|
I used to do a fumble system (including spellcasters), where a roll of one meant something bad happened, usually an -2 AC penalty as your wild swing/misfired spell left you open.
Usually dropped the system after level 2. I always figured the characters were past their awkward phase and were on the way to being full blown heroes. That and most spellcasters stop using their weapon and spells with hit rolls become less common. It's fun at first level, but beyond that its more annoying than "realistic".
So apparently the general consensus is: "Play the way we say, or go play a different game?" Interesting....
And clearly anyone who doesn't DM according to forum consensus is also "ignorant"? Hmmm...
Maybe it's just me, but perhaps some of the trolls here need to stick to the OP's problem, and stop with the grand sweeping generalizations. Groups play within the rules given and whatever house rules are acceptable. We use fumble, without confirm. No one at our table has a problem with it.
|
|
So apparently the general consensus is: "Play the way we say, or go play a different game?" Interesting....
And clearly anyone who doesn't DM according to forum consensus is also "ignorant"? Hmmm...
Maybe it's just me, but perhaps some of the trolls here need to stick to the OP's problem, and stop with the grand sweeping generalizations. Groups play within the rules given and whatever house rules are acceptable. We use fumble, without confirm. No one at our table has a problem with it.
You think the posters on here should 'stick to the OP's problem'? Very well; practice what you preach!
How would you help the OP to convince his DM of the absurdities inherent in the way his DM runs fumbles?
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 combatsThis 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!"
Each to their own. The groups I've GMed for enjoy the variety and don't see fumbles as comic relief.
I do take exception to your last comment though. I put in a huge amount of effort preparing campaigns and keeping them dynamic and enjoyable for the players. As you appear to be under the impression that an even and fair fumble/critical system for spells is achievable and fair across all spells, even if you disagree with it. Please could you describe criticals and fumbles for the following spells as examples:
Charm Person
Gaseous form
Fireball
Dimension Door
Cure Light Wounds
Silent Image
Polymorph self
Feather fall
Detect magic
How about this chart? Crit failure on a spell? Roll a d6.
1- The spell is treated as a disarm attempt by the opponent
2- The spell is treated as a sunder attempt by the opponent
3- The spell is treated as a trip attempt by the opponent
4- The spell leaves you off balance, treat as flat footed until next turn
5- The spell leaves you poorly positioned, -2 on all rolls until next turn
6- The spell has left you open to a counter attack, opponent gets a free AoO.
Hugo, there's no reason you need to have criticals for spells, other than ray spells. Fumbles for spells are pretty easy, how about this:
Roll d6
1. Spell lost with no effect
2. Minor magical disconnect, you can't cast spells next round
3. Spell is maliciously mistargeted if relevant to the spell type, otherwise as (1)
4. Magical disconnect, you can't cast spells for d6 rounds
5. Spell affects caster (if relevant), otherwise caster is stunned for a round
6. Major magical disconnect, you can't cast spells for an hour, spell is lostIt's not really a whole lot of work relative to a weapon fumble system to make one up for casters.
Thank you, the descriptions are probably too severe for my liking but it has given me a train of thought. Rather than concentrate on the consequences of the spell, concentrate on the consequences of casting the spell on the caster.
To me losing a spell is too serious for a fumble and the effects of a fumble should only last one round. Perhaps the spellcaster could successfully cast the spell but be hit by a condition for their next turn, e.g.:
1. Dazed
2. Dazzled
3. Fatigued
4. Sickened
5. Staggered
6. Stunned
as the spell tore at the caster's mind and/or body as the energies were imperfectly released.
A critical could add +1 to damage die if applicable or +2 to the DC or extend the duration by 10% as it is perfectly delivered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point that seems difficult to convey is...
As martial characters get "better," they fumble more often.
Because they swing their swords more often.
The percentage chance of incapacitating themselves and taking themselves out of combat in each round is..
if they swing once a round 5%,
twice = 10%
three x = 15%
four x = 20%
etc...
