Terrible GM house rule


Advice

101 to 150 of 226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

J4RH34D wrote:
Guys, please stop trying to tell other people how to play their games.

That is literally the point of the forums. To be a resource for advice on how to play the game.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In this case the OP is not happy with how a game he's in is being run, so advice on how to improve that game is certainly called for. When the purpose of the thread is "My GM's crit fumble rules are not fun for me, help me convince him!", then a big list of reasons that crit fumble systems are terrible is entirely called for and in fact requested.


Adding confirmation roles to nat 20's and nat 1's makes the critical system perfectly feasible. It's the houserule in the OP of having a character hit himself over and over that is silly.


I hope his critical hit rules are fun at least. Oh, do the critical fumble rules apply to his NPCs?

Shadow Lodge

JDLPF wrote:
Got a great idea: since a lot here feel the critical fumble system overly penalises martial characters, why not just have a spellcaster roll a caster level check each time they cast a spell? Natural 1 equals critical spell fumble! Ought to level the playing field.

You know, you said this as a joke but I'm seriously considering it now. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Dragonborn3 wrote:
JDLPF wrote:
Got a great idea: since a lot here feel the critical fumble system overly penalises martial characters, why not just have a spellcaster roll a caster level check each time they cast a spell? Natural 1 equals critical spell fumble! Ought to level the playing field.
You know, you said this as a joke but I'm seriously considering it now. :)

Yep because Pathfinder needs more rules and things to do during combat, all my combats were going really slow, I think adding critical fumbles for martials and spell casters will really speed up my combats.


Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Nixitur wrote:
taks wrote:
Huh, we've always confirmed fumbles against the target. In other words, if you roll a 1, roll again. If you hit the target on the 2nd roll, the critical is avoided, otherwise, draw from the deck. I thought this was the way it was always done (in spite of being an alternate rule).
That is the recommended rule as presented in the fumble deck. The confirmation roll is done with your full attack bonus, too. They present two other possible rules, but outright say that these are not recommended to be used. One is that you confirm using the same attack bonus as with the original attack and the second is that you draw a card immediately if you roll a 1 which I find incredibly awful.

One of us must have read the deck or, at least, that was a common rule in 3/3.5E that we've carried over. Certainly I didn't read the rules in the fumble deck (it's like a VCR manual). I didn't even want to implement the decks until very recently.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
taks wrote:
One of us must have read the deck or, at least, that was a common rule in 3/3.5E that we've carried over. Certainly I didn't read the rules in the fumble deck (it's like a VCR manual). I didn't even want to implement the decks until very recently.

I'd suggest reading them because they include some interesting options as well as the suggested rules for critically fumbling.

Silver Crusade

I have a suggestion that might solve the Problem.
When you roll a 1 you roll D20 but against a DC20 minus your attack bonus. A Second roll of a 1 always fails.
For example:
+5 to hit = DC15 or you hit yourself.
+16 to hit = DC4 or you hit yourself.

This represent that more trained characters the less likely they are to hit themselfs


Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
taks wrote:
One of us must have read the deck or, at least, that was a common rule in 3/3.5E that we've carried over. Certainly I didn't read the rules in the fumble deck (it's like a VCR manual). I didn't even want to implement the decks until very recently.
I'd suggest reading them because they include some interesting options as well as the suggested rules for critically fumbling.

One of these days I'll get around to that VCR manual, too. I may even have a stray beta-max manual on top of that! ;)


Chess Pwn wrote:
yes, fumbles only hurt martials and get worse as you progress and is a pretty awful thing to add to the game

Only some versions. False.


wraithstrike wrote:

It is a terrible rule. It punishes you for rolling well. I had a rule that had you fumble if you missed the enemy AC when you confirm the crit. The important thing is that everyone wanted it.

If nobody wanted it then I would not have done it.

It's also bad because it's rediculous to think that a trained warrior is messing up even 1% of the time.

Yet even the best shooter in the NBA sometimes has air balls.


Wultram wrote:

Okay let's see.

Full BAB class 4 attacks, haste/speed weapon +1
Now that is 25% chance EVERY 6 seconds.

Add in TWF +3 attacks, and now we are up to 40%

Why not go all the way monk with haste and uses Ki for extra attack and got attack of opportunity in the round, that is 10 attacks so total of 50% chance of fumble every round. This demigod of martial arts on average seriously screws up in this situation 5 times every minute. I have been doing martial arts for over 2 decades and I have not seen the worst white belt do that badly.

