Natural 1 = failed full round attack?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

When doing an full round attack, does rolling a natural 1 end your action? Just trying to find the text book entry on this.

Normally our group doesn't do critical fails so this threw me off when the GM said this.


Nope. That is completely, 100% a house rule.


There aren't any specific RAW way to handle fumbles, although there are suggestions on how to handle it. A GM is basically left to his/her own devices when finding out what a fumble means for the character.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

That was a rule in 2nd Edition.


Perfect answers, thanks for clearing things up!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was a long time after my group and myself moved away from home and started playing on our own that we realized this. Years; in fact, just in the past several months.

Get this: Our first DM had it so that a Nat 1 on an attack roll was a fumble and required a DC 15 Reflex save or you threw your weapon (random direction, a number of squares equal to some unknown function), which not only ended your turn, but more often than not got the attacker and his allies seriously injured...

...uphill in the snow both ways and whatnot...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

We have a houserule that if a nat 1 is rolled we need to "confirm" it, roll again, if the second roll is under the targets AC, the attacker provokes an AoO. Rolls over the AC, is just a miss, can continue the attack option as normal.


I would run it much the same way as a natural 20.
A natural 1 is always a miss (that is also by RAW)
A natural 1 threatens a fumble (me wildly making up stuff :P)
On a miss after the natural 1, I would usually judge it to be that your NEXT attack is annulled. This means that if you have 3 attacks on a full round, and you fumble on the first attack, then the second attack would be skipped entirely. If you fumbled on your third attack I might disallow AoO from your character untill you've had a new turn.
It is important to note that the above is all homebrew, except for the "a natural 1 is always a miss" thing.
I do feel like the rules I've stated most closely match what happens on a critical hit.


Olav wrote:
We have a houserule that if a nat 1 is rolled we need to "confirm" it, roll again, if the second roll is under the targets AC, the attacker provokes an AoO. Rolls over the AC, is just a miss, can continue the attack option as normal.

I actually like the idea of provoking an AoO... Hmm... I might adopt this for my own campaigns..


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with fumble rules is they are often counter productive to smooth game play. They also punish full martials for becomming better combattants. Years ago I played in a game that used fumble rules the ranger at lvl 6 was fumbling about every 4 rounds. Really no one thinks hey let's make a wizard roll a d20 for every 2d6 he adds to fireball to see if he flubs it.

Anyhow semi rant there sorry. Its one of the fee things that woukd make me consider walking out of a game.


Nefreet wrote:
That was a rule in 2nd Edition.

That was not even 2nd edition rule. the 2nd edition optional rule from critical fumbles was you lost not only that rounds attack but the next as general suggestion. As you had to take the round to get up from prone, pull your weapon out of table you hit instead, draw a new one because it broke. ect. Most characters only got 1 attack around so it was not a big deal. as it seems.

Most dm had house rules of critical fumbles and you as a bunch of different things could happen. mine was make a dex check and see if you drop your weapon. if you passed you lost any remain attacks. unless you rolled a 1 on your dex check. it would then negate the fumble. fail drop your weapon then had to waste your move to pick it back up or draw a new one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mojorat wrote:

The problem with fumble rules is they are often counter productive to smooth game play. They also punish full martials for becomming better combattants. Years ago I played in a game that used fumble rules the ranger at lvl 6 was fumbling about every 4 rounds. Really no one thinks hey let's make a wizard roll a d20 for every 2d6 he adds to fireball to see if he flubs it.

Anyhow semi rant there sorry. Its one of the fee things that woukd make me consider walking out of a game.

Seconded. So seconded.

I'm not even a fan of the 'natural 1 and 20' rule in general ... I usually don't use it when I run a game.


KainPen wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
That was a rule in 2nd Edition.

That was not even 2nd edition rule. the 2nd edition optional rule from critical fumbles was you lost not only that rounds attack but the next as general suggestion. As you had to take the round to get up from prone, pull your weapon out of table you hit instead, draw a new one because it broke. ect. Most characters only got 1 attack around so it was not a big deal. as it seems.