As they get better and better their chances of incapacitating themselves gets higher and higher.
There is no save, no skillcheck, no concentration check to buffer this straight percentage.
Some popular counter-arguments are..
Popular counterargument 1: Yeah, but they get more critical hits too.
Reply: The bonus damage of a critical hit (+1d6 or bleed etc) is nowhere near the equivalent of the nastiness of a fumble.
I play a ninja. Fumbling, dropping weapon, losing surprise-- takes me the rest of combat to recover weapons, position, etc. Once I fumble I'm out. That is not an even trade for a little extra bleed damage to an opponent.
Popular counterargument 2: Spellcasters can fumble too.
Reply 1: Most DMs who use fumbles only apply fumbles to spells that have an attack roll, like a ray.
Reply 2: The percentage chance of fumbling does not increase every round for a spellcaster. Because they are not casting 3 or 4 or 5 spells every round.
And what does a fumble of charm person look like? Easy. It becomes antagonize. They automatically loathe you.
Fireball? Implodes. Affects only caster. Remember to burn gear.
Polymorph Self? A transporter accident gone wrong. You're an ooze. Can't fix it for 24 hours.
Any spell fumble... the opposite of intended effect.
And chance of fumbling goes up 5% every 2 levels.
To get an idea of what a level playing field would look like...
At 9th level a spellcaster would have to have a 25% chance of fumbling every round.
No saves
No concentration check
No feats that help.
Straight up 25% chance to fumble -EVERY ROUND-
That's what a melee character has to suffer as he improves in skill.
right, even with quicken, that's only 2/round vs. full attack (+2wf/nat.wpns/flurry/+ki/haste)
that can pretty easily come out to 40% chance to fumble every full attack.
so EASILY, the 20th level martial is fumbling roughly every 3 rounds full attacking.
maybe that doesn't mean the fumble system is borked.
but acknowledging this reality in the justification why it's balanced is still called for.
yet there's no evidence that anybody promoting this actually took into account the number of fumble rolls melee/ranged classes.
nobody is saying we NEED a fumble system for attack rolls BECAUSE so many attack rolls are being made/round at high level.
not acknowledging a critical aspect relevant to balance and implementation just destroys any credibility.
|
Well, the counter argument against the caster exception would be to make it a fumble for the caster if he rolls a 1 on a ranged touch attack (like everyone else who rolls an attack roll) and a fumble to the caster if his target rolls a natural 20 on a save. In either case for casting there is no double jeopardy - since ranged touch attacks do not warrant saves they suffer the risk on a 1, all other spells that do not need a roll (SoD, SoS) can inflict a fumble on the caster if the target rolls a 20 on their saving throw.
That is, if you want to use spell caster fumbles. As I stated with my waste of time Gamma World example a few pages back - I like fumble systems if they are applied across the board. If they are not then they are not fair.
Second point of addressing frequency of attacks and fumbles – Fumbles should have degrees (values) that can be countermanded by level/experience. So Blowhard the Fighter swings his axe-sword at the Two-Headed Orog War Chief. He rolls a one. Consulting the table you generate a range of fumbles-
Ver 1.0
You can randomly assign the fumbles:
1) DC 15 reflex or drop weapon
2) DC 20 fort save – over extended and exposed miss this attack and lose shield or DX bonus to next incoming attack (whichever is higher)
3) Etc
Or you could have a sliding scale with the worst results being at the bottom and the character adding his level to the die range with the minor stuff being at the top:
Ver 2.0
D20 (plus characters level) (some examples)
2-3 – Lose weapon and slip into close foe range, all incoming attacks from adjacent foes are at +2 to hit and +2 to confirm crits, and character is prone. (This would affect 1-2nd level attackers – D20 + 1 or 2)
...........
31-33 – Lose/miss Attack (11th or higher level)
34-35 or higher - Strange fortune: attack misses target, instead get an attack against adjacent target if there is one using all the values of the original attack. (13th level or higher)
etc.
