Yes, we all need interventions to stop us from having badwrongfun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An intervention to prevent him from making the game fun for his players?
More of a friendly warning about unforeseen consequences.
At low levels I thought the occasional fumble was fun too.
Once I hit median levels and started swinging my blades more frequently and therefore started fumbling more often, I noticed only the spellcasters were laughing it up-- at my expense.
To give him credit, my GM was a good guy, and he hadn't foreseen this consequence either.
So he made a new rule-- only one fumble per night. Everything else is simply a miss.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Here's my acid test for any proposed crit fumble system: imagine someone attacking a straw dummy for 10 minutes. He's making real attack rolls at a target that doesn't fight back. At the end of that time, is the character hurt? Dead? Is a highly experienced warrior (4 attacks/round) worse off than a nonproficient commoner? If any of those answers are yes, then the fumble system is bad.
Btw, some people are skeptical of claims that "my group loves fumbles!" Sometimes the GM and casters love fumbles while the martial players just don't want to rock the boat. Obviously if the entire group truly does love them, then it's not a problem. But try asking your fighter/ranger/barbarian player alone sometime how he or she would "revise" your fumble system and you might be surprised.
Once your attack rolls get to a certain point, you tactically begin to rely on hitting. Rolling a 1 is disruptive enough for the forced miss at that stage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, At low levels you barely notice it. Later, as a martial you find yourself slipping behind the power curve. At the same time, you are fumbling more, and the spellcasters aren't fumbling at all.
You can have fun at your own expense, but when you realize you're the only one making the pratfalls but everyone else gets to yuk it up at your expense, things get a little strained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused: Why wouldn't you add fumble rules for spellcasting? If your criticism of fumbles is that they only apply to martials...well then go ahead and make them apply to everyone! Make casters roll a fumble if they roll a natural 1 on their ranged touch attack, or if the target gets a natural 20 on its save, or if they roll a natural 1 to overcome SR. If you are going to use fumble rules, make them apply to everyone.Right, At low levels you barely notice it. Later, as a martial you find yourself slipping behind the power curve. At the same time, you are fumbling more, and the spellcasters aren't fumbling at all.
You can have fun at your own expense, but when you realize you're the only one making the pratfalls but everyone else gets to yuk it up at your expense, things get a little strained.
The difficulty with this version of "fairness" is that most spells don't make the spellcaster roll to hit. And even if they do roll to hit-- here's the big part I had to repeat many times before my GM got it-- Spellcasters are not rolling a d20 to hit 5 or 6 times per round!
At level 8, when my TWF Ninja (apologies to those of you who have read this a couple of times already) gained the ability to swing her Wakizashis an average of 6 times a round, that meant her chance of rolling a "1" INCREASED as she GOT BETTER to approximately 30% PER ROUND.
So to have FAIRNESS in fumbling-- the spellcasters would need a 30% chance to FUMBLE (not simply miss) with every spell, whether or not they rolled a d20 to target it.
|
My idea for criticals / fumbles:
Divide the classes into three groups, basically divided by martial skill.
The best group (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Warrior) crits as normal, but any roll of a natural 20 automatically crits, no confirmation roll required. They also only fumble on a natural 1 followed by another natural 1.
The medium group (Bard, Rogue, Inquisitor, Magus, Ninja, Aristocrat) crits as normal. They fumble on a natural one, but the fumble must be confirmed by another missed attack roll.
The worst group (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, Alchemist, Oracle, Summoner, Witch, Adept, Commoner) crits only on a roll of a natural 20 (regardless of weapon) followed by another natural 20. They fumble on a natural one, no confirmation roll required.
[I'm confused: Why wouldn't you add fumble rules for spellcasting? If your criticism of fumbles is that they only apply to martials...well then go ahead and make them apply to everyone! Make casters roll a fumble if they roll a natural 1 on their ranged touch attack, or if the target gets a natural 20 on its save, or if they roll a natural 1 to overcome SR. If you are going to use fumble rules, make them apply to everyone.The difficulty with this version of "fairness" is that most spells don't make the spellcaster roll to hit. And even if they do roll to hit-- here's the big part I had to repeat many times before my GM got it-- Spellcasters are not rolling a d20 to hit 5 or 6 times per round!