Most dm had house rules of critical fumbles and you as a bunch of different things could happen. mine was make a dex check and see if you drop your weapon. if you passed you lost any remain attacks. unless you rolled a 1 on your dex check. it would then negate the fumble. fail drop your weapon then had to waste your move to pick it back up or draw a new one.

This, it has always been a variant home brew rule. I believe the DMG did at one point have some 'side bar' type boxed entries which discussed such rules and why they generally made it more random and hazardous for the PC's. But that was about as close as it ever got to being actually part of the rules even optionally far as I can recall.


Foghammer wrote:

Get this: Our first DM had it so that a Nat 1 on an attack roll was a fumble and required a DC 15 Reflex save or you threw your weapon (random direction, a number of squares equal to some unknown function), which not only ended your turn, but more often than not got the attacker and his allies seriously injured...

This is not all that uncommon at all. Many GMs rule that a melee fumble results in anything from simply dropping, to throwing your weapon in a random direction. It's pretty much the default.

I allow recovery rolls in my game (basically I have the player re-roll the attack roll as he would otherwise confirm a critical hit). Depending on the second result, he could manage to hold onto his weapon (he rolled really high), might just drop it ( he failed his second roll) or actually threw it (his confirm roll was another 1).

Sometimes I let dice determine whether he harmed an ally, but that is usually only an option when the party are all crowded together in a tight spot. Sometimes I break out the old artillery (direction) dice from my wargames.

On some occasions, it makes for hilarious comedic moments, such as a 1 (weapon is thrown) followed by a 20 (then bounces off the wall and back into the character's hands).

But to get to the OP's question, I think it sucks rocks to steal iterative attacks from a PC due to a fumble on one of his rolls. Maybe if - IF - there were some extenuating circumstance, like some circumstance where the fumble caused the PC to slip off a cliff.


Mojorat wrote:

Years ago I played in a game that used fumble rules the ranger at lvl 6 was fumbling about every 4 rounds. Really no one thinks hey let's make a wizard roll a d20 for every 2d6 he adds to fireball to see if he flubs it.

The ranger's level should have little-to-nothing to do with it, since the fumble occurs due to a natural 1 on the d20 in most cases, and also in most cases there is either a Dexterity check or a confirmation roll to confirm the fumble. Odds would therefore be very, very long that anybody should be experiencing an actual fumble every four rounds. That would a freakish occurrence of the dice, not anywhere near the norm.

Casters can experience fumbles, too, on ranged touch attacks, for instance. Casters are also not immune to rolling all 1s for damage dice or cure spells, nor are they guaranteed at making caster level checks, concentration checks, etc.. So it's not like this is such an imbalanced thing as to be truly game breaking.

Fumbles, like critical hits, are an option that can inject action and dynamics into a game. If your group doesn't like them, then they shouldn't use them. My group enjoys the random element. Fumbles in our game usually elicit the same laughter, shouting and energy that a fumble or interception in a football game does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:
Mojorat wrote:

Years ago I played in a game that used fumble rules the ranger at lvl 6 was fumbling about every 4 rounds. Really no one thinks hey let's make a wizard roll a d20 for every 2d6 he adds to fireball to see if he flubs it.

The ranger's level should have little-to-nothing to do with it, since the fumble occurs due to a natural 1 on the d20 in most cases, and also in most cases there is either a Dexterity check or a confirmation roll to confirm the fumble. Odds would therefore be very, very long that anybody should be experiencing an actual fumble every four rounds. That would a freakish occurrence of the dice, not anywhere near the norm.

Casters can experience fumbles, too, on ranged touch attacks, for instance. Casters are also not immune to rolling all 1s for damage dice or cure spells, nor are they guaranteed at making caster level checks, concentration checks, etc.. So it's not like this is such an imbalanced thing as to be truly game breaking.

