My group uses the Pathfinder Critical Fumble deck. We don't use it to necessarily make combat tougher but rather to add variety - plus it's always good for a laugh when a fellow party member gets an amusing fumble.
A nat 1 is a critical miss threat. Then you roll to confirm using the bonuses for your highest attack.
That way threats come up reasonably frequently but don't get confirmed all that often. If you are fighting an opponent with a low AC the confirmation roll will rarely miss. If you fight an opponent with a high AC the confirmation roll is more likely to fail, but arguably trying to hit a tougher target is more likely to end up with you making a mistake.
Plus if the fumble is something minor the DM will often just ignore it. And the one card in the deck that is an auto death just becomes a serious injury but not death (we currently play perma-death style so no resurrection, raise dead or reincarnation).
The 4 different people in my group that DM all used to use various fumble rules. It was sort of okay for a while, although it could get very annoying very quickly. And then I started playing a TWF Ranger and actually got him up to a high level. It just felt really stupid that even though I had so many levels of training, I still had a 5% chance every attack to do something horrendously stupid like throw my weapon or hit my nearest friend. After that, I immediately went back to the rules by the book, and I've been pushing all the other DMs in my group to do the same.
Some of the fumble rules I've seen have been absolutely absurd, like permanent ability damage or loss of limbs. I could see maybe if you have a player who's trying to do something really crazy, like jump off of a 100 foot cliff trying to impale something at the bottom with a sword, but for every day normal fighting book rules are best. There's really no reason to punish the players any more than normal play can.
I use the Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks.
If a player rolls a 1 then they threaten a critical fumble and have to roll again to confirm a critical fumble. They use the same modifiers as their previous attack roll. If they still miss the AC on the second roll, they get to draw a Critical Fumble card. If they have Weapon Focus in the weapon they were using when they fumbled, they get to draw two cards and pick their fumble. This helps alleviate some of the "OMG, Fighter falls on his sword and kills himself alot" issue of the critical fumbles since Fighter is pretty likely to have Weapon Focus. (If they had Greater Weapon Focus, I'd allow for 3 cards to be drawn to pick one for a result.)
For the Critical Hits deck an x2 weapon gets to draw one card on a crit, an x3 weapon gets two cards on a crit, and an x4 weapon gets three cards on a hit, but the player still only gets to pick one card to affect the combat. I don't allow players to just take the normal multiplied damage in place of drawing a card.
I use the fumble cards with NPCs as well, so the most recent card drawn was a burning skeleton rolled a critical fumble on a claw attack and its fumble result was inflicting the damage to itself instead of its enemy (not counting its fire damage since it's immune), so I checked to see what kinds of damage a claw attack does to see if it would overcome the skeleton's damage reduction. It did overcome the DR so the skeleton actually destroyed itself. (Then, as a burning skeleton, it exploded when it was destroyed, so it practically initiated a self-destruct.)
I didn't have a problem with the cards in my previous campaign, which ran to about 9th level (a D&D 3.5e mixed-level party). Our current campaign is very low-level so fighters don't have significant iterative attacks right now. If it become a problem later, it will get reviewed.
Lol, I'm glad real life doesn't use the critical fumble rules I have seen some DM's use... A day at the shooting range would be massivly dangerous!
One DM I played under used the "Roll a 1, make a dex check Dc 10 or provoke AoO, drop weapon or hit self".. I tried to point out the a flat dex check made no sense, because a higher level fighter has a worse chance to fumble then a first level rogue... He said I was wrong...
Well, you are wrong if the Fighter is a TWFer. Or an Archer. Or Dervish.
Or the Rogue is using 2H weapon styles like a Thug or summat.
Attributes aren't class dependent you know.
Lol, true, but then using an attribute check to determine critical failure is even MORE wrong lol.
But I think you would agree the idea of a 15th level sword and board fighter with a 12 dex being more likly to fumble with his weapon then a Level 1 wizard with a 16 dex is silly.
If your having them confirm the crit fail by a reroll against AC I believe you should be alright. But keep in mind these rules by and large wont affect the full casters at all
Nope. If only the first attack of the round threatens to fumble, then it is sort of fair.