So fumbles or fumble tables can actually be designed to hurt higher level characters less, if at all - if you use a DC or scaling chart to determine results. At one point most of the DC checks will be moot and not needed (for higher level characters) so you just treat those attacks as a miss if you are using that system, while a scaling system can even give a reversal of luck for high level bad-asses (hey, rolling a 1 is just as hard as rolling a 20).
So fumbles do not need to doom martials if done right -considering the issues of high levels + frequency of attacks.
Can I get slow clap on the last part?
maybe not.
Anyway.
The point that seems difficult to convey is...
As martial characters get "better," they fumble more often.
Because they swing their swords more often.....Any spell fumble... the opposite of intended effect.
And chance of fumbling goes up 5% every 2 levels.
To get an idea of what a level playing field would look like...
At 9th level a spellcaster would have to have a 25% chance of fumbling every round.
No saves
No concentration check
No feats that help.
Straight up 25% chance to fumble -EVERY ROUND-That's what a melee character has to suffer as he improves in skill.
Soft applause.
The point about the multiple swings increasing the odds of a fumble is well made and a previous poster commented that only counting potential fumbles on the first attack is more reasonable. (Also your maths was wrong the probability of rolling a 1 in a given round is 1-(0.95^x) where x is the number of rolls)
The spell fumbles you have described in reply 2 are very severe. I wouldn't present that as an option for my group but those GMs whose groups use fumbles that can cause actual damage or death may wish to consider it.
I believe that Apocalypso's stated chances do match exponential figuring of failure chance, rounded to nearest 5%.
At some point the chances would diverge from '+5%/+attack' but not for a while (rounding to 5%/d20 results).
In my games, we confirm fumbles. A 1 merely threatens. If you then roll a success, you recover.
My players WANT fumbles. They like the random element and the challenge.
I simply accommodate them.
Much of the time, this results in something comedic. For instance, a player might roll a 1, followed by a 17 or so, and I might describe the incident as their axe flying out of their grip, hitting their opponent on the helmet (which rings like a bell), then bouncing off, back into their hand with no damage dealt.
We get a good laugh out of that sort of thing.
|
|
Actually out of the casters ost of them focus on AOE blasts or battlefield controls so outside of scorching ray I dont think a spell requiring a touch attack has been cast. However the Crit-Fail cards do have options for Ranged, Melee, Natural, and Magical attacks.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?
I'm not familiar with the crit deck, nor the precise details concerning it's use.
When casting a spell that does not require an attack roll, is there any fumble chance for the caster?
Do weapon attacks suffer a chance to fumble on each iterative attack? Or just on one attack per round maximum?
I'm not familiar with the crit deck, nor the precise details concerning it's use.When casting a spell that does not require an attack roll, is there any fumble chance for the caster?
Do weapon attacks suffer a chance to fumble on each iterative attack? Or just on one attack per round maximum?
1. No.
2. There are options on this.
|
|
I'm not familiar with the crit deck, nor the precise details concerning it's use.When casting a spell that does not require an attack roll, is there any fumble chance for the caster?
Do weapon attacks suffer a chance to fumble on each iterative attack? Or just on one attack per round maximum?
1. No.
2. There are options on this.
EsperMagic said it was fair. Unless each creature has the same number of chances to fumble per round, it fails to be fair.
Actually out of the casters ost of them focus on AOE blasts or battlefield controls so outside of scorching ray I dont think a spell requiring a touch attack has been cast. However the Crit-Fail cards do have options for Ranged, Melee, Natural, and Magical attacks.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?
There is enervation, but that's about it.
It is a shame that the "casters vs martials" debate infects so many other things. I thought AM BARBARIAN had put that to rest by establishing his superiority in such a way that SKR had to issue a new ruling to stop RAGELANCEPOUNCE.
I doubt that a true BARBARIAN or a batty bat would care about the DM's silly fumble rules. It is actually somebody playing a Sorcerer who posted here looking for help convincing his DM to use confirmation rolls for fumbles. Maybe the Sorcerer is just tired of watching the 3 Stooges every session.