Fumbles, like critical hits, are an option that can inject action and dynamics into a game. If your group doesn't like them, then they shouldn't use them. My group enjoys the random element. Fumbles in our game usually elicit the same laughter, shouting and energy that a fumble or interception in a football game does.

twice the number of attack rolls means twice the number of ones to have to recover from. If your 11th level you would have 3 times the opportunity to fumble as the lowest levels and so on.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

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.


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.

That sucks. A GM is free to implement houserules before the game starts, but if you want to implement them after gamestart I think you should always make it a discussion around the gametable and see if there is reasonable consensus between people.

I still don't see how it is unfair to have a fumble effect. I do think it should only happen on a natural 1, followed by a secondary confirmation. I also don't think you should make people lose more than 1 attack on it. Granted for a large part losing 1 attack to a fumble will be the same thing as the rest of the round of attacks. But at 11th lvl it becomes important.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lifat wrote:
I still don't see how it is unfair to have a fumble effect.

It's unfair because attacking multiple times is how martial classes get stronger. Also, martial classes are already considered inferior to spellcasting classes at later levels. Plus, spellcasters have much more options to deal with combat problems. For example, a spellcaster can use a spell that requires no attack roll or use a buffing spell if they don't want to risk a fumble. A martial class's options are usually limited to stabbing things, shooting things, or switch weapons. It's not fair because it's punishing already inferior classes for doing what their class is supposed to do.

It's something the GM should ask his group about. My friends run fumble rules, but I don't because my group already has a hard time with bad rolls. It's so bad that they swear my GM shield is cursed and even offered to buy me a new one if I upload a Youtube video of me burning it.


A natural 1 is already an automatic miss regardless of if you have enough attack bonus to overcome the target's AC. Added penalties are unnecessary and really just set up a mentality "GM vs Players" which is a poor situation to have. It isn't a competition of one side vs the other; the GM is only there to adjudicate the rules and control the actions of the NPCs, but he's just as much a player as everyone else and he should be rooting for everyone to win just as much as they are.


Kazaan wrote:
... 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 issue, and the difference between something being annoying ("You only have a standard or a move next turn, not both") vs awesome cinematics ("The goblin looks up from behind shocked eyes as it realises that from out of inevitability, and the impossible has occurred. It's still alive. Your overhand swing burying your axe to the haft in a crossbeam... You'll need to spend a move action pulling it out next turn.") is all in the delivery.

We play a Nat 1 on the first attack of a round is a fumble. Be it a ray, touch attack or sword strike. If it can crit, it can fumble. That helps mitigate (a little) on the Martial vs Caster difference. Only ever one chance of it fumbling a round, not matter how many attacks.

D100 for level of severity. 95 or higher, roll again and add (and so on until roll less than 95). Tyically Anything less than 50 is more embarrassing than life threatening. Dropping a sword. Fall prone. Snapping a bow string. Things that disable your attack routine that round and will probably cause you to lose a chunk of next round as well, but rarely a life threatening situation. By the time your in the 90s, your rolling attacks on adjacent allies. I once managed to roll 267 and rules were waived as I dealt a death attack with my assassin to an undead cohort.

Ironically, it exploded in shower of negative energy and killed the BBEG who we were COMPLETELY boned against at that point in time. I'm still not sure to this day if our GM is relieved that I found a way out, or feels cheated for me nudging him down the path that ended up with that outcome.


Anonymous User 856 wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
Mojorat wrote:

Years ago I played in a game that used fumble rules the ranger at lvl 6 was fumbling about every 4 rounds. Really no one thinks hey let's make a wizard roll a d20 for every 2d6 he adds to fireball to see if he flubs it.

The ranger's level should have little-to-nothing to do with it, since the fumble occurs due to a natural 1 on the d20 in most cases, and also in most cases there is either a Dexterity check or a confirmation roll to confirm the fumble. Odds would therefore be very, very long that anybody should be experiencing an actual fumble every four rounds. That would a freakish occurrence of the dice, not anywhere near the norm.

Casters can experience fumbles, too, on ranged touch attacks, for instance. Casters are also not immune to rolling all 1s for damage dice or cure spells, nor are they guaranteed at making caster level checks, concentration checks, etc.. So it's not like this is such an imbalanced thing as to be truly game breaking.