It's still very generous to casters, but at least it doesn't outright penalize you for having a high attack bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for your guy's input if i do use them, which is still up in the air as i haven't bought them yet, ill have ways to make it more fair and better. I do understand where lots of you guys are coming from on why you don't use them, but i still feel it adds more realism and spice to the game as long as its not just " oh you dropped your weapon over there".
I was a SCA heavy Weapons Fighter for years and a marshal for a decade after. During the time I was fighting, I never once dropped my weapon (I did have it knocked out of my hands a couple times) and I never hit myself. It’s true, that since we use rattan weapons, a good fighter will break a weapon every couple of years.
So, yeah- fumbles are realistic- but only if you use this system : a nat 1, followed by a nat 1, followed by a nat 1, then confirm. In fact that still likely makes it too common, but….
And the one card in the deck that is an auto death just becomes a serious injury but not death (we currently play perma-death style so no resurrection, raise dead or reincarnation).
I’ll bet you don’t.
I’ll bet a buck right here and now, that if a PC dies the player gets to keep on playing, just by bringing in a new PC.
It’s better to just allow Raise Dead.
That's a fair choice.
reguardless if you are going to use a fumble deck/fumble chart, Don't make an option where you can kill the person who fumbled. that happened to my character. It sucked.
His ruling was if you rolled a 1 you fumble. If you roll a 1 again to confirm you crit yourself. But you half to confirm against your AC or its just a normal hit.
I rolled a 1, backed it up with a 1, and confirmed the crit to myself with a 19.
I was using heavy shield with spikes, and the Bashing enhancement, in combination with lead blades. I was swinging for 3d6+6 every swing. And then i crit myself so that goes to 6d6+12. Oh and power attack so don't forget that went to 6d6+16. I went from full HP (42) to -15 and instantly died.
Rule to be cool: Don't be that GM!
reguardless if you are going to use a fumble deck/fumble chart, Don't make an option where you can kill the person who fumbled. that happened to my character. It sucked.
His ruling was if you rolled a 1 you fumble. If you roll a 1 again to confirm you crit yourself. But you half to confirm against your AC or its just a normal hit.
I rolled a 1, backed it up with a 1, and confirmed the crit to myself with a 19.
I was using heavy shield with spikes, and the Bashing enhancement, in combination with lead blades. I was swinging for 3d6+6 every swing. And then i crit myself so that goes to 6d6+12. Oh and power attack so don't forget that went to 6d6+16. I went from full HP (42) to -15 and instantly died.
Rule to be cool: Don't be that GM!
I guess you... uhh, tripped and landed on top of your shield spike with your temple? Or something?
Sometimes I feel like Rowdy Roddy Piper in John Carpenter's They Live. Only instead of ghoulish overlords posing as humans that only I can see, it's the ridiculousness of fumble houserules and iterative attacks.
Characters with more attacks fumble more.
That is an absurd proposition.
The *idea* of a critical failure is fine, but unless you limit it to the first attack of the round, you are actually penalizing characters for having more attacks. I use ciritcal failures in my own campaigns. But if you don't limit them to the first attack of the round, you are a bad GM and a bad rules designer who does not think things through.
Please, for the love of Bob, if you use critical failures, limit them to only the first attack of the round.
*puts on his cheap sunglasses and has an 8 minute brawl in an alleyway*
Instead of limiting them to the first attack of the round, why not the last one? That is the least skilled attack, and so would logically be the most likely to fumble on.
I don't use critical misses/fumbles. My observation is that they detract from the game in the long run.
The main reason I don't like critical fumbles is statistics.
Critical fumbles increases the level of randomness in the game. Increased randomness always favors the underdog. And since the PCs are SUPPOSED to win in the end, they're NOT the underdogs. So, increased randomness always hinders the PCs more than their foes.
Other than that, critical fumbles unnecessarily lengthen combat encounters and can break the flow of the game.
So, no, I don't use them in my game.
And the one card in the deck that is an auto death just becomes a serious injury but not death (we currently play perma-death style so no resurrection, raise dead or reincarnation).I’ll bet you don’t.
I’ll bet a buck right here and now, that if a PC dies the player gets to keep on playing, just by bringing in a new PC.
It’s better to just allow Raise Dead.