At level 8, when my TWF Ninja (apologies to those of you who have read this a couple of times already) gained the ability to swing her Wakizashis an average of 6 times a round, that meant her chance of rolling a "1" INCREASED as she GOT BETTER to approximately 30% PER ROUND.
So to have FAIRNESS in fumbling-- the spellcasters would need a 30% chance to FUMBLE (not simply miss) with every spell, whether or not they rolled a d20 to target it.
Yeah. Conan himself, fighting with two weapons (not uncommon) would fumble far more than a clumsy 1st level commoner trying to use a weird weapon like a spiked chain. Huh-wuh?
As Apocalypso said, few spells require a ‘to hit” and if the fumble rules are dire enough, wizards simply chose spells that don’t. In fact, Conventional Wisdom says that battlefield controls spells are better than one target damage spells anyway.
It looks like both Apocalypso and DrDeth...
With attack rolls OR saves fumbling, it's an improvement. The one essential distinction that you haven't appeared to grasp yet is FREQUENCY!
As martials get BETTER they get MORE d20 rolls. As they get MORE d20 rolls they fumble MORE FREQUENTLY.
This does not happen to Spellcasters who are improving with every level.
To get something approaching Fairness:
Every round a Spellcaster should roll
3 d20's at level 4
6 d20's at level 8
9 d20's at level 12
12 d20's at level 16
and 15 d20's at level 20.
If ANY of the d20's are a 1-- it's a fumble.
Those are the odds that a martial character faces.
The BETTER ungodly superlative speed you have-- the more frequently you become the party buffoon.
|
|
I wouldn't punish people for rolling 1s regularly (as people have mentioned, some characters get lots of attacks, and will roll 1s fairly frequently), but since rolling a 20 and then a 1 happens in ~1/400 rolls, I think it's ok to get a little wacky with it.
Here's what I would do: make the hit a successful crit, BUT something bad also happens. Getting your weapon stuck is classic, though in my imagination it's kind of like "You deal the zombie a devastating slash across the stomach!" (good) "Its last meal - namely, some halfling's brain - sprays across your face. You're sickened until you spend a move action wiping it off!" (bad)
Rolling a 20 and then a 1 should represent a mix of good and bad, IMO. That way your players won't get *too* mad at you, but you can still get some extra flavor in there. I'd use the rules of the Dirty Trick combat maneuver, but that part is pretty malleable.
In my games, critical misses from natural 1s can only occur on the first attack. So if you get four attacks per round, you only risk a fumble once.
Now could people PLEASE stop straw-manning and trying to insist that fumbles automatically mean full-attackers get more fumbles as they level? Please?
In YOUR games. Not in most games where fumbles are used. In MY games, no one has any chance to fumble. That doesn't mean other games dont use fumbles, now does it?
@137ben--
You are right. I did not read the sentences you put before the block of quotes, only the sentences after. I apologize.
It wasn't a straw man to me, as I was the only martial in a party of 4 players, and this was actually happening to my character. "1's were automatic critical fumbles. It took weeks before I was able to get the GM and the 3 spellcasters to see my point. They just thought I was a whiner and didn't enjoy the humor of falling on my butt into the BBEG's trap or breaking my rare weapon, whilst they NEVER fumbled. Not a straw man. Life experience. With nice folks. Who didn't get math.
Finally I took a suggestion from someone on the boards. (I wish I could remember who to thank.) I told the mage to spam me AND the mooks with haste. He was like huh? but did as I asked. Then I fought defensively and did acrobatic cheerleading moves thru them, provoking as many AoO's as I could. In 3 rounds, most of the mooks had crit fumbled themselves and I never swung my blade. As a better Ninja then the real world has ever seen, my best tactical move was never to attack.
That made the point. And then our GM went to confirming criticals. AND instituted a rule similar to yours-- only one fumble a night.
In a party with all spellcasters I'm still the only one fumbling, but at least its once a night (4 combats usually) instead of once every couple of rounds.
