It is late, and I cant tell if i'm being clear with the wording I'm using. Can I get a sanity check here guys?
Natural 1 = Fumble! Make a REF Save against the AC of the original target of the attack.
Successful REF Save: dramatic miss with no special effect.
Failed REF Save: provoke an attack of opportunity from the foe the attack originally missed against
Fumbled REF save: attacker hits selves or an adjacent ally and provoking an attack of opportunity from all adjacent foes.
Fumbled REF save: attacker hits selves or an adjacent ally and provoking an attack of opportunity from all adjacent foes.
Instead try;
Fumbled REF save: the attacker hits themselves or an adjacent ally and provokes an attack of opportunity from all adjacent foes.
also you might want to capatalize all 4 options or none of them (instead of just the first :)
Same with the periods at the end. otherwise looks good!
It is mine, writing it now. I wanted to codify the rules for fumbles to make them more standardized and predictable for the players.
Working on rewording it now, this is what I have currently:
Natural 1 = Fumble! Make a REF Save against the AC of the original target of the attack.
Successful REF Save: dramatic miss with no special effect.
Failed REF Save: provoke an attack of opportunity from the foe the fumble was scored against.
Fumbled REF Save: attacker hits self or an adjacent ally and provokes an attack of opportunity from all adjacent foes.
/shrug my troupe and I were discussing it the other day and mentioned that in combat things go wrong (we are all prior military or current / former martial artists). So I was kicking around an idea for how to reflect such moments, while still keeping it simple and not going too crazy.
REF saves were chosen vs a second attack because we felt it better reflected it idea of a lost footing, near slip, etc. Another idea was the use of either a second attack roll similar to what you are suggesting, or an Acrobatics check, but felt that the results on these would likely be so high as to never actually see a fumble happen at the table.
Besides, as fumbles don't come up that often we all agreed that they add just enough "whimsy" to an encounter without getting too goofy about it.
First question: what kind of check triggers a fumble on a natural 1? Attacks? Skills, saves? Caster level checks? If this is strictly an attack roll thing, then you are punishing martial characters, because spell casters make (sometimes significantly) fewer attack rolls. Consider this: who will suffer the most from these rules? Who will benefit?
I wrote my own fumble rules years ago, and my attempt to include spellcasters was to trigger a fumble with rays/touch attacks. I had a different random result chart for melee, ranged, and spell. Different results on the random chart would result in a different 2nd check. I used it for one campaign. The players didn't complain (much), and I found it didn't really add anything to the game, so that was the end of it because more than anything it was a distraction and slowed things down.
Can I get a sanity check here guys?
Ok, you're insane. He asked...
I would suggest;
On the 1st attack each round a Natural 1 = Fumble! Make a REF Save against the AC of the original target of the attack a target number 15.
Successful REF Save: dramatic miss with no special effect.
Failed REF Save: provoke an attack of opportunity from the foe the attack originally missed against
Fumbled REF save: attacker hits selves or an adjacent ally and provoking an attack of opportunity from all adjacent foes.
(...)in combat things go wrong (...)
That already is in the rules: That's what the automatic fail on a natural 1 represents.
Presuming that those rules also apply to NPCs/monsters (this point is beyond vital), they might actually be the best fumble rules I've ever seen. Reflex is the "not that important" save, and this buffs AoO related things.
But, your rules still have the same prolems:
1) The more experience characters have, and the more trained with weapons they are (higher BAB), the more often they fumble in combat (more attacks = more fumbles). That is extremely counterintuitive.
2) Two weapon fighting (and natural attacks) is already weaker then two-handed weapon. These rules widen the gap - both because of provoking more fumbles, and by having weaker AoOs to punish the enemy for his fumbles.
3) These rules have almost no effect on casters, and very little effect on archers, which means they hit the weakest the most. Note that martials also gain the most from an enemy fumble, so this might not be a negative thing (but see #2).
4) Dexterity get's even more important. This further punishes MAD classes (and makes Dervish Dance almost a necessity for Magi).
5) By the very foundation of the game, PCs are supposed to be superhuman. Basically, everything after level 5 is completely divorced from reality.
I recall a group where a natural 1 was always a fumble. As a Monk, given I couldn't drop my weapon and it's a little too stupid to hurt myself every time, the GM would just have my flurry end.
If your group is okay with it, the have at it. Just let them know up front the rules tend to be extremely unfair and hurt the weaker classes and options in the game.
So I'll field some of these
1) Make the target number a static 15!
A) This hurts the higher level characters in the sense that after the PC has a few levels under their belt they will never fumble again due to higher Saving throws. Which puts you back to the same issue of basing it off of the attack bonus, or a skill check like acrobatics. For the skill check it would simply mean that everyone would automatically begin putting points into acrobatics for the immunity to fumbles it would grant them (sorta like how everyone wants to put 2 levels into rogue to get extra skills and evasion now). It would never see play on the table past 7 - 8 level. If that is how you like your games, then by all means go with that sort of variant. It is however not the effect we were looking for.
2) Does this apply to NPC's, or is it only used to hose over the PC for some reason?
A) Of course it applies to both PC and NPC! It always upsets me when I see a limiting house rule that only applies to either the PC's (which seems to be the norm) or less often to only the NPC's. What was the point in that? It is my opinion that is a cop out form of house rules creation, which is all too common. Any post of mine that offers suggestions on house rules variants (and I'm a big fan of such, and have written quite a bit about it) will always apply to both PC / NPC unless explicitly stated otherwise.
3) But this only hurts martial characters, and once again they are getting screwed over!!
A) You are correct. D20 RAW did a poor job of balancing melee, ranged and caster classes, so I tackled in a number of ways, one of which was the implementation of rules very similar to (and based off of) the ones found here: Active Spellcasting Variant.
I also use fumble rolls for skilled and ranged classes too (which are outside the scope of this article with its focuses on melee combat fumbles) but are similar in nature.
Unlike what you might be thinking, the fumbles tend to only show up a handful of times in a given evening of playing, and I have them printed out in my DM's 3 ring binder of cheat sheets for easy reference (with page tabs!) It is a simple matter of getting used to where to find them in the binder, making a simple check or two and pressing on. Meaning it takes maybe a minute (if that) to rule on a fumble and get back to Kickin' Evil's Ass!
4) Higher level character = increased attacks = increased fumbles!
If this is a big concern for you, allow me to draw you attention to an official / alternative rule which addresses this: Removing Iterative Attacks My troupe have looked at this rule and have gone back and forth over it a couple of times. On the one hand we liked it's simplicity, but on the other, while the Iterative attacks result in a greater chance for fumble, they also result in a greater chance for critical hits which seemed to balance out well enough for our needs. Actually (my players dont know this) I still use it for npc attacks during larger battles, thus limiting the possibilities for multiple critical hits in a given round.
LASTLY: My house rules are always printed out for my players and dated so they know which version is current. They are several pages long and assembled as a "players guide" style document similar to official ones released for the Pathfinder AP's. This document is handed out to players (or emailed) before the campaign starts and anytime there is a change. To date I've only had one player that ever said he didn't know about a house rule (he wanted to play in a RAW campaign and was being passive aggressive about the house rules).