Natural 1 = failed full round attack?


Rules Questions

101 to 128 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:
Quote:
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.

It's actually the other way around.

Decide the mechanics of your fumble system. Although there are lots of possible variables, they all start with rolling a natural 1. Then, maybe, call for further rolls, like fumble confirmation checks, maybe only one per round max., maybe rolling a second 1, whatever. Then decide the in-game consequences of a fumble: maybe drop your weapon, maybe it flies out a random distance/direction, maybe hit an ally, maybe damage yourself....

So make all these mechanical decisions, and there you have your fumble mechanic for your table.

At this point, other people can see it and point to whatever absurdities are inherent in that system, and there will be some! All of the extra rules, beyond 'roll a nat 1', are attempts at mitigating those absurdities.

But you, Bizbag, are not done! Now you decide when not to use these rules! Do you write these exceptions down or make it up on the fly?

Whatever rules a group plays by should be transparent and not arbitrary.

What I see are various attempts to mitigate the absurdities of a rule, when the best solution is not to have fumble rules at all.


ryric wrote:
The problem here is that your 20th level TWFer actually fumbles more than the equivalent 1st level guy. You don't necessarily get better at ability checks as you level, not like BAB or saves. So comparing a guy who makes 7-8 attacks per round vs a guy making 1 with the same Dexterity means Mr "lots o attacks" fumbles far more often in your system. Also remember that a ranger can TWF without having a colossal Dex.

This is an overblown argument (though as others say, some fumble systems are silliness incarnate - it's good to be cautious). We should look at some numbers here, but first, two things:

  • If a TWF is no better at dex checks at 20th level than at 1st, that's a character flaw. Fumble system drawing that out: Feature.
  • IMHO, Having there be a chance of an incredibly long sequence of attacks halting (both PC and creatures): Feature.

Now, example. 1st level TWF with +2 Dex and two attacks, vs 20th level TWF with +5 Dex and a miscellaneous +1 to checks (ala pale green ioun stone) and eight attacks:

Spoiler:
"Fumble Type" - 1st - 20th
Hits for Full Dg - .0% - .0% {Self or Ally}
Hits for Half Dg - 2% - .0% {Self or Ally}
Drops Weapon - 2% - 7.4%
End of Actions - 2.4% - 9.2%
# Attacks Lost - .03 - .60 {Average attacks lost per round, excl. AoOs}
% Attacks Lost - 1.6% - 7.5% {Average attacks lost per round}

We are not talking about a huge impact, in sheer number of attacks or % of attacks. Especially when you remember that the 20th Level TWF is up-close and personal with lots of big nasties, who are facing these same odds.

Additional example:
20th level Cleric with +3 Dex and prayer, vs. 20th level Barbarian hasted with +5 Dex and Critical Focus:
"Fumble Type" - Clr - Barb
Hits for Full Dg - .0% - .0% {Self or Ally}
Hits for Half Dg - 1.5% - .0% {Self or Ally}
Drops Weapon - 3% - 1.2%
End of Actions - 3.7% - 6.1%
# Attacks Lost - .08 - .20 {Average attacks lost per round, excl. AoOs}
% Attacks Lost - 4.1% - 2.5% {Average attacks lost per round}

I agree that any system that eventually results in an auto-death cutting off your own head is not the best of ideas most of the time.

Edit: Absurdities are fun! Perhaps even the most fun!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
But you, Bizbag, are not done! Now you decide when not to use these rules! Do you write these exceptions down or make it up on the fly?

Actually, yes, I do make things up on the fly, because it is my job as a GM to enforce or discard rules when they stand in the way of fun. The vast majority of the time, enforcing rules consistently is what makes the game fun. But in my experience, the LEAST fun part of the game is enforcing a rule - simply for the sake of enforcing it - when the results are illogical, paradoxical, or simply bizarre.

Do you know why I approach the game like this? Because the rules encourage me to, for one, but second, because I speak to the other players before games and between sessions - after all, a group of five people playing Pathfinder is not a Judge and Four Players, it's five players, all of whom want to have a good time (including the GM).

