor, mutants and mutations and plenty of weapons. In GW, the closest thing to magic is high technology and mutational powers. In GW 3rd ed, every action uses the color chart - that includes using mutations to: stun a foe, take over his body, kill him outright, etc. But this requires a roll to use the mutation to succeed and special effects (beyond damage if the attacking mutant is successful) can be saved against. Ex: Mental Blast a Knight of Genetic Purity and I roll a green (base damage is 8, so he takes 16 points through armor). Mental Blast also temporarily reduces the mental stats of the target - but he gets a save to resist this if he's been successfully attacked.
4th Takeaway point:
Mutants who have pseudo-magical powers still have to use the ACT chart, so they can roll a black and get a critical fail. In D&D/PFRPG there is no chart for casters unless they are using a ranged touch attack so a crit fail/success system affects martials disproportionally since all their actions require rolls and casters do not. Takeaway point 4:
Don't use crit fumbles in a game that doesn't have a universal mechanic for all actions since it unfairly saddles those who's currency is rolls and frequency of rolls.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, it's an offering from a different system where everyone who has played it liked it (crit fail and success). Maybe there is something you can show your DM to manage crits in PFRPG or some logic to not use fails unless they are applied evenly.
Good luck and good gaming.
PS: hero factor, hero factor, hero factor. Use a meta point tracking mechanic that is given like tokens to heroic players to help avoid those bad luck roll effects as they use them up (and regain more by performing heroics).
TL/DR; I like crit success and fail systems, A) if it's applied via universal system, B) fits the game (non-default heroic).
A gun jamming or misfiring is a scene from The Road Warrior (Max vs the Humongous), a bowstring breaking is not Lord of the Rings (or whatever fantasy clap trap used to get your juices going). Grit fantasy, use it - high fantasy - check with your players.
I already gave out serious advice, but I have to admit that as passive-aggressive tactics go Zhayne is onto something really funny here. Take Mobility and constantly provoke AoOs through movement. Include your enemies in haste and have your party simply use the extra actions to aid each others' AC. Toss extra weapons to the mooks and dare 'em to attack in two-weapon style. Don't even attack - just slug healing and defense potions and wait for the fumbles to do their work.
Throw in a Witch with the Misfortune Hex and Cackle.
I already gave out serious advice, but I have to admit that as passive-aggressive tactics go Zhayne is onto something really funny here. Take Mobility and constantly provoke AoOs through movement. Include your enemies in haste and have your party simply use the extra actions to aid each others' AC. Toss extra weapons to the mooks and dare 'em to attack in two-weapon style. Don't even attack - just slug healing and defense potions and wait for the fumbles to do their work.
Thank you. :)
I may use critical fumbles, depending on the group. If a 1 is rolled then 1d6 is rolled to confirm the fumble. I don't have the table to hand and vary it sometimes but the effects are relatively minor, such as:
1- The attack is treated as a disarm attempt by the opponent
2- The attack is treated as a sunder attempt by the opponent
3- The attack is treated as a trip attempt by the opponent
4- The attack leaves you off balance, treat as flat footed until next turn
5- The attack leaves you poorly positioned, -2 on all rolls until next turn
6- The attack has left you open to a counter attack, opponent gets a free AoO.The effect is varied to suit - e.g. bow fire disarms are dropped bowsor slipped bow strings, sunders are bows breaking, trips are slips.
For some groups the 2nd roll is on a bigger dice with scores above 6 meaning no effect.
Nothing says minor like falling prone, dropping your weapon, or eating an AoO once every 20 times you swing your sword.
Oh well, Casty McSaveOrSuck gets another reason to laugh at the Big Dumb Fighter, meanwhile he suffers no risk from tossing around his spells.