Just crunched a couple of numbers:
A TWF build full BAB character at 16+ levels rolls a 1 in 30.16% of combat rounds. That means with a flat 5% fumble chance he'll stuff it up about nice every 3 rounds (haste only puts the probability up to 33.6%). I can't wrap my head around how anyone can consider that to be fair.
This is probably my greatest peeve in all gaming. I have put up with a GM using a fumble deck once. I have veins that stand out on my forehead now.
NEVER AGAIN!
Next time someone springs this retarded $h*t on me I'm walking. After I explain how impossibly stupid it is. In crude language. While gesturing violently. I don't quite want them to call police, but I do want to brush up against that line.
I'm kidding of course, But really, you should feel bad if you use fumbles.
|
|
Just crunched a couple of numbers:
A TWF build full BAB character at 16+ levels rolls a 1 in 30.16% of combat rounds. That means with a flat 5% fumble chance he'll stuff it up about nice every 3 rounds (haste only puts the probability up to 33.6%). I can't wrap my head around how anyone can consider that to be fair.
For the mathematically challenged:-
For the sake of a fair approximation, assume a d20 is rolled 20 times, and that each result occurs exactly once. This means that in every 20 attacks, a '1' will occur once.
Using a fumble rule where a natural '1', without requiring a confirmation roll, results in a fumble, then a creature will fumble once in every 20 attacks. How skilful a warrior the creature may be is simply irrelevant in this system (which is absurd), beyond the fact that more skilful warriors get more attacks and therefore fumble more often then poor warriors, and even fumble much more often than a completely untrained creature with an improvised weapon (which is even more absurd)!
Consider the case of Wee Jock 'Pooh Pong' McPlop, the local moron who failed the Village Idiot entrance exam, whose physical and mental stats fail to break into double figures. He comes across a fight between the greatest hero in the world and a Pit Fiend. Wee Jock decides to 'help' (excellent role-play of his wisdom score) by picking up a broken broom and attacking the Pit Fiend, being careful not to flank.
Despite all the circumstances conspiring against him, the Pit Fiend doesn't bother attacking Wee Jock on the grounds that it would be too cruel. Wee Jock attacks once per round for 20 rounds, fumbling once during that time, which is one fumble every two minutes. Not too bad given the situation.
Meanwhile, the greatest hero in the world is facing the Pit Fiend. He has just recovered from a bad case of death (with the help of a True Resurrection) which he suffered on the practice ground. He was in combat with a straw dummy, using GreaterTWF and haste and getting eight attacks per round.
The Greatest Hero In. The. World. fumbles once in every 20 attacks (just like everybody else in the world, regardless of skill). Since he gets 8 attacks per round he fumbles once every 2 and a half rounds, so once every 15 seconds!
In conclusion, using those fumble rules:-
• The worst fighter in the world, in combat with a Pit Fiend using an improvised weapon fumbles once every two minutes.
• The best fighter in the world, in combat with a practice dummy made of straw using two +5 weapons with which he has Greater Weapon Specialisation, fumbles once every 15 seconds.
Show that to your DM, OP!
The spell fumbles you have described in reply 2 are very severe. I wouldn't present that as an option for my group but those GMs whose groups use fumbles that can cause actual damage or death may wish to consider it.
Yeah, I did exaggerate spell fumbles for dramatic effect. I also play a sorcerer and a druid. I would never expect them to put up with this merde. Which is the point.
But to create a fumble system which penalizes spellcasters with the same frequency as martial players:
1. Spellcaster should have a straight percentage chance to fumble every round-- equivalent to their martial friends.
So as martial characters get faster, and their chances to fumble EVERY ROUND increase to 25% then 30% then 35%; a FAIR fumble system would require spellcasters to fail just as frequently.
ie... the better they get, the more frequently they fumble. No saves. Just like melee.
2. Spellcasters would have to be able to fumble *every* spell.
What I stated before was overly dramatic.