The fact that the very idea of making ad hoc adjustments to the rules, with communication with players and everyone's interests in mind, makes you so furious is what worries me. This has never been a declaration of a Rule Everyone Should Use, it started as just me sharing what I use in my game, to include a bit of randomness without it being slapstick comedy or crippling to gameplay.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Majuba wrote:

This is an overblown argument (though as others say, some fumble systems are silliness incarnate - it's good to be cautious). We should look at some numbers here, but first, two things:

  • If a TWF is no better at dex checks at 20th level than at 1st, that's a character flaw. Fumble system drawing that out: Feature.
  • IMHO, Having there be a chance of an incredibly long sequence of attacks halting (both PC and creatures): Feature.

Now, example. 1st level TWF with +2 Dex and two attacks, vs 20th level TWF with +5 Dex and a miscellaneous +1 to checks (ala pale green ioun stone) and eight attacks:
** spoiler omitted **

We are not talking about a huge impact, in sheer number of attacks or % of attacks. Especially when you remember that the 20th Level TWF is up-close and personal with lots of big nasties, who are facing these same odds.

** spoiler omitted **...

Even in your example the 20th level TWF is worse at fumbling than the 1st level one. Also we play very diffent games if your average 20 Barb has a 20 Dex, and clerics have a 16. RAW, things like +6 to all physical stats items and +5 inherent tomes are just very hard to get...either you have to get lucky and randomly roll one, or spend a long time (months) crafting one. Those items exceed the base value of even the most bustling trade center metropolis. In my experience the barb more likely has +2 Dex mod and the cleric a +0-1. Either way your system doesn't scale with skill and actually gets worse as you gain attacks.

Here is my acid test for a fumble system: (Btw, "fumble" in this context means "any consequence for rolling a nat 1 other than just missing the attack")
Imagine a militia of twenty warrior 1s, proficient with their weapons, practicing attacks against straw dummies. They practice for 10 minutes, making 1 attack a round. 100 attacks total per warrior. Assume they each roll a standard statistical spread of rolls, so each rolls a 1 5 times in 100 rolls. 5 of them will roll a "double 1" sometime during the practice.

Acid test part 1 is this: if any of the militia end up injured, there is a problem. If any end up dying or dead, you have a very big problem.

Now imagine a 16+ level full BAB dedicated TWFer, who gets 7 attacks a round. He grabs a nonmagical weapon off the rack and also practices against the target dummy for 10 minutes. He has no other magical items or effects as this is a comparison of pure martial skill. He rolls 700 attack rolls, so he gets 35 rolls of 1, and one "double 1."

Acid test part 2: If the legendary warrior fumbles more than a basic militia member, your system has problems.

Almost no fumble systems pass my acid test. Either part.

Majuba, here's how I see your system:

Spoiler:
We'll go with a 12 Dex for the militia members. Over the course of the 100 natural 1s they roll in total, 5 strike an ally for full damage, 10 hit themselves for half, 10 hit allies for half. Looks like a lot of hideous damage for a practice session to me. Even rolling just a d8+2 for damage, I'd bet several of them are now dying as they likely only have 5 hp, and statiscally each of them has been struck at least once. I'm calling that a part 1 fail, just training against an immobile object is deadly in your world.

Part 2: We'll assume a 20 Dex for our TWFer, as he needs a 19 to qualify for all the feats anyway. The average militia guy rolled 5 ones, and 75% result in something on your fumble chart so 3.75 fumbles in 10 minutes for level 1 guy. TWFing Beowulf here rolls 35 ones, and 50% still have a fumble result, so he fumbles 17.5 times, or 4.7 times as often as the basic guard in town. Beowulf wannabe, despite being one of the best warriors in the world, looks like a complete fool when facing a target dummy. Part 2 fail.

Now it may look like I'm calling fumble systems wrongbadfun, and that is because sometimes they really are. I've seen too many tables where the GM enforced a fumble system for their own lulz while the players hated it but put up with it anyway.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bizbag, what you say seems reasonable, on the surface. The idea that you can discard a rule is not a recommendation for a rule!