Several things
1. The argument that PCs take part in every combat and each NPC takes part in one (or at most a few), so fumbles suck as the PCs take more can be applied equally to criticals. Each NPC may only be on the receiving end of a PC delivered critical but each NPC delivered critical hits a PC. A fumble represents a mistake that the other side can take advantage of. So a PC gets to take advantage of every NPC fumble2. Items 1-3 are attempts at a CMB and item 6 is an AoO. There is no guarantee that the attempt/attack will be successful so the odds are less than 1 in 20
3. If a bigger die than 1d6 was used then the odds of it occurring can be reduced further.
4. I only introduce the rules if the players want them.
5. I play new campaigns from level 1 upwards so the caster-martial imbalance is not such an issue for a good part of the campaign.
I may use critical fumbles, depending on the group. If a 1 is rolled then 1d6 is rolled to confirm the fumble. I don't have the table to hand and vary it sometimes but the effects are relatively minor, such as:
1- The attack is treated as a disarm attempt by the opponent
2- The attack is treated as a sunder attempt by the opponent
3- The attack is treated as a trip attempt by the opponent
4- The attack leaves you off balance, treat as flat footed until next turn
5- The attack leaves you poorly positioned, -2 on all rolls until next turn
6- The attack has left you open to a counter attack, opponent gets a free AoO.The effect is varied to suit - e.g. bow fire disarms are dropped bowsor slipped bow strings, sunders are bows breaking, trips are slips.
For some groups the 2nd roll is on a bigger dice with scores above 6 meaning no effect.
Nothing says minor like falling prone, dropping your weapon, or eating an AoO once every 20 times you swing your sword.
Oh well, Casty McSaveOrSuck gets another reason to laugh at the Big Dumb Fighter, meanwhile he suffers no risk from tossing around his spells.
Several things
1. The argument that PCs take part in every combat and each NPC takes part in one (or at most a few), so fumbles suck as the PCs take more can be applied equally to criticals. Each NPC may only be on the receiving end of a PC delivered critical but each NPC delivered critical hits a PC. A fumble represents a mistake that the other side can take advantage of. So a PC gets to take advantage of every NPC fumble2. Items 1-3 are attempts at a CMB and item 6 is an AoO. There is no guarantee that the attempt/attack will be successful so the odds are less than 1 in 20
3. If a bigger die than 1d6 was used then the odds of it occurring can be reduced further.
4. I only introduce the rules if the players want them.
5. I play new campaigns from level 1 upwards so the caster-martial imbalance is not such an issue...
1. What?
2. 1/20 times that a skilled swordsman swings his sword they are going to leave themselves open to an AoO/free CMB attempt/eat a penalty/become flat footed. Meanwhile a wizard has no chance at all of screwing herself over when she attempts to change the flow of time. This seems fair to you?
3. Any chance is too much if you're only applying these sorts of penalties to characters who are swinging weapons around.
4. So if one of your players said they didn't like fumbles you would stop using them all together, no debate, no vote, no "majority rules" or declaration of Rule 0?
5. Again I'll ask, what happens to a spellcaster when an enemy rolls a Nat 20 on a save? If their spell doesn't blow up in their face and cause a similar penalty your rules are an unfair nerf to martial classes, regardless of what level you're playing at.
I played in a D&D 4E game where the DM used fumble rules similar to the DM of the player who started this thread. Since that game had no confirmation rolls for critical hits, there were none for fumbles either. Since in that game all classes make attack rolls, wizards and other controllers with area effect spells were virtually unplayable.
DMs who are bad at math can be a real pain to deal with when they set up absurd systems like this.
|
|
We do crit failure confirms. If ou roll a 1 you roll again if your attack doesnt hit then you draw from the crit fail deck and take the appropriate consequences. It's fair and doesn't screw people over constantly.
I'm heartened to hear that your system is fair!
I'm unclear about something: how do casters in your game risk fumbling when casting a spell that doesn't require an attack roll? How do high level casters get as many chances to fumble per round as your high level martials?
|
|
Some people have already mentioned this to varying degrees, but it's worth reiterating and elaborating on: Critical fumbles disproportionately hurt martial characters. Spellcasters roll far fewer dice (and the ones they do aren't always subject to critical hit/miss rules, though some will be), and can easily build around this rule in such a way that it never hurts them. That's not something Rogues, Fighters, Bards, Monks, and so on can do; they have to make attack rolls to do anything meaningful in most fights.