With confirmation rolls you know that math isn't even close to correct ...


Triune wrote:

Critical fumble rules are made by GMs that have no basic understanding of the math of the game.

In other words, bad GMs.

Don't play with bad GMs. Problem solved.

Allot of the complaints against many critical fumble rules types seem to lack mathematical understanding.


LankyOgre wrote:

I have always opposed critical fumble rules (beyond auto miss) emphatically and vociferously.

1) An individual character will roll more d20 rolls than any individual NPCs, which means that each character has a higher probability of rolling a fumble than any individual NPC.
2) A character is a lasting member of the campaign while each individual NPC/monster is usually a fleeting encounter frequently only exists for a single scene.

Therefore, player characters are getting more critical fumbles than any NPC/monster, but fumbles frequently have a greater effect on a PC than a fleeting, single-scene NPC.

They also just seem ridiculous. Watch any trained professional at their area of expertise. Even when they fail the worst, I.e. critical fumble, do they ever hit themselves or anything as similarly silly?

Why are the results of any specific Npc compared to you relevant? The only thing relevant is the number of total rolls against you by everyone you face vs the total number of rolls you make. And THAT math swings the other direction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Wultram wrote:

Okay let's see.

Full BAB class 4 attacks, haste/speed weapon +1
Now that is 25% chance EVERY 6 seconds.

Add in TWF +3 attacks, and now we are up to 40%

Why not go all the way monk with haste and uses Ki for extra attack and got attack of opportunity in the round, that is 10 attacks so total of 50% chance of fumble every round. This demigod of martial arts on average seriously screws up in this situation 5 times every minute. I have been doing martial arts for over 2 decades and I have not seen the worst white belt do that badly.

With confirmation rolls you know that math isn't even close to correct ...

There was a slight mistake on my part in the math department. But you may wanna get into the habbit of getting context of the post you are quoting, instead of just spamming one liners, unless your goal is to look like a fool.


Wultram wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Wultram wrote:

Okay let's see.

Full BAB class 4 attacks, haste/speed weapon +1
Now that is 25% chance EVERY 6 seconds.

Add in TWF +3 attacks, and now we are up to 40%

Why not go all the way monk with haste and uses Ki for extra attack and got attack of opportunity in the round, that is 10 attacks so total of 50% chance of fumble every round. This demigod of martial arts on average seriously screws up in this situation 5 times every minute. I have been doing martial arts for over 2 decades and I have not seen the worst white belt do that badly.

With confirmation rolls you know that math isn't even close to correct ...
There was a slight mistake on my part in the math department. But you may wanna get into the habbit of getting context of the post you are quoting, instead of just spamming one liners, unless your goal is to look like a fool.

I repeat: with confirmation rolls for fumbles your math does not work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Wultram wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Wultram wrote:

Okay let's see.

Full BAB class 4 attacks, haste/speed weapon +1
Now that is 25% chance EVERY 6 seconds.

Add in TWF +3 attacks, and now we are up to 40%

Why not go all the way monk with haste and uses Ki for extra attack and got attack of opportunity in the round, that is 10 attacks so total of 50% chance of fumble every round. This demigod of martial arts on average seriously screws up in this situation 5 times every minute. I have been doing martial arts for over 2 decades and I have not seen the worst white belt do that badly.

With confirmation rolls you know that math isn't even close to correct ...
There was a slight mistake on my part in the math department. But you may wanna get into the habbit of getting context of the post you are quoting, instead of just spamming one liners, unless your goal is to look like a fool.
I repeat: with confirmation rolls for fumbles your math does not work.

And he said nothing about confirmation rolls. So what's your point?

That's like me saying, "Your words aren't readable Chinese." Of course it doesn't work for something it wasn't meant to be.


As far as I can see extraordinarily few seem to use the flat roll a one fumbles with no confirmation ...


Most likely true, but that was not what the discussion was about at the time. You made an argument against a statement that I never made.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It is a terrible rule. It punishes you for rolling well. I had a rule that had you fumble if you missed the enemy AC when you confirm the crit. The important thing is that everyone wanted it.

If nobody wanted it then I would not have done it.

It's also bad because it's rediculous to think that a trained warrior is messing up even 1% of the time.

Yet even the best shooter in the NBA sometimes has air balls.

That would be a miss, not a fumble.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Woodford wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It is a terrible rule. It punishes you for rolling well. I had a rule that had you fumble if you missed the enemy AC when you confirm the crit. The important thing is that everyone wanted it.