Fumbles, like critical hits, are an option that can inject action and dynamics into a game. If your group doesn't like them, then they shouldn't use them. My group enjoys the random element. Fumbles in our game usually elicit the same laughter, shouting and energy that a fumble or interception in a football game does.

twice the number of attack rolls means twice the number of ones to have to recover from. If your 11th level you would have 3 times the opportunity to fumble as the lowest levels and so on.

I'm sorry... but is this REALLY your arguement? Yes 3x the chance to fumble. But the odds against fumbling all 3x is 5% of 5% of 5%. I dont feel like doing the math, but you know what? Sometimes in melee combat this s@!! does actually happen. I studied akido, kempo and Jujitsu for 6 years. I won two tournaments and placed in the top 5 eleven other times. Then on one of my last matches, i slipped throwing out my first kick, got nailed with a roundhouse on the way to the mat, and got knocked out cold... it happens.


At levels 11 and above you are considered to be legendary. Legendary characters dont mess up that badly 5% of the time. Even us normal(non fantasy) humans dont mess up that much in our specialized area when it comes to fighting. The fumble rules make it even worse.

Evilserran he was not saying you will roll a 1 on all 3 attacks. He is saying that each attack is another chance to fumble. Yeah the legendary character might make a mistake, but he wont be doing it at 5%. Otherwise he never makes it to level if you want to use real life as a measure.


I have used the crit and fumble decks for Paizo, and had fun with them as a GM and a player, but my groups at the time agreed to it. However they are still unfair to the players.


Deadalready wrote:
When doing an full round attack, does rolling a natural 1 end your action? Just trying to find the text book entry on this.

I am digging it. Like it alot more than dropping your weapon.

That is completely houserule tho.

Look like nothing compared to fumble deck tho. With deck you can tear your own limb off on roll of 1.


I enjoy using fumble rules. I find them a very helpful balancing factor for creatures and PCs with very large numbers of attacks. Many a time has a timely fumble saved a character or a whole party. Usually we use the 3rd edition option rule of a DC 10 Dexterity check to avoid dropping the weapon and taking no further actions.

Lately I've switched to a scaling chart. Still a Dexterity Check,

  • 16+: nothing happens at all,
  • 11-15: no further actions until next turn,
  • 7-10: drop weapon
  • 5-6: hit ally 1/2 damage
  • 3-4: hit self 1/2 damage
  • 2: hit ally full damage
  • 1: hit self full damage
  • 0-: threaten a critical on self

    Also add any bonuses to confirm crits to these checks.


  • I would never let anything happen (other than a missed attack) on a natural 1. I would however let you miss your next attack (not full round), if you after rolling the natural 1 also miss the "confirmation". That way the risk of actually fumbling is a lot less than 5%. Most of my players hit on 2+ on their first attack once they hit lvl 11. That means the first attack fumbles on 1/400 attacks. The second attack might fumble on 6/400 attacks and the third attack fumbles on 11/400 attacks. That means that in total that lvl 11 character actually only fumbles 4,5% out of all full attack rounds. And in that case he loses a SINGLE attack, not all iterative attacks, by my own houserules. That doesn't seem that much of a "out of proportion" punishment.

    Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    If your fumble system makes a 20th level legendary TWF warrior more likely to fumble than a nonproficient level 1 commoner, which most fumble systems do, then your system has a problem.

    7 attacks a round = 1-(1-.05)^7 = 30% chance to roll at least a single 1, versus the commoner's 5%. "Confirming" really doesn't help, either.

    Majuba, I really have problems with a system that lets a monk punch themselves.


    ryric wrote:

    If your fumble system makes a 20th level legendary TWF warrior more likely to fumble than a nonproficient level 1 commoner, which most fumble systems do, then your system has a problem.

    7 attacks a round = 1-(1-.05)^7 = 30% chance to roll at least a single 1, versus the commoner's 5%. "Confirming" really doesn't help, either.