Bizbag wrote:
But in my experience, the LEAST fun part of the game is enforcing a rule - simply for the sake of enforcing it - when the results are illogical, paradoxical, or simply bizarre.

The fumble rule that starts 'when you roll a natural 1 on an attack roll' is already absurd at that point!

It starts with a seemingly innocent, reasonable and fair idea that 'sometimes things go wrong in combat'. Nothing wrong with that. But then this concept is modelled by 'when you roll a nat 1 on an attack roll'....

Think about that for a moment.....

Conceptually, all sorts of stuff can go wrong in combat! You might trip while moving, might accidentally hit an object or ally, might drop the bat guano while casting a spell, might get your pick jammed in the lock, might get distracted at a crucial moment....an infinite variety of possibilities....

....in practice, none of this stuff happens unless you are attacking with a weapon.

And the more times your greater skill allows you to land a telling blow, the more chance of random badness happening to you.

And all of this mundane skill somehow contributes to having bad luck....but messing about with forces Man Was Not Meant To Know and chucking fireballs like there was no tomorrow....won't result in any bad luck from this system at all!

The whole thing starts with absurdity, and goes on from there!

In another, similar thread it was shown that a hasted 20th level TWFer with +5 magic weapons with which he has trained and used for years will roll a nat 1 once every 12.5 seconds....but a 1st level commoner who never picked up a two-bladed sword before will roll a nat 1 once every 2 minutes.

It is absurd that warriors with greater skill will catastrophically mess up more than warriors with less or no skill, and ways to mitigate 'roll a 1 and you fumble' are simply trying to make it slightly less absurd.

You want a fair system, that matches the 'bad stuff happens sometimes' idea? At the start of every creature's turn the DM secretly rolls 1d20; on a nat 1 something unlucky happens during that creatures turn, to be chosen by the DM as appropriate to the situation and the actions the creature is taking. Casting fireball? spell works as normal...,centred on caster. Attacking? Slip and fall prone at targets feet. Pulling random levers? *rubs hands*

I wouldn't like such a game. It takes the success/failure away from the decisions I make and makes my success/failure the result of DM whim and sense of humour. That is not heroic. That is slapstick.

It's still a better system than any which rely on rolling a nat 1 on an attack roll.

Bizbag, what would you do if a player said that he really, really doesn't want to play with fumble rules?


Bizbag wrote:
Quote:
But you, Bizbag, are not done! Now you decide when not to use these rules! Do you write these exceptions down or make it up on the fly?

Actually, yes, I do make things up on the fly, because it is my job as a GM to enforce or discard rules when they stand in the way of fun. The vast majority of the time, enforcing rules consistently is what makes the game fun. But in my experience, the LEAST fun part of the game is enforcing a rule - simply for the sake of enforcing it - when the results are illogical, paradoxical, or simply bizarre.

Do you know why I approach the game like this? Because the rules encourage me to, for one, but second, because I speak to the other players before games and between sessions - after all, a group of five people playing Pathfinder is not a Judge and Four Players, it's five players, all of whom want to have a good time (including the GM).

The fact that the very idea of making ad hoc adjustments to the rules, with communication with players and everyone's interests in mind, makes you so furious is what worries me. This has never been a declaration of a Rule Everyone Should Use, it started as just me sharing what I use in my game, to include a bit of randomness without it being slapstick comedy or crippling to gameplay.

My disdain for critical fumble aside, you're totally Doing It Right™. Keep playing the way you're playing.


Quote:
Bizbag, what would you do if a player said that he really, really doesn't want to play with fumble rules?

Then I would take his wishes into consideration, after he explained why he didn't want to play with them.


ryric wrote:
Even in your example the 20th level TWF is worse at fumbling than the 1st level one.

More frequently per round, less frequently per attack. And that was for a very minimal Dex TWF.

ryric wrote:
Also we play very different games if your average 20 Barb has a 20 Dex, and clerics have a 16. In my experience the barb more likely has +2 Dex mod and the cleric a +0-1.

We must indeed - your numbers are what I would expect on a L.1 of those classes.

ryric wrote:
RAW, things like +6 to all physical stats items and +5 inherent tomes are just very hard to get...either you have to get lucky and randomly roll one, or spend a long time (months) crafting one.

