Have to confirm the fumble(miss) with a full BAB attack, even if the fumble is on an iterative. Usually also have a 'miss by ten or more' rule on it as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, with critical fumbles, you have a serious gap in power between martial and spellcaster.
This is also exploitable.
In a game with critical fumbles, you can go with the ultimate exploiter of such houserule, the Witch.
The Witch can create a nearly constant reroll effect throughout combat, nearly doubling the chance for critical failures.
This ups the power of the Witch, and reroll mechanics in general.
This devastates Gunslingers, and UMD focused PCs, along with Monks and Two-Weapon Fighting builds, which are usually utilized by things like Rogues.
In the end, you punish the weakest of classes, and reward the more powerful ones.
This also does little to the common big bad enemies, who focus on one big attack, like a bite, or spellcaster enemies.
For me, it totally changes how I build a PC, as the effects of such a houserule effect the entire gameplay, and feel, of a campaign.
Well, with critical fumbles, you have a serious gap in power between martial and spellcaster.
This is also exploitable.
In a game with critical fumbles, you can go with the ultimate exploiter of such houserule, the Witch.
The Witch can create a nearly constant reroll effect throughout combat, nearly doubling the chance for critical failures.
This ups the power of the Witch, and reroll mechanics in general.
This devastates Gunslingers, and UMD focused PCs, along with Monks and Two-Weapon Fighting builds, which are usually utilized by things like Rogues.
In the end, you punish the weakest of classes, and reward the more powerful ones.
This also does little to the common big bad enemies, who focus on one big attack, like a bite, or spellcaster enemies.
For me, it totally changes how I build a PC, as the effects of such a houserule effect the entire gameplay, and feel, of a campaign.
How many fumble games have you actually played in? Having both playedand gmed many games with and without, i can tell you that at least in our games it doesn'tproduce anything nearly so dramatic.
... Added penalties are unnecessary and really just set up a mentality "GM vs Players" which is a poor situation to have. ...How so? Assuming, that is, that the GM is bound by the same rules as the players are? If the same rules apply, I don't see the issueThere's a good summary of some of the issues in a sidebar in one of the D&D books, but basically, things that introduce large random variance like critical fumbles tend to, over time, have a very large chance of hurting the players badly. Without them, if things are tuned pretty well, the players will generally win and have a reasonable option for bailing if things go badly. With them, sooner or later bad rolls will likely result in a TPK.
There's a parallel to one of the 3E changes: Mind flayers no longer had a resource to use for Psionic Blast, they could just do it at will. This doesn't matter because they aren't usually active for long enough for anyone to care, and tracking their psi points was a nuisance.
Using the above fumble rules haven't had a fumble-related TPK once.
Do you have wizards check every round to see if their spells fail?What makes you think I'm having anyone check every round for fumbles, that leads you to suggest this loaded question?
I was trying to adress the double atandard wity fumble rules as a way to adress how ludicrous they are.
An 11th level ranger hasted checks 7 times a round to see if he drops his weapon. Statistslly this means it shoukd hsppen about 1 in 3 rounds give or take a bit.
If he drops his sword his turn basically ends and he then spends q round picking his sword up. For some rrason peoplw think this happening once wveey 18 seconds is realistic and fun.
On the other hand the wizard just vasts fireball. He doesn't roll a d20 for every 2d6 fireball damage and have it abort if he rolks a 1 or get told he has to spend a round picking up spell components he dropped bevause he rolled a 1 on the fireball.
So why is the ranger forced to suffer punishment for lots of attacid?
Err my point was that fumble rules punish martial characters the higher level they go. I don't see how a lvl 11 twf ranger being hasted is some weird corner case example. That will be almost every fight fir him.
Ill simplify it then. A lvl 6 twf ranger checks for fumbles twice as much as a lvl 5 ranger. However I'm not a math person so I don't know what 5% 4x a round is. I do know the party wizard doesnt roll dice every round to see if his spells fail.
Although I do find the idea of a wizard on his hands and knees trying to scoop up batguano kind of funny.
Really I'm trying to demonstrat is rolling a 1 is a statistical probability that goes up aw charactes get stronger. It increases the chance of flubbing as they gett better. These rules are not fun they slow games down and ignore the fact that the strongest classes in the game rarely are subject to it.