    Majuba, I really have problems with a system that lets a monk punch themselves.

    "Confirming" does actually help. A commoner is not likely to confirm on at most 50% of his confirmation rolls. A 20th lvl fighter will have difficulties missing on anything but another natural 1, at least on his first attack.


    ryric wrote:
    7 attacks a round = 1-(1-.05)^7 = 30% chance to roll at least a single 1, versus the commoner's 5%. "Confirming" really doesn't help, either.

    Sure it does -

    ryric wrote:
    Majuba, I really have problems with a system that lets a monk punch themselves.

    I'm nothing close to a monk, but I have actually punched myself on accident before. However a fumble in this case would more likely be hitting the opponent (or the ground) in a way that damages the limb ("I just punched his spear... OWW!"), or a twisted/sprained muscle.

    It's also very unlikely. If a low level monk had a +3 Dex, they would need to roll 1-1 to hit themselves for half damage. Any bonuses to ability checks would entirely prevent it (although penalties can impact as well).

    A 20th level legendary TWF warrior likely has no chance at all to even drop his weapon (+6 Dex and critical focus is all that is needed). If finesse, he would probably not even lose actions except on a 1 (+10 Dex and critical focus). And that's without any items that boost checks (pale green ioun stone) or spells from allies (good hope, prayer).


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

    I don't like house rules about critical fumbles or any rules that add complexity to critical hits (e.g. the somewhat popular "three 20s in a row is an instant kill" house rule). First of all, extra rolls, looking up results on a table, or drawing cards adds to the time it takes to resolve combat-- which already takes too long at any table I've ever run.

    Second, and more importantly, from a statistical perspective, any time you add randomness to combat, you are skewing the odds in the favor of the underdog. In a well-designed encounter the PCs are supposed to win, by a margin of victory depending on the challenge level of the encounter. Once you start adding more randomness, the odds of victory start to shift to the bad guys.

    I've seen plenty of combat encounters that the PCs lost due to unlucky dice rolls rather than poor tactics. And those have been without the extra complexity of home rules surrounding critical fumbles of extra critical hit effects. I think it's generally a bad idea to introduce them.

    But, it's your table, your players, and your game. If you like the extra randomness, then go for it!


    There's no way to deny that adding fumble rules adds to the randomness and gives the bad guys a slight advantage.
    And I agree that you should discuss this with your table before adding any fumble rules.


    I've been playing and running D&D for 25 years and my groups have always used fumbles. (In 1E/2E a 1 was automatically a fumble. Once we moved to 3.x we required a confirmation roll.) Fumbles were always lose the rest of your turn plus a minor penalty/dropped or broken weapon (we had a chart). None of this "You accidentally stab your friend/chop your own head off" ridiculousness I've seen in various fumble decks and the like. A skilled combatant shouldn't have a 5% chance of injuring himself or his allies.

    That being said, I've read the assorted arguments against fumbles, even with confirmation rolls, and seen the math and decided to go without fumbles in my current RotRL game and you know what? I don't miss them. Getting that natural 1 on a roll is bad enough without adding insult to injury.

    And you can still get some of the feel of fumbles simply in description. To use the example given above "You swing your axe overhead to strike down the lowly goblin and find your blow cut short by the crossbeam of the ceiling above. You and the goblin stare at one another in shock for a moment before you desperately wrestle your axe free in time to prevent the goblin from exploiting the opening." This lets you play the natural 1 as a mishap without unfairly penalizing the player.


    As GM in a small group, I'll usually have my players drop their weapon, or have a bowstring break; something that requires a move action to recover from (I rule that in this case, a bow may be restrung on the fly), but doesn't otherwise halt their action (they could use another weapon or punch if they want). I don't have it provoke attacks for this case. If combat is long, I'll just revert to "you miss" and move on.

    In another game, my GM will have us roll a confirmation roll, like a Crit. If we also miss, we drop our weapon or drop prone or some such penalty. "Hitting" means we avert the fumble.