Hard to get... maybe. But at 20th level a belt of physical perfection +6 only represents 20% of your estimated wealth. For very sizable benefits. I don't think it would be uncommon. Also, there are quite a few items that boost ability checks.

ryric wrote:
Here is my acid test for a fumble system:

I like! Very good test for a variety of things, including a fumble system. If you saw any beheadings, I'd be worried. I submit that your test is appropriate for your preferences.

For my own preferences, I would say that your test doesn't factor in combat conditions (bloody weapons, muddy slopes, etc.) that contribute to chaos in combat.

Random factoid from the internet (only semi-applicable): Bootcamp washouts are 17% due to Injuries.

ryric wrote:
(Btw, "fumble" in this context means "any consequence for rolling a nat 1 other than just missing the attack")

That's the criteria I used for my numbers. However I would say that the typical fumble (i.e. similar to Fumble Deck effects) is far less prevalent for the L.20's, since they are front-loaded. The barbarian is 1 in 400 for dropping weapon for instance. and that's assuming he doesn't use a locked gauntlet :)


I once walked into a campaign with a TWF rogue I was very happy with, only to be told that the DM was using a "natural 1s are fumbles" rule. After a couple of fumbles in the first session, I stopped using TWF and just accepted the fact that I had wasted my only feat on something that, in that campaign, was an active impediment to me in combat. As if the -2 to attacks for a 0 BAB character wasn't bad enough! He later offered to make a new feat that would limit me to one fumble a round, and I realized that, after paying for improved two-weapon fighting, double slice, and all that, it just wasn't worth it. I spent the next two sessions showboating through RP and just accepted that I wasn't really allowed to be a real combatant.


ryric wrote:
Even in your example the 20th level TWF is worse at fumbling than the 1st level one.

well, remember in d20 system the chance of rolling a "1" is constant with each d20 roll, so the more d20 rolls the higher the probability of seeing a "1" over a round. The converse is that the high level combatant takes more effective "swings" per round than a neophyte. Thus a BAB of 15,10,5 will lead to more fumbles and more hits per round than a BAB of 2. If the fumble just means a non-hit, then the impact is minimal and generally confined to the average damage done per round metric. The other side of the fumble is the critical which doubles to triples weapon damage and most bonuses.

Having consequences beyond a non-hit makes the fumble too important.
You could argue that most criticals don't give you balance as not all 20s are criticals, and the usual x2 damage and most bonuses doubled doesn't quite enough to cover the lost hit where all bonuses would be applied. However, humans enjoy the big damage number and so it has remained as flavor.

Eliminating fumbles and criticals would reduce the variance in the average damage per round metric. Some flavor and excitement would be lost.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Unless you're going to make spellcasters roll for backlash or taint with every spell they cast (a la Living Death), I have no interest in such a system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Good arguements Malachi. If I make a rule that I have to arbitrarily decide against That rule is probably not gpod.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It's like introducing S&M to the bedroom.

Some like it, and some hate it.

Whatever you do, don't spring on anyone without warning, and be sure to have informed consent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evilserran wrote:
I have had a boss CR 25 Minotaur with levels of Barbarian and magically enchanted out of the wazoo, fight my group of three level 14's, as a tournament champion battle. The minotaur was Lord of the City, and had a rod of Enervation and an Earthquake hammer, he could merge together... After he nearly tore the head off the Ogre Fighter, and was working on the Orc monk, the Satyr cleric gave up trying to cast offensive spells, and went for the hail mary... pulled out his pipes and blew on em... BBEG rolled a 1 on will save, which in my group is autofail... BBEG fell to sleep....a 3 man CDG later, the group was victorious... fumbles work on both sides :)

1. a fumble is 3 times as likely at level 11 as level 1. You are making 3 times the attacks. Each one is another chance to fumble. It is not .05*.05*.05 which would be the chance to fumble all 3 times.