If nobody wanted it then I would not have done it.

It's also bad because it's rediculous to think that a trained warrior is messing up even 1% of the time.

Yet even the best shooter in the NBA sometimes has air balls.
That would be a miss, not a fumble.

I was going to point this out as well.

Falling down while you do a free throw, deflating the ball or having your pants fall down are fumbles.

Now I don't watch the NBA but I'm fairly certain stuff like that never happens in play. Or if it does far less than 0.1% of the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well you know what let's keep with the NBA and free-throws analogy.

All numbers assume perfect distribution on d20. There is also some rounding of numbers.

Michael Jordan had a 83,5% success rate during his career. If we round that to 85% to fit with d20 system, here is what we get.

So with the assumption of perfect distribution of rolls, the DC is so that he would fail on rolls of 1 to 3. So one third of the failed ones threathened a fumble.

He made 8790 free-throws during his career, which means that 440 were ones that threathened fumble.

And since we established that for the purposes of this example he will confirm the fumble 15% of the time, we have 66 fumbles during his career.

Now I am not a basketball fan, but I am pretty sure he did not have a massive failure 66 times during free throws.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Confirmation rolls don't always help. Look at this example:

A 1st level nonproficient commoner with an 8 Str attacks an AC30 foe way out of his league. He has a 5% chance to roll a 1, and a 95% chance to "confirm" the fumble. Chance of fumble: 4.75%

An 11th level fighter with an attack sequence of +23/+18/+13 attacks the same AC30 foe. He has a 5% chance to roll a 1, and a 30%, 55%, and 80% chance to confirm each, respectively. Total chance of a fumble: 8.0404%. Heck compare to the 10th level version of the same guy at +22/+17 - only a 4.6975% chance to fumble. The poor fighter got worse by gaining a level.

So the highly skilled warrior is more likely to make an idiot of himself than an untrained doofus who is fighting a foe way above his skill level. Even with confirmation rolls. It's because iteratives add a whole new chance to roll a 1, and their attack roll is poor so confirmation rolls don't really help much.

Martials already generally only have fighting as their thing. Fumbles take that away from them as well.


RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It is a terrible rule. It punishes you for rolling well. I had a rule that had you fumble if you missed the enemy AC when you confirm the crit. The important thing is that everyone wanted it.

If nobody wanted it then I would not have done it.

It's also bad because it's rediculous to think that a trained warrior is messing up even 1% of the time.

Yet even the best shooter in the NBA sometimes has air balls.

An air ball carries with it no consequences beyond the shot having been missed.

I can think of things that happen off missed shots, but they can happen from air-balls and ones that bounced out of the rim.


ryric wrote:

Confirmation rolls don't always help. Look at this example:

A 1st level nonproficient commoner with an 8 Str attacks an AC30 foe way out of his league. He has a 5% chance to roll a 1, and a 95% chance to "confirm" the fumble. Chance of fumble: 4.75%

An 11th level fighter with an attack sequence of +23/+18/+13 attacks the same AC30 foe. He has a 5% chance to roll a 1, and a 30%, 55%, and 80% chance to confirm each, respectively. Total chance of a fumble: 8.0404%. Heck compare to the 10th level version of the same guy at +22/+17 - only a 4.6975% chance to fumble. The poor fighter got worse by gaining a level.

So the highly skilled warrior is more likely to make an idiot of himself than an untrained doofus who is fighting a foe way above his skill level. Even with confirmation rolls. It's because iteratives add a whole new chance to roll a 1, and their attack roll is poor so confirmation rolls don't really help much.

Martials already generally only have fighting as their thing. Fumbles take that away from them as well.

Per round yes.

Per hit no.

I know you know this but it does help to some extent in the second situation and makes it more realistic in my opinion to have fumble confirmation rolls.


In my experience with a couple dozen campaigns attaining high level play, the last thing the game needs is fumbles. It's bad enough rolling the natural-1 with its attended effects, especially on Reflex saves to reduce or evade damage which instead has the potential to damage or destroy one of a character's most valuable pieces of gear.

Fumbles are fun for a year or two, then they lose their luster. YMMV.


If you don't like the rule, on each round of combat run away. Say to the GM I don't want to risk a fumble so I am running.


Or ... if there's only fumbles on attack rolls ... play AoE casters. Blast them, blast them all to itty bitty burnt lumps of charcoal.