    I like the randomness of fumbling, but it's nice to be able to revert to the standard of "you miss and nothing else" and move on. Sometimes I just want a combat to happen and be done with (the room was guarded, but it wasn't there to really threaten them, for example).


    Fumbles are part of the game, ask someone who trys to use a wand and they roll a 1.

    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.


    We use critical failure cards and critical hit cards. I think it adds spice to the game, because sometimes in battle random things happen.
    And in case you think it favors spellcasters... we also have the rule that every time a spell fails for any reason (even if you simply don't make your concentration check) you draw a critical failure card as well.

    Sure the players groan when they roll a 1 (which has to be confirmed like a crit) but they would groan about the bad luck also if there were no cards.

    And don't forget that monsters can fumble too. I had some seemingly invincible bosses suddenly showing a weakness due to a fumble which allowed an almost lost battle to be turned around.


    Redneckdevil wrote:

    Fumbles are part of the game, ask someone who trys to use a wand and they roll a 1.

    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.

    The GM can say anything he wants but unless it is in the book it is a houserule. Something like that would be spelled out if it was the intent. This is the "rules" section, and while we have been discussing houserules those of us using them have been clear about it. Don't muddy the waters.


    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 :)


    No it says miss actually.
    Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).

    Seriously why are people making the game more complicated than it is. The fact that some people have extra charts to refer to ...

    When I was younger playing 1ed the part that always fristed me about these rules was the hit your ally rule. Sudeenly some pc that would have a lot of trouble hiting my character as an enemy nails them swuare.

    The thing people need to remember is as soon as you have more than 1 attack the chance of rolling both a 1 or a 20 goes up. In my origonal example the lvl 6 ranger was checking 5% weapon drop 4x a round.

    Lastly the idea that it equally punishes spellcasters us horrbly false. My lvl 13 martal char rolls 5 attacks a round. Our spellcaster may not even do 3attack rolls a whole night.

    For the record though the gun misfire ruled don't bother me at all.


    Mojorat wrote:
    Seriously why are people making the game more complicated than it is. The fact that some people have extra charts to refer to ...

    It probably also depends how much fighting there is. A game group that spends 90% of it's time fighting probably will go for the simpler standard mechanic.

    A gaming group that only occasionally has a fight might be more inclined to use more complex mechanics to make each battle unique.


    Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

    My group uses the fumble deck. However, the monsters fumble too.


    Redneckdevil wrote:

    Fumbles are part of the game, ask someone who trys to use a wand and they roll a 1.

    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.

    Except that you aren't rolling a "full-attack action" roll to succeed or fail. You are making an attack roll, which can succeed or fail, as can any d20 roll. The consequence for failure is "you do not hit your target".

    You can't broaden the rules' definition of "failure" to apply to the whole action without also applying it to all rolls that miss - if I roll a 2 and miss, my action doesn't end. Not RAW anyway. There's plenty of good house rules for fumbles, but there's really no way to work weasel a 1 into ending your action.


    In our campaigns, it cancels out a successful attack with critical strikes being the first selected if one is rolled in the same attack.


    @kingofchsos I would asume your using roll all attacks at once as a mandatory rule then? As fumble ruled go that is not hortible but attacks are supposed to be resopved when they are made.


    Mojorat wrote:
    @kingofchsos I would asume your using roll all attacks at once as a mandatory rule then? As fumble ruled go that is not hortible but attacks are supposed to be resopved when they are made.

    Yeah, especially since the option exists to change your mind after one attack. I had a player roll two attacks at once (this isn't usually my policy, but I didn't correct him at first when he did so), but the enemy was killed by the first attack. Also, what I you're attacking more than one target regardless of them dying? This just gets awkward.


    Evilserran wrote:
    I'm sorry... but is this REALLY your arguement? Yes 3x the chance to fumble. But the odds against fumbling all 3x is 5% of 5% of 5%. I dont feel like doing the math, but you know what? Sometimes in melee combat this s&!* does actually happen. I studied akido, kempo and Jujitsu for 6 years. I won two tournaments and placed in the top 5 eleven other times. Then on one of my last matches, i slipped throwing out my first kick, got nailed with a roundhouse on the way to the mat, and got knocked out cold... it happens.