But as I said in a previous post its something that really bugs me and is one of the few things I'd consider walking out of a game over.
so to recap...
1. No., No such rule exists in PF.
2. Many people use a fumble system, tailored to their own abilities, whether be through confirming, reflex save or percentile, it adds depth and flavor to a game world (imo)
3. It does cause issues to melee more then casters.
4. It does typically shift the balance of power a little to the enemies, but can also make a powerful enemy somewhat weaker, surprisingly which groups love.
ERGO:
Decide if your group should/will use, and which version you intend on, and either way, have fun!
However, the vast majority of the time, players have fewer attacks than that, or need to take standard actions, or any number of other things that result in a fumble being an uncommon occurrence. Meanwhile, there are as many attack rolls being made by enemies, all of whom may fumble themselves.
TWF and haste are pretty common in the games in which I've played, but let's toss that out. Let's even assume that for some reason our martial combatant only gets a standard action each round.
Assume we have 100 rounds of combat where the martial and the caster are each able to make one attack or cast one spell each round. The martial has 100 chances to fumble. The caster, who generally will have one out of every 5 spells that require an attack roll, will have 20.
The simple fact is that the martial character is always, by the nature of the class, going to have a markedly higher chance to fumble than the caster. And thus critical fumble rules are more punitive to martials than casters.
[edit]
In my mind, the only way to make critical fumble rules fair in a game where there are casters is to make the caster's critical fumbles far more punishing. But that wrecks the game as well (in my opinion); the martial might throw his sword away, but he will do that 20 times over the course of 100 rolls. In order to balance that out, when the caster does fumble his infrequent check, he'd have to - I dunno - self-immolate or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have wizards check every round to see if their spells fail?What makes you think I'm having anyone check every round for fumbles, that leads you to suggest this loaded question?
Every attack roll is a check for fumbles in your system. Meanwhile, Mr. Wizard is back there casting spells with no attack roll and not risking it.
Martials need more penalties?
|
|
How many fumble games have you actually played in? Having both playedand gmed many games with and without, i can tell you that at least in our games it doesn'tproduce anything nearly so dramatic.
You might like it, and therefore, you will defend it.
That's fine.
I have had two character deaths from this system. One was whilst attacking a door.
I despised both. I usually just roll with the punches, when it comes to PC death, but these two actually made me physically pained with anger.
Had I chose to go with the fumble system, and designed a wacky PC, to fit the three stooges wacky flavor this houserule brings, I would have been fine, and had fun.
No, I was told there was an entirely different feel, prior to the beginning of each campaign.
You run a houserule like this, then you be sure to let everyone know.
Not everyone loves it, and it can be a big deal for some.
Don't trivialize it's effect on some.
That's just demeaning.
Every attack roll is equally a check for crits in the same system. Meanwhile, Mr. Wizard is back there casting spells with no attack roll and never benefitting from it. Buff casters?Every attack roll is a check for fumbles in your system. Meanwhile, Mr. Wizard is back there casting spells with no attack roll and not risking it.Do you have wizards check every round to see if their spells fail?What makes you think I'm having anyone check every round for fumbles, that leads you to suggest this loaded question?
The caster is auto-hitting on all but the 20 spells that require attack rolls. The martial is rolling every time to hit.
Assume a 5% chance to fumble and a 20% miss chance. Over 100 'attacks, the martial will fumble 5 times and miss another 20. The caster is only rolling 20 rolls for his 'attacks'; he's fumbling once and missing another 4 times.
The fighter hits 75 times. The caster hits 95.
Every attack roll is equally a check for crits in the same system. Meanwhile, Mr. Wizard is back there casting spells with no attack roll and never benefitting from it. Buff casters?Every attack roll is a check for fumbles in your system. Meanwhile, Mr. Wizard is back there casting spells with no attack roll and not risking it.Do you have wizards check every round to see if their spells fail?What makes you think I'm having anyone check every round for fumbles, that leads you to suggest this loaded question?
Fireball. Lightning Bolt. Magic Missile. Dominate Person. Black Tentacles. Need I go on?
|
|
One was whilst attacking a door.Your GM is terrible if he can't ignore the idiotic consequences of his own rule.