You obviously have a different interpretation of perma-death. Of course a player whose character dies could bring in a new character. It's not the player who can't continue like some extreme form of LARPing The Hunger Games RPG.
Saying that isn't permanent-death would be like arguing a person playing DDO in perma-death mode should delete the game if their character dies.
All it means is there is no way of raising a character who dies. Nothing more, nothing less.
We've got to level 16 in our current AP without a death but if someone did the player would just roll up a new character - just as someone in a different campaign would do if they didn't want their character raised.
And the one card in the deck that is an auto death just becomes a serious injury but not death (we currently play perma-death style so no resurrection, raise dead or reincarnation).I’ll bet you don’t.
I’ll bet a buck right here and now, that if a PC dies the player gets to keep on playing, just by bringing in a new PC.
It’s better to just allow Raise Dead.
You obviously have a different interpretation of perma-death. Of course a player whose character dies could bring in a new character. ..
Saying that isn't permanent-death would be like arguing a person playing DDO in perma-death mode should delete the game if their character dies.All it means is there is no way of raising a character who dies. Nothing more, nothing less.
We've got to level 16 in our current AP without a death but if someone did the player would just roll up a new character - just as someone in a different campaign would do if they didn't want their character raised.
So, since there’s no danger from dying*, and all that happens is that the campaign possibly loses a key PC, where’s the upside to this?
* and usually a advantage, as a fresh created from scratch PC is usually better than an organic PC at that level.
My table optionally uses the Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks. We roll to confirm crits and fumbles. If someone doesn't want to use the deck(s) they are free to roll out their additional damage for crits or the GM decides what happened to them on a fumble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the one card in the deck that is an auto death just becomes a serious injury but not death (we currently play perma-death style so no resurrection, raise dead or reincarnation).I’ll bet you don’t.
I’ll bet a buck right here and now, that if a PC dies the player gets to keep on playing, just by bringing in a new PC.
It’s better to just allow Raise Dead.
You obviously have a different interpretation of perma-death. Of course a player whose character dies could bring in a new character. ..
Saying that isn't permanent-death would be like arguing a person playing DDO in perma-death mode should delete the game if their character dies.All it means is there is no way of raising a character who dies. Nothing more, nothing less.
We've got to level 16 in our current AP without a death but if someone did the player would just roll up a new character - just as someone in a different campaign would do if they didn't want their character raised.
So, since there’s no danger from dying*, and all that happens is that the campaign possibly loses a key PC, where’s the upside to this?
* and usually a advantage, as a fresh created from scratch PC is usually better than an organic PC at that level.
You might think there is no "danger" from dying, but given we have spent over three years in the campaign none of us particularly want our character to die. If one did we would obviously bring in a new character but that character would definitely not be better than the dead one nor would it be as satisfying playing them. We're in Kingmaker and it has been a long journey to get to a few sessions before the final boss fight so it would be very unpleasant to die and bring in a new PC.
Losing a key PC at this stage would not be a minor thing. If it happened at a lower level then no big deal, level 16 = big deal. Sure it would be a chance to play certain classes without all the weaker lower levels - like a max level Mystic Theurge - but it's always more fun to develop and build a character from level 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, since there’s no danger from dying*, and all that happens is that the campaign possibly loses a key PC, where’s the upside to this?
* and usually a advantage, as a fresh created from scratch PC is usually better than an organic PC at that level.
I would guess that most players don't feel that way. Most players I know develop some level of personal attachment to PCs.
Anyone arguing that a PC death should force a player to leave the campaign permanently probably has their priorities out of whack. You play these games to have fun, not to create some perfect simulation.
|
So our normal GM's usually if you roll a 1 have you reroll and depending on how low it is come up with whatever happens. Its really all up to the GM, but im actually going to be running skull and shackles here soon and am thinking of using the critical hit and miss decks and want a more definite rule. I have never seen anything in any of the main books describing critical misses, so because i want to use the decks im thinking if they roll a 1 they reroll and if that roll wouldnt hit its a critical miss. I dont know if thats how its supposed to be or if misses are basically just up to the GM. How do you guys normally do them?
When I do critical misses, which is rare, I have them roll to confirm the critical miss, just like a critical hit. If the confirmation fails to hit/succeed, I apply something appropriate (off balance = -2 to attacks for a round, twisted ankle = half movement speed until rest, etc.). This generally makes people who are good at the thing not have issues, and people who are bad more cautious about going for the long shot.