    Chance of Non(critical)failure with one attack is 0.95.

    Chance of Nonfailure over three attacks is (0.95)^3, which is ~0.86. If it's a two-weapon melee combatant making full attacks, the chance of complete Nonfailure is ~0.735.

    The chance over two rounds of full attacks would be ~0.54. So over two rounds of full attacks, it's nearly a 50/50 shot for a two-weapon melee combatant to make at least one autofailure at 11th level (which is a legendary combatant). If autofailures carry with them any other kind of noticeable penalty, it could actually be a pretty big problem.

    Obviously, this can be mitigated by how you determine when there's a penalty for critical misses. If you require two 1s to be hit in a row, that's only very rarely going to confirm, so it's not a big deal. DC [whatever] Reflex Save as some people do it gets much less problematic as the levels increase (which makes sense). If you fail to hit the creature's target AC, how impactful that is depends on what you're facing. YMMV.

    Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Majuba wrote:
    ryric wrote:
    7 attacks a round = 1-(1-.05)^7 = 30% chance to roll at least a single 1, versus the commoner's 5%. "Confirming" really doesn't help, either.

    Sure it does -

    ryric wrote:
    Majuba, I really have problems with a system that lets a monk punch themselves.

    I'm nothing close to a monk, but I have actually punched myself on accident before. However a fumble in this case would more likely be hitting the opponent (or the ground) in a way that damages the limb ("I just punched his spear... OWW!"), or a twisted/sprained muscle.

    It's also very unlikely. If a low level monk had a +3 Dex, they would need to roll 1-1 to hit themselves for half damage. Any bonuses to ability checks would entirely prevent it (although penalties can impact as well).

    A 20th level legendary TWF warrior likely has no chance at all to even drop his weapon (+6 Dex and critical focus is all that is needed). If finesse, he would probably not even lose actions except on a 1 (+10 Dex and critical focus). And that's without any items that boost checks (pale green ioun stone) or spells from allies (good hope, prayer).

    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.

    I've seen fumble systems that avoid this problem, but yours is not one of them. Generally my experience is that GMs tend to enjoy fumble systems a lot more than players. I also seen a lot of players that put up with it more than enjoy it, but their GMs claim "our group loves fumbles!"


    Quote:
    I've seen fumble systems that avoid this problem, but yours is not one of them. Generally my experience is that GMs tend to enjoy fumble systems a lot more than players. I also seen a lot of players that put up with it more than enjoy it, but their GMs claim "our group loves fumbles!"

    That's why I keep it simple, at best. It's not that nothing bad ever happens, just not catastrophically. My usual policy going forward is to "confirm" the miss (like a crit, but to see if you miss again), and if you fail, it's a move action to recover the use of that weapon (you dropped it, need to fix the string, need to shove a wire back into place, clear a jammed bolt, whatever), and probably only once per person.

    Grand Lodge

    In the home games I played a 1 generally resulted in you needing to make a new attack roll on an ally next to your intended target. If there was no ally to target then a reflex roll to avoid dropping your weapon. No matter the result it did end your turn. But as others have said, this is a house rule. RAW it's just a miss, move along.


    Bizbag wrote:
    Quote:
    I've seen fumble systems that avoid this problem, but yours is not one of them. Generally my experience is that GMs tend to enjoy fumble systems a lot more than players. I also seen a lot of players that put up with it more than enjoy it, but their GMs claim "our group loves fumbles!"
    That's why I keep it simple, at best. It's not that nothing bad ever happens, just not catastrophically. My usual policy going forward is to "confirm" the miss (like a crit, but to see if you miss again), and if you fail, it's a move action to recover the use of that weapon (you dropped it, need to fix the string, need to shove a wire back into place, clear a jammed bolt, whatever), and probably only once per person.

    Do you have wizards check every round to see if their spells fail?

    1 to 50 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.