Different DM. I told him after that I hated the fact I was not told about it earlier.
Immediately after, I helped my fellow PC build his Witch to bombard all enemies with rerolls.
Many fights were won without a single full attack from any PC.
He decided to switch systems entirely.
What point of mine are you trying to counter? I've never said this affects all classes equally.The caster is auto-hitting on all but the 20 spells that require attack rolls. The martial is rolling every time to hit.
Assume a 5% chance to fumble and a 20% miss chance. Over 100 'attacks, the martial will fumble 5 times and miss another 20. The caster is only rolling 20 rolls for his 'attacks'; he's fumbling once and missing another 4 times.
The fighter hits 75 times. The caster hits 95.
The one that I quoted in my response?
Your statement implied that this is somehow balanced out by the chance for criticals, and seemed to imply that it statistically wouldn't make that much of a different to the martial combatant. Respectively: It's not, and it does.
The martial combatant is already being penalized by rolling a 1. Even if you roll to confirm a fumble and he doesn't confirm, he's still missed that attack.
From personal experience, I've found that an encounter generally favors casters, then ranged martials, then melee martials. I'm not saying that everything bad for martials is automatically bad, per se - only that I think they already operate under enough penalties without adding more on.
so to recap...
1. No., No such rule exists in PF.
2. Many people use a fumble system, tailored to their own abilities, whether be through confirming, reflex save or percentile, it adds depth and flavor to a game world (imo)
3. It does cause issues to melee more then casters.
4. It does typically shift the balance of power a little to the enemies, but can also make a powerful enemy somewhat weaker, surprisingly which groups love.ERGO:
Decide if your group should/will use, and which version you intend on, and either way, have fun!
Ultimately this is the most important point. Have a discussion with your group about how you all prefer to play it.
I'd suggest not doing things like Dex checks (because those don't scale with level), but that's a personal preference of mine.
I think I may go to double ones, personally. If you roll the second 1, you critical fail (maybe drop your weapon or trip). That way, the element of suspense still exists if you roll a natural 1, but it will very rarely ever amount to anything more than you simply missed your attack. For casters, maybe some kind of magical mishap. Something inconvenient but not totally debilitating.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, critical fumble. Now everybody is a gunslinger.
Any system where a better fighter is more likely to drop her sword in a given round is just wrong.
Ah, critical fumble. Now everybody is a gunslinger.
Any system where a better fighter is more likely to drop her sword in a given round is just wrong.
You know the weird thing? I practically froth at the mouth when I discuss fumble rules and past experience has supported my view. However I have a lvl 13 gunslinger in skull & shackles and the misfire rules haven't bothered me at all. But this may be bevause at low levelw I did fire once switch hit to melee and now use dead shot. For the record I did roll 5 1 in a row once to trigger a missfire with deadshot :p
How many fumble games have you actually played in? Having both playedand gmed many games with and without, i can tell you that at least in our games it doesn'tproduce anything nearly so dramatic.You might like it, and therefore, you will defend it.
That's fine.
I have had two character deaths from this system. One was whilst attacking a door.
I despised both. I usually just roll with the punches, when it comes to PC death, but these two actually made me physically pained with anger.
Had I chose to go with the fumble system, and designed a wacky PC, to fit the three stooges wacky flavor this houserule brings, I would have been fine, and had fun.
No, I was told there was an entirely different feel, prior to the beginning of each campaign.
You run a houserule like this, then you be sure to let everyone know.
Not everyone loves it, and it can be a big deal for some.
Don't trivialize it's effect on some.
That's just demeaning.
Don't over dramatize its effect on most. That's just insulting.
And are you SURE you ran the fumble system I was talking about? Where to get a fumble you have to A: roll a one. B: miss by at least ten C: Miss ac on a confirm roll at full BAB?
Not every fumble system is "a one automatically fumbles."
|
Fumble rules can be fun if the players are fully aware that it makes things harder for themselves, probably doesn't affect spellcasters (with the rule we're talking about), and the players still think it'll be fun to include anyway.
Dying due to swiping yourself in the leg can be pretty hilarious, sometimes.
Crit/Fumble chances:
Martials have essentially one way to defeat their opponent: attack roll.