Lemartes wrote:
ryric wrote:

Confirmation rolls don't always help. Look at this example:

A 1st level nonproficient commoner with an 8 Str attacks an AC30 foe way out of his league. He has a 5% chance to roll a 1, and a 95% chance to "confirm" the fumble. Chance of fumble: 4.75%

An 11th level fighter with an attack sequence of +23/+18/+13 attacks the same AC30 foe. He has a 5% chance to roll a 1, and a 30%, 55%, and 80% chance to confirm each, respectively. Total chance of a fumble: 8.0404%. Heck compare to the 10th level version of the same guy at +22/+17 - only a 4.6975% chance to fumble. The poor fighter got worse by gaining a level.

So the highly skilled warrior is more likely to make an idiot of himself than an untrained doofus who is fighting a foe way above his skill level. Even with confirmation rolls. It's because iteratives add a whole new chance to roll a 1, and their attack roll is poor so confirmation rolls don't really help much.

Martials already generally only have fighting as their thing. Fumbles take that away from them as well.

Per round yes.

Per hit no.

I know you know this but it does help to some extent in the second situation and makes it more realistic in my opinion to have fumble confirmation rolls.

Why do higher level Fighters get more attacks than lower level fighters? By that, I mean, what characteristic of having gained levels do you think contributes to them having more attacks per round?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemartes wrote:


Per round yes.

Per hit no.

I know you know this but it does help to some extent in the second situation and makes it more realistic in my opinion to have fumble confirmation rolls.

But you can't really look at it as "per attack" because the game is built on a round structure. Getting more attacks/round is supposed to be a reward for being higher level and more competent, not a backhanded way of making a character look more like an incompetent fool.

In any given time period, with most fumble rules, even with confirmation, an 11th level fighter is more likely to do something ridiculous and dumb while fighting than a 10th level one because of the extra attack.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Why are people so eager to have martial guys hit themselves with their own swords, whereas they never seem to have rules for a fireball blowing up in the caster's hand before he throws it? A lot of people can attest that mishaps (and serious self-injury) with explosives are a lot more likely than mishaps due to swinging a stick.

The next time someone tells me to confirm a fumble on every attack roll of "1," I'm going to insist the caster has a 5% chance to roll a confirmation to avoid affecting himself with his own spell. And higher-level casters will have to do it 4 or more times per round, for good measure.


In a campaign where the GM implemented harsh fumble rules, no one ever made another two-weapon wielder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Why are people so eager to have martial guys hit themselves with their own swords, whereas they never seem to have rules for a fireball blowing up in the caster's hand before he throws it? A lot of people can attest that mishaps (and serious self-injury) with explosives are a lot more likely than mishaps due to swinging a stick.

The next time someone tells me to confirm a fumble on every attack roll of "1," I'm going to insist the caster has a 5% chance to roll a confirmation to avoid affecting himself with his own spell. And higher-level casters will have to do it 4 or more times per round, for good measure.

1 check per spell level, take that 9th level casters. 9 rolls without a 1 to get a successful top tier spell off.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Why are people so eager to have martial guys hit themselves with their own swords, whereas they never seem to have rules for a fireball blowing up in the caster's hand before he throws it? A lot of people can attest that mishaps (and serious self-injury) with explosives are a lot more likely than mishaps due to swinging a stick.

The next time someone tells me to confirm a fumble on every attack roll of "1," I'm going to insist the caster has a 5% chance to roll a confirmation to avoid affecting himself with his own spell. And higher-level casters will have to do it 4 or more times per round, for good measure.

And very few fumble results are hit yourself with your own sword either. - straw man.

Perhaps instead of 'fumble' it should have been called 'misfortune' so people couldn't use the 'three stooges' straw man.


Irontruth wrote:
Lemartes wrote:
ryric wrote:

Confirmation rolls don't always help. Look at this example:

A 1st level nonproficient commoner with an 8 Str attacks an AC30 foe way out of his league. He has a 5% chance to roll a 1, and a 95% chance to "confirm" the fumble. Chance of fumble: 4.75%

An 11th level fighter with an attack sequence of +23/+18/+13 attacks the same AC30 foe. He has a 5% chance to roll a 1, and a 30%, 55%, and 80% chance to confirm each, respectively. Total chance of a fumble: 8.0404%. Heck compare to the 10th level version of the same guy at +22/+17 - only a 4.6975% chance to fumble. The poor fighter got worse by gaining a level.