Is it realistic for a swordsman to occasionally mis-step or slack in grip? Sure. Is it good game design for a group of character concepts that are already considered inferior to full casters to have even more handicaps? Not at all.
Fumbles are an old, ridiculous idea that spits on martial characters and makes their players feel even more like they're just there as speedbumps to protect the mages. I'm exaggerating that a bit, but the overall point is sound. Fumbles haven't been part of the main rules for a long time now, and for very good reason.
There's no shame in letting heroic fantasy characters consistently be heroes instead of falling prone to embarrassing gaffes roughly 5% of the time they do anything. Just let them be competent and keep Fumbles out of the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abuse it if he won't change it.
Play a Witch, and spam Misfortune with Cackle, and the Ill Omen and Pugwampi’s Grace spells.
Pick up Leadership, and surround yourself with Pugwampi.
Roll, after roll, after roll, after roll, after roll, after roll, your DM will roll.
Cackle wildly as the fun, glorious fun, continues.
Critical Failure every enemy to death.
1. What?2. 1/20 times that a skilled swordsman swings his sword they are going to leave themselves open to an AoO/free CMB attempt/eat a penalty/become flat footed. Meanwhile a wizard has no chance at all of screwing herself over when she attempts to change the flow of time. This seems fair to you?
3. Any chance is too much if you're only applying these sorts of penalties to characters who are swinging weapons around.
4. So if one of your players said they didn't like fumbles you would stop using them all together, no debate, no vote, no "majority rules" or declaration of Rule 0?
5. Again I'll ask, what happens to a spellcaster when an enemy rolls a Nat 20 on a save? If their spell doesn't blow up in their face and cause a similar penalty your rules are an unfair nerf to martial classes, regardless of what level you're playing at.
1. The point I was making is that PCs like giving criticals, but it also sucks to be on the receiving end of a critical (particularly from a x3 or x4 weapon). Similarly, fumbling sucks, but taking advantage of an enemy's fumble is a good thing. Should critical hits be banned because they can suddenly make a character lose a lot of hit points - or should picks be banned because of the x4 multiplier?
2,3&5. Ignoring the ratio of occurences, which can be raised or lowered. Perhaps you are right, a 1 means there is a chance the spell is fluffed and either fails, has an unintended effect, goes off in the wrong place or lasts for a short duration whilst a 20 means that the spell is delivered perfectly and has a metamagic effect, is cast at a higher level etc. I haven't thought about it before and now I've had a little think I probably wouldn't include it because there's too much variety in spells to adjudicate the effect a fumble or critical evenly.
4. It's a group decision
I hate the self-damaging fumbles and think they are dreadful but I do like about the CMB fumbles because they add variety to an encounter. Spellcasters have a variety of spells that can change the encounter whilst martials a usually squaring off and trading blows in a rather repetitive manner. Most combats don't involve CMBs, whilst this method introduces them and provides some variety in combats.
I hate the self-damaging fumbles and think they are dreadful but I do like about the CMB fumbles because they add variety to an encounter. Spellcasters have a variety of spells that can change the encounter whilst martials a usually squaring off and trading blows in a rather repetitive manner. Most combats don't involve CMBs, whilst this method introduces them and provides some variety in combats
This is exactly why NOT to inflict Fumbles on the warriors. Look, fighters fill a needed niche. But yes, they can only “hit things with sticks”. It is a little boring, but it’s a needed job. Spellcasters get all the fun, power AND variety.
So, in order to fix this, you punish the fighters for doing their job.
It’s true, it does “provide some variety” , but at the cost of both nerfing the fighter and making them the comedy relief, allowing the “real adventurers” i.e. the full spellcasters to get on with the job of saving the world.
That’s just soooooo much fun for the fighter.
And your reason for not being fair? "there's too much variety in spells", aka "it's too much work to be fair, so I'll just nerf the fighters and we'll all laught at their antics!"