2. It may be on both sides but it is not equal. A PC needs to work to survive. A player gets one character that is going to have thousands of rolls. Your NPC will have a very limited number of rolls unless you're having him in combat with them every single time. Not to mention you have a limitless amount of NPC. That orc over there? Yeah he rolled a 1 and dropped his sword. But who cares? There are 5 more like him behind him and if necessary the GM can have more just run out of the bushes.

i.e. your stories can be as great as you want, and I'm glad you enjoyed them, but fumble rules are not conducive to good game play or fair to PC's. A PC has to roll one to possibly get major penalties. Your NPC rolls one, dies, and "oh look, next adventure there are magically more NPC's that none of them have taken experience, gold, or any form of penalty whatsoever for the last NPC dying. Who'da thunk?"

No that wasn't meant to be rude, just trying to drive a point home there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:
Quote:
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. I've personally called it out as my fumbles never provoking an AOO to recover. Yours is not the only example in the thread that objects to severe, slapstick fumbles, and while that's a valid concern, it's not the kind of fumble most DMs on the thread seem to be using.

That still doesn't directly address what I was getting at. Even if you don't do the "thrown weapon" fumble and he just drops it in his square, the fighter still has to waste an action on his next turn recovering his sword and thus can't perform a new full attack. And until then he can't really do anything offensively without provoking an AoO. The wizard doesn't have to spend an action recovering from anything. He just goes back to being at 100% effectiveness immediately.

So the fighter fumbles in the middle of a full attack. He drops his sword. Now he can't move away from the fight, he can't make AoO's without provoking one of his own unless he's spent a feat on Improved Unarmed Strike, and he can't make a full attack on his next turn because he has to spend a move action to pick up his weapon. The wizard fumbles his Disintegrate. He can still move in that same round and he has the opportunity to do the exact same thing next round.

For all intents and purposes, the wizard fumbling a ray attack is the exact same as if he had just missed normally. His damage output for the next round isn't affected at all, and he can just choose to use a spell that can't fumble next time(such as chain lightning or fireball), while the fighter loses 2/3 of his damage potential and runs the risk of fumbling a second time.

So unless you're have your spellcasters running the risk of a fumble with every single spell they cast, and having that fumble result in the caster going prone or becoming staggered for a turn, it disproportionately affects martials. Even if the spellcaster fumble makes them lose an action, they're only risking 1 fumble chance per turn while the martials are risking it up to 8 times a turn. So it still targets martials much worse than it does casters. And martials don't need even more stuff making them fall behind casters.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evilserran wrote:
BBEG rolled a 1 on will save, which in my group is autofail

You come across like you have the courage of your convictions by even enforcing a fumble on a nat 1 when rolling a save....

...but a nat 1 on a save is an autofail by the rules. It's not a houserule for your group, it's RAW.


Not to mention that the auto fail didn't result in the minotaur's horns falling off or anything.


Just to point out, regarding the severity of failures: Take a look at the critical fumble deck from Paizo. Its results are really nasty. Stuff from ability damage to bleed to self-damage to debilitating status effects.

The concept of a critical success is that you deal 2-3 times your weapon damage. The concept of a critical fumble (even from Paizo's perspective, at least taking their fumble deck as an example) is a failure doubled or trebled. So stuff like, "You throw your sword to the ground," is in fact pretty tame compared to the examples given by the design team.

Tangent:
I started role-playing with White Wolf's Storyteller system, 2nd edition. The original rules there were that if you had more 1s than successes on your roll, it was a fumble; even if you had 15 successes on the roll, if you had 16 1s, you still fumbled. The eventually changed this to having rolled no successes and at least one 1 because the other rules were just too painful.

My first experience with character death was actually due to a fumble: I attempted to toss a grenade at an enemy and fumbled the roll, and the GM ruled that I hit a girder overhead, which deflected it; he rolled to determine which direction it went, then after determining that it bounced back toward me, even rolled percentiles and told me, "If this comes up 95 or above, the grenade actually lands on you as it detonates; anything else, it lands nearby and you take half damage."

He rolled a 99. :P That character was just doomed from the start, heh.