"Be aware of what behavior you're rewarding." That's some of the best GMing advice I've ever heard. Always keep that in mind when you implement an optional/homebrew rule.
Unless you're the type who comes to the Parcheesi table with a loaded revolver. I can respect that level of commitment.
You might think there is no "danger" from dying, but given we have spent over three years in the campaign none of us particularly want our character to die. If one did we would obviously bring in a new character but that character would definitely not be better than the dead one nor would it be as satisfying playing them. We're in Kingmaker and it has been a long journey to get to a few sessions before the final boss fight so it would be very unpleasant to die and bring in a new PC.
Losing a key PC at this stage would not be a minor thing. If it happened at a lower level then no big deal, level 16 = big deal. Sure it would be a chance to play certain classes without all the weaker...
This is exactly why you should allow Raise Dead.
So, since there’s no danger from dying*, and all that happens is that the campaign possibly loses a key PC, where’s the upside to this?
* and usually a advantage, as a fresh created from scratch PC is usually better than an organic PC at that level.
I would guess that most players don't feel that way. Most players I know develop some level of personal attachment to PCs.
Anyone arguing that a PC death should force a player to leave the campaign permanently probably has their priorities out of whack. You play these games to have fun, not to create some perfect simulation.
This is exactly why you should allow Raise Dead. My point isn’t that a Player should be required to leave the table if their PC dies. But, that is my counter-argument to the idea that getting rid of Raise dead makes the risk of PC death so much higher. It doesn’t really. OF COURSE the player can bring in a new PC. Thus, what is the “danger” from PC death? Game continuity. But that “sword’ swings over both the PCs and the DM. The DM suffers as much, having to discard story lines, invent new story lines etc.
Getting rid of Raise dead is a bad idea.
Getting rid of Raise Dead is only a bad idea of dying is easy. Change the rules so that you can be unconscious and not dying more easily, and getting rid of Raise Dead isn't a problem.
Or, heck, go with the 7th Sea system where you pretty much just can't die, unless you do it voluntarily, whether via heroic sacrifice or 'I stick my head in the cannon while the fuse is lit'.
I use raise dead but keep strict track of the time that passes between death and getting to the cleric...I know in 1st edition you get 1 day per level of the casting cleric [is it the same in Pathfinder?].
I do limit the availability of clerics that can cast resurrection [16th level cleric in 1st ed.].
Outside of two player characters who retired out their clerics to run their characters children... I have only 5...1 LE, 1 NG, 1 LG, and 2 N druids [but who really wants to run a dryad?].
Other than the spells that could preserve the corpse, my PC's take death seriously...
"Oh you took 10 days to get here?...major bummer...our high priest is only 9th! On the bright side I here the high priest of Tempus is 16th! You can take 160 years to get to him!"
Getting rid of Raise dead is a bad idea.
The disagreement here is a style of play issue, plain and simple.
Neither one of you is more "right" than the other.
The only thing that matters is that you have a compatible social contract with your own players. If you two were at the same table, some arbitration would be in order.
But as long as DrDeth plays with a raise dead group and the other guy (sorry I'm lazy) plays with a narrativist permadeath group, all is well.
I have no desire to play the (Lawful Evil) RPG where everyone must play one way or the other.
Usually, I follow this rule when dealing with the dreaded natural 1s:
1) Natural 1 on a martial (melee or ranged) attack: the attacker makes a Reflex Save; if he or she fails, he or she loses his or her grip on the weapon and will then have to scoop it up from the ground as an action.
2) Natural 1 on a magic attack: the attacker makes a Will Save; if he or she fails, the magic energy bursts into his or her mind, dealing 1d4 points of electricity damage plus additional electricity damage based on the spell level. This way, a natural 1 on a Scorching Ray deals 1d4+2 electricity damage. If the attacker is rolling on two or more rays, I'll usually apply this rule to EACH roll that comes up a 1 (so, rolling two 1s on Scorching Ray means 2d4+4 damage).
Araknophobia, put these sunglasses on!