Casters have several: attack roll, saving throw, autohit w/o save.
All martial options can crit and fumble.
Only some caster options can crit and fumble.
Martials make more attacks as they level.
Casters make the same number of attacks, but with more damage as they level.
More chances to fumble per round means a higher chance to fumble.
Therefore, martials become more likely to crit and fumble as they level.
Therefore, casters remain unaffected as they level.
This shows martials are affected by fumble rules disproportionately to casters. As some other threads have shown, getting 8 or more attacks a round can be done by optimized builds, with extras from AoOs. Additionally, casters can select options to reduce the needed number of attack rolls, effectively allowing them to eliminate them entirely.
Crit/Fumble consequences:
Crit: exta damage to opponent; easy to improve with a Keen weapon, etc.
Fumble: depending on the system, could be as bad as a crit on an ally.
This shows an increased variability in the results of an attack. It has a strict maximum benefit, but a huge variation in penalty. It could be balanced, but can easily be otherwise, especially if fumbles stop full attacks.
Can they be fun? Yes. Do they guarantee fun? No. Depends on your play style.
I prefer to not use fumble systems. I like crit systems somewhat, but it is mitigated when the BBEG gets them. I think it makes for better consistency if you forgo both. You can more readily determine if you can withstand one more hit to provide cover for another PC, or if you need to bug out. With crits in play, the worst hit could be 4X*. Given the level of damage BBEGs can dish out with a single hit, getting 4X that can kill all but the hardiest of PCs. It is this randomness of the system determining results that detracts from roleplay. I love the RP descriptions of rolling a 1, but I don't care for the mechanics that is used to implement any fumble system I have seen.
/cevah
* I recall reading about something that could bump up the critical multiplier, but cannot recall the name. Was I dreaming?
Ah, critical fumble. Now everybody is a gunslinger.
Any system where a better fighter is more likely to drop her sword in a given round is just wrong.
Have you ever fought with an actual medieval sword? I have. I can quickly tell you that the weight and the swings you need to do are very hard to pull of. Now I know that I am a novice and with training you will get a lot better, but swinging that sword 5 times in the span of 6 seconds is going to be one for the record books, just saying. To me it makes sense that a guy swinging that wildly has a higher risk of fumbling.
Before you pull the "But he is supposed to be legendary, so don't compare him to people in real life", let me just state that a real life archer can if highly trained fire 12 succesful hits within 6 seconds. So if you get to "legendary" status you should be able to pull of way more than that by comparison right? Except you can't according to the system.
I am not saying that all this pseudo comparison of real life is a good way to make rules, but you brought it up. We all know that by RAW there is no such thing as a fumble (other than the automatic miss on a natural 1). I don't see the problem with people doing houserules on this, as long as the GM don't pull it down over his players out of the blue. Please refrain from saying how others play the game is "wrong" as long as they aren't claiming that it is RAW or RAI.
Whoa, where did I bring up real life? All I brought up was probability. Statistically, a higher level fighter will spend more time with his sword on the floor, and that's both ridiculous and unfun. Fortunately, it's also not a rule.
Gunslingers get benefits that more than balance out their misfire, and the more frequent misfires with multiple attacks make sense from a mechanical perspective--skill doesn't change physics. Fighters end up looking clumsy every twenty or thirty in-game seconds or so, and I just can't rationalize it.
I have no problem with groups deciding to play this way and having fun because of it, but from an RP-enabling perspective and a game design perspective it is flawed. Sometimes I like playing silly slapstick games where I can decapitate myself with a mace while trying to bash open a door, but I don't pretend that becoming more likely to do so as I level is a good design precept for a serious sword-and-sorcery game.
Everyone remember that time Aragorn lost his grip on his sword while swinging it and lost a good 6 seconds of attacking? Really just me?
And I'm pretty sure Artemis dropped his daggers at least 20 times during his series? Huh, just me again.
Well... Conan has fumbled tons of weapons... You know the sarcasm isn't worth it at this point. Hero's don't fumble weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stereoptypical fumble rules in action.
Wizard to Cleric: I say, what is that the Fighter and Rogue are doing.
Cleric: Well good fellow I believe it is called comedy.
Wizard: Ah yes, of course. That should distract our adversaries quite nicely while we solve the problem.