TL;DR: To the OP, at early levels fumbles can add fun and creativity to your combats. But at mid-levels please check in with your martials again. At level 8 I'm probably swinging about 200 times a night, so this rare 20-1 combo will happen to me every other game night on average. And will NEVER happen to my spellcasting teammates. So the fun gets to be a little lopsided.
In YOUR games. Not in most games where fumbles are used. In MY games, no one has any chance to fumble. That doesn't mean other games dont use fumbles, now does it?It means that you can't reasonably argue that fumbles are unfair because the "automatically" mean that martials have a chance to fumble 4+ times per round, as both you and apocolypse seem to think is the case. Basically, you have been complaining about a poor implementation of a fumble system and projecting that hate on to all fumble systems, even if not all fumble systems share the flaw you keep complaining about.
EDIT: Or, in other words, you have successfully convinced everyone on the thread that a fumble system in which martials risk fumbling on every attack roll and casters never risk fumbling is an unfair system. Of course, there was no one to convince, since everyone on this thread so far has advocated either a fairer fumble system (such as only risking a fumble on one attack, and having an equal risk of fumble for spells), or, as you want, no fumble system at all. You've presented a very convincing straw-man, but it doesn't say anything about the viability of fumble systems other than the very specific fumble system which you set up to knock down.
Really? Ok the Op sez it happens on a 20 followed by a 1. Nothing about only once a round.
CalethosVB also sez Nothing about only once a roundMapleswitch also sez Nothing about only once a round
Gilfalas also sez Nothing about only once a round… and so forth.
So, exactly who is that “everyone on this thread” again?
So, yes, I can indeed, argue both points, as few fumble systems take both into account.
In fact, the Fumble deck sold by PF does suggest only on the first hit as one of several ways of using it, but makes no effort to have spellcasters fumble anything but a normal to-hit roll.
My humble suggestion to the OP would be to simply describe something unusual or funny. Hit solidly, but fail to do extra damage (critical) due to a sudden very wet flatulence that causes the PC to concentrate on squeezing cheeks together to avoid summoning brown ooze. Or something equally plausible that fits with the mood of your game.
Speaking from experience, I would definitely not recommend a penalty of any sort. No -2 on anything. Just some flavour commentary that is unusual is more than enough. Of course this recommendation is biased by my absolute hatred of critical fumbles.
I don't make my players roll to confirm natural twenties so a one after the natural twenty would be treated as a fumble as usual. That's just me though.
I think the point a lot of folks in their kneejerk reaction to yell "There is no such thing as badwrongfun!," is that people who hate fumbles hate them. Not some irrational, we can't see that some people like them way, but are able to notice that maybe not everyone at a table has as much fun with them as the OP might think. I don't know the OP, or his table, so maybe they all really are all on the exact same page on this issue, if so great. He seems like he is trying to be reasonable about it, and is looking for feedback instead of being randomly convinced whatever he happened to make up is super awesome, so that speaks well of him. But I've seen many a table with a runner just as convinced of everyone loved something when most didn't care and one (or more) PC(s) just accepted that his GM liked X no matter what he did/said, so they endured it. And if you tell me that a blind spot makes someone a horrible runner, I guess we every runner is horrible. Even for people who do like fumbles there are still lots of stupid ways to go about it.
So making the points of, 'Be careful some people just don't like fumbles, they are easy to get wrong, and can often make the weaker classes even worse, and that is very annoying to some players," doesn't mean someone put up a strawman or told anyone how to play the game. So you know, chill.
What we do at our table for a 20 then 1 or vice versa is it treated a confirmed crit but they suffer a ill consequence as well such as the attack hitting them as well or it attacks an ally.Okay I need some suggestions in what to do when someone rolls a 20 and then a 1 to confirm. Something fun and something with consequence but jot game breaking.
I used to go with that set of rolling as a critical miss and have something zany happen but rolling with a grp of dms and need some advice or suggestions in how to go with the rolling 20 and then a 1.
Preciate in advance the suggestions.
This thread is almost 2 years old. The OP has likely found a solution. :)
....and hopefully one better than recently suggested :)