The intent that my group origonally instituted fumble rules years and years ago was because when they happen in the movies its always some dramatic moment. Usually when standing at the edge of a pit of lava tall cliff and wing the sword goes over the edge. From a thematic story telling purpose i get this. The problem is as I have tried hammering through repeatedly is 1's and 20's are a statistic brought about by rolling repeatedly.

I guess, what i am in the end saying is That 20's need to have an opposite is a false argument, and this rule shows that alot have people have fallen into that trap. IT also shows that people seem to feel that somehow reality of the theoretical concept of flubbing your weapon somehow needs to be enforced in a game.

What frustrates me, is that when they use the rule they seem oblivious to the unfair bias to a specific play style that is already considered weaker by many players. Ie martial vs casting. In the previous posts ive hammered at the imagery of a Wizard flubbing his spell and spending the next round picking back guano off the ground, because that is basically what martials get asked to do.

Ultimately, if you have to create more rules to cover your rules or add an arbitrary judgement in to cover some aspect of the rule where it failes. For the record if i had to deal with a fumble rule (which i stress id rather gouge my own eyes out than have to play with) Id actually prefer a 100% random fumble rule than one constantly subjected to Dm judgement. I wouldnt want wether i dropped my weapon or flung it 15' to be determined on wether the dm is in a bad mood.


Unruly wrote:
For all intents and purposes, the wizard fumbling a ray attack is the exact same as if he had just missed normally.

For the 'drop your weapon' fumble system, yes. But if you're using the Paizo critical fumble cards, there are all kinds of nasty magical accidents that could befall you.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious: how does the official Paizo fumble deck rules generate a fumble for a spell that has no attack roll?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I'm curious: how does the official Paizo fumble deck rules generate a fumble for a spell that has no attack roll?

By rolling a 1 on ur concentration check for said spell.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

My current DM uses critical failure cards.

He does this, after my very loud show of disfavor of them in a previous game, and after asking a total of four times, at different times, before the campaign started.

I cannot think of anything more horrible, than surprise houserules.

I always demand a list prior to any campaign.

I make use of the critical hit and fumble and plot twist decks. Players get XP for each card they get. Noone complains. This has lead to lots of different roleplaying opportunities that we still talk about to this day. Fun is had by all.

Silver Crusade

Redneckdevil wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I'm curious: how does the official Paizo fumble deck rules generate a fumble for a spell that has no attack roll?
By rolling a 1 on ur concentration check for said spell.

Do you have to roll a Concentration check every time you cast a spell?

Do you have to roll 2 checks at CL6, three checks at CL11, four checks at CL16?


Redneckdevil wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I'm curious: how does the official Paizo fumble deck rules generate a fumble for a spell that has no attack roll?
By rolling a 1 on ur concentration check for said spell.

No attack roll. means no fumble.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I'm curious: how does the official Paizo fumble deck rules generate a fumble for a spell that has no attack roll?
By rolling a 1 on ur concentration check for said spell.

Do you have to roll a Concentration check every time you cast a spell?

Do you have to roll 2 checks ayt CL6, three checks at CL11, four checks at CL16?

@ Malachi I have used the critical fumble deck but the entire group insisted on it. With that said there is no fumble according to the rules of the deck and the only way a concentration check is a fumble would be houserules.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I'm curious: how does the official Paizo fumble deck rules generate a fumble for a spell that has no attack roll?

It doesn't. Rays & touch only. The same spells that can get critical hits.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I'm curious: how does the official Paizo fumble deck rules generate a fumble for a spell that has no attack roll?
By rolling a 1 on ur concentration check for said spell.

Do you have to roll a Concentration check every time you cast a spell?

Do you have to roll 2 checks ayt CL6, three checks at CL11, four checks at CL16?

@ Malachi I have used the critical fumble deck but the entire group insisted on it. With that said there is no fumble according to the rules of the deck and the only way a concentration check is a fumble would be houserules.

So, attacking with weapons means you can have bad luck.

The more skilful you are the unluckier you get.

Meanwhile, messing with Forces Man Was Not Meant To Know is perfectly safe, and renders you immune to bad luck. Unless you try to use a spell as a weapon.

Does anyone wonder why we think that this is absurd?

101 to 128 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Natural 1 = failed full round attack? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.