So the highly skilled warrior is more likely to make an idiot of himself than an untrained doofus who is fighting a foe way above his skill level. Even with confirmation rolls. It's because iteratives add a whole new chance to roll a 1, and their attack roll is poor so confirmation rolls don't really help much.

Martials already generally only have fighting as their thing. Fumbles take that away from them as well.

Per round yes.

Per hit no.

I know you know this but it does help to some extent in the second situation and makes it more realistic in my opinion to have fumble confirmation rolls.

Why do higher level Fighters get more attacks than lower level fighters? By that, I mean, what characteristic of having gained levels do you think contributes to them having more attacks per round?

First of all his example could have been against someone with low AC and the results would have been different but that is opening up another can of worms.

Second the confirmation roll makes it better for the fighter per hit or per round.

Fighter per round = 15% vs 8% with no confirmation roll

Commoner per round = 5% vs 4.75% with no confirmation roll

The high level fighter can also be more cautious and move and take 1 attack per round(and move or whatever) which then he's well below 5% chance.

As for what makes a higher level fighter get more attacks per round? I suppose you're looking for me to say skill?

How about lack of hesitation? Hesitation is detrimental to mma strikers and boxers I've watched. I would assume the same with weapons.

Confidence, ability to read your opponent, more powerful muscles etc. etc. I can say any number of things that it might be. Where skill and other factors overlap is hard to say.

Further, getting that many more attacks after you are already a trained soldier doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Anyways now we are getting into real life vs game rules and that isn't pretty.


RDM42 wrote:

And very few fumble results are hit yourself with your own sword either. - straw man.

Perhaps instead of 'fumble' it should have been called 'misfortune' so people couldn't use the 'three stooges' straw man.

What, no, renaming it in no way makes it a better mechanic, what kind of logic is that?

Frankly, using the official Critical Fumble deck, hitting yourself is one of the least bad things that can happen to you. You like getting inflicted with conditions or getting a -4 to your attack roll with your main weapon until you fix it? Enjoy the game!


And in practice you see them or we see them much more often on opponents than us.


Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Or hitting the squishy that had recently moved next to you to cast a buff. That one's particularly vexing.


ryric wrote:
Lemartes wrote:


Per round yes.

Per hit no.

I know you know this but it does help to some extent in the second situation and makes it more realistic in my opinion to have fumble confirmation rolls.

But you can't really look at it as "per attack" because the game is built on a round structure. Getting more attacks/round is supposed to be a reward for being higher level and more competent, not a backhanded way of making a character look more like an incompetent fool.

In any given time period, with most fumble rules, even with confirmation, an 11th level fighter is more likely to do something ridiculous and dumb while fighting than a 10th level one because of the extra attack.

I understand this and I mostly...but only mostly agree. I'm saying the confirmation roll helps out the fighter more than not having a confirmation roll.

Personally I would totally redo the fumble rules to have them make sense.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:


And very few fumble results are hit yourself with your own sword either. - straw man.

Perhaps instead of 'fumble' it should have been called 'misfortune' so people couldn't use the 'three stooges' straw man.

The OP is explicitly talking about a system where the attacker hits themselves.

Frankly, I've seen many fumble systems over the years, and the vast majority of them allow the character to hit themselves, hit a friend, drop their weapon, break their weapon, trip and fall down, or other slapstick effects. In extreme cases melee weapons fly across rooms to impale allies dozens of feet away. I stand by the "three stooges" argument.

I am less critical of systems where the attacker loses the rest of their iteratives or simply provokes an AoO. While it doesn't resolve the caster=no fumble issue, at least the results don't leave martials looking silly.


ryric wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


And very few fumble results are hit yourself with your own sword either. - straw man.

Perhaps instead of 'fumble' it should have been called 'misfortune' so people couldn't use the 'three stooges' straw man.

The OP is explicitly talking about a system where the attacker hits themselves.

Frankly, I've seen many fumble systems over the years, and the vast majority of them allow the character to hit themselves, hit a friend, drop their weapon, break their weapon, trip and fall down, or other slapstick effects. In extreme cases melee weapons fly across rooms to impale allies dozens of feet away. I stand by the "three stooges" argument.

I am less critical of systems where the attacker loses the rest of their iteratives or simply provokes an AoO. While it doesn't resolve the caster=no fumble issue, at least the results don't leave martials looking silly.

I agree with this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
And very few fumble results are hit yourself with your own sword either. - straw man.

"I don't like it when it rains. Even though it doesn't happen very often, the streets here flood when it does."