Cleric: Indeed. It helps that we have no need of comedy.
After playing with fumbles for over 4 years now, I have to say we never had excessive amounts of fumbles.
I guess at average we get 3-4 "natural 1"s on a given evening. One of those is usually confirmed.
Same goes for critical hits.
Maybe our group is simply bad at rolling extremes on attacks though. I see most 1's and 20's rolled on saves and skill checks.
For myself its definitely true.
I played a character specializing on many attacks and during my whole career from level 8 to 20+ I landed 3 critical hits (in the end he had 11 attacks per round).
I also played a character specializing on crits while TFW with kukris. I don't I think I got more than 1-3 confirmed critical hits with him after playing him from level 1 to 6 where he died (was a good death though).
As such I have given up on crit builds.
Wierd because it really is just a statistics thing. A crit build with 15-20 threat range and 4 attacks should work out to 1 crit a round. With 5 attacks a character will drop their weapon every 5 ounds on average.
|
Fumbles are part of the game, ask someone who trys to use a wand and they roll a 1.
Are you saying that if a wizard uses a wand of fireball that he has to roll a d20? And if he rolls a 1 then he fumbles? I'd like a rules quote!
The rules say that a natural 1 is a failure. Since u are doing a full round action to make multiple attacks, u could very well say that rolling a natural 1 ends ur full round action. Since a full round action can be considered "1" action sequence in which to make multiple attacks, the dm is very well in rights to say that on ur very first roll rolling a natural 1 or anytime within ends it. The reason why I say this is because the rules state rolling a natural 1 is always a failure. Doesn't say miss, etc etc. It says failure and because u are doing a fullround action, if u roll a natural 1 anytime during it u have failed and can be taking as failing to complete ur full round action.
I don't think you go far enough. If your mission is to Rescue The Princess, when you roll a 1 then you fail. Fail to Rescue The Princess. She dies. Ah, well. Unlucky.
'My players enjoy fumbles.'
Right.
|
|
Whereas the fighter fumbled his sword swing and sent the sword flying 15 feet away. Now he has to provoke AoO's by both moving AND picking up his sword, which eats his entire next turn. Or, alternatively, he can draw that non-magical, non-DR bypassing, backup weapon that he has and be only running at 50% effectiveness.Just to use this as an example, I for one don't have things nearly so dramatic happen on a fumble.
Yeah, it penalizes Martials (or ranged characters) more than it does casters, but if it gets to the point where it creates enough of an issue to be detrimental to the group's good time, I'll drop the use of it. (Also, since I only let t happen once a fight, it may happen "sooner" for some classes, but not repeatedly.
A few times you have said something similar: You wouldn't apply the AoOs when chasing after a dropped weapon, or wouldn't use such an extreme fumble result of a weapon flying through the air, you wouldn't use fumbles when attacking a door, etc.
What I see is that your solution to the absurdities of fumbles...is not to use them....!
What I see is that your solution to the absurdities of fumbles...is not to use them....!You are begging the question; it seems your logic is as follows:
(1) Assume an absurd fumble system. (2) Remove absurdities. (3) show that the proper solution was not to use the system.If they aren't absurd in the first place, I have no need to create a solution to their absurdities. That is, I do not have to "remove" fumbles from the situations above. I only implement them in certain places to begin with.
If you are of the opinion that "all fumble systems are absurd", then that's valid, but obviously there is some disagreement on that point.
The problem is you have now created rules to lessen the effectd of the house rule that then over ride the other game rules.
So if I free action drop my sword and move action pick it or anything else up it provokes but the universe magically can tell when I'm picking up from a fumble?
Again what I have hammered on repeatedly through this. Diacussion. Do you make a lvl 10 wizard roll 5 times w round to cast fireball to see if any portion is lost then make him spend a round picking up bat guano off the ground if he rolls a 1.
Seriously why do people think these horrible rules are thematic or fun. I played all of 1st 2nd and 3rd ed subject to these horrid ruled and in 30 years do you know how many times a sword was dropped in a dramatic fashion? Once.
Because very few games take place on narrow ledged next to certain doom. Well not daily. Why is reaking tge fighters attack routine and forcing him to pick his sword up every 5 rounds fun?