But a fairer, more equivalent fumble system would be something more like
20%-- lose spell
75%-- an effect that incapacitates spellcaster for the rest of this combat... fall prone, drop component pouch (cant cast anything with a material component), choke (can't cast anything with a somatic component), etc.
5%-- spell backfires horribly like examples above. hurts caster or a friend.
I actually don't mind a *little bit* of fumbling. It can be entertaining. But I think fumbles should at least need confirmation, AND should only be on *last* attack of the round (so I can be useful once before I'm out of combat), AND the burden of providing comedic entertainment should be shared equally amongst all party members.
If my 7th level twf ninja has 33% to fumble every round, then the 8th level spellcasters of the party should be fumbling just as often. 33% chance of fumbling their spells every round. no save.
-waves sheepishly at her very fair and reasonable GM-
|
-waves back- we also won't mention how in the game of your Ninja Goddess you receive Hero Points to re-roll fumbles and misses, Plot and Flash Back Cards to alter reality (that you have used to make an enemy's weapon shatter into pieces) plus generous Critical Hit rules to balance out the one time in 23 sessions that Ninja Goddess dropped her one of two weapons >:)
|
|
Relixander nails it on the head. As a GM, I enjoy using the many cool card decks to add variety to my Pathfinder games. I also prefer using begin and end with fiction when it comes to what players and npcs do in the game, as it brings the narrative to the front of game and put the rules in the back. I also reward my players for creativity and punish them only when they are bad, bad, bad and doing stupid things like messy frontal assaults on dragons! >:)
I can see Fumbles as a narrative tool.
Many players will not want to play as the inept comic relief that makes the Awesome Hero Wizard look cool and super competent by comparison. By instituting a fumble system you can trick players who wish to play a "bad ass" skilled swordsman or a dual wielding master thief into their deserved role as clownish buffoon who falls over his own feet several times a minute, thus allowing the Wizard to chuckle wryly and shakes his head as he stops time and saves the poor fool from him/herself.
A powerful narrative tool, indeed.
As long as the wizard has an equal chance of fumbling when they try to alter the laws of physics by flinging around bat poo, that's fine.
-waves back- we also won't mention how in the game of your Ninja Goddess you receive Hero Points to re-roll fumbles and misses, Plot and Flash Back Cards to alter reality (that you have used to make an enemy's weapon shatter into pieces) plus generous Critical Hit rules to balance out the one time in 23 sessions that Ninja Goddess dropped her one of two weapons >:)
Hey GM Anorak--
First and foremost *YOU* are an awesome GM. You are fun and creative. You implement a variety of features to creative random effects and thats cool. I look forward to your game every week. You are also FAIR. When your 2 martial players came to you and said, "we'd like to talk to you about the fumble rules..." you listened. (Notice that the casters had no problem with the melee players being comic relief).
So the stuff I'm posting here is not aimed at you or our game. I'm just kind of a fairness nazi. (is that a conundrum?) I started thinking about this because of what happened in our game, and now I'm really stuck chewing on it.
Notice what you said about the 1st time I fumbled in 23 gaming sessions? Yeah, that happened because I got *better*. Because I'm swinging my blade more often. There I was on the ceiling, hacking away at whats her face... and I dropped my wakizashi. Funny... ish. Once in a while. But I got into this thread cuz I realized as I continued to "get better", it would be happening more and more often.
But we talked. And you adjusted fumbles to need confirms. The spellcasters still don't risk fumbling as often, cuz they don't roll a d20 for every spell. But still its close enough. And I'm good.
And technically I'm not a goddess. I'm a runelord. But thats a tale for another time.
Personally, I'd only have people possibly fumble if they're going for called shots. Monk wants to just attack, or even just throw a roundhouse? Hey, that's fine. Monk wants to, like, handstand kick the waterturtle in just the right way to spill the water out of his head, or something crazy like that? Alright, we'll see. You could pull it off, or you could botch and land on your face.
Basically, save the risk for the rewarding plays.