RDM42: "It doesn't rain very often here either. - staw man."
Everyone Else: ???


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Why are people so eager to have martial guys hit themselves with their own swords, whereas they never seem to have rules for a fireball blowing up in the caster's hand before he throws it? A lot of people can attest that mishaps (and serious self-injury) with explosives are a lot more likely than mishaps due to swinging a stick.

The next time someone tells me to confirm a fumble on every attack roll of "1," I'm going to insist the caster has a 5% chance to roll a confirmation to avoid affecting himself with his own spell. And higher-level casters will have to do it 4 or more times per round, for good measure.

And very few fumble results are hit yourself with your own sword either. - straw man.

Perhaps instead of 'fumble' it should have been called 'misfortune' so people couldn't use the 'three stooges' straw man.

Did you even bother reading the OP?

This kind of a fumble system is exactly what we're discussing.

Is your intent here to contribute to the conversation, or just to argue with everyone trying to assist the OP?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I consider all fumble rules to be bad rules, so therefore ...

As a Zen Master never once said, "What is a GM without players?"

The answer is "No GM at all."

If you all truly, truly, truly hate the rule and find the game unplayable with it, then just say, as a group, that the rule either needs to be discussed and altered to not suck giant frog butt, or simply not play. After all is said and done, the GM is just another player; house rules should be discussed and agreed upon by the group as a whole BEFORE play begins.

Alternately, if you want to be more passive-aggressive about it (and I'm the Sun Tzu of passive-aggressive warfare), everybody make a full caster with no attack-roll spells.

As stated above, you're playing PF, not Moe, Larry and Curly : The Stoogening. If the GM wants to run a game where the characters are supposed to look foolish and incompetent, tell him to pick up a copy of TOON.


Gulthor wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Why are people so eager to have martial guys hit themselves with their own swords, whereas they never seem to have rules for a fireball blowing up in the caster's hand before he throws it? A lot of people can attest that mishaps (and serious self-injury) with explosives are a lot more likely than mishaps due to swinging a stick.

The next time someone tells me to confirm a fumble on every attack roll of "1," I'm going to insist the caster has a 5% chance to roll a confirmation to avoid affecting himself with his own spell. And higher-level casters will have to do it 4 or more times per round, for good measure.

And very few fumble results are hit yourself with your own sword either. - straw man.

Perhaps instead of 'fumble' it should have been called 'misfortune' so people couldn't use the 'three stooges' straw man.

Did you even bother reading the OP?

This kind of a fumble system is exactly what we're discussing.

Is your intent here to contribute to the conversation, or just to argue with everyone trying to assist the OP?

Except people are explicitly saying 'all fumble systems are like this; they are all bad they all ..."


Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

...But it's nice for someone else to play the clown once in a while.

Then they can play a bard with Perform (Comedy).


RDM42 wrote:


Except people are explicitly saying 'all fumble systems are like this; they are all bad they all ..."

Have you considered that the reason for this is that WE'RE RIGHT?! Fumble systems ARE all bad, one and all, 100%, every single bloody one of 'em, and there's plenty of good rationales for that belief in this very thread, not to mention several others I'm sure.


I consider all fumble systems bad and would probably quit.


RDM42 wrote:
Gulthor wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Why are people so eager to have martial guys hit themselves with their own swords, whereas they never seem to have rules for a fireball blowing up in the caster's hand before he throws it? A lot of people can attest that mishaps (and serious self-injury) with explosives are a lot more likely than mishaps due to swinging a stick.

The next time someone tells me to confirm a fumble on every attack roll of "1," I'm going to insist the caster has a 5% chance to roll a confirmation to avoid affecting himself with his own spell. And higher-level casters will have to do it 4 or more times per round, for good measure.

And very few fumble results are hit yourself with your own sword either. - straw man.

Perhaps instead of 'fumble' it should have been called 'misfortune' so people couldn't use the 'three stooges' straw man.

Did you even bother reading the OP?

This kind of a fumble system is exactly what we're discussing.

Is your intent here to contribute to the conversation, or just to argue with everyone trying to assist the OP?

Except people are explicitly saying 'all fumble systems are like this; they are all bad they all ..."

Fumble systems ARE objectively bad mechanics. If it's a punishing mechanic that only exists for certain characters (especially for certain classes that have no other option than to use the said mechanic). That doesn't mean people don't have fun with them.

101 to 150 of 226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Terrible GM house rule All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.