This is exactly why you should allow Raise Dead.You might think there is no "danger" from dying, but given we have spent over three years in the campaign none of us particularly want our character to die. If one did we would obviously bring in a new character but that character would definitely not be better than the dead one nor would it be as satisfying playing them. We're in Kingmaker and it has been a long journey to get to a few sessions before the final boss fight so it would be very unpleasant to die and bring in a new PC.
Losing a key PC at this stage would not be a minor thing. If it happened at a lower level then no big deal, level 16 = big deal. Sure it would be a chance to play certain classes without all the weaker...
Before this thread gets derailed further into your realm of "you must have Raise Dead in your game", I originally said "we", as in my gaming group specifically, are playing permanent-death as a simple aside to comments on the actual topic of this thread. You decided to take issue, accused me of lying and criticised our game style.
Before your high horse gets completely ridden into the ground, it is the way we are currently playing. Our GM said it was how he wanted to run Kingmaker, we all agreed (with some reservations originally) and three years later we are all still having a great time. Next AP will be RotRL with me as GM. I plan to allow reincarnation but not raise dead or resurrection. If the group say they would like permanent-death again then that is fine too.
Personally I have no concern in the slightest with how other groups deal with options for dealing with player death. And in the past 34 years of DnD no group I've played with has had any particular cares either.
Fumbles, if used at all, need to be severely limited and they need to make sense when applied across a range of classes and levels. So limiting them to only one possible per round is vital, otherwise the more attacks you make the more likely you are to fumble, whereas the more experienced a fighter gets, the less likely he/she is to fumble.
But s__t happens and there is a certain logic to balancing critical hits with some negative repercussions to an equivalently low sequence of attack rolls. I'm considering something along the following lines:
If a natural 1 is rolled, a confirming roll is made and the result is compared to an AC = 2 + character level or CR level. This means that a class or monster with the fast progression BAB will have about a 0.5% chance per round to get a fumble (limiting fumbles re-rolls to one per round), while weaker BAB progressions will have a greater chance for a fumble, which seems fair as they are less skilled. The slow BAB progression spell casters actually get a greater chance to fumble as they advance by this formula, but then they aren't likely to be making many melee attacks, so I don't think this is a problem.
Furthermore, characters with magic weapon enchancements and feats like weapon focus will have an even lower chance of a fumble, in some cases no chance. So, a second roll of natural 1 or 2 will always result in some kind of fumble but if the 2nd roll result still beat the AC = 2+level, the possibilities will be very mild, like -2 to the next attack.
Also, I don't think doing damage to oneself should be a serious possibility unless it's non-lethal damage to represent some kind of pulled muscle or the like. Most results will be a dropped or possibily broken weapon (not MWK weapons), or becoming flat-footed toward the next attack in the next round or provoking an AOO or maybe becoming staggered for the rest of the round, preventing movement or reloading a weapon etc. If, however, one is shooting a ranged weapon into melee, there should be a chance to hit an ally, since that's pretty likely in the chaos of melee.
As a player, it's frustrating to play a good strategic game and then have it all go south with a couple of low rolls in a row. It's bad enought that Critical by an opponent can take one down in one shot. No PC should be put at serious risk of life by a fumble and high level melees should not turn into a fumble-fest.
I don't. I don't even use the 'natural 1 is an automatic miss' rule.
My distaste was put on display just two nights ago, where our party Barbarian was shot in the back by an archer, and then hit herself with her axe, the latter taking her to -9 (after Rage-end).
The GM invokes 'sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander', but that doesn't really work, because PCs and NPCs/Monsters occupy different design space and serve different purposes. Specifically, PCs are expected to be around for the long haul, and hostile NPCs/Monsters are expected to die in the first fight. Hell, some monsters practically don' exist until they're there to be fought.
And lastly, it's a theme thing. I want a game of high-fantasy awesome, not The Three Stooges RPG.
Gaming with fumbles (critical misses, whatever you call them) does not equal "The Three Stooges RPG"
Fumbles would be a great rule to reinforce A 3 Stooges RPG game/theme, but it would also be a great rule to reinforce a gritty fantasy theme, or a Hollywood cinema theme, or a realistic simulationist theme etc.
It all depends on how the rule is used, to what degree it influences the action and how it is described by the DM.
'findel